The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, however, with a caveat. There is consensus that Nakba denial is a topic which has been discussed in independent, reliable sources. There is no outcome here where the content is deleted, and to be clear this is a keep, and not a no-consensus defaulting to keep. However, what there isn't is a strong consensus that this should be covered on its own, rather than within broader Nakba, 1948 or other topics so I encourage that discussion to continue editorially. Relisting this, where there has been so much discussion and where there is no outcome of deleting the material is not a good use of editor time or resources. Further note., I have read this x3 and edit conflicted x 2 and do not see a way of closing this in another manner so explicitly waiving the right to a pre DRV consult if editors find that the next step. . StarMississippi00:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK of Nakba which fundamentally assumes one POV. The way it is phrased and approached excludes any Israeli or other interpretation of history or justifications. Also the existing article would have to be WP:TNTd (not to be insensitive, that is simply the relevant essay on article deletion) even if the topic is valid due to extreme bias and statements of opinions as facts, as well as quotations which are virtually never attributed. (this only attributed after I pointed it out and all these other issues here). The topic also turns up very few google search results for either "nakba denial" (4960) or "nakba denialism" (869). —DIYeditor (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I guess it was only a matter of time before someone tried to delete this page. This is obviously a notable topic which is widely covered in reliable sources, as should be obvious to anybody who has actually read the article. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really addressing the grounds for this AfD though. It's "obvious" because nobody disagrees that it's a notable topic. Notability isn't always the reason for deletion. In this case, the grounds for deletion is POVFORK, and POVFORKs are usually notable (or else they wouldn't be forks of other articles, which are on notable topics). Levivich (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was the single most egregious abuse of Wikipedia for POV advocacy that I have seen. Also the worst written article I have ever seen despite the ample citations of POV sources. It stated obvious opinions as facts and used quotes without any attribution (that's not even a thing that one does). See the links I gave. I'm surprised it took this long for it to be nominated, maybe nobody wants to touch topics like this due to world events. This article was terrible, whether or not the topic is legitimate, which is arguable I guess. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd echo the sentiments that this keep !vote has not addressed the policy reason for deletion, which is that this constitutes a POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect /after many subsequent comments and after I've worked on the article and someone cited WP:HEY I find it only appropriate at this time to switch my !vote to keep without prejudice to later merger/ to Nakba#Nakba denial per WP:PAGEDECIDE and incorporate content from here into there by copying from the history undearneath the redirect on a consensus basis, given that such decisions are made on Talk:Nakba. This subtopic can be covered better as part of the integrated article about Nakba. The Nakba article only has 13KB of readable prose!—Alalch E.13:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About this being a POV-fork, it should be noted that we say Nakba was a real thing in wikivoice in Nakba (The Nakba ... was the destruction of the Palestinian society and homeland in 1948, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian Arabs. ...), and that it had four components: displacement; dispossession and erasure; statelessness and denationalization; and fracturing of society -- with by far the most important component, and the precondition for the other three occurring, being displacement, which is covered separately in the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, and about which we say: In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Mandatory Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias during the 1948 Palestine war. So we already talk about "Zionist culpability" in own voice in existing articles, so having a separate article which is again premised on the same, and talks about how some deny the same, is logically not a 1/1 POV fork. Doesn't fit the definition perfectly. —Alalch E.13:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guarantee that the Nakba article doesn't also have POV issues. I don't really have the interest to look more at these articles. I wouldn't be surprised to see things like this or any other variation on loaded phrasing. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just commenting on the soundness of the POV fork allegation. A non-WP:NPOV article (for example, one that excludes relevant opposing viewpoints) is not the same thing as a POV fork. A POV fork needs to mirror an existing article while exlusively basing itself on a different point of view, and in this case, there is no existing article about the discourse around the Nakba, there's only a short section within Nakba, so this is at worst a non-NPOV daughter article.—Alalch E.14:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really convinced by this argument. From WP:POVFORK:
However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. For example, if an editor has tried to include in an existing article about aviation a theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, but the consensus of editors has rejected the attempt as complete nonsense, that fact does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound upon the rejected idea.
I think that is the territory we are in. But regardless of the terminology, the real question is whether an article under this title can ever be a neutral presentation. You don't seem to be disagreeing that this one cannot be. Is that correct? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Nakba might be due for a merge/delete nomination as well, considering its apparently small size it may also be a POV fork just to present a discussion of the term from the term's point of view when it is more of a footnote on the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight article. That is deeper down this rabbit hole than I wanted to go and I will leave that for someone else to look into. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wonder if someone wants to add Zionist/Israeli/other points of view on the history, is that going to be called off topic since the sources wouldn't use the loaded term "Nakba denial" to give their view of events? Only these POV sources are valid for the article, and their views will be stated as consensus facts rather than opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're 100% correct; any such addition would inherently violate Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy, specifically the WP:SYNTH section, as the sources discussing the contrary viewpoint do not use the terminology 'Nakba Denial.' It could be rightly argued that since those viewpoints don't discuss 'Nakba Denial,' including them under that title would constitute original synthesis. This makes a balanced discussion unattainable under such a framing. Marokwitz (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we say that Nakba as presented in Nakba is what happened, a set of historical events, and historical trends (that's really what we say when you examine the article carefully), and then say that some deny that that is what happened, we would present their denial in the form of claims they make which constitute the denial, similar to Armenian genocide denial#Examination of claims. So Zionist/Israeli/other (denialist) points of view could certainly be added or expanded on, but they would only be presented as instances of the denial. In own voice. If they were to be presented as instances of a discourse that runs parallel to the discourse of Nakba, in which Nakba is not recognized as what happened, and in respect of which Wikipedia seems agnostic as to whether it it did or did not, while at the same time having an entire article about how the Nakba happened, that would mean that we have an inconsistency in the encyclopedia, and then THAT would be a POV fork. —Alalch E.14:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to keep things very logical here, everyone please understand that I'm not talking about a genocide here, but about how do we treat a "denial of x" discourse as a discrete topic. —Alalch E.15:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The terms 'Nakba' and 'Israeli Independence' represent two competing narratives of the same historical events surrounding the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Each term encapsulates deeply held beliefs and interpretations that are important to different communities. 'Nakba'—Arabic for 'catastrophe'—is the lens through which many Palestinians view the mass displacement and loss that accompanied the 1948 war. Conversely, 'Israeli Independence' symbolizes a monumental achievement for the Jewish people, marking the establishment of a sovereign state after centuries of persecution.
Labeling the Israeli perspective as "Nakba Denial" unequivocally violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. This term is not merely descriptive; it's prescriptive, dictating how the narrative should be interpreted rather than offering a balanced viewpoint. By embedding an accusation within the label itself, the discourse is preemptively skewed, stifling any potential for nuanced discussion.
Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. Once such a term is introduced into an encyclopedic context, it doesn't merely tilt the balance; it obliterates it. Readers are not presented with a spectrum of perspectives to form their own conclusions; instead, they are led down a pre-defined path that reaffirms existing biases. Marokwitz (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source please for "The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. There's an overwhelming amount of pure opinion on this discussion, set against the actual sources present on the page. In addition, the possibility of POV issues is not, in of itself, a reason for deletion; it is a reason for correction and balance. If you agree that the content represents one POV (I don't agree) then you are proposing deleting one POV that is not as far as I am aware present anywhere on this encyclopedia, which is both WP:CENSORSHIP, and something that would increase imbalance across the platform by deleting a valid POV (on the basis of your assumptions). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: I mentioned this in the WP:NPOVN discussion, but this article is already 15kB of readable prose, and frankly, I have barely scratched the surface of the sourcing available on this. The Nakba page is perhaps artificially short because of the ongoing lack of conclusion over whether the Nakba page and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight pages should be separate topics or one. The Nakba page is currently acting as a parent page for a whole host of wider topics, with brief summaries of each. As it stands, if this page were merged to Nakba, it would immediately overwhelm the existing content, suddenly making up more than half of it - totally warping it, or making it "clunky" in the language of WP:NOTMERGE. If, conceivably, and at a later date, Nakba and 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight were merged, their collective length would be around 60kB, and if this content on Nakba denial was added to that, we would be looking at a 75kB body of content, and this material would be a prime candidate for a split again. It's obviously a little confusing that the Nakba page is currently just 13kB, but it's something of a function of a broader content question that remains unresolved. As it stands, this page and its content does not fit particularly well with either page. The theme here is essentially one of historiography and is a function of the broader historiography around 1948, Israel and Palestine. If there was a truly natural parent for this article, it might be an article on the broader historiography of the conflict, but such a parent does not currently exist. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. is this specific to the Nakba or does apply to other events such as the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide? M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be a clear obstruction of neutrality here and the delegitimization of the Israeli narrative. The points @Marokwitz has raised are well worth reading in this respect and therefore I shall not repeat them. Furthermore, as pointed out there has been a very recent discussion in regards to the 1948 Palestinian exodus on the Israel page, following which one may assume concern in connection of this page's recent creation.
My most immediate concern is the way this article may potentially influence the readers since it shows heavy bias as well as having been published during a time in which in respect to the Israel-Hamas 2023 War there is a confrontation.
I believe Wikipedia ought to have high quality unbiased and neutral articles that do not presume to promote a certain narrative or delegitimize another and therefore I support the deletion of this article.
I agree, and to extend this line of thought, would like to draw a parallel with two hypothetical articles: "God Denial" and "Atheism." The article titled "God Denial" would inherently frame the subject from a theistic standpoint, taking as a given that belief in God is the norm and that denial is a deviation from this norm. This framing immediately undermines the neutrality of the article, making balanced discussion challenging.
Similarly, an article on "Nakba Denial" presupposes that the mainstream narrative of the Nakba as a tragedy is the universally accepted truth, thereby stigmatizing other competing perspectives, such as Israel's independence, as forms of denial. Just as "God Denial" would be less neutral than an article simply titled "Atheism," an article on "Nakba Denial" is less neutral than the already existing 1948 Palestinian Exodus#Palestinian and Israeli narratives, or something similarly non-judgmental. Marokwitz (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the problem, as you've already hinted at in your above comment about revising Nakba, is with that article because the language used in that article to describe Nakba does not indicate that Nakba is any less real than the language used to describe the Armenian genocide in the article about that. But, for example 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Palestinian narrative describes Nakba as a narrative. I believe that we might already have an inconsistency at the level of the relationship between 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Nakba. Needs very careful analysis across multiple articles to make sure things are in order and to put them in order. —Alalch E.15:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there's seems to be a lot of extreme confusion over what the valid reasons for deleting a page are, WP:DEL-REASON is the relevant policy. Neutrality, balance, and the assertion (here incidentally unevidenced) that content does not adhere to WP:NPOV, is not a reason for deletion, and never has been. It's a reason for adding a POV tag and fixing the perceived problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the responses based solely on (perceived) issues on neutrality. (To not even touch on the point that no one has actually shown that the content is not neutral with respect to the sources, per WP:NPOV.) With regards to the WP:POVFORK premise in the OP's statement, I don't see how anyone can possibly construe "Nakba denial" as a POVFORK of Nakba ... like how? It's just a related (arguably child) topic. Nakba denial isn't a "POV" on the Nakba, it's a phenomena that is examined in the historiography about the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria are not mentioned even once in the article. So are omitted most other Arab-side "contributors" to the disadvantages of war. And war has only disadvantages. Such a one-sided article proves ill-intentioned terminology, and does not comply with Wikipedia's standards. TaBaZzz (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article about a war! Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria are not obviously relevant to the topic. Again, it's unclear what policy-based reason for deletion is being provided here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323, what? Jordan, Egypt, etc., aren't relevant to Nakba? Look, if I take the time to go look up Nakba in four or five academic encyclopedias right now, are they going to say, in their own voice, that Zionists are culpable for Nakba? Or are they going to say that the causes of Nakba are disputed? Will they mention Jordan, Egypt, etc.? I think the answer is obviously that they'll say the causes of Nakba are disputed and different scholars apportion blame differently among Israel, Arab states, and other factors. If you don't believe that's what they'll say, then I'll go look it up... Levivich (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the page isn't the Nakba. I don't know what literature your are looking at currently, but it has not been made clear to me from the sources that I have read that any of these countries are prominently involved in either the historiography of Israel or Palestine, or any related themes. There also seems to be some real confusion by what is meant by "denial" here, i.e. denial of what. Some editors seem to have ceased on the notion, baselessly, that Nakba denial is some sort of weaponized polemic aimed at in term denying the Israeli war of independence. How even? This is frankly bizarre. It has nothing to do with that, but instead the persistent narratives that deny the nature of the 1948 expulsion, which, incidentally, has "expulsion" in the title at 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight because it has been agreed by RFC that this is appropriate, i.e. there was at the very least a partial expulsion by Zionist forces. The "denial" here is of that of the expulsion, of the destruction of villages, of the erasure of Palestinian culture, of the notion that the existing people of Palestine had any indigenous rights, a.k.a. "There was no such thing as Palestinians". I'm not sure what "denying the war of independence" means or even looks like. You can't deny a war. The denial here is about the impact and effects of some of what transpired from it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say history, I said historiography. This is an article the denial of certain aspects of history, largely an expulsion event. The page is written based on historiographical sources discussing this phenomenon of denial in the representation of history and related historiography. As of yet, I have not encountered any historiographical sources making specific mention of Egypt and Jordan in relation to Nakba denial, I imagine because these countries would tend to be more on the not denying side of things and so this particular denial is not a prominent phenomenon in their histories and not a particularly relevant subject in related historiography. But the discussion of this particular denial might exist in the historiography of other countries. I do not know. I have not read all the literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Nakba denial is not the denial of the Nakba -- it's not the denial of the expulsion event, it's not the denial that the expulsion event happened. Nakba denial is the denial of Zionist culpability for Nakba -- well, that's according to the article, which is borrowing that phrasing from one source. I'd say Nakba denial is the denial that the Nakba constituted ethnic cleansing (or genocide) of Palestinians by Zionists/Israel.
Anyway, the view that Nakba was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israelis is, itself, a minority viewpoint, even today, or at least just one viewpoint among multiple viewpoints. The other viewpoint(s) is that the Nakba either (1) wasn't ethnic cleansing, it was something else ("population transfer"), or (2) wasn't caused by Zionists alone or primarily -- that Arab states, for example, like Egypt and Jordan, are also responsible.
I removed that first sentence from the lead and summarized that source in the body, after reading the whole article, see Special:Diff/1181224095 and the subsequent edits. It was not great to take a fragment of the abstract of that one source that actually deals with a highly particular and multi-part definition of "Nakba denialism", and use it as the definition of the subject in the first sentence.—Alalch E.17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So that is definitely an open-ended question that in order of priority probably needs dealing with conclusively first. In literature, those two topics are often treated interchangeably, though the term Nakba is also broader. Here, the current two-page setup is an uneasy attempt to balance the competing scopes. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not seen a denial of the deportation of Arab residents during the war in 1948. And I don't think I've seen anyone deny that an Arab population fled because of IDF forces.
The debate between the two sides (Israel and the Palestinians) is who is to blame for the "Nakba". Was this done in a deliberate action on the part of the Israelis, or did it happen following the start of the war in 1948 by the Arabs themselves...
In any case, as I said at the beginning, I have not seen anyone denying the flight/expulsion of the Arab population in 1948, therefore no one denies the so-called "Nakba". It all depends on the point of view.
"Moreover, as Josh Ruebner (2022), writing for the Middle East Institute, has noted: 'Nakba denial simultaneously serves as a mechanism to bolster Israel’s denial of Palestinian refugee rights, to whitewash Israel's dispossession of Palestinians, to obfuscate Israel's eliminationist origins, and to encloak Israel's establishment in an ahistorical, virtuous narrative'. Burying the truth further serves the settler colonial aspirations of Zionism in that it helps to ensure that the thorny issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees is avoided altogether."
As actually examined on page, the denial was most prevalent in its most basic form (in the sense of the denial of events themselves) up until the late 1980s. The situation changed with the works of the News Historians. When you say you "have not seen the denial", what do you mean? From personal experience? If you have actually opened all of the free-to-access sources that this page has been based on, you surely would, by now, have seen it explained. Nur Masalha actually separately produced an entire book called "The Politics of Denial", as reviewed here. In the second paragraph, it discusses the chapter devoted to "the struggle against denial of the 1948 nakba in Israel", so this is a tertiary review source confirming the topic as an area of discussion in secondary literature. It goes on to note how a later chapter examines "the way denial of the 1948 ethnic cleansing has ben perpetuated by the peace efforts since 1967". Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page can be deleted because there just isn't a real and active denial-industry about it and the page is being used for political accusation and emotional reasons in an effort to vilify and offer a new counter-narrative to the Israeli Independence War. It even uses the same term as the "Holocaust" (catastrophe or cataclysm) by using the Arabic "Nakba" (cataclysm or catastrophe). I don't think any Israelis or other people have ever really denied the fact that people moved away, fled the war, or were suffering due to a war's usual destruction of property and territorial land take-over. No one denies humans suffer in wars. But making articles about it for vilification-purposes and counter-narratives seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV neutrality.
There is of course no small irony in denying the existing of a denial, even when it has already been laid out for you in the form of a summarized page linked to a plethora of scholarly sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laid out by Palestinian Authority sources as well as other sources citing said Palestinian sources. An encyclopedia is designed to give us a shared understanding of history that never strays from the truth. — talk §_Arsenic99_17:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" An encyclopedia is designed to give us a shared understanding of history that never strays from the truth." this one is not... This one is about what is verifiable, not what is true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources and WP:GNG are clear. The delete votes are mostly essays about not liking the topic itself, not about whether the topic is notable and well sourced. Many of the delete votes appear to have low edit counts or are relatively new, which is concerning in the current external environment. For those opposing the title, I suggest they comment about the article Temple denial at the same time.
Keep: The reasons for deletion being proposed here are becoming an almost unnavigable hodge-podge of mis-applied policy and guidelines. The OP statement cites WP:POVFORK, but it has not been explained how the articles even is a supposed POVFORK of Nakba - this is just an unsupported claim. Nakba denial isn't a "POV" on the Nakba; it is a separate, related topic: that of a phenomena born out in the historical narratives of the Nakba, as identified in the historiographical sources referenced on the page. If, for the sake of argument, one was to entertain that this is a POVFORK of something, it's unclear what that other POV is supposed to be ... what would be the topic's "POV" counterpart? The notion that there is no denial? So the denial of the denial? Such a viewpoint may exist I suppose, but I haven't encountered any reference to it in the literature that I have read yet, and so I couldn't possibly weight it, and the OP hasn't provided any relevant literature demonstrating that such an alternate POV exists. Other editors are citing WP:NPOV as a deletion reason, despite no editor having demonstrated any POV issue either in the misrepresentation of existing sources or the demonstration of the absent viewpoints, but this also misses the point, since neutrality and balance are not reasons for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Of the potentially valid reasons, only content fork has been latched onto, and the basis for this remains wholly unexplained. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly POV attack article. Very little in the article seems to be about actual denial but rather about different views and interpretations of what happened. The very term "Nakba denial" seems to be deliberately chosen to echo "Holocaust denial" in a highly dubious manner. As several users already pointed out, the whole idea of the term, and of the article, is to smear people with a different point of view. We should of course present the Palestinian view, prominently, and we already do in the Nakba article. This article adds very little beyond showing the existence of some WP:FRINGE academics using the term. Jeppiz (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nakba has potential POV issues of its own. I actually think a credible argument could be made that it is an unnecessary fork from the other article and probably should be merged into it. But I really don't want to go down that particular rabbit hole at the moment. To my mind the obvious parent article is 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the delete arguments are really weak here; they basically seem to boil down to "this page doesn't incorporate the viewpoint that Nakba denialism could be right", which is... an argument. Topic's clearly notable and the page doesn't seem so tilted towards one POV that it couldn't be improved. AryKun (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many of the people here would support adding the Turkish POV to the Ottoman genocide articles, just because those articles also intrinsically deny one side of the debate or whatever. AryKun (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to Nakba. I was the editor who added the notability tag, my concerns were satisfied by the identification of significant coverage on the talk page by Iskandar323. A stand alone article is probably better but there is room to merge this into Nakba if that would address some of the (rather weak) concerns about NPOV and POVFORK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a problem with another editor raise it with them on their talkpage and not throw random unsupported assertions around in an inappropriate forum. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly because it would overwhelm the parent article. The delete rationales range from personal attacks to unsubstantiated claims that don’t engage with the fact that serious sources discuss this topic at length. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities to be confronted with uncomfortable topics but that isn’t Wikipedias concern. nableezy - 02:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea of "Nakba denial" is clearly attested to, per the article's many sources. It is a notable idea, particularly given the criminalization of Nakba denial by the Palestinian Authority. Wikipedia is not censored. The arguments for deletion amount to "I just don't like it". The notion that an article about an idea is inherently "POV" is specious. POV concerns can be addressed by editing the article and by including dissenting perspectives. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all an accurate representation of the delete arguments. The Keep arguments basically amount to: The Palestinian sources said it exists and other sources say that the Palestinian sources say it exists, therefore it is a thing. All the citations are basically the law passed by Abbas to criminalize its denial. Any country's leader can create a victimhood narrative about a war from a long time ago, and wordsmith that into a "word" or brand name and then any academic denying it can be collectively labeled as part of some "denialism" industry. A few citations that cite other citations from a party involved in the conflict is not a reason to create an encyclopedic entry on something so clearly controversial and newly created. — talk §_Arsenic99_17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Nableezy and others. This little article has obvious potential for further development, given the large number of sources available. It should not be strangled in its infancy. --NSH001 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article and topic is not a POV fork - it is a topic distinct from Nakba. The article passes our notability guide with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. A merge with Nakba or some other target article would not be appropriate because it would minimize and perhaps bury the research or overwhelm the target article. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above pro-deletion reasonings. There are very clearly massive POV, bias, and significant viewpoint coverage problems with this article. A POV fork. It's coming at an especially bad time considering ongoing events. JM2023 (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone above actually given a single valid reason that this is a POV fork? Where is the bias? Can someone point it out? Everybody above seems to be arguing that we can't have this page because it vilifies the Israeli War of Independence; does the existence of Late Ottoman genocides vilify the existence of Turkish War of Independence? This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that's based more on the emotion generated by the recent terrorist attack than anything else. AryKun (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Levivich's comment from the noticeboard the best:
Here's why I think it's a POVFORK, or it is not NPOV (and Nakba has the same problems): / 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says "The exodus was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba." and "The causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus are also a subject of fundamental disagreement among historians." / Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight says "The causes for this mass displacement is a matter of great controversy among historians, journalists, and commentators." / Nakba denial, and Nakba#Nakba denial say, in Wikivoice, that Zionism is "culpable" for Nakba, and that disagreeing with this is Nakba denial. / I think the Nakba denial article is taking one viewpoint (that denying Zionist culpability for Nakba is something akin to genocide denial, called "Nakba denial") and is stating it in wikivoice as if it's fact or the undisputed mainstream view, and in doing so, it contradicts other Wikipedia articles.
Personally I noticed that while the article for Nakba has a whole section for Israeli and other contradicting viewpoints, the Nakba Denial article did not last time I checked. DIYeditor has also on the noticeboard noted multiple areas where wikivoice is used for opinions. Another good comment was made by Marokwitz who stated:
Let's be clear: The term 'Nakba Denial' not only accuses one side of refusing to recognize a historical event or human suffering but also inherently delegitimizes any competing narratives. Once such a term is introduced into an encyclopedic context, it doesn't merely tilt the balance; it obliterates it. Readers are not presented with a spectrum of perspectives to form their own conclusions; instead, they are led down a pre-defined path that reaffirms existing biases.
and also, just to address separately, your comment This is an absolutely ridiculous argument that's based more on the emotion generated by the recent terrorist attack than anything else. reads as a failure to WP:AGF with editors concerned about this POV fork by alleging emotional and personal motivations. JM2023 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JM2023:It's coming at an especially bad time considering ongoing events.
The last thing we need are POV forks like this in a contentious topic in which a major war is ongoing. Number one, it compromises Wikipedia's value as a verified and unbiased tertiary source in the topic, and number two, it diverts resources from the central high-traffic war articles. JM2023 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did. The two reasons I just gave to Trillettrollet were for my comment that It's coming at an especially bad time considering ongoing events.. Feel free to scroll back up to my original comment, and also consider looking at my response to AryKun's response to it. Policies are being pointed to.
Also I don't understand this part (or the stuff about an ongoing war, for that matter) there is an ongoing war, it's probably the number one most trafficked article on the encyclopedia right now. JM2023 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By my count this is the third time in 10 minutes that I have pointed out that it's not an argument for deletion, it's an addendum discouraging creation of such articles in the first place. My arguments for deletion are in my original comment and in my reply to AryKun. JM2023 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see you provide support for why it is such an extraordinary argument to state that it's a bad time for POV forks because discussions like this one divert resources. I fail to see what is extraordinary about that.
For the record, that is not my argument for deletion; it is my aside comment to urge people not to create POV forks in the first place. My argument is in my original !vote, which referred to all of the above pro-deletion arguments; see also my response to AryKun's response to me, which goes into a few specifics. JM2023 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did we establish timing in guideline or policy? I'd also like the guideline or policy link for diverting resources to hot button issues, that is the most bizarre deletion rationale I've ever come across. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I just stated in the comment that you have just replied to: that is not my argument for deletion; it is my aside comment to urge people not to create POV forks in the first place. I don't see why there needs to be a guideline or policy for me to complain about people creating POV forks which divert resources. JM2023 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just complaining and not being constructive don't push "publish changes" this is not the place for that and you waste the time of everyone who has to read your complaining. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it's inappropriate or unconstructive to discourage creation of POV forks on a discussion about deleting a POV fork. If people heed the comment then there is less POV forking in this topic in the future, and therefore less contentious deletion discussions like this one.
It was one sentence appended to the end of my deletion !vote. I don't see how I wasted anyone's time with writing that, but I do see that a lot of time was wasted in 3 different users criticizing, sometimes repetitively, that one sentence; I wouldn't say it's my fault people wasted their time with it. JM2023 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, blame others rather than take responsibility for yourself. When you're in the position of arguing that three different unconnected users are wrong and you're right maybe you aren't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such inflammatory comments. I recommend that you keep your WP:COOL here.
And please do not misrepresent things like this (not saying it's intentional on your part though). I don't see how "three different unconnected users are wrong" when all I did was explain to the first one what I meant by the comment when asked (and that was the end of it -- the editor did not say I am in the wrong), explained to the second one that it was not a deletion argument (twice when they didn't get it the first time, and that again was the end of it -- the editor did not say I am in the wrong), and explained to you as well that it wasn't a deletion argument (again, twice, because you ignored it the first time) and then refuted the idea that any of the other editor's replies (and according to you, time-wasting) were my fault. You are the only person telling me I'm wrong. So I fail to see how I am in the wrong to tell you that I am not wasting your time, you are wasting your time -- As I said, It was one sentence appended to the end of my deletion !vote. I didn't force you or anyone else to waste your time by criticizing it. I do not see your reason for so intensely critiquing such a minor appended sentence if you're so concerned about time-wasting. JM2023 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you're wrong; your argument seems to just be 1. TNT, which I don't think applies here since the article doesn't seem irreparably POV to me and 2. the very idea of "Nakba denial" presupposes the Nakba so we can't have this article, which is ridiculous, since I'm pretty sure there's no reasonable person who would argue that the Nakba (the displacement and effective erasure of a majority of Palestinian Arabs in 1948) did not occur. (just a quote for this: "There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba." from here.) AryKun (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue. I am talking about the person telling me I'm wrong to have written a one-sentence remark discouraging creation of POV forks. You were not included in that area because you didn't talk about the line.
My problem with the article is that it framed (when nominated at least) the Palestinian displacement as being entirely the fault of "Zionists" and "settler colonialists" and had no significant viewpoints of criticism or dissent included; it directly contradicted multiple other articles which stated that the cause and facts were of great controversy among academics. I see no reason why we should have a "Nakba denial" article including criticism of much of the Nakba narrative from significant viewpoints, instead of the opposite. The solution is either one article combining both perspectives so that there is no pro-Palestinian POV fork, or to just combine this article into a controversy section in the Nakba article, or to just get rid of it entirely. JM2023 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool as a cucumber, you're writing paragraphs. There's no need to get so worked up, nobody else is. You made extraordinary claims, you've gotten pretty strong pushback on them... You've provided almost no evidence to support them. You can either retract the claims or provide evidence, thats what's expected of any editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing paragraphs is not an indication of lack of WP:COOL, if anything it indicates I'm willing to engage carefully to dispassionately explain why someone is wrong. It takes more words to refute something than to claim it. What is an indication of lack of WP:COOL is the following:
Inflammatory remarks: If you're just complaining and not being constructive don't push "publish changes" this is not the place for that and you waste the time of everyone who has to read your complaining. when all I did was state that creating a POV fork was especially unwanted in the current context.
More inflammatory remarks: Oh I see, blame others rather than take responsibility for yourself. when all I did was state that I have no responsibility for what others do with their own time.
Misrepresentation: When you're in the position of arguing that three different unconnected users are wrong when I didn't argue that.
More misrepresentation: that is the most bizarre deletion rationale I've ever come across. after I told you it's not a deletion rationale.
We can get hints from the way others write what their level of cool is, and respond with dispassionate warnings like I did; or we can claim that writing "paragraphs" explaining ourselves indicates a lack of "coolness".
Again, you have not stated what these claims are. What exactly is so extraordinary about anything that I've said? Which claims do I need to provide evidence for or retract? You are not being clear at all, I don't know what you want me to do.
Once again I think it's time you took a break from this discussion, stopped with the uncalled for remarks and tone, and thought about whether or not you are in the right, what it is you want, and whether or not it is so important. JM2023 (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have only made 9 edits in this discussion to your 21, but if you feel I'm bludgeoning then fair enough. See you later alligator, no hard feelings (the Arab-Israeli conflict is without a doubt one of the most challenging topic areas to edit in, anyone who even tries should be commended). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it was 19 comments (now 20 including this one): 12/19 from responding to four different responses from four other editors under this deletion !vote (making up all but 7 of my comments); 5/7 remaining were a single comment inquiring about feedback services and further responses to its respondents; the remaining 2/2 were in a discussion under one other person's !vote. I do not feel I'm bludgeoning, and I've said nothing of you bludgeoning or your number of comments. That's all. JM2023 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this guideline. It seems the guideline is intended to prevent robbing additional replies of context (which my minor contextual additions have not done as you did not address my comment in your own reply), and the only problem would be that I did not properly indicate that the minor contextual additions are in fact additions. as you know, I am a relatively new user. JM2023 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the pro-deletion are arguments seem to be anecdotal, basically saying, "well, I've never heard someone say that so it doesn't exist." Even though the sources are right here? Iskander seems to be the only one using policies to support his arguments outside of pretty subjective claims of pov. I learned a lot from this article; I had no ideas there were laws against Nakba denial. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that's an accurate description of deletion arguments. Anyone can scroll up and read them for themselves, or go to the noticeboard and read the arguments there. JM2023 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ironic to deny the existence of a denial, it would be contradictory to deny the existence of any denial of anything though. And besides, the arguments are about how denying one side's story of an event should not be labelled as a denial of facts and have no significant criticism or dissent section. When the article was nominated it said something along the lines of blaming zionists and "settler colonialists" for everything that happened to the Palestinians, contradicting other articles on the Palestinian displacement which stated that there was immense controversy even among historians. JM2023 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nakba. Its debated if its really a a form of denial or more of a minimization/critique of the claimed severity of the event. The main Nakba article is not overly long and neither is this one, there is no real reason to have a spin-off article in this case. And yes, as others have pointed out, there has been a massive POV push on Wikipedia with pro-Palestine articles, many of them use weasel words and undue weight to paint as negative view as possible of their "enemies".★Trekker (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, as others have pointed out, there has been a massive POV push on Wikipedia with pro-Palestine articles, many of them use weasel words and undue weight to paint as negative view as possible of their "enemies" Even if this were true, what has it to do with the deletion nomination? Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I think Trekker makes a really valid point. Nakba is already just a different lived perspective of the Israeli War of Independence. At the very most, this article could be kept as a section of the Nakba article, but I can't think of something warranting it a full, separated article. The only good reason I even believe that the Nakba and the WoI have separate articles is because of how long a fully merged article between the 2 would be. EytanMelech (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Given the existence of feedback services in the first place, and the specific language used in the policy, I don't think notification done without the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is canvassing. JM2023 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said additional. It seems rather deadlocked at the moment. I am also an uninvolved editor (well, starting on the noticeboard and being pinged here). I have seen feedback service uses for random RfCs, I thought it could be a somewhat standard procedure for things like this. JM2023 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing unusual about a deadlock. We should not try to tip the balance of what should be an organic discovery of the AfD. There was the unusual pinging of multiple editors above and then the two noticeboards calling editors: it seems like a tainted AfD already as a result. Lightburst (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least five of the delete votes are from people pinged from the rather negative WP:NPOVN discussion - a balance of favourability that the filer was almost certainly aware of. These are not the kind of actions that behoove frank and honest discussion, but rather trying to achieve a certain result. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair, the people pinged from the noticeboard were presumably uninvolved editors given that they responded to a noticeboard; that uninvolvement doesn't change just because the venue has been changed, does it? JM2023 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of those deletions for is for "Israeli–Palestinian history denial"; quoting from the nominator there "It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article...grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate." The other deletion is from 2006. AryKun (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a widely accepted historical fact by historians across the spectrum that Palestinians did exist as a nation before modern Israel and that all the Arabs in what is now Israel and its occupied territories were "Palestinians" and not Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians or Lebanese? I'm actually not very familiar with this topic. This article as it exists relies heavily on this premise, and ties it closely to Nakba denial. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not very familiar with this topic. An awful lot of comments here and now at ANI if that is the case. Maybe read up a bit and then comment? Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does that matter? Were Israelis a nation before the Zionist movement emerged in 1880s? No, but it doesn't mean we can now evict all the Israelis from the Middle East and deny that this would constitute ethnic cleansing. AryKun (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's been WP:HEYed enough since I commented at NPOVN; it now provides attribution for statements that were previously in Wikivoice, and I think that significantly reduces the NPOV problems. The topic, "Nakba denial," meets WP:GNG. The title of Chapter 11 of the 2006 book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, probably one of the most significant works in the field of Nakba studies, is "Nakba Denial and the 'Peace Process'." 2013's Co-Memory and Melancholia also provides WP:SIGCOV of Nakba denial; the title of a section of Chapter 1 (the introduction) is "Racial state and Nakba denial." This section is like 10 pages long, and it's just summarizing a portion of the book, which the author describes as, "I outline the layers of denial the story of the Nakba encountered." "Nakba Denialism" is in the title of this 2022 paper and "Nakba Denial" is the title of a section of this other 2022 paper, among other sources. There is enough material to summarize specifically on Nakba denial that it would overwhelm Nakba if it were merged. This is destined to be a stand-alone page for WP:PAGESIZE reasons. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and I respect your opinion. Do you feel that the topic of this article allows for the insertion of Israeli/Zionist views on the foundation of Irseal and its justifications even if not explicitly phrased in terms of "Nakba denial"? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, it depends on whether the sources about Nakba denial cover Israeli/Zionist views, although I'd imagine they do--it's really more a question of which views, exactly. But the sources talk about "Zionist myths" that are part of Nakba denial. Generally, I follow my algorithm. Levivich (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, for clarification, by extension, since the Nakba denial sources cover Israeli and Zionist views, explanations of those views are explicitly included in the topic of the article? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to explain WP:OR, you can start by reading that page, and if you have further questions ask on the talk page or at the OR noticeboard for specific issues. nableezy - 21:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's prohibited to introduce opposing points of view it speaks to the possible POV fork nature of this and the "God denial" vs. "atheism" equivalency here. I think this is a "God denial" type article. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is significant opposition to the Nakba denial narrative then it needs to be put into the article as a significant viewpoint, and that will allow the article to become more NPOV if it is kept. JM2023 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a real topic with sources. Deletion is not cleanup. NPOV issues can be addressed on article talk. Andre🚐20:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, counterintuitively, Ad Orientem, whose "For the record" remark could only have been made to convince folks to vote to delete even though I can't believe anyone like that exists. Is there a consensus-sized number of people leaning to vote keep but could be convinced otherwise by that page, particularly its reprehensible first entry (contributed 17+ years ago by a still-active admin, no less)? It's been a long time since this article seriously ruffled any feathers; let's not pretend we don't know why it's become so contentious right now. City of Silver02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear that one part up, this page was created recently, and I assume not based on anything currently in the news. I cant say why Ad Orientem mentioned the deletion log, except maybe to say that it might qualify for G4 speedy delete, but that is clearly not the case given the prior deletion was the result of deleting a redirect to another article and the first one was not the result of a discussion. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 02:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: I can't push this much further without running afoul of WP:AGF. I'll just say that I really don't think AO is foolish enough to even suggest that this should be speedily deleted and I certainly would not have said what I said if I could think of any other reason to link that log. City of Silver02:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is customary in deletion discussions to post links to previous AfDs and relevant logs. I was asked on my talk page about the previous deletion by another editor. When I checked I was rather surprised to discover that the previous AfD had not been linked at the top, so I simply posted the FTR note. Really, people need to just dial down the temperature a bit. Good grief. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: phenomomen that doesn't really exist, article highly lacks of NPOV which is a red flag that the purpose of the article is mainly to depict a certain narrative rather than to inform readers. dov (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
Nakba denial denial, nice. The sources in the article clearly show that the subject of the article exists, so you have to come up with a better reason than that. Also, where are the NPOV violations? You can't just hand wave those into existence, you have to substantiate these allegations (also noting that AfD is not for article cleanup, so POV is also not a valid rationale for deletion). AryKun (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice indeed ... really the stuff that proves the very knowledge gap that this page is in turn filling. I believe the NPOV that we are dealing with in this case is an abridged "Not-my-POV". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not supposed to be POV period, that fact you are saying it is a POV is concerning. "Not-my-POV", wikipedia is not supposed to be written from any POV. Recommend you to read WP:AFG, WP:EQ and ad hominem. dov (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
its not that its "not-my-pov", its that is not a neutral POV. it ignored all significant viewpoints except the pro-Palestinian one and didn't attribute them and framed all other viewpoints as "denial" in Wikivoice. JM2023 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More about using Wikivoice to represent your personal opinion, and being agressive towards editors because of their vote. This rude and non respectful behavior is not accepted in Wikipedia. dov (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec editor[reply]
This talk of personal opinions is a bit rich coming from the editor who stated that the subject is a "phenomomen that doesn't really exist" - basically in total detachment from the reality of the sources that clearly exist ... What are we supposed to infer from this? Because it feels a lot like the actual sources simply don't interest you. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a large number of academic and popular sources covering this topic in-depth and at-length. I've added a few more sources to the article and there are many more that are not in the article. This is a patently notable topic - not much else to be said. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's correct the record: despite what AO wrote above, it's not true that this page was deleted twice already, it was deleted once in 2006 (and AFAICT, not after discussion, but unilaterally by one admin, on the grounds of "original research, WP:POINT, neologism, defamatory nonsense" -- can't see the page, so maybe it had OR, was pointy, and defamatory, but Google scholar and ngrams disproves that it was a neologism in 2006, having been covered in English-language scholarship since at least 1998). The page that was deleted in 2011 was a different page, and the grounds for deletion and discussion noted that it combined Nakba denial with other topics that should instead be separate. AFAICT, this is the first deletion discussion about Nakba denial in the history of Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log clearly shows it has been deleted twice already. AO gave a link which can be checked, so trying to argue it hasn't doesn't wash. The reasons for deletion in both cases being depressingly familiar to the reasons for deleting it now. So no, this is the second not the first deletion discussion and the article was recently recreated. WP:TNT is the appropriate response. WCMemail15:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see what bearing the deletion of some alternate version of the page 17 years ago has on the page that exists today. Not a single currently cited source dates back to 2006. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes people can read and make up their own minds, I urge them to do so. You don't serve your case well by badgering anyone who comments. WCMemail15:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Further, if this had been created in 2011 not as a topic-chimera (it's not such an atrocious article content-wise, just very unfortunate wrt scope [everyone can see it on archive.org]) but an article with a validly formulated subject it's highly possible verging on likely that it would have been kept back then. —Alalch E.16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There something those links tell us as it is not immediately obvious to me what a link showing there is no internet archive copy of a page with this name is supposed to mean? nableezy - 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFLMFAO I am constantly amazed by the semantic gymnastics people will go to to "disprove" a point. Fuck it, you can have the last word. WCMemail09:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not semantics; as I already posted above, the nominator at that deletion discussion specifically said "It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article...grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate". Most of the delete votes there were on the basis of the article being a hodgepodge of vaguely related issues, which this article is definitely not. AryKun (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but I just don't consider a page with a different title, scope, and content, to be the same page under any possible meaning of the word "same." Levivich (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody proves that they are unable or unwilling to change their mind in the face of evidence that contradicts their previously held beliefs, trying to get them to do so is a waste of both your time and theirs. The useful thing to do is to demonstrate that they are factually wrong so that a closer can properly weigh their view when closing. I think thats been done at this point tbh. nableezy - 16:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its me but I would be quite happy allowing the closer to make up their on minds based on the evidence rather than giving them detailed instructions on what they're supposed to think. If you think you're morally and intellectually superior, you do you. Always instructive when people insist on the WP:LASTWORD and yes I get WP:IRONY. WCMemail07:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Levivich. How could this article be a WP:POVFORK when it is about a related but different topic that is already given its own small section in the article Nakba? And once again, POV issues are not a reason to delete and any argument based on this should be given no weight just like the ones that claim that a content is "dangerous", "harmful", "does not deal with a topic sensitively", and "is not truth because original research indicates that it is not". --StellarHalo (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some people have also said that there may be a problem at Nakba for that reason. However I think it's better to have content like this at Nakba and attributed as counter-criticism of criticism of the Nakba narrative in order to maintain NPOV and have all significant viewpoints presented. the problem with this Nakba Denial article was that it framed denial in Wikivoice of a "Zionist settler colonialist" cause of Palestinian displacement to be something horribly wrong despite other articles stating that there is indeed significant historiographical controversy. The fact that it gets its own article yet there is no "Criticism of the Nakba" article or something is what the problem is; it can thereby frame a POV that should at most be attributed without Wikivoice in a section in the Nakhba article as an apparent NPOV while contradicting other articles. JM2023 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) - There is a potential content fork here, and per WP:DEL-REASON, content forks may be deleted (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). Very many of the keep !votes have simply asserted notability, but the nomination was based on this being a POVFORK, for which notability may be assumed but is not the relevant consideration, so these have not grappled with the policy reason for delete. The important questions are threefold: (1) is this title incapable of being an encyclopaedic treatment because it is incapable of being NPOV? (2) is this a fork of existing content, duplicating that content, and (3) is it a valid spinoff of another article? First and most importantly, I have concluded that, following some improvements, an encyclopaedic treatment is possible here, per WP:HEY, Levivich and A455bcd9, and the sources above. It is not, therefore a POVFORK. Secondly, although there was some small duplication of content, the article looks more like a spin out than a duplication (POV or otherwise). Thirdly, is it a valid spin off? Levivich argues that merge back into Nakba would overwhelm that article, but we need not merge it all back in, and article size arguments are not convincing. I would be content with a merge, but have come down on the side of keep per A455bcd9. It seems to me that the sub-topic is significant enough in its own right to merit the fuller treatment it can be given in a spinoff. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The OP's arguments are mostly focusing on content issues which, if assumed applicable, can be resolved by editing the page. Moreover, this is clearly a notable topic covered by a wide range of reliable sources. I just looked into google books and found three scholarly sources within a couple of minutes: [5], [6] and [7]. Also, I oppose merging this notable title into the already overwhelmed main topic, i.e., Nakba. The latter is more than 60kb and merger is not welcomed per WP:SIZERULE. --Mhhosseintalk19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is still a notable topic in its own right, regardless of it being considered controversial, contentious or coming from a very obvious POV. That, on it's own, is not grounds for deletion in my eyes, and any major POV issues can probably be dealt with via the regular editing process. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nakba denial is not really a thing. The 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight are real, as are the debates around that. Often supporters of Israel put an accent on the flight, and discount the expulsion. Supporters of the Palestinian people often the other way around. It's a debate and in the extreme historical revisionism. Centered on the expulsion and flight, i.e the root article. Nakba is already subjective: how the Palestinians experienced these events and carry (these) on since. Still worthy of an article. The idea behind Nakba denial is an effort at Holocaust relativization through false equivalency. It can be and is already mentioned in the Nakba article that isn't very long. The substential debate and narratives are already mentioned under 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#Palestinian and Israeli narratives. gidonb (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is "really a thing" is not directly pertinent to whether it is a notable topic. The point is that there is a discourse around its existence, and some people (including plenty of scholars) think it is a thing. "The idea behind Nakba denial is an effort at Holocaust relativization through false equivalency." - ironically, that very sentence contains the inherent assumption that the topic exists ... and sounds like something that needs sourcing and adding to the page., Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nakba denial is definately a neologism used in some literature. My position right above. Hence I did not say that any mention should be eradicated entirely from Wikipedia. It does not make it, however, "really a thing". It refers to a debate on the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight that is already covered there. This Holocaust-relativistic concept artificially moves a debate that we already carry to the wrong location, under Nakba, where it does not belong. Nakba Day belongs under Nakba and sits fine there. The problem is that of information organization. Specifically what, if anything, needs to be rehashed or revisited yet another time and how do we not confuse the reader by erraneously framing a debate. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read more carefully, you would have noted that I do not deny anything, but for engaging in denial of any sort. Au contraire! I only want us to govern information correctly, in the interest of the users of Wikipedia. Remains impressive and I will take that as a compliment then. The stuff people throw at each other in these debates can be very depressing! Excactly why I often stay away from such debates. People make very unpleasant comments towards each other, even if everything one says is NPOV. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sincere and not a rhetorical question: If someone types "Nakba denial" in the search bar, on what page should they land on to be presented with (approximately) what content? —Alalch E.16:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched concerning the issue, and the mentioned topic is clearly notable, and is found in many/sufficient related sources; therefore it is better to keep it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.