This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Palestine war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Why did you revert the estimate of the number of people killed in massacres? According to Benny Morris, "About 800 civilians and prisoners of war killed in massacres." That is important because no other statement in the article gives a possible breakdown of the Arab casualties between civilians and soldiers.
If it is to be included it would have to be atteibuted to Morris or else corroborated by other sources. Also the number of civilians killed in massacres specifically is probably not due for inclusion, especially since many civilians were killed in acts of terrorism etc which are not massacres. Furthermore Morris' "about 800" is not very sensible, there is a wide range of estimates for many of the massacres. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do all estimates have to be corroborates by more than one reference? For example, 20,000 casualties is sourced from Esber (2009), and isn't quoted anywhere else. That is the only citation from Esber on this page, and yet it's included, whereas Morris, who is the most referenced author anyway, is quoted selectively.
Morris estimates that 800 civilians were killed "all told – most of them in several clusters of massacres." He clearly includes acts of terrorism here.
@IOHANNVSVERVS Why did you remove this estimate? Morris' estimate is for the entire 1947-9 war, including the civil war phase. In fact, many of those "eight hundred civilians and prisoners of war all told" were murdered before the Arab armies invasion in May – "in several clusters of massacres in captured villages in April-May". Amayorov (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert the description of Plan Dalet? This has been discussed on the Talk page here. The description of Plan Dalet as an offensive operation is controversial, as is described on the dedicated page. Amayorov (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This strategy is subject to controversy, with some historians characterizing it as defensive, while others assert that it was an integral part of a planned strategy for the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, of the area's native inhabitants."
Given that there are still significant disputes as to the plan's purpose, I suggest we leave controversial assessments out of the lead. Amayorov (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Historians describe Plan Dalet, in which Zionist forces shifted to an offensive strategy, as the beginning of a new phase in the 1948 Palestine war." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind this phrasing. But the original sentence goes beyond that: "Towards the end of the civil war phase, Zionist forces executed Plan Dalet, an offensive operation conquering territory for the planned establishment of a Jewish state." A strategy can be offensive for defensive purposes too, such as when the side defending itself goes on the offence. But calling it an offensive operation aimed at conquering is subject to discussion. Amayorov (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the quote by Jamal al-Husseini? I think it's important to highlight that a ceasefire in mid-April 1948 was impossible and was rejected by both sides. The quote itself is corroborated by UNSC archives.
On April 16, the Palestinian Representative, Jamal al-Husayni, made a statement to the United Nations Security Council, rejecting any ceasefire that does not undo the Partition Plan:
The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not attackers, not aggressors; that the Arabs had begun the fight and that once the Arabs stopped shooting, they would stop shooting also. As a matter of fact, we do not deny this fact. We told the world, during the last session of the General Assembly, that we could not accept our country being torn to pieces. [...] Our fighting is in compliance with a God-given right, that of self-defence. We are no invaders, and we are no aggressors, but we have to use the right that God has given us, as to anyone who is unprovokedly attacked.
But that is not a "minority view," it's an official statement by the Palestinian representative to the UN SC, taken from the UN archives. A similar quote is already included in the article, such as the United Nations Conciliation Commission from 23 October 1950 stating that "The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety." This quote is a manifestation of the same view, but from a much earlier date.
A better argument against its inclusion would be WP:PRIMARY, which however allows for use of primary sources to be used "with care" and "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." Amayorov (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's an important quote: a Palestinian representative admitting to the UNSC that they would not accept any ceasefire that doesn't undo the Partition. The date is also important – April 16, 1948, is approaching the zenith of the "second wave" in Morris' analysis. Amayorov (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text "On April 16, the Palestinian Representative, Jamal al-Husayni, made a statement to the United Nations Security Council, rejecting any ceasefire that does not undo the Partition Plan" is sufficient, no? Why should the quotation be given such prominence? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I concede. In this instance, the quotation could be moved out of the main text and into the “text=“ parameter of the reference that follows the statement. Would you reintroduce the edit please? Amayorov (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the quote. It can possibly be readded in a footnote.
Do you have a citation (from a secondary source) for the text "On April 16, the Palestinian Representative, Jamal al-Husayni, made a statement to the United Nations Security Council, rejecting any ceasefire that does not undo the Partition Plan"?
The citation @Alaexis added doesn't support the content. That citation (Sharan 2010) says: "The Palestinian and other Arab leaders were quite frank about having begun the war. Jamal al-Husseini, the acting chairman of the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine, told the United Nations Security Council on April 16, 1948: The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for this is Husseyni's words on page 20 [1]
We have fought and we are now fighting the Partition scheme, we cannot have any truce on the basis of it. I'll add the source and add a secondary source needed tag. Alaexis¿question?07:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS, I restored the quote by Jamal al-Husayni from April 16, 1948, which highlights the rejection of any ceasefire that does not undo the Partition Plan. The quote is considered important for understanding the Palestinian position during this period. Consensus was not fully reached on the talk page. OdNahlawi (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a new user you seem to be unaware that WP:ONUS says that consensus is required for inclusion, not for exclusion. I also looked at your additional source Sharan and saw a junky propaganda tract. Hell is going to freeze over before we cite a work that puts "refugees" in scare quotes and tells blatant lies like "The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence strongly indicates that it was Arab, not Israeli, actions that were the primary cause of the displacement of Palestinian Arabs in the war." Zerotalk12:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that this is source misrepresentation, I meant that including the reference WITHOUT specifying that al-Husayni did not deny that "the Arabs had begun the fighting" is source misrepresentation. A reference to this quote IS important, even if it isn't quoted verbatim. I've laid out my arguments for it above. Complete removal of a reference to the quote is wholly unwarranted. Amayorov (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000WP:ONUS was already discussed. This thread was only about whether it is appropriate for the quote to be included verbatim. I conceded that it's okay for the quote to be paraphrased (WP:OVERQUOTING). Even this is a contentious point. But you have deleted any reference to the quote altogether. Amayorov (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amayorov: I've never said that it shouldn't be mentioned at all, though the case for it is not strong. I said that this particular way of mentioning it was source misrepresentation. The reason polemic sources like to quote just these few words is that they seem to quote Husseini admitting that the Arabs were the aggressors. But on the contrary Husseini explicitly denied that the Arabs were the aggressors in the same speech: "We are no invaders, and we are no aggressors, but we have to use the right that God has given us, as to anyone who is being unprovokedly attacked." Husseini is saying that the Jews were the aggressors and the Arabs were exercising their right to defend themselves. Moreover, this is just the standard Palestinian position, not something exceptional or particularly interesting. Zerotalk13:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't say it, but you deleted any reference to that quote in your edit. I undid your deletion.
I agree that misrepresenting the quote to say that the Arabs are the aggressors would be incorrect. Its main significance is that it provides evidence that (1) the Arabs rejected any ceasefire that wouldn't undo the Partition, (2) they Arabs initiated at least some of the direct hostilities (justifiably or not). Amayorov (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current text says nothing about the Arabs being the aggressors so I don't think the reader would be misled, especially since the quote is provided in a footnote. Alaexis¿question?11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share Zero's concerns with the Shlomo Sharan source. As Zero pointed out it says "The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence strongly indicates that it was Arab, not Israeli, actions that were the primary cause of the displacement of Palestinian Arabs dtring the war. The most important fact that many people naively ignore or deliberately forget is that the war was begun by the Arab states’ aggressive invasion of Israel immediately upon its formal recognition by the United Nations. The Arabs declared without
hesitation their aim to annihilate the Jews and demolish their state. If
any massacres and/or ethnic cleansing took place, they were performed
by the Arabs only." This is Nakba denial.
I agree with Zero, that line is taken out of context and gives a complete distortion of both what he said and what happened. nableezy - 16:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be necessary, but it's sort of fun, to see what crap books like Sharan's contain. "There was no “ethnic cleansing” of Arabs. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain how 400,000 were left behind" (almost 3 times the true figure). "Yasser Arafat was a nephew of Haj Amin al-Husseini." "Islam developed a relentless and unequivocal hatred of Jews". "The first Muslim to recognize the importance of Jerusalem was Haj Amin Al-Husseini." "The hatred instilled in every Palestinian child is sufficient to explain why Israel set up the road barriers." The whole book is an extended rant with a lie on every other page. Zerotalk02:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that this particular source doesn't look reliable. Thank you to @Zero0000 for going through it.
However, on a general note, I don't think that the "Nakba denial" argument is good, given how easily it ventures into dogmatism. Even respectable authors, such as Morris, have made similar well-documented observations that overlap with the your quotes. Dismissing them out-of-hand is simply not WP:DUE. Amayorov (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There was no pre-war Zionist plan to expel ‘the Arabs’ from Pales- tine or the areas of the emergent Jewish State; and the Yishuv did not enter the war with a plan or policy of expulsion. Nor was the pre-war ‘transfer’ thinking ever translated, in the course of the war, into an agreed, systematic policy of expulsion. [...] and hence, at war’s end, Israel emerged with a substantial Arab minority, of 150,000. (Morris 2008: p.588)
(2) His documentation of instances when the Arab commanders issued whole-sale evacuation commands to the Arab population. Such as in Haifa, where from April 22 1948 onwards, Morris states that there is "a surfeit of evidence" that the Arab leaders both ordered and encouraged the evacuation. (Morris 2004: p.195-200)
Yes, this particular author's figure of 400k is strange. Zero000 has shown other inaccuracies in his work. I don't defend that source, I'm only pointing out that "Nakba denialism" is a bad historical argument. Amayorov (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that whether or not a source is some sort of denialism is both not a criteria for inclusion as a reliable source or relevant in any way here. But glad we agree the source is not worth citing. nableezy - 00:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think @IOHANNVSVERVS would disagree as they have used this argument repeatedly, such as here and here.
What this results in is a widely distorted picture, due cherry-picking a historian's work and filtering out the parts that don't fit into a dogma. Amayorov (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Nakba denialism in its broadest definition" becomes dogmatism and cheer-picking reputable historical work to fit a presupposed view of the conflict. Amayorov (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis, this is not a compromise. A number of editors have objected to this content and no RS have been provided to even suggest that it may be due. Not to mention how ridiculous of a statement it is to say "Jamal al-Husayni, made a statement to the United Nations Security Council, saying he did not deny that "the Arabs had begun the fighting" and at the same time that they were not aggressors." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how this content can be not due. It's an official statement by a representative of a belligerent side to the highest diplomatic authority in the world, indicating their position on the conflict. The reputability of the publishing source cannot be better. The quote meets all the requirements of WP:PRIMARY.
A problem arises when we try to "analyse, evaluate, interpret, or synthesis material found in a primary source yourself". Therefore, I suggest that we simply restore the quote verbatim, as it used to be. If you do so, all the contradiction about "the Arabs had begun the fighting" and "were not aggressors" gets resolved. This doesn't have to be complicated. Amayorov (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weight is determined by the weight secondary sources give something not what a Wikipedia user thinks is important. Or should we include quotes from Zionist leaders calling for the wholesale removal of the native population as well? Cus I can provide those too. nableezy - 16:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My views on what? Nableezy's statement "Weight is determined by the weight secondary sources give something not what a Wikipedia user thinks is important" is correct. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY specifies when primary sources can be used in their own right. Common examples found throughout Wikipedia include declaration of war, treaty proposals, state proclamations etc. Here you have a statement to the U.N. by an official representative of a warring side, at the height of hostilities. Its publication is also decidedly reputable (U.N. archives) and can be verified by anyone.
The main restriction on such material is that it editors mustn't analyze, evaluate or interpret it. In this case, it should be included verbatim, just as Clause 10 of Cablegram from 15 May is included. Amayorov (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the position of a representative of one side of the conflict and a member of its government body delivered to the UN is notable and should be present in the article. Alaexis¿question?12:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to a "viewpoint"'s relevance. But an official statement by a representative isn't a viewpoint. This appears to be covered by WP:PRIMARY, and is applied widely throughout Wikipedia, including declaration of war, treaty proposals, state proclamations, ec. Amayorov (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t true, determining the weight a given statement should have is something we leave to secondary sources. Including what you think is important is OR. Beyond that, it seems clear here consensus is not in favor of inclusion. nableezy - 12:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but consensus is required for the inclusion of disputed content. You are welcome to seek that consensus but you dont have it here. Until you do, the material should stay out. nableezy - 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All estimates I'm aware of say that thousands of Palestinians killed. For example: Pappé 2022 "a few thousand died in massacres", Honaida Ghanim "thousands of Palestinians were killed and injured (Abu-Sitta, 1999)."[2]
The difference is likely due to Morris' estimate being not number of dead, but number of those "murdered". I don't believe we should be distinguishing deaths generally from so-called "murders".
You provided two references, of which one (Pappé) is primarily based on oral sources. The second of which (Al-Aref) died in 1970s and isn't even quoted directly. Morris provides a (rough) breakdown of the number of victims that died in each battle, and is (arguably, of course) the most authoritative source on this war. I strongly believe that his estimate should be left as is, at least among other figures. If anything, I'd suggest removing the other sources. Amayorov (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS Could you provide better references for "a few thousand died in massacres"? You're currently quoting Aref al-Aref, who died in 1973 and isn't even quoted directly (WP:TERTIARYUSE). Inclusion of such an author gives an impression of WP:UNDUE, especially when it is given the same prominence as Morris' estimate. Amayorov (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was al-Aref an eyewitness or a participant of the war (a primary source)? Or did he produce any peer-reviewed or even published works that cite this figure? Because Munayyer, S. (1998) doesn't refer any of them. If he has, then it is this work that should be sourced from as a secondary source instead.
I don't want to remove his estimate. I suggest that you either quote a work published by him that cites these figures (a mention of which I cannot find anywhere), or reference other historians directly (such as Henry Laurens or Ilan Pappe). Amayorov (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find his work that has been quoted by either of these authors in any language. Foreign language sources can be used too – in fact, La question de Palestine by Lawrens also hasn't been translated into English AFAIK.
There's no need for a better reference, what makes you say there is? I'm not aware of any reason that we can't cite Aref's estimate as reported by Henry Laurens. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is, because if you aren't quoting a published work by al-Aref, sourcing him isn't WP:SECONDARY. The fact that he is classified as a historian doesn't matter. For example, he could have orally transmitted a first-hand account he witnessed.
Imagine if Laurens referred to many different authors that provide a range of estimates. One of these happens to be al-Aref. If you cherry-pick a single (al-Aref's) figure Laurens cites, and use Laurens' work as a reference, that is source misrepresentation.
If you are confident that Laurens only cites al-Aref or that he shares his findings, then you should directly reference Laurens. I personally cannot check this, because Laurens' book hasn't been translated. Amayorov (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Identifiés nominalement comme étant morts à l'occasion d'un combat: 1,953
Noms non connus mais nombre, lieux et dates connus: 4,004
Noms et dates non connus mais lieux connus: 7,043
L'ordre de grandeur est de 13,000, soit un peu plus du double des pertes juives, ce qui fait une proportion grossièrement équivalente en fonction de la population totale. Mais il est clair que la plus grande partie des pertes palestiniennes concerne des non-combattants et correspond aux succès israéliens.
-
English translation (using DeepL):
According to the census carried out by 'Arif al-'Arif in 1958, the number of "martyrs" of the regular Arab armies was as follows:
Egypt: 961 plus 200 irregulars
Jordan: 362 plus 200 irregulars
Iraq: 199 plus 200 irregulars
Saudi Arabia: 68 plus 105 irregulars
Lebanon: 11 plus 150 irregulars
Syria: 307 plus 204 irregulars
Relief Army: 512
Other Arabs (Yemenis, Sudanese, North Africans): 200
Nominally identified as having died in combat: 1,953
Names unknown but number, places and dates known: 4,004
Names and dates unknown but places known: 7,043
The order of magnitude is 13,000, or slightly more than double the Jewish losses, which makes for a roughly equivalent proportion of the total population. But it is clear that the bulk of Palestinian casualties are non-combatants, and correspond to Israeli successes.
Yes, there is a footnote saying "Volume 6 of the Nakba is devoted to drawing up lists of victims and as far as possible identifying them by name." (DeepL translation)
Also I still believe that this "800 murdered" estimate from Morris is not due for inclusion. Morris says "Palestinian losses, in civilians and armed irregulars, are unclear: they may have been slightly higher, or much higher, than the Israeli losses" after stating that "“In the 1948 war, the Yishuv suffered 5,700-5,8oo dead — one quarter of them civilians.” So this 800 number is not a death toll estimate but an estimate of how many were "murdered" (which would be based on only Benny Morris' opinion on what constitutes murder and what doesn't) — "In the yearlong war, Yishuv troops probably murdered some eight hundred civilians and prisoners of war all told-most of them in several clusters of massacres in captured villages during April-May, July, and October-November 1948."
I disagree that this is what Morris implies. The first figure includes armed irregulars (such as ALA). The second figure includes only civilians and PoW. So there is no contradiction between them.
Regarding the choice of the verb 'murder', Morris uses it throughout the book when referring to the killing of non-combatants. Such use is customary. Amayorov (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible that Morris' '800 murdered' estimate refers to all "killing[s] of non-combatants". Or if it does then Morris contradicts himself, since if you add up all his estimates of non-combatant Palestinians killed in individual attacks, you get >900 at the very minimum. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, '800 murdered' refers to civilians and PoWs only. He uses the verb 'to murder' here (as throughout the book) because these two groups are non-combatants. Or if it does then Morris contradicts himself, since if you add up all his estimates of non-combatant Palestinians killed in individual attacks, you get >900 at the very minimum — where do you source this from? Amayorov (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"'800 murdered' refers to civilians and PoWs only" - Sure.
I added up all the estimates of civilian and PoW deaths which Morris provides. The result is that the sum of his estimates for individual killings contradicts his overall estimate of 800. This is something I'm currently working on and I'll present this in more detail eventually.
Also note that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." per WP:CALC. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely a violation of WP:No Original Research. These are not "routine" calculations, many of his estimates can be double-counted if not done carefully, and some figures he provides are estimates. I know it first hand. Again, you are not sticking to secondary material but are trying to personally challenge a historian's assertion. Amayorov (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sticking to secondary sources. Interesting that you have no concern that Morris contradicts himself. Like I said, I plan on reporting here about this issue in more detail eventually. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're sticking to secondary sources, while trying to personally disprove them using very questionable methodology. I don't think that Morris contradicts himself for the reasons I outlined above. It might be that you're trying to cherry-pick an author's work, dismissing bits that you dislike. At the same time, you're happy to quote Pappé, who provides no primary source for his estimate at all. Amayorov (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is adding up Morris' estimates "very questionable methodology"?
How could it be possible that adding up numbers is "cherry-picking an author's work"?
Re: "You're happy to quote Pappé, who provides no primary source for his estimate at all." Morris doesn't provide any sources for his estimate either so I'm not sure what you're trying to say or imply here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of the evidence regarding the massacres come from Morris himself, including on Wikipedia and this very page, yet you're reluctant to quote him when he seemingly contradicts a certain view of the war.
I can't say how you arrived at that the >900 figure. However, it's very easy to double count, because Morris sometimes follows up by providing bulk counts at the end of a chapter. I myself have made such errors in the past. The difference of 100 could've popped up here. In any case, this is a topic for peer-reviewed research. Out of interest, I'd appreciate if you could share your methodology, but this is clearly violating both WP:NOR and WP:CALC.
Re Pappé: Morris provides in-line citations usually at-least once per paragraph, often per sentence – especially when it comes to numerical estimates. Pappé doesn't provide a single source for that figure. Amayorov (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris gives no citation for his 800 estimate.
"I'd appreciate if you could share your methodology, but this is clearly violating both WP:NOR and WP:CALC." There's no methodology... I'm just counting which is consistent with WP:CALC. Of course I'll show my work to show there were no double counts etc and so that we can achieve "consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Morris gives no citation for his 800 estimate. – because virtually every other number that he uses to come to this conclusion is referenced to primary sources. The issue is counting – which AFAIK wasn't raised by any reviewers of the book.
Unlike him, Pappé rarely cites primary documents in general, mostly relying on other secondary sources (among which Morris figures prominently) or oral testimonies. But this isn't a thread about Pappé. Amayorov (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to either include Morris' 800 number or not. Even if he contradicts himself, the aggregation work needed to demonstrate that seems beyond the scope of WP:CALC, which is more for plain number crunching with little aggregation or interpretation.
In terms of which estimates to include, if there isn't a clear scholarly consensus (I'm not aware of one), normally that's a reason to ensure both sides are represented. If it ends up being too much clutter for the infobox, we could move it elsewhere. I can't personally verify al-Aref either so not sure what to do there. — xDanielxT/C\R05:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
