Jump to content

Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight

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


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

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is, at best, no consensus for the proposed text. Many editors, both for and against, agree that there is room for improvement. Based on the discussion so far, it seems to me that editors should workshop something that begins by describing in our own voice what can be so described, then includes relevant interpretations and arguments from Morris and other authorities, as appropriate. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ Morris (2004), pp. 195-201

No

[edit]
  1. No, the article is already overdependent on Morris. We should be seeking to reduce the amount of references and quotes to Morris, not increase the reliance. We should seek to utilise other sources more often. TarnishedPathtalk 07:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Morris is attributed 20 times in the body of article. He's mentioned 3 times in notes, 27 times in the references and 3 times in the source list. Just the 23 times (20 inline and 3 via notes) he's mentioned by name attributing his viewpoint says that we have somewhat of a problem with an over-reliance on the POV of Benny Morris. Making this article more dependent on the POV of Benny Morris is undesirable. We need less Benny Morris, not more. TarnishedPathtalk 09:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING. While Morris is frequently cited, only selective parts of his work are considered, with other sections—arguable more significant in the source material—being entirely omitted, seemingly because their don't align with a particular narrative.
    For instance, the section on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare occupies 70% of the article section by character count and largely relies on Morris, with much of it taken verbatim or heavily paraphrased. However, Morris’ 2004 work dedicates only two pages to psychological warfare, whereas at least nine pages focus on Arab evacuation orders, which are excluded. Amayorov (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem is with WP:CHERRYPICKING. Not what this RFC is about, tho. Your problem seems to be what the article says about Haifa? Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:CHERRYPICKING might counter the argument about over-reliance on Morris that @TarnishedPath is making above. The discussion is specifically about the inclusion of the paragraph in RFC. Amayorov (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No a misapplied essay doesn't counter anything. TarnishedPathtalk 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The substantive issue is that you cannot cherry-pick an author's work (perhaps to support a particular narrative), while omitting the rest, even when the author himself devotes more attention to it. Amayorov (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated to you in the above conversation, we always draw from parts of sources. We do this in order to not be overly verbose and to not violate copyright. We cover the important parts. That does not mean that we are engaging in WP:CHERRYPICKING (an essay might I note). You've not provided any substantive reasoning for why we should further give Benny Morris's POV more airplay. TarnishedPathtalk 12:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We cover the important parts. – the selection of content from Morris' POV is currently very disproportionate. WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Amayorov (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that we cover Morris so heavily is very disproportionate. There should be less Morris, not more. TarnishedPathtalk 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, even if there's to be less Morris, he must be covered neutrally and in proportion to the prominence he gives to different sections in his work. Second, I don't think we should cut Morris, but we could certainly add more material from other authors. Amayorov (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no policy that prescribes we cover authors in proportion to the prominence THEY give different sections of their works. Per WP:BALASP, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. We should give weight proportional to the body of work on the subject as a whole, not be so heavily representative of the POV of one author. The amount Morris's views are represented in the article is completely out of balance. We need less Morris not more. TarnishedPathtalk 02:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor is there any "too much Morris" policy. WP:BALASP applies to individual topics and this is not a "minor aspect". Policies aside, it seems like a common sense principle to not represent sources in a manner which misleads the reader about their views. — xDanielx T/C\R 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not covering every view put forth by an author is not equivalent to misleading readers about an author's view. WP:BALASP isn't just about not giving undue weight to minor aspects. The section I quoted clearly states that we should treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. At present we are massively out of proportion, as compared to the body of work on the subject, due to the article's heavy reliance on Morris. TarnishedPathtalk 03:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of proportion in the sense of "too much Morris"? Morris isn't really a viewpoint, or an aspect of the topic as BALASP calls it.
    Stepping back, I'm a bit unclear on what you're advocating for. Similar statements could be attributed to other sources such as Karsh. Is that the sort of outcome you're looking for, or would you object to the content even with a different source? — xDanielx T/C\R 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have already made it clear that Morris's account is contested. So with that in mind any proposed addition here should be different. Broadly what I suggest is that the article not heavily rely on any particular author and the one that sticks out the most is Morris. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't normally remove attributed statements because they're contested; rather we expand the content to include any other significant viewpoints. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is history, there should exist a central viewpoint of the events and that's what we should be going with, if we are to include an attributed statement, that suggests a non significant alternative view rather than a significant one. It's a matter of weight, if Morris view is significant then it should be supported by others as well and if that's the case, then we can cite is as a significant minority view without direct attribution. Editors seem to be arguing that Morris view is the mainstream majority view, I don't see the evidence for that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So because a Wikipedia statement is attributed, it must therefore be an insignificant view on the matter? That seems backwards. If you want to establish that this is an fringe or insignificant view (which is a much higher bar than "contested"), you'll need evidence of that. Absent evidence to the contrary, views backed by multiple prominent scholars are normally presumed to be significant, not the opposite. — xDanielx T/C\R 00:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No Afaics, this "dispute" appears to be about the Haifa displacement and how much of it was due to Arab evacuation orders. There is contradictory historiography about that and I think that first the Causes article should be sorted out, perhaps a specific section dealing with Haifa and the sources for that and only then use that as a basis for here and for the Battle article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is contradictory historiography, then both viewpoints should be included, preferably with an outline how they relate to each other. We aren't here to settle historical disputes, but to accurately and neutrally reflect existing work. Amayorov (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't dispute that, I said to begin at the "Causes" article first. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the two articles have different objectives. The "Causes" article should aggregate all relevant information and outline the factors behind the displacement, giving appropriate weight to each factor based on its treatment by reputable historians.
    This article, on the other hand, should describe the events of the displacement, in a more or less chronological manner. The fact that foreign intelligence and local officials documented evacuation orders, and that these have been referenced extensively by reputable historians, should be included. Amayorov (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just about Haifa, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this RFC is specifically about the Haifa section. Amayorov (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV doesn't have any exceptions based on the state of a different article; why would that be relevant? — xDanielx T/C\R 14:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No as per TarnishedPaths reasonings. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on @TarnishedPath’s reasoning, would you be content with removing Morris’ research on Haganah’s use of psychological warfare, in favor of his findings regarding evacuation orders (i.e. the paragraph above)? I think that’s a terrible solution and would cut down the article significantly. But it would be a fairer representation of Morris’ work. As I said, he spends roughly 2-3 pages discussing the former and around ten – the latter. The ratio of his primary sources is similar. Amayorov (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not our job to fairly represent Morris' work, we need to represent the balance of all sources, for the Haifa displacement in this case. Selfstudier (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No, the first two paragraphs of this section are messed up enough as is. Begins by citing Morris for what Historian Efraim Karsh writes... and misrepresenting Morris in the process. Inserting Walid Khalidi disputes... with a citation and text which are confusing concern a separate dispute, then Benny Morris agrees with Karsh... which there is hardly support for.

    I don't know that there should be a separate "Causes" article, but if Selfstudier thinks first add content there, then import/merge back here to fix this mess, ok. If Morris is used for AHC "orders" the content should be faithful, "egging on the continuing evacuation" during a confusing time with events rapidly changing. And should certainly put in the context of his overall argument for outside blanket evacuation orders: "as with most rumours, there was a grain of truth in them".

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

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

    but i do not see him making such an argument. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't relevant to the RfC. However, I agree that the start of the section is messy and needs work. Where is Morris misrepresented? E.g. There is no evidence that the commanders involved hoped or expected that it would lead to mass evacuation – Morris (2004), p.200.
    • p.198: But if the weight of the evidence suggests that the initial order to evacuate had come from the local [Arab] leadership, there is a surfeit of evidence that the AHC and its local supporters endorsed it ex post facto during the following days, egging on the continuing evacuation. Then he spends the next pages describing thsi evidence. I think this pretty much covers the paragraph in the RfC.
    • Sure, Morris doesn't himself state the most likely reasons for the Arab evacuation orders. However, he sites several documents, among which are the 6th Airborne Division, Alex Cunningham and Lippincott (The American Consul at Haifa). He doesn't provide any evidence contradicting them.
    @Fiveby How would you suggest rephrasing the paragraph to better reflect Morris' position? Amayorov (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not try and rephrase the paragraph at this time. I think the reader would best be served by first looking for agreement amongst the sources for what can be stated outright without in-text attribution. Leading from Morris I would first look at expanding the article's weak ...one of the most notable flights of this stage. with

    The fall and exodus of Arab Haifa were among the major events of the war. The departure of the town’s Arabs, who before the war had numbered 65,000, by itself accounted for some 10 per cent of the Arab refugee total. The fall of, and flight from, Haifa, given the city’s pivotal political, administrative and economic role, was a major direct and indirect precipitant of the subsequent exodus from elsewhere in the North and other areas of the country, including Jaffa.

    This is important for the reader and where we should see wide agreement in the sources. Next

    The mass exodus of 21 April – early May must be seen against the backdrop of the gradual evacuation of the city by some 20,000–30,000 of its inhabitants, including most of the middle and upper classes, over December 1947 – early April 1948...

    where it is likely there is some disagreement as to the importance ascribed, but some content could probably be worked out without resorting to the ugly According to Morris... Proceeding this way would be doing what editors are supposed to be doing summarizing sources rather than cherry-picking to push a conclusion. Something about "orders" would probably eventually warrant inclusion, but as is i agree completely with Selfstudier that this is pursued only to unduly emphasize the apparent fact of of Arab orders while ignoring the surrounding context and what exactly happened. And no, you can't take a quote from an unknown member of 6th Airborne or others and claim Morris agrees without him explicitly agreeing in his text. fiveby(zero) 15:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. Levivich's suggestion that we "replace Morris's attributed views on this with something in Wikivoice sourced to multiple sources" is the correct solution. The historiographical dispute involving Morris, Karsh, Khalidi etc can be covered in the historiography section of this article or in a historiography section at the article Battle of Haifa (1948). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Historiography wouldn't be a good place for it. Historiography refers to the study of methods used by historians. It is not an appropriate section to describe historical disputes.
    Describing disputes is a part of WP:WIKIVOICE: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Is what you and @Levivich are suggesting basically including the RfC paragraph, but adding other researchers' PoV after those of Morris? So a 'YES' but with further info? Amayorov (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amayorov, there's no need to reply to each and every person who !votes No. You're appearing to be WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion to within an inch of its life. TarnishedPathtalk 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, I think, as a general rule, the opinions of Scholar X should not be sourced to a work by Scholar X. Rather, if the opinion of Scholar X is WP:DUE, we'd be able to source that to Scholars Y and Z, etc. Here, there is no lack of scholarship that explicitly talks about the opinions of Morris. Rather than editors choosing which part of Morris's work to highlight (which is WP:OR), we should rely on WP:RS, and summarize those portions of Morris's opinions that multiple high-quality RS summarize, cited to those RS (to Scholars Y and Z). (Of course we can also add a cite to the particular Morris book or whatever it is that the RSes are discussing.) Levivich (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy is this based on? Alaexis¿question? 11:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Levivich (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Morris is already a secondary source (in relation to the topic of the article), so your argument seems to be about a preference WP:TERTIARY sources. While those are allowed, they're not that common and aren't really encouraged by any policy. — xDanielx T/C\R 14:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No that's not right on either count. An author's work is a primary source for the author's opinion given in that work, and of course articles should be based on secondary sources as our policies say. Aside from all of that, WP:DUE says an opinion or viewpoint is included based on its prominence in RSes. So Morris's viewpoints are only DUE if they're prominent in the entire body of RSes, which is why we should cite other RSes, and multiple RSes, for Morris's opinion (not just Morris directly). Citing Morris directly doesn't establish that Morris's opinion is DUE.
    That book we're citing is like 600+ pages. Who decides which of the paragraphs in that book are worth quoting/citing/mentioning? Not Wikipedia editors, it should be decided by other RSes. Morris should be quoted when he's quoted by other RSes, not when Wikipedia editors decide to quote him. His opinion should be summarized when it's summarized by other RSes, not by Wikipedia editors deciding which parts are worth summarizing, as that would be OR. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOR, primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Benny Morris's book about the topic of this article is not a primary source as it's not "original material that is close to an event" and he was not directly involved in these events. Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's some selective quotation from the WP:PSTS section of WP:NOR. The work where Morris says "X" is a secondary source for the claim "X", but a primary source for the claim "Morris said X". The way we know if "X" is WP:DUE for inclusion is by looking at its prominence in WP:RS. If Morris and many others say "X", then "X" is WP:DUE. The way we know whether "Morris said X" is by looking at the prominence of "Morris said X" in RSes. If lots of RSes talk about "Morris said X", then "Morris said X" is WP:DUE for inclusion. And there are lots of examples of "Morris said X" that's WP:DUE for inclusion, because lots of RSes talk about what Morris said. So whether this particular instance of "Morris said X" is WP:DUE depends on whether RSes other than Morris cover this particular instance of "Morris said X". Levivich (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While WP:PSTS isn't very explicit about it, in practice we classify sources as primary or secondary in relation to a broader topic. Yes, in some trivial sense every source is a primary source in relation to itself, but practically PSTS isn't concerned with those trivial relations. If it was, the majority of attributed statements throughout Wikipedia would be in violation of WP:PRIMARY. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this is very strange reasoning. I could understand it if we were writing an article about Morris himself and what views he personally held, but we aren’t. Amayorov (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same logic, do you think that the sentence "According to Ilan Pappé, the Zionists organised a campaign of threats" should be removed because it's sourced to Pappe and not another historian? Alaexis¿question? 19:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that can and should be changed from an attributed statement sourced to one source, to a statement in wikivoice sourced to multiple sources. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify what you mean by that? Literally, most contentious points on Wikipedia are discussed as “Historian X claims x.[ref 1] Y disagrees and writes y.[ref 2]” Do you propose to make this a single sentence? Amayorov (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. @Amayorov, You're continuing to have your two cents at multiple places throughout the discussion. I have asked you to desist from this previously. Please do not continue WP:BLUDGEONing this RFC. TarnishedPathtalk 00:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the comments I made in the last 24h are “repeating the same point” or “ignoring evidence”. Here, I’m constructive engaging to clarify a suggestion made by a fellow editor. In a different place, I reviewed two newly linked research articles by Khalidi. In another, I acknowledged that Morris doesn’t himself make an assertion as to the causes of the orders, but quotes from a primary source verbatim.
    Your behaviour seems to be very WP:UNCIVIL. Amayorov (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLUDGEONing isn't confined to "repeating the same point" or "ignoring evidence". Put simply it is "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own". I've politely asked you to desist. Please give other editors airtime. TarnishedPathtalk 03:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment you're replying to was just asking for a clarification. If this is bludgeoning at all, it's minor compared to other instances. Regardless of merit, repeated accusations of bludgeoning don't seem constructive. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated opposition to every No !vote isn't constructive either. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you’re probably right. I will disengage from the discussion for the time being Amayorov (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

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

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

    Another common argument against the paragraph's inclusion I've seen is that it "engages in Nakba denial". That is simply not a historical argument, especially given that most articles about the Nakba rely on Morris already. (see Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not). Of course, any historian who disagrees with Morris' assessment should be included too. Amayorov (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably. I'm not totally clear on the context leading to this RfC, but NPOV generally means representing all non-fringe views on a matter, so purported evacuation orders should certainly be mentioned when covering Haifa. We don't necessarily have to quote Morris, but his work is more prominent and moderate than most of the alternatives we might consider, such as Karsh's [1]. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Morris is one of the foremost experts. As far as I can see no RS have been provided that contradict his account. The circumstances of the flight of one of the largest urban communities of Palestinians is clearly relevant and should be included in the article. Alaexis¿question? 16:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Were they expelled? "Khalidi and Morris agree that 70,000 refugees in the first wave fled, and that about 250,000 were expelled in the final stages of war. However, this accounts only for half of the refugee population. The dispute between the two is about the 350,000 or so who exited Palestine in between March and June 1948. While Morris thinks this half has left by its own accord, Khalidi argues it was expelled as well (a particular acute argument has being going on about the refugees of Haifa - around 65,000 in number). Zionist historiography cited Haifa as an example for a Jewish effort to persuade Arabs to stay - Morris, in this case, accepts the official version. Khalidi does not - he describes, as does more elaborately Nur Masalha, the means by which the Haifa population was driven out. Haifa was evicted in the wake of plan D, as were the Palestinian population of the mixed towns of Jaffa, Safad and Tiberias" Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that, if the RfC paragraph is to be included, Khalidi's PoV should be added too. I would also consider Karsh (some people describe him as "fringe", with which I disagree). Amayorov (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should add Khalidi/Masalha's accounts. Why is it an argument not to include Morris' viewpoint? Alaexis¿question? 21:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a larger issue than AHC "orders"? Khalidi might sneer at him a bit, In his more recent odyssey to the right..., but i don't see him actually countering the specific argument. Anyway in response to Alaexis, we should accurately summarize Morris if used which the suggested content does not. fiveby(zero) 16:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, but it seems to me that the debate over Haifa is being pursued only to unduly emphasize the apparent fact of of Arab orders while ignoring the surrounding context and what exactly happened in the run up to the British departure. Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the surrounding context is ignored, because it currently forms the bulk of the article, and would continue to do so after the addition. My point is that a significant part of the debate is omitted entirely. Amayorov (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Probably. At the very least, some attributed description seems merited. I generally err on the side of inclusion when it comes to this as long as we aren't dealing with FRINGE. "We already rely too much on this prominent historian," sounds like cherrypicking to me. And Levivich's "don't source a scholar unless they've been cited by another scholar" rule would result in a lot of removals across many articles if that were actually followed. Andre🚐 10:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Probably per Amayorov and Andrevan. Morris is a prominent historian and I don't find the arguments against inclusion compelling. This is not WP:FRINGE and the passage is relevant and valuable. GhostOfNoMan 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, with improved framing. After the 1st sentence, give the numbers before, in late April, and at the end. If these are facts with minimal disagreement, no scholar needs to be named those sentences (only in citations). Then framing such as: "The flight of the Arab population was influenced by Jewish, and possibly Arab actions, though historian debate the relevance of specific actions and their intent." Then Morris (RfC sentence) vs Khalidi on the Arab Higher Committee. Then a sentence to introduce the types of Jewish actions, e.g., broadcasts and military tactics, followed by the competing scholarly interpretations. Fwiw, I think the Morris blockquote can be replaced with a concise paraphrase, to avoid overuse (though he is a leading historian here). This is my sense of the section. ProfGray (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yes per the arguments above. Morris is (one of) the preeminent historian(s) on the topic, and significant use in other areas of the article aren’t a policy-based reason to remove otherwise due content. The same, of course, applies to other significant scholars (on both sides) as well, but excluding what is arguably the best source because it was used to much is at best unwise. FortunateSons (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven’t looked into the literature in depth in a while, but unless I missed something significant, the suggestion by @ProfGray seems quite reasonable as well, if we’re looking for alternatives/a compromise FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes While I’m also not deeply familiar with the literature, the case for inclusion appears stronger than that for exclusion. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
"Historian Benny Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum. Among the evidence he cites are British and American intelligence reports, and an assessment by the High Commissioner of Palestine. According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages" cited to Morris 2004 pp195-200
which is the same as the RFC subject matter except that "as well as statements by the Haifa Arab Emergency Committee on 22 April 1948" has been added. Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial discussion took place here: Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Haifa. Different opinions were voiced, so it would presumably be better to canvass more viewpoints and discuss them with more structure.
The edit over at Battle of Haifa (1948)#The battle wasn't disputed. Amayorov (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument "this article relies too much on Morris" has no basis in Wikipedia policies. If there are other accounts that contradict Morris, they should be presented and an argument based on WP:WEIGHT should be made. Alaexis¿question? 16:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaexis, I think of you as an experienced regular in this topic area. Do you really need to say "if"? :-) Cuz I think you already know the answer to whether or not Morris is contradicted by other accounts.

    Can all of us regulars in this topic area please stop pretending like we don't all know that Morris is widely cited for his facts (dates, places) and widely disputed for his characterizations/interpretations? Levivich (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Morris is widely cited for his facts (dates, places) and widely disputed for his characterizations/interpretations."
    This is correct. See Avi Shlaim for example: "There are two Benny Morrises," he says. "There is the first-rate archival historian whose work is of utmost importance in understanding the Israeli-Arab conflict. And there is the third-rate political analyst who has little understanding of what is driving the modern conflict."[2] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand. There is one factual statement attributed to Morris Morris asserts that the initial order to evacuate came from local Arab leadership, and that the Arab Higher Committee endorsed it post factum and one "interpretation", also attributed (According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages).
    If either of these is contradicted by other accounts, we should add those accounts to the article. It's not an argument to remove his viewpoint. Alaexis¿question? 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you say "if" as if it's a possibility, when I think you know it's a certainty. You know that his account is in fact contradicted by other accounts, correct? You know this for a certainty because we've all discussed Morris many times before at many pages. Right? So why do you say "if"?
    You also speak as if "all viewpoints should be included" when I think you know that's not what NPOV says. Because his accounts are contradicted by others, and that's a very good reason not to include it. That's what NPOV says. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speculation about Alaexis' knowledge or motivations isn't relevant here.
    NPOV tells us to represent all significant viewpoints. Are you claiming this viewpoint is insignificant? There are several other historians who make similar assertions, though Morris is probably the most prominent and moderate of them. — xDanielx T/C\R 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote that sentence from NPOV in full and you'll answer your own question. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All encyclopedic content on Wikipediamust be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant viewsthat have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
    What is it you have an issue with? That quoting Morris on the causes would be disproportionate (despite the fact that Khalidi’s POV is already included)? That Morris isn’t a reliable source? Amayorov (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be simpler if you articulate your point directly. Are you getting at in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources? That's about the extent of coverage given to each viewpoint, not about whether they're covered at all. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you answer directly which sources contradict the two assertions I mentioned in my previous comment? Alaexis¿question? 19:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first assertion:
    AHC orders Khalidi, Walid (2005). "Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 34 (2).
    local level Khalidi, Walid (2008). "The Fall of Haifa, Revisited" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 37 (3).
    Both earlier articles republished in response to these points in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (see editors note in 2005 article). Morris does not make the second assertion, so no need to look for a source which contradicts. fiveby(zero) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Morris doesn’t make the second assertion himself (i.e. doesn’t aggregate), but quotes it as a possible reason verbatim.
    Regarding the first point, Khalidi doesn’t refute Morris’ evidence (intelligence and military reports and assessments by British top-officials). He studies a different type of primary evidence (radio broadcasts and newspaper clippings), and doesn’t find corroboration of Morris’ conclusions there.
    [EDIT: TBF Khalidi also claims that there was a collusion between the Yishuv and the British, which might cast some light on Morris’ evidence.]
    Now, Khalidi’s work should be included (in fact, it already is). But I cannot for the life of me understand why Morris’ research can’t be either, unless you consider the debate essentially settled. This is also some heavy WP:OR. Amayorov (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Amayorov, i'd ask that you strike the second sentence of the suggested content of the RfC on verifiablity concerns. You should probably also note p. 199 of Morris concerning local "orders": The notables’ announcement of evacuation on the evening of 22 April was not a bolt from the blue...Tens of thousands of Arabs, including most of the city’s middle and upper classes, had departed during December 1947 – early April 1948. On 21–22 April, the notables had the fresh example of Arab Tiberias before their eyes. And by the evening of 22 April, thousands had already voted with their feet..., the evacuees had shown their leaders the way out of the strait bounded on the one side by continued – and hopeless – battle and on the other, by (treacherous) acceptance of Jewish rule. fiveby(zero) 01:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean the third sentence: "According to Morris, possible reasons included clearing the way for Transjordan's impending entry into the war and avoiding the population being used as hostages."?
    Regarding the context of the local orders, sure — it's important. Do you wish to somehow integrate it in the RfC proposal? Amayorov (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, after you directly answer my question. Levivich (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are defining the problem, that only Morris is being considered and that does have a basis in PAG, NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't that be amended by adding other sources alongside Morris? That Morris' work is currently cherry-picked is a different problem. Both problems can be fixed together. Amayorov (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that Morris work is cherrypicked but that is only the case if Morris is disputed besides Haifa, is it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not following. Yes, Morris' work on the flight from Haifa is currently cherry-picked and the parts to which he dedicates much (most?) attention are omitted. Amayorov (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What I was asking is whether the other citations to Morris besides Haifa are also disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty. For example, Morris's assertion that [in Dec 1947 - March 1948] an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' is disputed by Pappé. More often, his disputed claims are included alongside others (e.g. his count of the abandoned Palestinian localities). IMO this is what should be done with this RfC too. Amayorov (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we write 'comment' in bold in a discussion section? I'm 100% sure I've read multiple sources make the statement that Haifa is well known as "the exception that proves the rule," the one time Zionists tried to get Palestinians to stay put. But now I can't remember where I read it, and it's a hard thing to search for. I think maybe I've posted some sources about this in a previous discussion about Haifa, but I can't remember where or if that happened. Anyway, anybody remember either any sources or previous discussion? I think maybe we can replace Morris's attributed views on this with something in Wikivoice sourced to multiple sources. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, an aggregation of the research by Morris, Khalidi, Nur Masalha, and Karsh would be good. Can you write a proposal? Amayorov (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious under what objective test does Karsh belong in that group of names? E.g., what is Karsh's most widely-cited work, and when was it written? Levivich (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically regarding Haifa, Nakbat Haifa (2001) was discussed and referenced by other historians in this list, as well as more recent publications (e.g. this). The archival evidence he provides in it was later incorporated (independently or not) into Morris' 2004 new edition of his book. He's a professor at KCL and is respected enough to have held positions at top American universities, which published his books. Yes, his more recent works are criticised by many, but generated much discussion. I wouldn't consider him at the same level of respectability as Morris though. Amayorov (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of university professors who have published in this field and whose work has been cited by other scholars. Your list of four are 3 of the best-known scholars in the field...and Karsh. Look at this list:
    One of these is not like the others... Levivich (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be a little more fair to Karsh, his 2014 book The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Palestine War 1948 has 83 GS cites... still nothing compared to the others' books about this subject. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nakbat Haifa (2001) is an article, rather than a book, so of course it received fewer citations. A better comparison would be with something like Islamic Imperialism: A History: 384 GS. Much of the book discusses the Arab-Israeli conflict.
    Specifically regarding the Battle of Haifa of 1948, Karsh's and Morris's articles are among the top on GS. Amayorov (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Karsh is WP:FRINGE and doesn't belong in this article anywhere except in the histroriography section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide evidence? AFAIK his work is widely cited, his books are published by reputable journals and publishing houses (Harvard UP, Yale UP), he's a professor at one of England's best universities (KCL) and has taught at Harvard and Sorbonne. Amayorov (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Efraim Karsh#Reception, this review of a Karsh work, and this review. Also in Benny Morris' words: "Karsh resembles nothing so much as those Holocaust-denying historians who ignore all evidence and common sense in order to press an ideological point. One can only assume that, like them, his modest "contribution" to the Israeli historiographic debate will soon vanish."[1] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a number of negative reviews are sufficient to override WP:MAINSTREAM.
    Do you consider Ilan Pappé to be fringe too, because his work received similarly harsh criticism, such as this, this? I personally would not. In Benny Morris' words, Pappé's "at best...one of the world's sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest", or that "he believes that there is no such thing as historical truth." Amayorov (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You complain about others "cherrypicking" Morris. Yet here you are seemingly selectively ignoring his criticism/denouncement of Karsh. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point isn't that Morris should be the only voice we should consider. Other voices, who criticise Morris and who are in turn criticised him, should be covered too (as long as they're reputable). My concern is that the coverage of all of them should be neutral and not cherry-picked.
    In this particular instance, I believe Morris' denunciation of Karsh should be described at length in Karsh's bio, as it is now :) Amayorov (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich:, looking for on-wiki discussion i'd think someone would have quoted Pappe for this: Interestingly, this city is singled out by mainstream Israeli historians and the revisionist historian Benny Morris as an example of genuine Zionist goodwill towards the local population. The reality was very different by the end of 1947. but can't find that anywhere. Should we look for where Morris and others have singled out Haifa for use? fiveby(zero) 17:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes--I think it would be helpful to gather some "best sources" for this to look at besides Morris and, as you suggest, summarize in wikivoice what the sources agree on. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For ...tried to get Palestinians to stay put... (which is what i've been looking for, but i see you are collecting more general best sources below), Karsh in Nakbat Haifa pp. 49-54 is the most strident advocacy i've found. He points to the meeting on the evening of the 22nd, the armistice terms, Hagana Arabic broadcasts, pamphlets, distribution of bread, a statement by Meir, views and reports of the British and Lippincott, and a UP correspondent. What i see all the sources agreeing on here would be Sabatai Levy during the Town Hall meeting of the 22nd as a genuine plea to stay. For instance:

    Let us begin with the Zionist claim—found in all official Zionist history and propaganda and all Israeli information publications—that Israel was not responsible for the exodus and in fact did everything in its power to stop it. The most solid evidence to support this contention comes from the efforts made in Haifa by Shabatai Levy, the mayor,and Abba Hashi, head of the Workers' Council, to stop the panic flight of the Arabs by persuading them to give up the struggle and surrender to the Hagana

    — Flapan, Simha (1987). "The Palestinian Exodus of 1948" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. excerpt from Birth of Israel
    but beyond that we quickly run to contrary views

    A great deal is made by Israeli historians, including liberal revisionists,about the attitude during the crisis of the Jewish mayor of Haifa, Shabatai Levy. At the second of the two Town Hall meetings held on 22 April, Levy did make a poignant appeal asking his Arab colleagues to reconsider their request—made under the weight of the Haganah attack and mounting civilian casualties—to evacuate the Arab population with adequate protection.But Levy did not reflect Haganah policy, and the principal representative of the Jewish side was not Levy but "Motki" Maklef, operations officer of the Carmeli Brigade.

    — Khalidi, Walid (1998). "Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War". Journal of Palestine Studies.

    ...the town’s Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levi, a decent person by all accounts, who beseeched the people to stay and promised no harm would befall them. But it was Mordechai Maklef, the operation officer of the Carmeli Brigade, not Levi who called the shots.

    — Pappe, Ilan (2012). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
    Morris points to and expands on the documentation provide by Karsh, but also

    Several municipal (and, apparently, Haganah) figures during 22–28 April tried to persuade Arabs to stay...But the Haganah was not averse to seeing the Arabs evacuate, as illustrated by Makleff’s ‘no comment’ response to Stockwell’s question about the evacuation announcement at the town hall meeting on 22 April. Illustration can also be found... Initial Jewish attitudes towards the Arab evacuation changed within days; and what Jewish liaison officers told their British contacts did not always conform with the realities on the ground or with those quickly changing attitudes. The local Jewish civilian leadership initially sincerely wanted the Arabs to stay (and made a point of letting the British see this). But the offensive of 21–22 April had delivered the Arab neighbourhoods into Haganah hands, relegating the civil leaders to the sidelines and for almost a fortnight rendering them relatively ineffectual...a temporary rupture between the local Jewish civil and military authorities, which reflected, and was part of, the similar, larger rupture between these authorities that characterised much of the Yishuv’s policy-making and actions through the war. In Haifa, for days, the civilian authorities were saying one thing and the Haganah was doing something quite different.

    — The Birth pp. 200-4
    I think there is some common ground for content to be had here without the need for attribution, but no room for any sweeping judgments. fiveby(zero) 00:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the criticism of why it is risky to overrely too much on one scholar but is it not helpful that it is attributed to the scholar so readers can understand that it is just a singular perspective? I have not formed an opinion on this RFC yet but am trying to be of assistence. Jorahm (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Morris, B. (1998). Refabricating 1948 [Review of Fabricating Israeli History: The “New Historians.,” by E. Karsh]. Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/2538286
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

[edit]
Asked and answered. TarnishedPathtalk 09:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

−
Efraim Karsh is among the few historians who still consider
+
Efraim Karsh is one of the historians who consider

The current phrasing implies that Efraim Karsh's is a minority view among historians and that increasingly large majority reject this view - this claim needs to be supported by reliable sources or, if there are not sources to support it, the sentence should be rephrased in a more neutral and balanced way, as suggested. Zlmark (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the suggested edit is neither uncontroversial, nor one that has consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

[edit]
Asked and answered. TarnishedPathtalk 09:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

−
The Israeli government has systematically scoured Israeli archives to remove documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian exodus
+
Much of the information about the circumstances leading to the Palestinian expulsion became available thanks to the massive declassification of Israeli archival documentation in the 1980s (Morris, 2012). At the same time, there has been evidence of Defense Ministry officials scouring Israeli archives to remove previously declassified documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian exodus}
Zlmark (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: the suggested edit is neither uncontroversial, nor one that has consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 09:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zlmark, it's true but you need to provide a source for that. Alaexis¿question? 23:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now a source has been added to support this assertion. It shouldn't be controversial, basically the New Historians based their work on newly available data from the Israeli archives. Subsequent efforts to remove such materials from public access are also notable but for NPOV we should mention both. Alaexis¿question? 20:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's Morris's view, I don't think it's the mainstream view. Morris is well known for, among other things, relying exclusively on documentary evidence and not crediting oral histories. What Palestinian authors I've read (eg Masalha, Manna, Khalidi, etc) and New Historians (Pappe, Shlaim, etc), and I think even Western authors (Penslar, Slater, etc) say is that the documentary evidence that was declassified in the 80s did not make available new information so much as confirm what Palestinians had already been saying for 30+ years at that point. So Much of the information about the circumstances leading to the Palestinian expulsion became available thanks to the massive declassification is only true if, like Morris, one completely discounts the other evidence, eg oral histories, that was already available. An NPOV-compliant framing would be something like "declassified Israeli archives confirmed what Palestinian scholars had written and debunked Israeli government propaganda". Levivich (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Israeli government propaganda" is hardly a NPOV-compliant phrasing DancingOwl (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about the following? Following the large-scale declassification of Israeli archival material in the 1980s, additional information about the circumstances surrounding the expulsion and flight of Palestinians became available, contributing to modern understandings of these events. At the same time, there has been evidence of Defense Ministry officials searching Israeli archives to remove previously declassified documents evidencing Israeli massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1947 and 1948 that led to the Palestinian expulsion and flight. I feel this covers the concerns of everyone while retaining the key facts. Lewisguile (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a balanced framing DancingOwl (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Alaexis¿question? 20:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will add this text now. @Levivich, I haven't heard from you, but I think this addresses your point re: Palestinian scholars saying similar things prior to the declassification. Lewisguile (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predominantly

[edit]

The word predominantly used in the first paragraph is difficult to interpret. There is no agreement on the precise definition of this word, and it sounds overly precise. (It is being used to describe a 69% part of the population. Would you describe American cities as "predominantly white"?)

How about simply "majority Arab", instead of "predominantly Arab"? EGetzler (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predominantly seems fitting for 69%. Would you prefer "mostly"? Lewisguile (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Benny Morris (2012). "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948". In Rogan, Eugene L.; Shlaim, Avi (eds.). The War for Palestine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight&oldid=1262851267"