Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Requested move 8 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This RM, along with its MRV, has gone on for three months. Under the original close, the closer stated the discussion and arguments were fairly balanced. With no edits made to the RM since that close was vacated, there has been no further input, so that analysis arguably stands. In the MRV, the option to overturn as "no consensus" was a popular option, but one ultimately not taken in favour of vacating. With nothing further that is persuasive enough to close as either "moved" or "not moved", we default to "no consensus". Sceptre (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

---

1948 Palestinian exodus → 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight – As discussed in the prior move request, "exodus" is both euphemistic and not the common name of the subject of this article. Expulsion (75,600 results on google books, 31,500 on scholar), expelled (15,200 on books, 30,000 on scholar) are used more often in scholarly sources than "exodus" (24,800 on scholar, 46,400 on books) Also, a note on the books result for exodus, several of the first page results are about a different topic, the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands. The fourth result is about the Jewish exodus from Iraq, the tenth is about SS Exodus. There were concerns in the above request that not all Palestinians were forced from their homes, and even though "expelled" also applied to those disallowed from returning (ie all of them), this current title encompasses all categories, reflect the language more commonly used in sources, and is not euphemistic. Nableezy 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Previous closure

On 2 October 2022, UtherSRG closed this discussion saying: The result of the move request was: Move to "1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight". While the discussion and arguments seem fairly balanced in number, I let fact that none of those that oppose have ever edited the article have some weight in coming to my decision that those who support the move have a better understanding of the article and what its title should be. This close was vacated as a result of a move review, and previously uninvolved users with the appropriate amount of experience are invited to re-close the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support I supported a title like this in the recently closed RM and do so again here, accords with sources and no euphemisms. Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose stop repeatedly requesting moves, exodus is defined as "a mass departure of people" which includes expulsion and flight. There is no need to make the name of the article longer. Bill Williams 23:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, it is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "a mass departure of people, especially emigrants", and it uses the following example: "the annual exodus of sun-seeking Canadians to Florida." Merriam Webster similarly defines it as "mass departure; emigration". Apparently all online dictionary definitions of the word emphasize mass emigration or migration. While exodus has some support in the sources to describe the flight or expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in the 1948 war, it is not really synonymous with flight from hostile wartime action and outright expulsion. Since flight and expulsion is what actually happened and a majority of sources use either or both of those terms, it makes more sense to have the longer title in this case. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• That doesnt appear to resemble a reason against the move per our policies, and no to your request, as that likewise appears to based on nothing but hoping that others not correct issues in our articles. nableezy - 01:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I just gave my reason against the move, if you read what you are replying to. It's pointless and makes it more inaccurate when it's consistent currently with the article on the Jewish exodus from the Muslim World, not every single person was expelled or forced out as your suggested change implies, many chose to leave because they believed their life would have been worse under Israeli occupation. Any reason as to why they left is covered by "exodus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Williams (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

In what world is it inaccurate, and why do you think there needs to be consistency with another topic entirely? There were no death marches of Jews, nearly 0 were expelled at all, none at the barrel of a gun and forced to leave with what they could carry on their back. There is no list of 120+ Jewish villages depopulated of its residents. Inaccurate??? Are you completely unaware of this topic at all? Here, try reading something, this is a solid start. And please, provide any sources, any at all, about many chose to leave because they believed their life would have been worse under Israeli occupation. Instead of just saying these things that some person might think is factual and not simply your imagination. And beyond that, if that were even true, those are covered by "flight". nableezy - 13:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of Jews in multiple countries were gone, not just "120 villages," and instead of repeatedly personally attacking me about "my imagination" and how I am "completely unaware of this topic at all," provide a single source that claims every Palestinian was "expelled" or "fled" as if Israeli troops or settlers raided every square inch of Palestine to force them all out. "Exodus" describes a mass movement of people out of an area, which is what occurred, and what the current title conveys. There was an exodus of half the pre-war Palestinian population for various reasons, many did not want to live under Israeli control, not "fleeing" anything. Israel wasn't hunting down every person living in the territory. Bill Williams 17:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The entirety of Jews in multiple countries were gone Nothing to do with this article, pointless distraction and even if it wasn't, there is zero equivalence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Um you miss the point about depopulated villages, those were villages that people were expelled from and/or fled from. The Jewish citizens of Arab countries certainly fled, they were however not expelled. You want sources for that? Sure:

• Warf, C.; Charles, G. (2020). Clinical Care for Homeless, Runaway and Refugee Youth: Intervention Approaches, Education and Research Directions. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-40675-2. By 1948, the majority of Palestinians, about 700,000 to 800,000 people from 500 to 600 villages, were displaced. They were either expelled or fled from their homes for fear of being killed, as had actually taken place in a number of villages.
• Gerber, H. (2008). Remembering and Imagining Palestine: Identity and Nationalism from the Crusades to the Present. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-0-230-58391-7. One of the more important consequences of the 1948 war was the expulsion and/or flight of some 750,000 Palestinians from their homes inside Israel, and the refusal of Israel to allow them to return, despite an express UN decision calling on it to do so. ... About 750,000 of the 900,000 strong Palestinian population were expelled, or fled, all completely terrorized and fearing for their lives
• Slater, Jerome (2020). Mythologies Without End: The US, Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1917-2020. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0-19-045908-6. There is no serious dispute among Israeli, Palestinian, or other historians about the central facts of the Nakba. All of the leading Israeli New Historians—particularly Morris, Shlaim, Pappé, and Flapan—extensively examined the issue and revealed the facts. Other accounts have reached the same conclusions. For example, see Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"; Rashid Khalidi, "The Palestinians and 1948"; Walid Khalidi, "Why Did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited"; Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians; Raz, Bride and the Dowry. Reviewing the evidence marshaled by Morris and others, Tom Segev concluded that "most of the Arabs in the country, approximately 400,000, were chased out and expelled during the first stage of the war. In other words, before the Arab armies invaded the country" (Haaretz, July 18, 2010). Other estimates have varied concerning the number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled before the May 1948 Arab state attack; Morris estimated the number to be 250,000–300,000 (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 262); Tessler puts it at 300,000 (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 279); Pappé's estimate is 380,000 (The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 96). In another recent review of the evidence, the Israeli historian Daniel Blatman estimates the number to be about 500,000 (Blatman, "Netanyahu, This Is What Ethnic Cleansing Really Looks Like"). Whatever the exact number, even Israeli "Old Historians" now admit that during the 1948 war, the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians, though they emphasized the action as a military "necessity." For example, see Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, 167–68. In July 2019, the Israeli government sought to cover up the extensive documentary evidence in its state archives that revealed detailed evidence about the extent of the Nakba—even the evidence that had already been published by newspapers and Israeli historians. A Haaretz investigation of the attempted cover-up concluded: "Since early last decade, Defense Ministry teams have scoured local archives and removed troves of historic documents to conceal proof of the Nakba, including Israeli eyewitness reports at the time" (Shezaf, "Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs").

Let me know if you want some more, or if youre willing to provide any sources at all for your claims. nableezy - 17:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources state that every single Palestinian was forced to leave by Israeli troops, they were not all "expelled" or "fled". And again, you have no consistency on articles regarding Jews, considering they also left under similar circumstances. I am not saying there must be consistency, my point is it shows a POV on the issue. Bill Williams 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I provided quotes for a reason, because they all say all the people were expelled or fled. And again, there were not similar circumstances. When reliable sources are provided that prove a Wikipedia editor is making things up, that editor's vote should be ignored entirely. nableezy - 13:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Much more accurate, and more NPOV, than the current title. RolandR (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Much more accurate, though I would have preferred just "1948 Palestinian expulsion", Huldra (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support: As already noted in the prior move request, this is a reasonable alternative that addresses the concern that 'expulsion' alone was to narrow. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is the second request in a month that aims to distort the facts surrounding the events of 1948 by portraying one side as the oppressor and the other as the victim who was driven from his own land. The word "expulsion" does not belong in the title of this article. There were *many* factors contributing to the 1948 exodus, therefore using the term "explusion" to cover it, is no less than a POV-motivated rewriting of history. The majority of Palestinians who left their homes in 1948 most likely never saw an Israeli soldier in their whole life. Exodus is the appropriate term that covers all subcategories and does justice to this complicated episode of history. Tombah (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reads like WP:FORUM, The majority of Palestinians who left their homes in 1948 most likely never saw an Israeli soldier in their whole life editorial opinion and no policy support. Selfstudier (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Did you read the entire piece? There's no reason to single out one sentence out of five. The policy support for this is clear: the proposed title clearly violates WP:NPOV. Tombah (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

By using the terminology used by the majority of sources? No, that isnt how you violate NPOV. You violate NPOV by using euphemisms that attempt to downplay what happened when the majority of sources are very clear about. Please note that this claim, like the others making a farcical claim of POV, is based on zero sourcing, zero anything besides unsubstantiated personal opinion. I hope the closer actually looks at how baseless these opposes are when determining consensus. nableezy - 13:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• • Did you read the entire move request? You make a claim of fact distortion without attempting to address the source analysis or provide your own. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The "without seeing an Israeli soldier" thing is a myth that originated in From Time Immemorial. The evidence given there is an egregious misquote of a book about 1967 refugees. Besides that, "using the term 'explusion' to cover it" is a misrepresentation of the proposal, which includes the term "flight" to cover other causes. And it is not unbalanced but rather plain objective fact to identify the Palestinians as the party who lost their places of residence. Zero^talk 08:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: "exodus" is NPOV. "expulsion and flight" is not. Atbannett (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The exodus was caused by a variety of factors. Not all Palestinian refugees were forcibly deported or expelled; Palestinians departed for a number of reasons, and the term "expulsion" simply ignores the others in favor of one of many different reasons.Eladkarmel (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you didn't notice that the proposal also has "flight". Zero^talk 08:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. If anything it is on the pro-Israel side, but acceptable. It corresponds to the phrase "fled or were expelled" that is extremely common in sources, even in the Israeli press. Zero^talk 08:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  As the phrase "fled or were expelled" implies, most cases can be categorized as flight, while the remainder as expulsion. It could be 51% against 49%, or 99% against 1%, but somehow, the proposed title starts with expulsion. POV-motivated title, indeed. How did NPOV get lost in the shuffle? Tombah (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is forum talk again. Do some actual analysis or don't, but don't make suppositions. Taken in of itself, "expulsion and flight" is simply A-Z order. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oh look, if I do a very simple search on Google scholar, I find numerous sources that use the exact phrasing of 'expulsion and flight' - just like that! Iskandar323 (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Do 1949–1956 Palestinian exodus, please. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  The order of the words implies nothing whatsoever. Zero^talk 08:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  And even if the order mattered, were expelled or fled is also common. nableezy - 13:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Changed your mind? Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world/Archive 6 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly against WA:NPOV. To say that the "expulsion" notion is controversial is an understatement. I would state again that while everybody have personal vies, it is vital to restrain it and stick to solid facts, not exaggerations. This is equivalent to pro-Israelis deleting the word "occupation", replacing it with ״liberated lands", which is a term popular among the right. And again, generalisations based on minor incidents are wrong, as well. Expulsion should be kept for a real transfer, like the one Meir Kahane proposed in the eighties. Archway (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  As mentioned in the previous move request, and here by Zero, this remains marginally pro-Israeli. The far extreme is Ilan Pappé's "Ethnic Cleansing". Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Kahane's proposal (summarized from "They Must Go") was "Israeli Arabs would be given the options of accepting noncitizenship, leaving willingly with compensation, or being forcibly expelled without compensation." Most Palestinians in 1948 were given fewer choices than that, not more. Zero^talk 08:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is zero controversy that a huge proportion of Palestinians were expelled on Israeli orders. This is propaganda masquerading as a vote. See for example Benny Morris list of depopulated Palestinain villages and count how many have a cause of Expulsion by Jewish forces and Military assault on settlement. nableezy - 13:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  There are a lot of factors we don’t know, such as: why was it done, under what pressure, on who’s command, and what the proportion between forced-to-leave / voluntarily leave is, and on that context (a bloody war). Such a complex issue cannot be boiled down to black and white. Prof’ Benny Morris himself [|rejected the notion of organised transfer] (it’s in Hebrew, but if you doubt it, please translate and see that my statement will hold true). Archway (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  • rejected the notion of organised transfer. Archway (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

However the proposed title says nothing about proportions so you haven't made a case against it. Zero^talk 05:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

None of this addresses the title in the slightest: it is all wholly irrelevant. We are talking about shifting the title to the precise descriptive terminology most commonly used by mainstream academics (including Benny Morris). It is the current title that is boiled down into something useless. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, biased towards the Palestinian narrative, very non-neutral. Noon (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

How? These baseless assertions need to have some evidence for them, or they should be ignored. nableezy - 15:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support This RM is based on the discussions of the 8 August RM where several users (oppose and support voters) backed '1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight' as an alternative to both the present title '1948 Palestinian exodus' or the 8 August-proposed title '1948 Palestinian expulsion'. This RM is based on that more consensual alternative. While 'expulsion' suffices, as fleeing Palestinians were prohibited by Israel from returning, it is understandable that 'expulsion' has connotations of direct orders or removals of people, which was the case for many but not all Palestinians displaced in 1948. The new proposal solves this and is a necessary improvement from the current title, since 'exodus' is a broad term that means mass departure, especially in regards to emigration. This is not an apt description for the subject. Palestinians who were not expelled before, during and immediately after the war, such as their fellows at Lydda and Ramla (50K–70K people alone) and numerous other places, fled during the war out of fear for their safety. There were different reasons for their flight, especially massacres and military operations by Israeli forces or Jewish militia in their or nearby localities, but it was still flight, not merely exodus or emigration. Beyond semantics, it has been demonstrated by the nom that expel/expulsion and fled/flight are more commonly used in sources than 'exodus' and, dialing in further, that the more modern authoritative sources, including Israeli and Palestinian, do not dispute that the overwhelming bulk or virtually all 1948-displaced Palestinians fled or were expelled. Al Ameer (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this name is NPOV and describes events. Anything more would be editorializing. I note that we have an article, Jewish exodus from the Muslim world where it would be more historically accurate to actually use expulsion, but we don't. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:OCE is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Except it is not more historically accurate to call that expulsion, thats just the latest in the series of unsourced personal opinion directly at odds with the sources. This method of bald assertion after sources have been cited that directly refute the assertion is tendentious. nableezy - 21:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: NPOV means neutral point of view. This RM seeks to replace one alleged POV with another, a view that seeks a supposedly neutral term but is not a neutral view for that. Yes, accuracy matters too but we do not shy away from calling someone Emperor Norton just because he wasn't really an emperor. So those wanting a move need to show that the current article name is not the common name, and please, stop cluttering the page with arguments that boil down to IDLI (which principle is equally applicable to RMs). Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I did show that, I posted search results showing expel and expulsion is more commonly used than exodus. I dont even understand what you are asking for here, there is no POV expressed in saying the Palestinians were expelled or fled besides a supermajority POV, that is mainstream scholarship on the topic. POV isnt referenced at all in the move request, I dont even understand the argument here. nableezy - 23:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree that you have shown that the proposal is the common name, if that is what you are saying. But I do not envy the closer working that out! And I'm sorry you don't understand the argument. I possibly don't understand some of yours either (there have been lots of them over several RMs), but that is not particularly relevant. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I did not say what you are saying. I said I showed that the current title is not the common name, and I showed that expulsion and expel is more commonly used than exodus. There is no common name for what this article covers, there are a variety of descriptions that are applied. The two most commonly used ones are expelled and fled, often together as "were expelled or fled" or "fled or were expelled". The current title is not the common name, and nobody has ever once shown that it is, whereas I have actually posted evidence for it not being the common name. I dont understand what it is that you are looking for evidence that the proposed title is a better title for our article than the current one. Neither is a common name, either the current title or the proposed ones are WP:NDESC. You wrote that This RM seeks to replace one alleged POV with another, a view that seeks a supposedly neutral term but is not a neutral view for that. No, this move request aims to replace euphemestic title that is not the commonly used name for the events described in this article with a more widely used set of terms, ones that are indeed the super-majority view on the events. See the quote from Slater I posted above, there is no serious dispute that the Palestinians expelled or were fled from the territory that Israel came to control in 1948. That is, by a very wide margin, the view of scholars. And this article describes that. The first sentence already says "fled or were expelled from their homes". The move request is to align the title with the contents and the current scholarship on the topic. nableezy - 23:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I'm struggling to understand your position here. NPOV means a neutral point of view with respect to reliable sources, fairly and proportionately represented, and here there is little ambiguity over the language, since the overwhelming majority of sources use the terminology of 'expulsion' and 'flight', even many of the sources that ostensibly use the terminology of 'exodus' when glancing just at the title. Take for examples this source, with a titular reference to exodus, but in the second sentence states "were expelled or fled", or this source - again with a titular reference to exodus, but "were directly expelled or terrorized into flight". The terminology of expulsion and flight is the common terminology of the reliable sources on this subject. The term 'exodus' on the other hand is a common tool of narrative building around the subject, but don't take it from me: see the descriptions of it as 'a narrative'. To avoid 'narratives', we must use precise terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The paper ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS: CONTESTED NARRATIVES Mohammed S. Dajani to which you link should be recommended reading for both sides, thank you, but it is itself POV. But I am similarly puzzled by the proponents of this move. The evidence for common name seems cherry-picked. The claims of accuracy seem based on POV material. There is so much irrelevant argument above that I have trouble sorting it out, but I'm afraid that the post to which I'm replying does nothing to help with that IMO. But to repeat, excellent paper relevant to the more general issue, and I'll link to it from my personal wiki pages (which are also POV of course). Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrewa, nobody claimed that it is the common name. What I am saying is that the current title is not a common name, and further that this descriptive title is the most common description for the events described in the article. As far as "POV material", Im not sure what either the google searches offered above, the opposite of cherry picking, or the reliable sources quoted above, one of which is a macro analysis of other sources and giving this as the commonly description across all of them. If there is no common name then we title an article based on WP:NDESC. You seem to be arguing that nobody has proved that the proposed title is "the common name", and nobody has pretended to do so. But likewise, I believe I have demonstrated that this current title is not the common name, and that we need to determine a proper descriptive title, and I posted evidence as to why the proposed one is appropriate. And that is met with bald assertions on "POV" that are lacking in any sources, even cherry-picked ones. nableezy - 20:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Another one for the growing pile, the opposition to this seems based on hot air and little else:

Ghaleb Natour (2015). "The Nakba—Flight and Expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948". In Andreas Hoppe (ed.). Catastrophes Views from Natural and Human Sciences. Springer. p. 81. The Nakba is a catastrophe describing "the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians which reached its peak in 1948" Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewa: What exactly is your understanding of NPOV in this context? This move is being proposed based on two rationales: A) that exodus is NOT the prevalent terminology used for these events; and B) that within the body of sources that cover this event, "expulsion and flight" ARE the terms that are overwhelmingly used to present events. Which individual sources you, I or anyone else wishes to call POV is wholly irrelevant. The question is: what is NPOV? The argument that is being presented here is that "expulsion and flight" is NPOV. What specifically about this do you cast doubt upon? You say the sources provided are cherry-picked - do you have an example of a non-cherrypicked, or counter-balancing mainstream source that does not use these terms? And what is your rationale for supporting the current title? You say that it is "alleged POV", but you have not actively defended it as being NPOV. What is its merit? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

See wp:creed#NPOV. I respect that you do not accept or understand my view, but I think I have put more than enough time into explaining it for you. The closer will have the job of assessing its validity of course. Andrewa (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I'm not sure if it's intentional, but your creed's NPOV link is not disambiguated and leads to a three-spoked menu choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how that happened, but it was unintentional and is now fixed, thank you. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Looking at the page history, there has been absolutely no work done to the page to warrant a second move request in such a short period of time. Given that the causes of the mass exodus aren't agreed upon by historians, significant work would need to be done to the article to justify portraying the event as a predominately Israeli expulsion of Palestinians. Making these changes without significant additions is violating WP:NPOV. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  a) This RM is a logical follow on from the prior where a title like that proposed was supported by editors and b) See the sources posted above and feel free to add them to the page if thought necessary for a !vote, which it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Multifaceted, so alas, "1948 Palestinian exodus" alone does not suffice. JJNito197 (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There are 330+ contributers to this article. I find it interesting that many of those voting "oppose" above are not among them. Strange, that they seem so convinced that "expulsion and flight" is not a correct name, even though they have not once edited the article. Huldra (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, I checked: the total number of edits to this article-page by the people voting "oppose" above is....0. Huldra (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC

    We are a collaboration. It works best when we all contribute according to our abilities.

    It is true that I have not edited the article in question. But that seems to me to be quite irrelevant to my ability to contribute to this discussion. I have read the article and feel qualified to have a view on its name. You appear to be calling that into question, is that correct?

    I am afraid that I see that as not terribly constructive or relevant. You have every right to raise that issue here, but to me it (and much of the above) just shows no understanding of the issues.

    If you really think this should be considered, by all means propose it for inclusion in guidelines and procedures. But it seems to be so much in conflict with wp:OWN that I doubt it will get much support. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

With 330+ editors to this article, I would find it quite strange if anyone claimed WP:OWNership of it. I just find it peculiar that 100% of those who oppose have contributed exactly 0% to the article. So those who have contributed to the article have no understanding of the issues, while those who haven't, have? Interesting view-point; I'll give you that. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe what Huldra is saying is that a number of editors with very sporadic editing of late, only showing up to vote in ARBPIA related discussions, is something that raises eyebrows, especially considering that at least one sockmaster has repeatedly canvassed by email editors to such discussions in the past year. See for example this or this. I too find it curious, but will leave that topic for a more appropriate venue. nableezy - 23:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NPOV issue. Tritomex (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neutral until I finish examining sources and related titling guidelines per Sir Joseph. Whataboutism wouldn't exist if double standards didn't exist either. Why exodus is an euphemism when referring to Palestinians, but when referring to jews under the exact same predicament is a perfectly fine word. this move request is obviously meant to make the the title more dramatic and thus attract more sympathy to the Palestinian plight. However this is totally against NPOV. –Daveout(talk) 17:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

^{P.S. i didn't mean to attack anyone with the comment above it's just my way of expressing myself. 🕊️ –Daveout(talk) 17:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)}

It is also a matter of sourcing, is it not? if there is sufficient sourcing for renaming some other article then do that but the existence of some other article does not constitute a reason for not renaming this one based on an abundance of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is a double standard here, it is the selective dispensing of policy and proper examination of the sourcing when some editors find it convenient. This discussion is about the language used in the reliable sources available on the subject. What is your source that does not use this terminology? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Another one Samih K. Farsoun (2018). Palestine and the Palestinians: A Social and Political History. Routledge. the conquest of two thirds of Palestine and the expulsion (and flight) of the great majority of its people Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Right I'll check the sources again, more carefully, and maybe change my vote. –Daveout(talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

And H.Gerber (2008). Remembering and Imagining Palestine: Identity and Nationalism from the Crusades to the Present. Palgrave. the expulsion and/or flight of some 750,000 PalestiniansSelfstudier (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Daveout, feel free to propose a rename of that article, but the circumstances are so far from the exact same predicament that you can only say that if you havent read both articles. There were certainly some expulsions, a lot more fleeing, some willful emigration, but no, nothing what this article covers. Not even a little bit close. And you are not, like nearly every oppose vote here, even attempting to engage with the sourcing here. I still hope a closer actually weighs the arguments and their fidelity to our policies, because I do not see a single substantive oppose vote in this request that comes close to following our policies and guidelines on titles and due weight. One editor asked for sources supporting this title, never a response when several are offered, with quotes. A collection of users just assert some POV issue, never able to substantiate it with a single source. Another handful of users give a basic logical fallacy that doesnt even hold water as a comparison. And thats it. nableezy - 02:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like it is a complete violation of WP:BLUDGEON that Nableezy has replied to every single oppose vote in this RfC. The policy begins with "such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own" which is clearly what has occurred. The support votes are not being replied to constantly in the same fashion. Bill Williams 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Report me then, but it is a discussion and when people are making things up, like you did up above, I feel the closer should be aware of it. And also, I havent replied to all of them, some of them merit no response at all. You asked for sources up above, and vanished when they were provided. Huh. nableezy - 13:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You replied under seven out of eleven opposing votes, which is clearly bludgeoning the process. Babbling about how I'm "making things up" does not justify you bludgeoning. Also, I responded to you above, nobody "vanished" so no need to think "huh." Bill Williams 13:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The tried and true move of the has no argument crowd, claim a process violation. Yes, you did make things up, and I quoted sources showing that. Anyway, toodles, nableezy - 13:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Instead of responding me like I'm part of some cabal of the "no argument crowd," how about you treat my accusation as serious, since it is clearly a policy violation to reply to seven out of eleven opposing votes. I have no interest in reporting you, I wanted to tell you directly. Bill Williams 13:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a vote. When somebody offers an argument that I find to be misleading then I respond to it. With sources. There is only one side of the argument here that has brought any sources at all. I responded to the different arguments. Youll see I stopped responding to the bogus "NPOV" assertions that lack any evidence at all. If you think I am editing disruptively then you should report me. But it lack relevance to this move request, which is the discussion I am interested in having. You are free to provide sources for your position at any time. You are free to show how my sources do not support my position at any time. But I have quoted sources that directly show your argument to be incorrect. That has not been met with anything other than outright denial. nableezy - 17:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

After being presented with sources, you keep reiterating the same meaninglessly accusations about POV/inconsistency, always without sources, and seemingly a priori from your own mind, which of course we have a word for on Wikipedia: WP:OR. Please just read the actual sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I never made anything up, you both have accused me of that without even claiming what I made up. Once again, my dispute with what you both have stated is that not every Palestinian was forced to leave, and you both have not provided a single source that claims every Palestinian was forced to leave. Every reason as to why Palestinians left is covered by "exodus." Bill Williams 13:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The things made up: a. the sources do not say the refugees, all of them, were expelled or fled, and b. that the Jewish emigration (over 40 years, nothing resembling anything close to for example Lydda Death March) is analogous. You keep saying I have not provided a single source, and then you subtly shift what I have to source. What I am providing sources for is that the Palestinian refugees, all of them, fled or were expelled. You now ask for a source on "every Palestinian was forced to leave". The proposed title is not "the forced removal of every Palestinian". The proposed title is "expulsion and flight". And every source provided explicitly supports "expulsion and flight". And you have refused to provide any sources at all for any part of argument. nableezy - 13:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You might think it's made up but please refer to the bottom where I supplied thousands of sources on the subject, which is exactly what I claimed, that the term "Palestinian exodus" is used far more than "Palestinian expulsion" or "Palestinian flight" by reliable sources. Also, you keep taunting me above to report you, I already said I don't want to, I simply am stating that you bludgeoned the process, it doesn't matter if it's a RfC or move discussion. Bill Williams 13:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The proposed title doesn't imply that every Palestinian was forced to leave so we do not need to provide sources showing that, just sources saying that they were expelled or fled of which we have provided a number. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What does "forced to leave" mean? And what relevance does it have when all of the sources for this point to "expulsion and flight"? The level of volition involved is not relevant to the terminology. Here's a whole paper examining the narrative in terms of 'voluntary flight'. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A small minority of sources use the term "Palestinian expulsion" or "Palestinian flight" while the vast majority use "Palestinian exodus" as I stated at the bottom of the page. Bill Williams 13:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Minor heads-up for List of estimates of the Palestinian refugee flight of 1948. Not pitching in with an opinion or suggesting anything but since the two articles are intimately related (obviously), the titles should be uniform (whatever that title turns out to be in the aftermath of this talk page discussion). ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Several sources currently cited in the article use the term "exodus", whereas "expulsion and flight" as a term seems to be our own invention. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  There are plenty sources up above using the "expulsion and flight" so your statement is simply false. Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sources use those words (and others) at different points, but I don't see any referring to this group of events as "expulsion and flight" (as a phrase) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  This isnt being given as a common name, but as a descriptive name per WP:NDESC. But here, and here and here if youd like some evidence as to its usage outside of the minds of Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 14:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  The title is currently a descriptive one. If there were a likely common name for the topic it would 'Nakba' of course, but that has been repeatedly rejected for this article based on the argument that the Nakba is broader than just the population expulsion, though that is certainly its principle part. In terms of the sources that are titled exodus, when you get past the book and chapter titles (WP:HEADLINES), expulsion and flight are the terms used. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "when you get past the book and chapter titles"? Surely the title of our article should mirror those book and chapter titles. We can use the terms "expulsion" and "flight" within the article, of course. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  No. Please read WP:HEADLINES. Book titles are chosen (and often heavily sensationalized) by publishers, not the authors or researchers. The relevant information is how a subject is described by the author inside the body of an article or within the actual copy of a book. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  WP:HEADLINES concerns news headlines, not the titles of scholarly articles and books 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  All titles, including academic ones, attune to their audience and compromise for the sake of brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  And so must we. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Find that for me in WP:TITLE will you? You won't, because your idea is a complete rabbit hole in terms of Wikipedia policy. The key point that you seem to be missing is the way a subject is referred to by means of a work's title only once - a lone mention that will always pale into significance when set against the numerous mentions to the subject in the work itself. It's a matter of due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're the one who cited WP:HEADLINES (completely irrelevant here) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  And you're the one citing fuck-all policy at all while calling sourced terms 'invention'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  And no, we musn't, because we're not marketing books. We're building an Encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the RM? There are five sources in the paragraphs above using this expression or similar to it? Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have added 4 refs for expelled/fled to the second line of the lead, the part where it says " fled or were expelled from their homes" duh. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  And it it is also prevalent in current news sources:

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44114385 "up to 750,000 Palestinians who had lived on that land fled or were expelled from their homes."

  https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-not-start-or-end-in-1948 "at least 750,000 Palestinians in total were forcibly expelled or fled outside of their homeland"

  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/the-meaning-of-nakba-israel-palestine-1948-gaza/560294/ "the overwhelming majority of Palestinian Arabs, perhaps 700,000 to 800,000 people, had either fled or been expelled.

  https://www.972mag.com/israeli-left-nakba-taboo-return/ "1948, when more than 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their land" Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to think we should just re-run "the Nakba" option given the tendentious obstinacy on display here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  "expulsion and flight" as a term seems to be our own invention was when I sensed a lost cause. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A further reliable source: Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, edited by Cheryl Rubenberg, uses the formulation "expelled or fled" several times. "However, during the course and aftermath of the establishment of Israel, the land was emptied of over 750,000 Palestinians, including about two-thirds of the Bedouin population, who fled or were expelled to the neighboring Arab countries or territories" (p 172). "Within days of Israel’s independence in 1948, the war in Palestine created some 750,000 or more refugees, of whom 150,000 to 200,000 were either expelled or fled their homes and found sanctuary in the Gaza Strip, thereby tripling its population almost overnight" (p419). "It was only in 1947–1949, when most of the Palestinian inhabitants fled or were expelled from the territory that became Israel and massive numbers of Jews emigrated from Eastern Europe and then from Arab countries, that labor Zionism could achieve something approaching victory in its struggle for the conquest of labor" (p 547). "The General Assembly Resolution 273 of 11 May 1949, which admitted Israel to membership, called on Israel to repatriate the Palestinians who were either expelled or fled in fear in 1948" (p 611). "Despite the fact that all the surrounding Arab states joined the war (including IRAQ), the highly organized, unified, and militarily stronger Israelis turned the Arab threat into a war of conquest, with the result that most of Palestine’s Arab population was expelled or fled, and a Jewish state, larger than the one envisioned in the UN partition plan, was born" (p 650). "As the Israeli conquest of Palestine proceeded and its inhabitants were expelled or fled the hostilities, more Palestinian land became available to the JNF." (p 756). And at least a further nine times. And there are many references to Palestinians being expelled, without any mention of flight. RolandR (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It is in truth, straightforward to source references for the point, another one:

Josef Meri (2016). The Routledge Handbook of Muslim-Jewish Relations. Routledge. Three fourths of a million Palestinians were expelled, or fled Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Please refer to the thousands of sources which use the term "Palestinian exodus" [1] instead of "expulsion and flight." Changing the current title would make the article title more misleading, more POV, and less accurate, compared to what the vast majority of sources use. "Palestinian expulsion" has only a few hundred uses [2] as does "Palestinian flight" [3] while "expulsion and flight" has a single usage. Instead of trying to use two terms that are rarely referred to, why not use the term that the vast majority of reliable sources use? There tens of thousands of sources including exodus, expulsion, or flight with the term Palestinian, so you can use these terms throughout this article, but my point is that the current title is the noun "Palestinian exodus" which is used far more than "Palestinian expulsion" or "Palestinian flight," the title of the article is supposed to be the term that is used most often to refer to this. If you want to describe when Palestinians were expelled or fled, then do so in the article, because those terms are not used with "Palestinian" as often as exodus is. Bill Williams 12:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Please refer to them yourself, particularly the search that shows the majority of those also use fled and/or expelled. The idea that "Palestinian exodus" is a noun is based on nothing, and there is zero evidence that it is the common name here. You have continued to say this proposed title is misleading, and you have continued to not show any evidence for that assertion. One that has been shown to be false over and over, yet you continue to assert it baldly. As far as the incredibly odd request that if you want to describe when Palestinians were expelled or fled, then do so in the article, maybe read the first sentence of the article. The article already says this covers the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians, full stop. Also, these game with search terms has already been addressed in the prior request, see for example the 1390 results for "expulsion of Palestinians" 1948, or the 880 for "fled or were expelled" Palestinians 1948, or the further 326 for "expelled or fled" Palestinians 1948. Pretending like the straw man you searched for is representative of the sourcing is absurd. nableezy - 14:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Learn the different between nouns and verbs. A noun is the title of this article, the common term used to refer to the historical event. Thousands of sources use the term "Palestinian exodus" in this fashion, while only a few hundred use "Palestinian expulsion" or "Palestinian flight." While of course Palestinians were expelled or fled in 1948, you are creating a term that is not used by reliable sources to describe the historical event. You can describe what occurred throughout the lead of the article, but it is misleading to create a term that only a small minority of sources use. Bill Williams 12:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• In all eight references added to the article in support of expelled/fled as well as the additional two above, in no case is the word expulsion and/or flight appended to the word Palestinian in the given quotes, therefore the above "analysis" is less than useless. Apart from that, this is not a common name exercise, note that 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle was just recently changed from 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle because it describes what occurred, the situation is just the same here, the Palestinians fled or were expelled, and this is simply a fact, the sources demonstrate it as such. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  If we must play Google games then I can take

  "Palestinian exodus" (a lot of these being WP related) ->127,000 and compare that to

  1948 + Nakba + expelled + fled (all four terms required) ->245,000 results again showing that a description of what occurred is of greater import. Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have just done a basic Google search. Palestinian exodus - 1,130,000 results. Palestinian expulsion - 2,170,000 results. So it would appear that the term expulsion is linked nearly twice as often as the term exodus to the term Palestinian. RolandR (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Both you and Selfstudier are ignoring what a title is supposed to be. It is meant to be the common term used to describe the historical event, not a combination of different verbs used to describe different aspects of it. You can google random different things to combine together, but my point is that the term "Palestinian exodus" is used by the vast majority of sources while the terms "Palestinian expulsion" or "Palestinian flight" are used by very few. As I have previously stated, you can talk about the expulsion or flight in the lead, but the term for the title is common usage, not something you made up. Bill Williams 12:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This sort of comment is exactly what drives my "condescending tone". Where on earth do you get the notion that exodus is the common term? Based on what analysis? If there were a common term, it would be Nakba. The claim that 'exodus' commands universal usage is frankly absurd and is barely even worth responding to. Your contrived google searches, where you invent and dismiss strawman set phrases that no one has tried to claim exist for the purposes of this discussion on a descriptive title just adds intellectual insult to intellectual injury. I cannot condescend this enough. This talk has become an idiocrcacy. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can repeat yourself then so can I. Palestinian exodus is not a common name, it is a descriptive title. I just explained why "Palestinian expulsion" or "Palestinian flight" are irrelevant, sources don't write the events up like that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Bill Williams: I feel I have to ask if you have even read a single one of these sources. Open the first result in your preferred search: The Palestinian Exodus of 1948 by Simha Flapan. Read the second sentence: "Between 600,000 and 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were evicted or fled ..." Or see Benny Morris' Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948: "The expulsion of the Arab populations of Lydda and Ramle..." Rinse and repeat. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the condescending tone, of course I read them, and I said that they use terms similar or equal to "expulsion" or "flight" but my point is they do not call the actions as a whole the "1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight" so it is your original research and opinion that creates the fake name for the article. What they refer to the actions as a whole as is the "Palestinian exodus" and nothing else. The title of this article isn't meant to coalesce different verbs like expulsion and flight that are used in those articles, it is meant to use the one noun that is mostly used to describe this historical event, which is "Palestinian exodus."Bill Williams 12:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"fake name", like "fake news", is meaningless. The relative naming guideline here is WP:NDESC, so just read it. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

they do not call the actions as a whole the "1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight" This is only correct for that exact phrase. Why do we need that exact phrase? So that you can say that sources do not contain it. I mean, really. The proposed title is a descriptive title that corresponds perfectly well with sources. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support I see this pointless or rather pointy farce of persisting in opposing (without any familiarity with the relevant literature, despite assertions to the contrary), persists. The word 'Exodus' does not in historic English usage imply, as claimed, also flight and expulsion. The Oxford English Dictionary states:

• (a) 'title of a book of the Old Testament' always capitalized
• (b)'the departure of the Israelites from Egypt'.
• (c)'The departure or going out, usually of a body of persons from a country usually for the purpose of settling elsewhere'. (OED 1989 vol.V p.546 columns 2 and 3)

None of these fit the circumstances attending the mass flight and expulsion of Palestinians in 1948. The usage makes a parallel between the unconstrained, blocked, flight of Israelites from a tyrannical Egypt to the Promised Land, and the flight of Palestinians at gunpoint or by the kind of symbolic 'encouragement' in the lethal theatrics of 'incidents' like the Deir Yassin massacre, to get to safe lines until peace returned. There was no purposive transit en masse to another country in order to settle there.

In this sense, the use of 'exodus' intrudes an invidious analogy with a biblical Jewish mythistorical event, creating a false parity, or functions as a rather despicable euphemism to gloze over what most Israeli historians for the last four decades have not only accepted, but documented meticulously, in disposing of the meme used earlier to suggest 700,000 people uprooted themselves after receiving radio messages to do so from authorities in the Arab world. There is simply no way English usage lends itself, except by nescience of the tongue or abusive POV pushing, to describing a wartime set of designed evictions or panicked flight under the roar of guns, as at Haifa, as a 'departure' inspired by the idea of 'settling elsewhere'. Settling (them) elsewhere was what Zionism has endlessly mulled over for five decades before the nakba. If one can't grasp that, one's opinionizing here is just worthless, imprecise, misleading waffle.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. "Exodus" is voluntary and usually happy. The Palestinians in 1948 either fled or were expelled, as the article shows - therefore "ecpelsion or flight" is much more correct and NPOV. איתמראשפר (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

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

First use

I am trying to track down early use of the word "exodus" to describe the situation. The article has Glazer (1980) citing Bernadotte in his 16 September 1948 Progress Report] "The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion." on page 17.

This has both exodus and flight/expulsion.

1949 Arthur Koestler Promise and Fulfilment "the psychologically decisive factor [Deir Yassin] in the spectacular exodus of the Arabs from the Holy Land and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem."

Anything earlier than that in primary sources? And earlier than Koestler in secondary sources?

Later sources with Exodus in the title:

Morris, Benny (1986): "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948

Glazer, Steven (1980): "The Palestinian Exodus in 1948".

Erskine Childers: The Other Exodus The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict, (1961) Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Times of India Apr 22, 1948: "it was believed that a mass exodus would begin if Arab soldiers could not provide sufficient protection" The Scotsman May 10, 1948: Title is "Jaffa, Deserted City, Exodus of Thousands of Arabs". (These examples arguably don't satisfy the criteria.) Zero^talk 01:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Isador Stone, This is Israel (copyright 1948). P27: "By 11 a.m., of April 22, the fight was over, and a mass exodus of Arabs from Haifa had begun by road and water." Zero^talk 01:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

"Exodus" is "used in sources" - Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948, Morris, 1986. The title refers to L&R as "Exodus" and then the first line of the article says "The expulsion of the Arab populations of Lydda and Ramle in July 1948 accounted for a full one-tenth of the Arab exodus from Palestine" .L & R title recently changed to "expulsion" from "Exodus". Morris uses Exodus as a catch all term for the total of Palestinians leaving and then follows with the detailed description (expulsion in this case). Similar to Bernadotte UN report, general description -> detail. The newspapers above are of the general description type, as apparently is Stone (although I haven't read it as yet). A lot of the discussion as to the title of this article revolves around this distinction, opponents of change focus on the general description and proponents focus on the detail. Recall that Morris (and others, new historians) had to revise their histories with the release of archival records. "Flight" was exposed as narrative (Haaretz 2019 "According to the Israeli narrative that was disseminated over the years, responsibility for the exodus from Israel rests with Arab politicians who encouraged the population to leave. However, according to the document, 70 percent of the Arabs left as a result of Jewish military operations." Detail should be distinguished from "cause(s)" (the argument over transfer, etc) eg Morris, 1986, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948". Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)