Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Arab League declaration of 1948

For a long time I have been suspicious of the "Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine-15 May 1948" which appears at MFA.gov.il without a source, since a search only brought up unreliable derivative sources like JVL and Mitchell Bard. Now I figured out that the document is genuine but reworded, perhaps by translation to Hebrew and back. The original English text is given in Security Council document S/745. The difference in wording is not serious in most places, but we should use the original. There are also statements from Egypt in S/743 and from Transjordan in S/748. The Transjordanian statement was very short, here it is:

We were compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin. We are aware of our national duty towards Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular and also Nazareth and Bethlehem. Be sure that we shall be very considerate in connection with Jews in Palestine and while maintaining at the same time the full right of the Arabs in Palestine. Zionism did not react to our offers made before the entry of armed forces.

Zero^talk 10:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero -- The JVL version is sourced from MFA.gov.il. I'd checked it/them against UNSC S/745. I see no problem though with the original ... talknic (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding "called by Arabs the First Palestine War" to the lead section?

Any objections to adding "called by Arabs the First Palestine War" to the lead section? Sources include Benny Morris [1], Gamal Abdul Nasser (a rather important source there, ahem :-)) and Walid Khalidi [2], Time Magazine [3] and no doubt great heaps of others. --GRuban (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Morris' book is referring to this and the civil war as the First Palestine war. That's the 1948 Palestine War article. Which brings us back to the issue discussed in the previous section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that equally apply to the terms "War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur)"? The merger or not merger issue is separate, and is deeper waters than I can breast. Whether we decide to merge or not, the result, or possibly both, shouldn't it have "First Palestine War" somewhere in the lead, since that is pretty much what quite a few people call this war? --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(PS - while I by no means endorse calling people Dude who do not wish to be called Dude, should you slip and call me that, I will take no offense, as I know only the highest compliment is intended. :-)) --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, some scholars use "War of Independence" for just this part of the war, and some include the civil war as well. I'm not aware of anyone who uses "Palestine War" (or "Nakba" for that matter) just for the part of the war that began in May 1948. This includes the Morris ref above, and some Khalidi I have read (I don't have access to the jstor article you linked to).

I'm not sure if you were asking me to call you dude or not, dude. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban -- Your argument bolds proper nouns/names on their first appearance in the Article, in the Lede. This should also be afforded the first appearance of other proper nouns/names when they first appear in an Article in the Lede. Aka - the Catastrophe and al Nakba.

The actual quote from Morris // "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet ha`atzma'ut), the War of Liberation (milhemet hashihrur) or the War of Establishment (milhemethakomemiyut)-was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 3o November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949" [4] //... As NMMNG has noted, the War of Independence is in the period inclusive of the civil war.

Your second source [5] This is the title of Walid Khalidi's book. It is not the title of Nasser's Memoirs. There is no quote from Nasser calling it the "the First Palestine War"

Your third source [6] does not attribute the author. Does not quote any Arab as saying "the First Palestine War". They are only the words of the author ... talknic (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Will wait for the merge discussion to settle down at least, if I want to propose this again. Thank you both. --GRuban (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If "First Palestine War" is a somewhat accepted/established term, then by all means add it to the article lead section and bold it... AnonMoos (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Regardless of whether it's an accepted/established term or not, proper nouns/names on their first mention in the Lede of an article can be afforded bold face WP:LEAD. It would be inconsistent style to not also afford bolding to 'the Catastrophe' and 'al Nakba' ... talknic (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point -- if it's not an accepted/established term, then it doesn't belong in the article at all. And now you seem to be returning to the "Brad Pitt" theory again (that the "proper noun/name" Brad Pitt should be "afforded bold face" on its "first mention" in the lead section of Angelina Jolie). AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Just quote the specific WP policy/guideline that affords the bolding of one set of proper nouns over another. Thanks

Any proper noun first mentioned in the Lede can be afforded bolding WP:LEAD, regardless of how it got there ... BTW Your Angela Jolie example would necessitate un-bolding the War of Independence and the War of Liberation. Fine by me. Go ahead. ... talknic (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we did this issue in a section on this page above. My proposal was an attempt to address a different question, and I've volunteered to at least put it on hold until we resolve the merge issue, since it makes a difference. But in any case, please, let's not argue the exact same point, with the same participants and arguments, in two different sections. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Section on 1947 to 1948 civil war

Since that war has its own article, and since this article is very long, I intend to stub that section down a lot. I'm sure that I shall inadvertently introduce controversies that aren't presently there. However, it is a besetting sin of this series of articles that the same history is endlessly retold, which makes it an impossible task to get consensus on NPOV. I expect people will say "but you can't understand y without understanding the background x". Which may well be true but you can't understand x without background v ad infinitum. Unlike the history books, we are writing hypertext and people can easily click on links and do their own background research. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if there was one article that discusses the issues and an agreed upon summary for the rest of the articles that refer to it. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. A start may be this version, which should be about 30k smaller. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - There has been very little discussion. Consensus has not been reached. Can you please revert and; refrain from any further edits until such time as the matter has been addressed more fully.

I agree with reservations: To what you have thus far;

1) The opening "The war developed immediately after the 1947-1948 Civil War" Is it a section on the Civil War, which broke out more or less after the partition plan was announced 1947. If the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is to be addressed here, it should be at the end of the section.

Furthermore the actions of the Jewish forces in the civil war did not stop on May 14th '48 or 15th or in fact, have they ever stopped. To say "The war developed" is not entirely accurate. One could possibly say the Civil War pre- May 15th 1948, became a war waged by a State on what remained of Palestine the moment Israel was declared.

2) "The British supported the annexation by Jordan of the Arab parts of mandatory Palestine" In 1950, after the Civil War and; after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and; after the subsequent Armistice Agreement had been signed. It does not belong in this section at all.

3) "The situation provided the final push for the leaders of the neighboring Arab states to intervene" The Arab intent was lodged with the UNSC May 15th 1948 in the "Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine" It was not a part of the Civil War. It does not belong in this section.

4) "On 13 May, the Arab Legion, backed by irregulars" Un-sourced. As far as I can ascertain they were irregulars, who did not 'back' the Arab Legion or have the backing of the Arab Legion.

5) "On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the state of Israel.[25]" to become effective "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time"

6) "The armies of several Arab states moved in the following day" Un-sourced and "moved in" where?

7) There is no mention of Israel's neighbouring Arabs POV/situation ... talknic (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

See my post above. Of course I didn't expect to do a good version on the first attempt. I kept text that was already in there and sourced. But the previous version was so long-winded you couldn't tell the wood from the trees. Specific points.

1) It should be clear that this article is about the international war from May 1948. As background we briefly sketch prior events including the 1947-1948 Civil War. If that isn't clear, rejig.

2) I thought the source was saying the British were already supporting the annexation. That was in the previous version of the section. But of course that doesn't make sense. Remove.

3) A neutral wording can be found. It just means "the evolution of the situation was such that the Arab countries intervened (invaded?/moved troops in)".

4) Lifted out of the previous section where it was more-or-less sourced, possibly to Karsh?

5) Is this a significant detail? Announced something that would be effective the same day? Add if it is.

6) Is it not commonly agreed that Arab armies moved in? If it isn't then there must be a massive debate about it, of which we would reflect both sides. Anways, this is better dealt with in later sections, so remove. But we do need to make it clear to readers why we have one article on the 1947-1948 civil war and this article on 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It's not quite enough to say "it was in a new stage". What real events marked that new stage?

7) Please feel free to add from an academic historian source. The previous material was too closely following Karsh.

Not blanket reverting, sorry. This is the correct length for the section. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- There was little discussion or even time given for discussion let alone reach a consensus based on any valid pro/con

1) "If that isn't clear" "that" is clear. What has been written is rather dodgy "To say "The war developed" is not entirely accurate

2) "remove" OK

3) "A neutral wording can be found" The Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine has been used elsewhere. That was their reason for intervention.

4) "Lifted out of the previous section where it was more-or-less sourced, possibly to Karsh?" THEN "The previous material was too closely following Karsh. "??

5) Yes, it is significant. It did not come into effect until the British Mandate expired.

6) No it is not commonly agreed. "moved in" to where? "What real events marked that new stage?" Israel defined what it was, incl frontiers. One cannot say "attacked Israel" if Israel's sovereign extent was not defined. It was. "remove" OK

7) "Please feel free to add from an academic historian source" You didn't look for the other POV? What happened to NPOV?

"Not Blanket reverting" ??? Seems the rules get bent here a lot. There was no time for consensus based on pro/con discussion. I have been immediately reverted after waiting up to a fortnight for valid objections. More often than not, immediately, without discussion at all. Furthermore you cannot just pick a length you like, then just simply prune to fit .... talknic (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith's cut drastically improved the quality of the article as the section was ridiculously long. The length is now as it should be. There are improvements to be made, of course, but reverting back to the old version is a big no-no. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Frederico -- There was next to zero discussion or even any time given for discussion, let alone reaching a consensus based on pro/con. I have listed my reservations. Thus far, it falls a long way short of improvement ... talknic (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Replies again, but why not just go ahead and edit?

1) Change it then.

2) "remove" Good.

3) Put it in if it is sourced.

4) Yes, I thought it did depend too much on Karsh. But when I cut it down that's all I had to work with.

5) Then OK give the time and add "when the British mandate expired".

6) I see your point. However, we could perhaps use wording like "moved in across the borders that Israel had defined for itself". Solution here is to see what factual detail is undisputed and just use that.

7) No I didn't do a whole academic search. And even if I had I wouldn't necessarily have been able to work out which source was pro-Palestinian and which pro-Israeli. I am not a historian of this period. I didn't knowingly leave in or leave out any significant POV. This is a rapid summary, right?

I can exactly just pick a suitable length. This is a background section with a main article. A paragraph or two is ample. I said what I was going to do and no-one objected. Plus it is a logical thing to do and in line with policy. Plus I said that I wouldn't necessarily get it perfect. Just sort it. Are you here to edit or to troll? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Why not just revert? Edit bit by bit with discussion. There was no time for discussion. If you don't revert, I will ... talknic (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

@judith - talknic is here to push his pet theory. You can read about it on his blog, it's not hard to find. Basically he thinks that Israel committed itself to the Partition Plan borders. You will find that most of what he's trying to do here revolves around that theory. You'll see that his points 5/6/7 are part of that (as well as the second RfC above). It's too bad he can't find a single reliable source supporting his theory, but that's not going to stop him (as you may have read, we all think the world is flat but he has checked and found out it's round!). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG "It's too bad he can't find a single reliable source supporting his theory" Oh? We debated the issue before, you saw the secondary sources I provided then. Here's some more [7]

I believe the Truman Library is a reliable source for the fact that: the US recognized Israel before Israel made any claims to territories outside it's recognized frontiers [8] and; the UNSC is a reliable source for UNSC resolutions and documents to & from the Israeli Govt, wherein the Israeli Govt was quite aware of what territory was and what was not in the State of Israel[9] and; the Israeli Govt is a reliable source for Israeli Government documents [10] saying Jerusalem was occupied, therefore certainly not within the extent of Israeli sovereignty.

With the proper use of Primary Sources in WikI/Pedia one can, without bias or opinion, show that secondary sources of opinion saying Israel didn't accept the frontiers of UNGA 181, are not reliable.

Israel's frontiers are essential information. UNSC resolutions are based on Israeli Government statements provided after recognition and; before and after becoming a UN Member State, before ever claiming any extra territory, is central to and the basis of every Armistice Agreement, Peace Agreement and every UNSC resolution passed on the matter since May 22nd 1948. It is why Israel has so many UNSC resolutions condemning its actions.

"as you may have read, we all think the world is flat but he has checked and found out it's round" You daren't quote me though? In future, please keep to the topic and refrain from fabricating nonsense about what you think I cannot find or what you claim I have said, but didn't ... talknic (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for so clearly proving my point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - You had no relevant point/s. Please either discuss the topic or desist from commenting talknic (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing bit by bit on an article like this is the way to be bogged down for ever. The previous text was definitely worse than what I said (and, more biased in the direction you claim to hate!), it was just that no-one ever read it so it wasn't so obvious. Put the verbiage all back if you like, then I will stub the section right down to nothing. WP:TNT applies. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Bogging things down forever, even for simple things like formatting/bolding proper names when they first appear in the lede of an article per WP:LEAD & WP:LEAD, after having been reverted for formatting, seems to be the norm. Now you don't like it? I am not against the notion of shortening the section and have no intention of 'bogging' anything down, merely producing a quality article. Your threatened retaliatory action to the possibility of being reverted is edit warring ... talknic (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you want then? Back to the section as it was? Or do you want to modify the shortened section, or propose alternative wording? Do you want to find a solution or is this just prima donna stuff? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - What do I want? A balanced, well written, informative article, a little less arrogance and time to discuss. When the simple matter of bolding proper nouns/names can be stifled by reams of off topic nonsense, a major edit ought surely be afforded time for some sort of pro/con discussion.

However, as it has now been made impossible to revert other than manually (after being asked to cease editing). As it now stands, it is completely imbalanced. To that end I have placed a POV-section on it.

As there is already an article 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, the lede from that article could be the starting point, if not the whole, in giving a brief over view here.

As you have instigated this notion. I'll leave it up to you to take the lead ... talknic (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant, what specifically do you want in relation to this section. So are you currently topic-banned? I saw you were in the past but I thought it had expired. If you are topic-banned then I don't think you ought to have tagged the section. The appropriate thing to do would be to propose wording here. However, I must say that your idea of using the lede from the 1947-1948 Civil War article is a good one and I will explore it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- I've already expressed specifically what I'd want of any article and suggested you take the lead with a yeh/option/nay here, in Talk. That is why it was tagged with a POV-section.

"If you are topic-banned then I don't think you ought to have tagged the section." You can check if someone is topic banned.

"The appropriate thing to do would be to propose wording here." It was tagged and; you were told and; discussion was proposed here. "The appropriate thing to do" would have been to have looked to see or asked first before removing the tag.

And it's rather odd you should say as much, especially as you have gone ahead; removed the tag without checking if an editor is banned or not, without any yeh/option/nay/discussion, without anything resembling consensus

There is one issue, with; "The British supported the annexation by Jordan of the Arab parts of mandatory Palestine." It is unnecessary and irrelevant here. It was not until 1950 that Jordan temporarily annexed the West Bank in trust ... talknic (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- A further issue; You're using Karsh after having dissed Karsh. "Palestinians were evacuated from Haifa" ??? ...... "...Palestinians fled Haifa... by the second week of May"

Those "evacuated" were "..altogether, only a very small minority of Haifa's children were evacuated before the fall and near total abandonment of the city three weeks later" Far more fled than were evacuated

I suggest using what happened to the majority per B Morris, or simply remove it ... talknic (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You should note that I will always ignore provocative ad-hominems from you. I will respond to substantive points. Karsh, Pappe, Morris and Gelber are all reliable sources for this article. Where there is disagreement, both viewpoints must be reported. I am happy for detail to be added from Morris, but which detail from which source needs consideration. As you have seen I am very happy to find solutions that involve cutting out detail, but I think the Haifa situation, alongside the siege of Jerusalem, does need to be mentioned, even in this brief summary section. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - What "provocative ad-hominems"? You've been dissing Karsh and Karsh's 'evacuation' information is rather vague. Morris seems more detailed in who and how many were 'evacuated' and why, I suggest Morris. As for the four authors all being being reliable sources, I believe the guidelines recommend each instance should be taken on a case by case basis ... talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

I didn't "diss" any historian. All four are in principle reliable for this article. We know that their emphases and their conclusions differ wildly. In the main body of the article the correct thing to do is to point out where they disagree on facts. In this short summary section all that can be done is to pick out, as neutrally as possible, the some important facts that are universally agreed. Events in Haifa were important, something needs to be said. Please propose wording from Morris. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - "All four are in principle reliable" but not necessarily per every instance. In this instance Karsh's POV (evacuated) is rather devoid of detail, where as Morris (fled) is rife with detail on "evacuated"

I suggest you drop the line altogether from the summary and present alternative POV's in the main body. Otherwise you'd be going against your own criteria.

I also suggest using Morris in the main body as he addresses both "evacuated" and "fled", which seems to fulfill your WP:NPOV criteria in one ... talknic (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I will be pleased to read any summary of Morris's account of events in Haifa you wish to propose for addition. Say about 2 sentences, with page number(s). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith|talk -- Clarify - Drop from the summary, enter 2 sentences in the Section? ... talknic (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to be clear. You want me to make a change. Tell me exactly what change. Tell me what wording you want me to put in, with a full bibliographic source, and I will read it sympathetically. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - Yes, first though, are we agreeing to drop mention from the summary and formulating something for the main body? ... talknic (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was thinking about. I thought that we were briefly summarising the 1947-48 civil war, and that there were events in the major port Haifa that were important enough to form part of that summary. If you want to use Morris to improve the 1947-1948 civil war in Palestine article please go ahead. Edit if you're allowed to, if not, propose text on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "I thought that we were briefly summarising" 'Briefly' being the operative word. Now you want 2 sentences, which is directly against 'briefly' and your previously stated criteria!

"If you are topic-banned" then "provocative ad-hominems" (which you've not shown any evidence of).. now "Edit if you're allowed to" why are you making silly personal affronts? Please desist.

The point you are trying to include is not pivotal enough to warrant two sentences from anyone in a 'brief' summary. The issue can be dealt with in depth, showing both POV's in the main dialogue ... talknic (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to propose some wording, whatever length, for the section under discussion we will all consider it. I will be pleased to read it, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- I proposed dropping two parts 1) "The British supported the annexation by Jordan of the Arab parts of mandatory Palestine" reasons given previously and; 2) "Palestinians were evacuated from Haifa" reasons given previously rendering it thus;

//A blockade of Jerusalem was lifted by the Hagana in April 1948. A small number of Haifa's children were evacuated before the Haifa was abandoned, most Palestinian Arabs fled the violence by whatever means possible . This is believed to have helped accelerate the flight of Palestinians that had become general by early May. ... talknic (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your quote is from a section of the book discussing specifically evacuation of children, not the general evacuation of Haifa. In the same book which you're quoting, see page 200 - "Some 15,000 Arabs probably evacuated Haifa during 21-22 April". More information and sources at Battle of Haifa (1948). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- OK, so suggest an edit as you'd have it, bearing in mind it is only a summary Itsmejudith is trying to pare down. I doubt though that 'probably' is encyclopedic and; they "evacuated Haifa" is quite the same as being "evacuated from Haifa"

There are alternative POV's "...Palestinians fled Haifa... by the second week of May" As I said before, perhaps this summary is not the place to address the issue ... talknic (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt we can use a snippet where we can't even see the full sentence.

Here's a contemporary source saying Haifa was evacuated -"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city."

Anyway, we can say they "fled or were evacuated" if that'll make you happy. Or instead of "were evacuated from Haifa" just "evacuated Haifa". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- 1) "I doubt we can use a snippet where we can't even see the full sentence." Click the link -- 1 page matching "More than one hundred thousand Palestinians fled Haifa and Jaffa by the second week of May" in this book[11] All that is necessary is to show it does exist.

A) Evacuating a town by fleeing is not the same as people being evacuated from a town in an orderly fashion B) Your Time article is not attributed to any author ... talknic (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a go at summarising Gelber, see what you all think. Gelber does use flee, fled, flight. Time article is primary source; whether it is signed or not isn't relevant 63 years on. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What bit of "propose alternative text" is too difficult for you talknic? You came up with nothing so I found something closer to what you want. And you revert on sight. Troll. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It would make me happy if you struck out the word 'troll'.     ←   ZScarpia   15:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - The item is under discussion. There was no consensus for you to 'have a go'

"troll"?? WP:CIVIL Please stop with the unnecessary name calling.

"You came up with nothing" Please retract your false accusation. This will be the fourth time I have cited this source [12]

Gelber 1997 or is it 2006 ? (please source with more detail) I.e., what exactly did you summarize and in which Gelber book? ... talknic (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

2006. Dolan is a journalist not a historian and also "placing all the events in the context of biblical prophecy", also it covers all I-P conflict not just about postwar period. I know troll is incivil. It is the first time I have ever called someone that. I am finding it extremely difficult to work with you. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- 1) Again: please retract your false accusation .. 2) Again: What are we looking for in the 2006 book that you summarized? .. 3) Both Gelber refs point to an article on Gelber on WikiPedia, not the book. 4) Dolan's "Holy war for the promised land: Israel's struggle to survive" Is an historical work, that he might support himself as a journalist is irrelevant.

"I am finding it extremely difficult to work with you"  ?? While this item has been under discussion, you have

1) removed the POV-section without discussion (and didn't mention it in the edit summary), 2) then edited without discussion or consensus 3) Edited again without discussion or consensus 4) now reverted without discussion, when the reason I reverted your edit was referred to the Talk page 5) Name called 6) Made a blatantly false accusation 7) Have not retracted your accusation. Elsewhere you have cited a non-existent guideline re boldfacing proper nouns when they first appear in the Lede and I am difficult to work with? ... talknic (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent). I withdraw "troll", which I said when I was very angry. I don't recognise most of the points you say above about my behaviour. We can discuss them if you like, perhaps on my talk page or if you feel very strongly you can take out a user RfC against me. And now I shall focus on content, which is the purpose of this talk page. The description of what happened in Haifa needs to be improved from the current wording. I propose we use Gelber 2006 page 102. You can find it in Google Books Preview. Do you agree that it is a good source for us to use? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way I am also happy with using Morris, but his account is very detailed and quite difficult to summarise. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic wants the article to say that most people fled. Since there are reliable sources that say people were evacuated and that can't be ignored, he wants the article to downplay that as much as possible. Your edit was not closer to what he wants. FWIW, please do continue trying to improve the article. While I might not agree with everything you do, I have no doubt you edit in good faith and try to adhere to wikipedia policy, unlike some people who just try to interpret policy to fit their POV pushing no matter how many people tell them they're wrong. "Extremely difficult to work with" is putting it mildly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Save your personal affronts for elsewhere and your accusations are false. The record shows: because there are conflicting POV's I have suggested it should be addressed in the main article, not in the summary. To wit: @ 04:14, 28 September 2011 .. "I suggest you drop the line altogether from the summary and present alternative POV's in the main body. Otherwise you'd be going against your own criteria. I also suggest using Morris in the main body as he addresses both "evacuated" and "fled", which seems to fulfill your WP:NPOV criteria in one..." Neither of which are wanting to "downplay that as much as possible". The majority fled, not evacuated.

" 'Extremely difficult to work with' is putting it mildly". How odd. I have compromised on EVERY topic we have discussed.

" unlike some people who just try to interpret policy to fit their POV " Yourself Itsmejudith, AnobMoos, Orangemike, GRuban on the bolding of proper nouns when they first appear in the Lede of an Article Your misrepresenting WP:PRIMARY. No matter how many people misrepresent the guidelines, consensus reached by deceit is invalid

Please address the issues by challenging the actual suggestions with valid criticism ... talknic (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The record shows that not only do you not understand policy correctly, you refuse to listen to what anyone says and on top of that you keep bringing up the same issues on which multiple editors have told you on more than one occasion your reading of policy is incorrect. This is textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and classic WP:IDHT which eventually you will be reported for and most likely will get you topic banned again. "Extremely difficult to work with" is an understatement.

We can't talk about Haifa in the body because it does not fit the topic of this article. It can be in the background section. We can either compromise on the wording or drop it altogether, although it's an important event which I think should be mentioned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - the record shows you have blatantly misrepresented the guidelines. WP:LEAD WP:MOS and WP:PRIMARY

"you refuse to listen" Another false accusation. I have compromised on every topic we have discussed. Brought the issues to Talk pages. Unlike your compatriots, who edit away willy nilly without discussion or consensus, ignoring (and removing POV), to the point where even you have agreed with me and removed their content because it is under discussion.

"We can't talk about Haifa in the body because it does not fit the topic of this article. It can be in the background section" Why? It can be addressed in full in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

"We can either compromise on the wording or drop it altogether" I seem to remember proposing such a notion @ 04:14, 28 September 2011. You dis-agreed @ 19:20, 5 October 2011 AND misrepresented what I have been saying. Now you're doing an about face.

"multiple editors have told you " Like your "several editors" who didn't exist? Opinions are meaningless based on misrepresentation of the guidelines, (or in the case of one AnonMoos not ever addressing the actual changes as suggested, refusing to provide any sources, going way off topic to the point of discussing the Talk page title instead of the suggestion) added to which there has been a spate of what appeared to be copy cat name calling ... talknic (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It must be really frustrating to be the only editor who understands policy correctly yet be unable to convince a single other editor. Not a one. See WP:DE. I'm sure you'll somehow be able to read it to mean you're right and everyone else is wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- How odd. 1) You've just agreed with me by removing Itsmejudith's edit and adding back in information she'd removed, in effect reverting as I'd suggested earlier and where she refused ... 2) You've just agreed with me by saying "We can either compromise on the wording or drop it altogether" ... 3) 'frustrating'? No it's quite revealing, especially given your recent edit on Itsmejudith's hard work

4) WP:DE Uh? Bolding proper nouns per WP:LEAD, while you point to WP:MOS which says exactly NOTHING relevant to bolding proper nouns when they first appear in the Lede of an Article. BTW you never did get back to me with exactly under which guideline in WP:MOS ... talknic (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If while trying to improve the article I did or said something you agree with, that's great. It's a shame that not only do you not understand the reasons, but that you try to use it in some silly game of gotcha you're apparently playing with everyone.

Keep up bringing up the issue of bolding in the lead after the RfC couldn't have been clearer. You're just making the case of your tendentious editing and IDHT that much easier to prove. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Talk pages are not editing. The sequence of events is clear here. In essence both yourself and Itsmejudith have agreed with what in essence I suggested. You've both gone around in a circle.

In the bolding RFC and its original discussion, no one came up with any valid reason why proper nouns should not be bolded in the Lede :::::::::"It's a shame that not only do you not understand the reasons". Odd. I gave the same basic reasons you've just given ... talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

(outdent) Synonyms and alternative spellings should be bolded. "Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye and caustic soda, is ..." is the example in WP:MoS. In this article we refer to Nakba as a separate but related idea that is worthy of its own article. So we aren't regarding it as a synonym. To make it bold here would be illogical and confuse the reader. "Proper names" does not come into the question at all. If you look at the example, "lye" and "caustic soda" aren't proper names. You can ask on the main Village pump page, or anywhere really, if you need this confirmed. But you already went to RfC and no-one supported you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Synonyms are not the only thing that can be afforded boldface WP:LEAD. Non-support, based on misrepresenting the guidelines, is irrelevant. (It was in fact supported on the RFC by -Orange Mike until it seems he realized it was the Arabs/Palestinians being afforded equal status in formatting in WikiI/Pedia) Nice of NMMNG to bring it up here in his snide comments, but this should be discussed in the appropriate place ... talknic (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD doesn't support the interpretation you wish to give it. You referred above to the wording "it may include variations, including synonyms". That sentence is not in the section about bolding and does not refer to bolding. "Variations" means lesser variations, e.g. different transliterations. Instead, we must refer to WP:BOLDTITLE, "If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Of two things one. 1) If you are saying that "Nakba" is an alternative name for the 1947-1949 war, or for its first phase or for its second phase, then we should merge the article Nakba into one of the three articles on the war. 2) If you are saying that Nakba was the catastrophe of people being turfed out of their homes, massacred etc. during that war, then we must maintain a separate article on Nakba and it must not be in bold type in the lede of any other article. It has nothing to do with any editor's personal views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Please do not impute views to individuals who are trying to edit within policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Again, this should be discussed in the appropriate place, where you will find adequate examples of more than one name. BTW WP:BOLDTITLE is a part of WP:LEAD as is PROPER NAMES and titles ... talknic (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Is there a special reason that the lead doesn't say a word on who started the war and who were the participants? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Who "started" the war does not really have a very easy answer -- the Arabs were the first to cross the 1923-1948 British Mandate boundary lines, but very significant fighting was already going on within the Mandate boundaries before May 14, 1948. Going back further, everybody knew that the decision of the Arabs to reject the November 29th 1947 partition plan was a decision for war, but I don't think that the Arabs issued formal declarations of war, since they didn't recognize Israel. The participants are shown in the infobox (including Iraq, which is not actually a "neighbour" to Israel)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the situation is nuanced, but since now this article is only about the events after May 14, it is fitting to state some basic undisputed facts, namely that a number of Arab countries invaded Israel, which is when this particular war started. I am surprised that this information was removed from the lead. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It can be simply and unambiguously stated that the Arabs were the first to "internationalize" the war (i.e. extend the fighting across the British mandate boundaries), but that's not necessarily quite the same as starting the war... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why refer to something that did not exist with weasel words? There were no British Mandate boundaries on 15th May 1948. There was the State of Israel, its neighbouring Arab States, all of which had borders and; the "non-self governing territory" of Palestine, whose borders were defined by default of the states neighbouring it. Furthermore, under the UN Charter Chapt XI the Arab states who represented what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent, had accepted "as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of.." what remained of Palestine. It was the legal basis of their intervention and; the reason there was no UNSC Resolution condemning their actions ... talknic (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's brazen flagrant nonsense which is even more ridiculous than most of your other nonsense -- the British Mandate boundaries still define the basic parameters of the Israeli-Egyptian border, the Jordanian-Israeli border, and the Israeli-Lebanese border even today, and on May 15th 1948 they were a lot more important in both fact and law than the never-implemented lines of the November 29th 1947 partition plan... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- when you can bring some evidence of your theories to the table, you might have a point. Meanwhile Israel declared May 15th 1948 and enshrined UNGA Res 181 in the declaration, asked for recognition per the frontiers recommended in UNGA Res 181 [13]and was recognized as asked. The Israeli Government itself stated areas "outside the territory of the State of Israel" May 22nd 1948[14], wherein the Israeli Government acknowledged Palestine as a separate entity for the State of Israel. This was all done BEFORE being admitted to the UN as recognized.

All the States in the region had defined, Internationally recognized Sovereign frontiers BEFORE Israel ever laid claim to any territory on the 31st Aug 1949 [15]. Referring back to an expired Mandate, is using weasel words. Nothing outside of the State of Israel, as it was recognized, is Israeli territory unless it has been legally annexed to Israel. Thus far Israel has never legally annexed any territory ... talknic (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, many accounts of many wars (including a large number of Wikipedia articles) naturally refer to the immediate status quo ante borders, because they provide a very natural and useful basis for historical comparisons, and understanding the territorial changes which can result from a war. These reasons would apply with full force to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War even if the 1923-1948 British mandate boundaries had no direct current-day relevance. However, considering that these same 1923-1948 British mandate boundaries still define the basic parameters of the Israeli-Egyptian border, the Jordanian-Israeli border, and the Israeli-Lebanese border even today, therefore your insistence that they be completely ignored is ludicrous nonsense. AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And Israel has annexed east Jerusalem, so that's also nonsense. AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - There is no "Dude" editing here. Please address your posts appropriately and; please substantiate your claims, without which you bring nothing of any value to the discussion.

BTW You seem to have missed the word "legally"? UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 -- "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; 2. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly; 3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need any reference for the fact that the 1923-1948 British mandate boundaries still define the basic parameters of the Israeli-Egyptian border, the Jordanian-Israeli border, and the Israeli-Lebanese border even today, because anyone who has any real knowledge of the subject knows it's true. Zero0000 gave you a precise and exact reference on the existence of the ten-meter wide strip of land on the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee, and you crudely and blatantly ignored it without any reason, so it's really quite useless to attempt to "substantiate" anything which you choose not to believe in... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "I don't need any reference " Oh? WP:VERIFIABLE

"Zero0000 gave you a precise and exact reference on the existence of the ten-meter wide strip of land on the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee" Wich I addressed pointing out that the document delineated Syria's frontiers before Israel became a State.

"and you crudely and blatantly ignored it without any reason" Please refrain from making unwarranted accusations. I answered to his assertion and silly insult [17] @ 16:36, 17 September 2011. You answered my post @ 17:11, 17 September 2011, beginning with "Whatever, dude" So you cannot claim to have not seen it. Please retract your accusation.

"it's really quite useless to attempt to "substantiate" anything " You have not attempted to supply any substantiation. Please do provide sources and edit summaries would be helpful ... talknic (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Invaded Israel" is also problematic, as the most serious army (the Arab Legion) was under orders to not enter the Jewish part of the UN partition. Can we try to choose some words that leave such issues for the detailed sections? Maybe we can say that the Arab armies entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces? Zero^talk 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, and it would be good to ensure that the Background section doesn't go into this either, but leaves it for the detailed section. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All due respect to personal interpretation, I'm going to go by reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was proposing to not (in the lead) cite the many reliable sources that Jewish forces had already invaded a large part of the Arab portion of the UN plan before the Arab states got involved. I'm surprised you disagree. Zero^talk 09:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be very clear in the lede, without too much detail and without weasel words, what or who was actually invaded. This cannot be done without mentioning borders. It is an, if not the major issue effecting the whole of the war and its aftermath and; every UNSC Resolution concerning the matter (to the present day) and; the Armistice Agreements at the conclusion of the war and; the fate/military control/occupation of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under those Armistice Agreements till the '67 war. (almost three decades)

From the moment Israel was declared, there existed two entities where there had been the British Mandate as it stood after TransJordan was declared independent 1946. One being the State of Israel, as recognized. The other being the non-self Governing territory of Palestine, whose borders were defined by default of the borders of its neigbouring Jewish State and it's neighbouring Arab States ... talknic (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source about this "non-self Governing territory of Palestine, whose borders were defined by default"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- The Israeli Government itself. I suggest this somewhere appropriate like Aftermath : //On August 31st 1949 after signing the Armistice Agreements, Israel, now UN Member State, made its first official claim to the non-self governing territories it had previously acknowledged as outside the State of Israel . The claim was refused . // .... BTW WP:PRIMARY "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Zero's suggestion is fine for the lede talknic (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a source about a "non-self Governing territory of Palestine, whose borders were defined by default", but would like us to put your personal interpretation of a letter into the encyclopedia. At this point I'm pretty sure you understand that's not going to happen. But do feel free to suck up everyone's time with your repetitive walls of text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - I gave a suggestion -- Challenge it specifically or help improve it ... talknic (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I already have. More than once. It's in the archives. But just for the new readers out there - 1) Most historians agree that Israel deliberately didn't define its borders in 1948. 2) You do not have a source establishing the significance of your primary source, nor interpreting it to say that this letter binds Israel to certain borders. 3) Your letter does not mention any "non-self Governing territory of Palestine, whose borders were defined by default", you made that up.

It is impossible to improve your suggestion because the theory you keep trying to push is not supported by scholarship. It's textbook OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG Odd. I've never before made the suggestion as it now is.

"Most historians agree that Israel deliberately didn't define its borders in 1948." A) That'd be deliberately didn't "mention" them in the Declaration. Not mentioning the borders in the Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel only means....they didn't mention them. Not that they didn't exist. B) If what most historians believe can be shown to be untrue by primary sources, those secondary opinions are unreliable.

The US recognized Israel immediately, as asked and; Israel's admission to the UN was conditional. BTW No State has ever mentioned it's borders in their Declaration of Independence. It's usually in their plea for recognition and; it is impossible to recognize the extent of a state's Sovereignty without knowing its borders.

"You do not have a source establishing the significance of your primary source" I do not need a secondary source if the primary source is used in keeping with the guidelines.

"nor interpreting it to say that this letter binds Israel to certain borders" The Israeli Govt statement of the 22nd May 1948 (UNSC S/766) acknowledges the territory of Palestine as being "outside the territory of the State of Israel"

"non-self Governing territory of Palestine, whose borders were defined by default" ...is not in the wording of the suggestion ... talknic (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So we're back to everyone thinks the world is flat, but talknic checked and discovered it's round. Only this time it's talknic vs. professional historians. This would be funny if it wasn't such a time suck.

What you're doing is WP:OR par excellence. It's not going to happen. As usual, I'm not going to continue responding. Don't take my silence as agreement to your nonsense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "everyone" ... I've never used the word. " talknic vs. professional historians" ...Actually it's statements by the Israeli Government from Primary Sources vs professional historians.

"a time suck" ? Responding to points raised is the notion of Talk, each time the goal posts move, the points raised need addressing. Thus far you have not actually addressed the suggestion, except to say you did before, yet I have never presented the suggestion as is'

"It's not going to happen" & "not going to continue respond" are not a point by point appraisals. I have never the less re-edited the suggestion hopefully closer to the requirements of WP:PRIMARY

In AFTERMATH //Areas outside the territory of the State of Israel, were already under the control of its military authorities by May the 22nd 1948 . Likewise, by 12 Aug 1948 Jerusalem had been declared Israel Occupied . On August 31st 1949 after signing the Armistice Agreements, Israel made its first official claim to areas falling within it's control and jurisdiction under the terms of the armistice agreements . The claim was refused, referring back to the Armistice Agreements . // ... talknic (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, it's really quite stupid to expect or demand that Israelis should have stayed within the never-implemented November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan lines when at the same time the Arabs loudly denounced the partition plan with vitriolic virulent vehemence as legally completely null and void. The never-implemented November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan lines were military completely indefensible (in part very intentionally so), and if the Jews had stayed within the never-implemented November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan lines while the Arabs crossed and re-crossed them at will, then the Jews might as well have slit their throats in advance and saved the Arabs the trouble (as anybody with a brain was well-aware of at the time). Furthermore, there were not in fact "two entities", as pointed out repeatedly above... AnonMoos (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- When you bring some sources to the table I'll look at your suggestions. Meanwhile, it is irrelevant that the Arab States ignored a non-binding resolution. Israel however, declared and was recognized as it asked to be recognized. By default, whatever lies outside of any state is not the territory of that state. When you can show where Israel has ever legally annexed any territory you might have a point. As it is you quite simply do not

In regard to the two entities, the Israeli Government named them on May 22nd 1948 in a statement to the UNSC "the State of Israel" and "Palestine" [18]. Furthermore UNSC Resolutions concerning the issue call for peace "in Palestine", not ever 'in Israel' ... talknic (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero, on the face of it, I don't see how location within boundaries of a rejected UN proposal matters in the lead here. However, if sources portray this as a pivotal point, as the source I have used portrayed the Arab invasion, I am not against review and a rewrite. However, as tempting as it is, I advise us all to not give things a motivational push if they are not considered pivotal by mainstream reliable sources. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the Second Paragraph be stated thus, using existing source already cited.

//On the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948 with Jewish forces already outside of the State of Israel, the Arab armies invaded Palestine and the preceding civil war in what had been Mandatory Palestine, became a war between Sovereign States. ... talknic (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel only invaded "outside the State of Israel"[sic] according to the self-same November 29th 1947 UN partition plan which the Arabs at the time were denouncing as legally completely null and void, with vehement virulent vitriol! Furthermore, there were a number of Jewish communities which were completely legal under the British mandate laws of 1946, 1947, and 1948, yet which would have been located outside the proposed Jewish state under the proposed November 29th 1947 UN partition plan proposal. AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with AnonMoos. I don't quite see how the source gives that text -- regarding location of Israeli forces during the Arab invasion -- such a pivotal position as talknic suggests. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Please bring something other than your unsubstantiated opinion to the table.

Jaakobou -- Fine, you agree with unsubstantiated, un-sourced opinion.. "I don't quite see how the source gives that text". Jerusalem was not declared as Israeli.

Do either of you have any valid objections? ... talknic (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For the purpose of editing wikipedia, his "unsubstantiated opinion" is just as valid as your novel interpretation of primary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Neither the source in the suggestion (06:07, 26 September 2011) or the source in my reply to AnonMoos, (22:33, 26 September 2011) is WP:PRIMARY. Do you have any valid objections? If not please desist ... talknic (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Please stick to the topic. A question was asked. I have been attempting to address it. Do you actually have any valid objections to the suggestion? ... talknic (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- the Etzion bloc was fully legal under British mandate regulations, and fell into the hypothetical Arab state under the never-implemented November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan. I guess that if they had simply stayed in their homes on May 15th, 1948, then you would have accused them of "invading outside Israel"! However, that never actually happened, since they were massacred on May 13th, 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please refrain from irrelevant speculation and address the topic ... talknic (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic,

I can honestly understand your concern about presenting a full and accurate account of location of forces as the war began -- but the level of notability as far as reliable sources comes in, is secondary to the issue of who made the aggressive move of invasion. The content you are interested in should most definitely be included in a block of text which explains the location of forces upon the commencing of the war -- i.e. the evolution of the fighting. However, it does not belong -- according to current review of what sources deem pivotal -- as a lead in the 2nd paragraph text. I'm sure you can also understand the concerns raised by other editors about the reasons Israeli forces were located in Palestine outside the declared state area. It will, on the face of it, create a false image of Israeli aggression to outer countries to "compare" Israeli forces location vs. Arab forces without context -- and the lead is a somewhat context-less environment. Basically, NMNG had a point when they mentioned "interpretation". We can't interpret the locality of Israeli forces as pivotal in the extent that you want it to be without reliable sources treating it to such a pivotal extent -- and, best I can see, they don't (and with good reason).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jaakobou -- "honestly"? -- You asked a question at the outset of this discussion. You determined, without any sources whatsoever, that it was necessary to address the issue in the lede. It was followed by three editors who agreed, without any substantiation via any sources whatsoever, that it should be in the lede.

Then without providing any sources whatsoever, you claimed; "All due respect to personal interpretation, I'm going to go by reliable sources." confirming your determination to have the issue raised in the lede. Now you're saying "it does not belong" in the lede ?

In answer to your original question and your determination to have the issue in the lede, I provided a suggestion and sources and gave a rationale, they are what you need to address.

The position of forces at the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is pivotal to understanding what took place from an historical POV and to convey the context of A) against who, where and why the Arab States took action and; B) what the basis is for UNSC resolutions concerning the issue. (none condemn the Arab states for invading Israel in 1948 - UNSC Resolutions call for peace "in Palestine" and never 'in Israel') ... talknic (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your particular effort to try to make out Israel to be the aggressor because it crossed the hypothetical never-implemented Arab-rejected November 29th 1947 UN partition plan lines is really not relevant to anything, since it's solely your personal opinion, without other relevant support. In fact, as has been pointed out before, it's much more clear that the Arab governments were the aggressors in internationalizing the conflict -- i.e. in first crossing the 1923-1948 British mandate borders (which, unlike the hypothetical speculative partition plan lines were actually implemented for 25 years!). However, there was plenty of fighting going on before the internationalization of the conflict, so I don't think there's really any clear overall aggressor... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Again you have no substantiated point WP:VERIFIABLE. BTW WP:FIES

"..it's solely your personal opinion, without other relevant support" The record shows I have given [[WP:VERIFIABLE}} sources for every suggestion for inclusion in the Article.

"In fact, as has been pointed out before it's much more clear that the Arab governments...etc" Unsupported, no sources, not WP:VERIFIABLE and; you are attempting to make the Arabs the aggressor.

"here was plenty of fighting going on before the internationalization of the conflict" Which was the Civil war, irrelevant to the suggestion, irrelevant to Jaakobou's original point

I've no intention of stating who was the aggressor. Please read the rationale I've already given ... talknic (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's situations like this which often cause me to use the word "dude" -- I.E. No matter how many Wikipedia acronyms you include in your remarks, and no matter how many gratuitous insults you include in your edit summaries, it doesn't change the fact that no-one else participating in these talk page discussions agrees with you, or thinks that your proposed changes to the lead section are reasonable. AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please stick to the topic and address the change as last suggested. Please address your remarks to the editor's name WP:CIVIL Please quote these alleged insults ... talknic (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic,

I didn't follow this discussion to be saying what you interpret it says. For me there was a generic argument for excluding the fact that Arabs invaded Palestine and I showed that a reliable source treats this as a pivotal point. I still don't see this type of treatment to the material you personally believe is pivotal, and to be honest, we're being repetative here. Find a source or two that put this text in the main description of the 1948 war and we'll at least have something to argue about. As it is, you're repeating your perspective -- that it is as notable as the Arab invasion -- and ignoring the arguments raised by the others.

p.s. please stop using the rejected UN resolution as an argument point -- as it was rejected.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jaakobou -- A) You started the discussion, determining it WAS pivotal in the lede and; B) you've not given any sources for anything in this particular discussion!!! and;C) I've already supported my suggestion/s, your accusation is unwarranted

D) "you're repeating your perspective" it is the perspective of the sources I have given. E) "that it is as notable as the Arab invasion" -- The Arab invasion of who, where, why? Please provide a sourced WP:NPOV alternative.

F) "ignoring the arguments raised by the others" Why another unwarranted accusation? The record shows I've addressed all the arguments raised by others, with sourced suggestions.

Re - UNGA res 181. Israel accepted UNGA res 181 without registering any reservations, enshrining it in the Declaration [19], asked for recognition by its conditions [20], was recognized as asked, confirmed the extent of its frontiers and that Israel was a separate entity from Palestine [21], was accepted into the UN as recognized, before Israel ever laid claim (31st Aug 1949 [22]) to any territories "outside of the State of Israel" [23]. It is still enshrined in the Declaration and no country has recognized any territory beyond the "frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" as Israeli, because Israel has yet to legally annex any territory United Nations Security Council Resolution 252 (plus FIVE reminders UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, United Nations Security Council Resolution 476 ).

Finally -- Please refrain from unwarranted accusations. Please provide sources. Please provide edit summaries ... talknic (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What a lovely combination of OR and SYNTH. Please read the policies and guidelines. Please try to understand them. Please stop posting walls of text with your personal interpretation of primary sources. Please stop pretending you want to discuss in good faith after you admitted on several occasions that no matter what anyone says you'll continue to think you're right and everyone else is wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- The dialogue is not intended for the Article. Please stop making personal affronts and unwarranted, unsupportable, ("after you admitted on several occasions") accusations. Please address the suggested changes for the Article as they now stand. Please use edit summaries ... talknic (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not required for talk pages, dude. Chalk that up to another guideline you don't understand.

As for the accusations, they are very much warranted and easily supported. Would you like to see if that's the case at one of the admin boards? Instead of risking another topic ban, why don't you try listening for a change? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - "dude" ?? WP:CIVIL Edit summaries - "Chalk that up to another guideline you don't understand" Did I say they were obligatory? Nope. They are however considered "good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit", so please save your silly insults for elsewhere.

"the accusations, they are very much warranted and easily supported....etc etc?" go ahead support this accusation "after you admitted on several occasions...etc...etc..".. While you're at it, you might also show where "in the archives." the suggestion, as it now stands, has been challenged before.... Although I'd rather you'd, for once, simply address it as it now stands. Being;

//On the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948 with Jewish forces already outside of the State of Israel, the Arab armies invaded Palestine and the preceding civil war in what had been Mandatory Palestine, became a war between Sovereign States. //... talknic (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dude" is not uncivil.

There are two sections above in which you explain repeatedly, against a consensus of every other editor but you, why you will keep pushing the same material.

We haven't addressed this before? Where did you get the "outside the territory of the State of Israel" bit? Could it possibly be from the same primary source multiple editors told you on multiple occasions you can't use without a reliable source supporting it? Could it be that you're cherry picking fractions of sentences in a silly attempt to support your original research?

Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- there is no "Dude" editing here

I've cited the WP:PRIMARY and where and how Primary sources can be used without a secondary source. "outside the territory of the State of Israel" is a direct quote ... talknic (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero @ 09:46, 22 September 2011-- "Can we try to choose some words that leave such issues for the detailed sections? Maybe we can say that the Arab armies entered Palestine and engaged the Israeli forces?". Indeed we can try...

Suggestion - Existing in italics : //The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war, the Arab armies entered Palestine and engaged with Israeli forces. The civil war, became a war between Sovereign States , fought mainly outside the territory of the State of Israel, in Palestine ... talknic (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Charlie, but we really don't need or want your personal theorizing about how the never-implemented Arab-rejected speculative hypothetical November 1947 UN partition plan lines are somehow supposedly more important than the 1923-1948 British mandate boundaries, which were actually implemented as a real international territorial frontier for 25 years (even longer in case of the Egypt-Palestine border)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "Sorry, Charlie" ?? WP:CIVIL -- Sources nil. There was no Mandate boundary after May 14th 1948, the Mandate expired May 14th 1948 [24] ... talknic (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have an urge to call you "Dude" and/or "Charlie" when you utter forth strikingly uninformed or unconstructive statements such as that one. The British Mandate boundaries WERE IMPLEMENTED ON THE GROUND FOR 25 YEARS (even longer in case of the Egypt-Palestine border) and STILL define the basic parameters of the Israeli-Egyptian border, the Jordanian-Israeli border, and the Israeli-Lebanese border TODAY, while the purely theoretical never-implemented Arab-rejected hypothetical November 1947 UN partition plan lines NEVER EXISTED AT ALL as far as any practical implementation or enduring non-speculative legal validity... AnonMoos (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - The "former territory of the British Mandate" does not delineate any borders between Palestine and Israel. It is un-sourced, ambiguous and to a reader not familiar with the subject could mean anywhere between from 1922. BTW I have no interest in your name calling, your false accusations or your un-sourced opinion. Again, please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Provide sources. Please stop your disruptive comments ... talknic (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your source (primary, not supported by a reliable secondary source, as usual) does not support "fought mainly outside the territory of the State of Israel, in Palestine" but kudos for using the word "Palestine" three times in the same sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - If used correctly, Primary sources are allowed without a secondary source.WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"

The source gives the areas and makes these statements "As indicated above, the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel" ... "No area outside of Palestine is under Jewish occupation but sallies beyond the frontiers of the State of Israel have occasionally been carried out by Jewish forces for imperative military reasons, and as a part of an essentially defensive plan."

'Palestine' There is one instance in the existing wording, one suggested by Zero, one used by the Israeli Govt May 22nd 1948. The war was NOT fought mainly in Israel or Egypt or Lebanon or Syria or Jordan or even all combined. It was fought mainly in Palestine according to the Israeli Govt statement May 22nd 1948.

BTW As the lede now stands. Israel/i comes up FIVE times, no mention of any of the Arab states by name. Palestine comes up twice ... talknic (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

An educated person without specialist knowledge would not be able to verify that the war was "fought mainly outside the territory of the State of Israel, in Palestine" from the source you provided. Mostly because the source just doesn't say that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Counting to nine is not specialist knowledge. Nine areas "outside of the territory of the State of Israel" in the first sentence of the Israeli Govt's statement. The Israeli Government does not describe fighting in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt. The Israeli Govt names less areas where the fighting was in Israel. BTW Neither the Questions or Answers use the weasel words "Mandatory Palestine" ... talknic (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Counting to nine is not specialist knowledge. How do you jump from that to "fought mainly outside the territory of the State of Israel"? WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- By counting. The areas named by the Israeli Government(in the first answer only) as outside of the territory of the State of Israel and under Israeli military control (9), the areas named by the Israeli Government as within the State of Israel (6)! Areas named by the Israeli Government belonging to the Arab States (0) ... talknic (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, original research. You don't know how much fighting took place in which area and can't evaluate where most of the fighting took place. That's assuming you could even use this source for what you're trying to use it, which as I noted above you can't. As a side note, it's quite dishonest to take a statement in the document with the form of "X, including A, B and C" and count that as 4 separate areas, but that's really besides the point. Not to mention completely unsurprising, unfortunately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "In other words, original research" I've not mentioned any numbers in the suggestion for the article. Any educated person without specialist knowledge can count to nine.

"it's quite dishonest to take a statement in the document with the form of "X, including A, B and C" and count that as 4 separate areas" It's quite dishonest to say I've suggested counting '4 separate areas' for the article. Please address the suggestion for the Article Lede as worded. Any educated person can total up to nine probably without prompting.

"which as I noted above you can't" Primary sources can be used as described in WP:PRIMARY.

Never the less, I have been attempting to address Jaakobou's suggestion and the quality of the the Lede, which at present contains this unsourced, weasel worded, statement "The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate". I suggest it simply be deleted, rendering the paragraph thus ;

Existing and Zero's suggestion in italics//The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war, the Arab armies entered Palestine and engaged with Israeli forces. The civil war, became a war between Sovereign States .// ... talknic (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Counting "Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier;" as 5 different areas is indeed dishonest.

Your interpretation of the document is original research. It does not say where "most of the fighting took place". You are not using it as described in WP:PRIMARY. You are not making a "straightforward, descriptive statement", you are are in fact doing exactly what the policy says not to do, i.e. interpretive claims and analysis.

"The former territory of the British Mandate" is not weasel words. We have a section dealing with that on this page, in which not a single editor agrees with you, as usual. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- A) I have not suggested "Counting "Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier;" as 5 different areas." anywhere for inclusion in the article. B) Please address the wording/s suggested for the article, which now stands at C) 11:23, 29 September 2011 and which no editor has addressed.

"The former territory of the British Mandate" could include any time period from 1922 to the present. It is wildly imprecise and, having expired May 14th 1948, rather irrelevant when all the States had frontiers by which they were recognized after May 15th 1948. BTW it's been sitting there for about three years, not sourced, contrary to WP:VERIFY & you own demands ... talknic (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You did in fact suggest counting those places to reach the number 9 which you then used to come to your conclusion that most of the war was "fought mainly outside the territory of the State of Israel". Now you removed that bit. It would be helpful if you indicated that you understand why it can't be used, but I'm not holding my breath.

We have a section dealing with the "former British Mandate" thing. Please try to focus.

I don't see how your suggestion is an improvement on the current text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- I did not in fact suggest counting anything in the wording I put forward for the Article. I suggested in Talk, which is not the article, that folk with a reasonable education can count (and presumably read) what the Israeli Govt stated. Furthermore this your second reference to it since it was dropped @11:23, 29 September 2011

"We have a section dealing with the "former British Mandate"" - Please, don't resort to misrepresentation by imprecision. This is what is being addressed "the former territory of the British Mandate". Not the 'former British Mandate'!

"former British Mandate" & "the former territory of the British Mandate" are 'weasel words' when used in context of post May 15th '48 borders/frontiers. Every state in the region had defined frontiers as of May 15th 1948, without which their sovereign extent could not have been determined in order to recognize them as Sovereign States.

A reader, not familiar with the subject, might presume "the former territory of the British Mandate" to mean anywhere in the former British Mandate from 1922.

"I don't see how your suggestion is an improvement on the current text" Perhaps you can elaborate, because you're not seeing is not a valid objection or grounds for claiming consensus

Existing - The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 14 May 1948, following a period of civil war. With the breakout of fighting between sovereign states, the Arab armies invaded Palestine. The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.

Proposed - The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. The Arab armies entered Palestine and engaged with Israeli forces. The civil war, became a war between Sovereign States ... talknic (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling "the former territory of the British Mandate" weasel words is ridiculous. Anyway, as I said before and am saying now for the last time, we have a section dedicated to your problems with that phrase, let's keep the relevant discussion there. If I'm not mistaken, you are, as usual, having problems garnering support for your suggested change there too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- There was no Mandate as of May 14th 1948. Referring to it is rather silly especially after first having said "upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine" Furthermore to a reader not familiar with the topic, it could mean any territory within the Mandate from 1922, which of is highly inaccurate. That you want to keep inaccurate un-sourced material seems to indicate you have little interest on actually improving the article. As for your unnecessary comment on not being able to gain consensus - consensus based on misrepresenting the guidelines is in no way valid. Likewise, consensus based on the desire to keep inaccurate, un-sourced and ambiguous statements is also rather dubious .... talknic (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear talknic,

I don't understand why you ignore so much feedback rejecting your UN related argument. I've given you a relatively simple wiki-related way to persuade me, but you're working me around rather than dealing with the presented problem explicitly. The term 'original research' is not a far off response because, best I can tell, you have not presented sources using as a pivotal argument the so called extra territorial location of Israeli forces. i.e. above or in similar depth of importance to that of the war commencing with the invasion of the Arab forces. The two are simply not equivocal and do not belong in the same paragraph -- let alone the same sentence.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jaakobou - I address the responses in detail and compromise suggestions. How is that ignoring? 'rejection' BTW is not necessarily 'correct'. For example UNSC S/766 gives the Israeli Govt statements contradicting your claim quite clearly. However, having compromised yet again, can you please address the actual wording of the suggestion as it stands @11:23, 29 September 2011. It was after all, your idea to address the issue ... talknic (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Heyo Talknic,

My time is limited but I skimmed through whatever statements are made in context with UNSC S/766 on this discussion. Best I can tell, there is no address to the concern I've raised about it not being treated as a pivotal issue by mainstream wiki-sources. Is my assessment correct or am I missing a source somewhere that treats this on a similar level to the Arab invasion?

p.s. a compromise suggestion which I've noticed seemed to treat these two as equivocal, which is -- as of now -- an improper presentation.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jaakobou -- There is no reference to UNSC S/766 in the suggestion for the Lede as it now stands @ 09:45, 30 September 2011 and @11:23, 29 September 2011 ... talknic (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I see a repetition to the term 'civil war' within adjacent sentences. I trust there is no disagreement that it is superfluous to the style we hope to achieve. To the issue of content changes: From what I can tell, the initial proposal, for the most part uses the word 'entered' instead of 'invaded' and I the source used is there exactly for avoiding such watering down terminology/evasion to the Arab aggression. Sorry, but no. I disagree with that proposal wholeheartedly and I doubt there could be found a mainstream source which will promote such phrasing as the lead descriptive to their activity at the breaking point of the war.

With respect, I'm not sure you follow the nuances of this subject matter with the suggestions you are making. You are going against sources and insert an original idea, that the Arabs were not the aggressors. It is uncomfortable to deal with this, when there are no sources, best I am aware, which support your theory.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The last part of your comment is incorrect. Reliable sources present cases for both sides being aggressors. These cases revolve around facts such as the following. The evidence shows that^{12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)} Ben-Gurion had no intention of accepting the UN-specified borders. Publicly, the Arab states declared that, on termination of the Mandate, they would enter Palestine to protect the Arab population. Privately, though, Egypt and Jordan intended to annexe parts of Palestine to themselves. Jordan, which was in command of the Arab armies, had secretly reached an agreement with the Israelis dividing what had been intended to be a Palestinian Arab state between themselves. The agreement covered everywhere apart from Jerusalem, the one place where there was serious fighting between the Jordanians and Israelis (Jordan, of course, prevented the Israelis from taking East Jerusalem). The Jordanians saught British approval in advance and gained it on condition that Jordan did not attack UN-specified Israeli territory.     ←   ZScarpia   13:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

ZScarpia,

Appreciate the little history lesson but "The evidence shows" is not something which can be used in the lead. I'm sure Israeli leaders made a few plans, as did the Egyptians and Jordanians and, certainly, a few historians made commentaries based on random findings. We can certainly elaborate on what historians wrote in the body of the article. Regardless, sources main descriptive of the opening of the war is that of an Arab invasion and the current discussion is regarding the idea to present Jewish forces located outside the UN 1947 area on a similar level as the Arab invasion. This is a novel idea that does not appear to have pivotal support in the sources.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You said: "You are going against sources and insert an original idea, that the Arabs were not the aggressors." The point of my answer was to show that, contrary to your statement, reliable sources do not uniformly present the Arabs as the aggressors. Bear in mind, there are different points of view. From the Palestinian Arab point of view, the Arab armies were not invading and were not the aggressors.     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC) (amended 13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC))

ZScarpia -- The one thing that's undisputed and uncontroversial () is that the Arabs were the first to significantly move across the 1923-1948 British mandate boundaries, and so internationalize the conflict. As I've said above, I'm not sure that this makes them the aggressors as such (since there was plenty of bloody fighting going on before the British left), but it does make them the "internationalizers", and it's not necessarily out-of-line for Jaakobou to demand a clear statement of this clear fact... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - except in Talknic's fantasy universe, of course!" Keep your childish in-accurate insults to yourself. The Arab States crossed their own borders into what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared. There is no need to express it in terms of the expired Mandate. Furthermore, Israel, being a State on May 15th 1948 was an International entity. It's forces, outside of the State Israel, in what remained of Palestine, Internationalized the conflict as much as any other State in the region. Never the less, your comment is rather irrelevant as it is not sourced and as no UNSC resolution exists condemning the Arab States from crossing their own borders into Palestine ... talknic (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

According to you, the boundaries of the British Mandate seem to have been replaced by a Moebius strip on May 15th, 1948, which does introduce a certain fantasy element! More importantly and seriously, something which existed in concrete implemented sometimes-physical form for 25 years or more and still define the basic parameters of several international boundaries even today (i.e. the British Mandate boundaries) must be more important than something which never existed at all as far as any practical implementation or enduring non-speculative legal validity is concerned (i.e. the purely theoretical never-implemented Arab-rejected hypothetical November 1947 UN partition plan lines). Denying this leads you into an interesting universe, but one which has limited connections with actual reality (see my comments of "18:59, 29 September 2011" above). AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We can certainly say that the conflict became fully internationalised after the termination of the British Mandate at midnight on the 14th, with the conversion of the Haganah and Palmach into a proper, regular army and the intervention of the forces of the Arab states (though the conflict had international elements before, such as the involvement of the British, the assistance given to the Palestinian Jewish and Arab sides by foreign Jews and Arabs and the covert assistance given to the Jewish side by the French and American governments and to the Arab side by the governments of the Arab states). The principal on Wikipedia is that it is better to allow facts to speak for themselves. Why exactly is it necessary to indulge in the trivial, partial finger-pointing of calling the Arab states "the internationalisers"? It has not been thought necessary to call Germany and Italy the internationalisers in the Spanish Civil War. Nor the Americans the internationaliser in the Vietnam War. Why, then, if, in the case of war, an internationaliser is a country which first commits its forces to an internal conflict elsewhere, is it necessary to do it here, particularly as Israeli forces were fighting outside the UN-specified borders of Israel when the Arab armies intervened and were engaged on seizing as much territory as they could and particularly as (forgive me if I'm wrong) no reliable sources which do it have been presented?     ←   ZScarpia   16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually calling for the word "Internationalizer" to be included in the article, but the basic facts behind the word are relevant and undisputable and should be included in the article. In any case, bystanders sending aid to one or the other side from afar is a very different thing from organized uniformed military formations marching across an international border, and there's no reason to confuse these very different things. And with your reference to "Israeli forces were fighting outside the UN-specified borders of Israel" you unfortunately seem to be starting to go down the well-trodden Talknic / Harlan_wilkerson path of hypothetical metaphysical speculative philosophico-legal exegesis of the November 29th 1947 United Nation partition plan -- something which (as I've said before) has created hundreds of thousands of bytes of somewhat redundant and repetitive discussions on Wikipedia article talk pages, without ever leading to the significant improvement of even one single article... See further my comment of "19:02, 23 September 2011" above. AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Then, please recapitulate for me, specifically which basic, relevant and undisputable facts which aren't already in the article do you want added? Note that I wasn't trying to say that the assistance given to the sides before the end of the Mandate was the same as the assistance by regular armed forces given afterwards. What I was pointing out was that it could be said that the conflict was partially internationalised before the end of the Mandate, which undermines the justfication for labelling one side "the internationalisers" ... and you did, though saying that you are not yourself calling for the word "Internationalizer" to be included in the article, bring up the subject of the correctness of Jaakobou demanding "a clear statement of this clear fact" that the Arab states were "the internationalisers". It's curious that you should think it so significant that the Arab armies crossed into the area that the UN had specified for an Arab state but of no significance that the Israeli armed forces were already fighting there. When, as described by reliable sources, different points of view about an event exist, Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally present those different points of view. I now know something your point of view of the beginning of the 1948 War. I'm curious to know whether you acknowledge that there are other points of view and what you think those other points of view are.     ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jews were fighting outside of the never-implemented Arab-rejected theoretical speculative November 29 1947 proposed United Nations partition-plan lines in significant part because Jews were living outside the never-implemented Arab-rejected theoretical speculative November 29 1947 partition-plan lines (in West Jerusalem, the Etzion bloc, and elsewhere) -- though the fact that the never-implemented Arab-rejected theoretical speculative November 29 1947 partition-plan lines had in part been very deliberately contrived to be completely military indefensible also played a role, of course. And you didn't like Jaakobou's or Ynhockey's statements about Arab countries "starting the war" or "invading", and so I suggested as an alternative plain clear non-subjective statement that the Arab states, by their actions, transformed the fighting from a civil war into an international war. It's very hard to deny this without twisting yourself into exegetical knots or denying solidly-accepted historical facts. So far you've avoided going down the Talknic / Harlan_wilkerson metaphysical-speculative path, and it will be better for everybody (including yourself) if you continue to refrain from doing so. AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please refrain from needless dialogue. Please source. Please suggest an alternative, with sources, shaped to fit or replace the existing ... talknic (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- I don't have to "source" commonly-known facts on article discussion pages, and we were discussing ramifications of Jaakobou's original question at the top of this section. Why don't you refrain from needlessly insulting edit summaries? That would be the most helpful of all. AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"whatever"? WP:CIVIL ... "I don't have to "source" commonly-known facts" WP:VERIFY ... Again: Quote these alleged "insulting edit summaries" .. Again: Actually providing edit summaries would be most helpful. Again: Please suggest an alternative, with sources, shaped to fit or replace the existing. Otherwise your comments are rather meaningless ... talknic (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people would call your edit summaries "ridiculous, time wasting personal affronts"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Please stick to the topic and cease your personal vendetta ... talknic (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but objecting to the insults and (to use your own words) "ridiculous, time wasting personal affronts" which you frequently include as part of your edit summaries is not a "vendetta"... AnonMoos (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please stick to the topic. Thx ... talknic (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed to merge 1948 Palestine war here and started the discussion on that talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Please discuss it here (moved all comments to one thread).Greyshark09 (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify: According to this "There is an ongoing discussion about a merge and what names historians use for the war in general and for each part of it. You are participating in that discussion." Does this mean;

A) The whole article cannot be edited?

B) By any editor or;

C) only those involved in the discussion?

D) If C), what about edits made since the merge discussion began @ 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) by editors, other than myself, involved in that discussion? ... talknic (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the exclusion of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs in the Article Lead

(Under my botched title of "Suggest the inclusion of the occupied Palestinian territories in the first section" apologies) Attempting to reconcile the first line of the Article Lead which mentions Israel's neighbouring Arabs, with the closing line of the Lead which excludes any mention of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs whose lives and territories, through the Armistice Agreements, came under the military control/occupation of their neighbouring Arab States and the neighbouring Jewish State talknic (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There weren't really any pre-assigned Arab territories, since the Arabs had chosen to tear up the map by rejecting the November 29, 1947 UN Partition Plan. And the Arabs in Palestine weren't "neighboring" Palestine, they were in Palestine. We've gone all through this several times before. AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- As of May 15th 1948 it is irrelevant whether there were or were not any pre-assigned Arab territories. Israel declared in accordance with UNGA res 181 and asked for recognition "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and was recognized as such. Whatever lay outside of Israel is simply not Israeli.

"the Arabs in Palestine weren't "neighboring" Palestine, they were in Palestine" Correct, they were Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. Please re-read exactly what has been written talknic (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this brings us back to the original issue with respect to you and Wikipedia -- your use of the dubious "laddering" strategy to somehow deduce that Israel is unilaterally bound for all time to all the terms of the November 29th, 1947 United Nations partition plan resolution, while the Arabs aren't. We've gone all through this many, many times before -- and I've already told you several times that abstract philosophical metaphysical quasi-theological exegesis of UNGA Resolution 181 has generated hundreds of thousands of bytes of discussion on Wikipedia article talk pages (both before and after your arrival) while conspicuously failing to result in the significant improvement of even one single Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - please address the topic, which is the exclusion of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs in the Article Lead talknic (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, the Arabs in Palestine weren't "neighboring" Palestine, they were in Palestine. We've gone all through this before, but apparently you insist on going through the motions yet another time, despite no indications that the current discussions will produce an end-result different from previous discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dude"? There is no 'Dude' posting here.

"the Arabs in Palestine weren't "neighboring" Palestine, they were in Palestine." Please read what has actually been written before commenting.

"We've gone all through this before " Please indicate where A) I have said "the Arabs in Palestine were "neighboring" Palestine" B) where we have gone all through it before.

"but apparently you insist on going etc etc etc." Please stick to the topic and what has actually been written talknic (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you reword this RfC if you want it to do its job and bring in uninvolved editors. Reword with a clear question. For example, "which is better, x wording or y wording?". And when you have asked the question all regular editors should refrain from chipping in. Notify the RfC to the Israel-Palestine collaboration project. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I carefully refrained from "chipping in" to the "Balance in the Lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" section immediately above, but this section remained stubbornly blank, which meant that it contained only Talknic's dubious assertions... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall a requirement for involved editors to refrain from chipping in. I try not to continue the debate in the RfC section, but there's no reason not to voice an opinion. Particularly in a case like this where the nominator doesn't state the issue very clearly (I'm being generous here obviously) and responds to every single comment other editors make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - WP:RFC "Mediate where possible—identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart" I have attempted to draw people's attention to the actual topic of the RFC

The issue is very clear. The first sentence of the lead mentions Israel's neighbouring Arabs. Palestinian Arabs also neighboured Israel. The war was predominantly fought in the territory of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs, over the territory belonging to Israel's neighbouring Arabs, resulting in Armistice Agreements which dictated the fate of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs for the next 27 or so years. Yet there is no mention of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs in the lead talknic (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice how you're still trying to obfuscate the fact that the Arabs in Palestine weren't "neighboring" Palestine, they were in Palestine -- no matter how many times your obfuscation has been exposed. AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Your post does not relate to anything I have written. If you think you're addressing something I wrote, please quote the full sentence verbatim talknic (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please stick to the topic.. Comments on another RFC belong in that particular RFC talknic (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consult my remarks of "13:53, 16 September 2011" below on why stubbornly reiterating unproductive rhetorical strategies could eventually result in another ban. AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your remarks of "13:53, 16 September 2011" are irrelevant to the topic talknic (talk)

They're relevant to how you behaving better could prevent you from suffering further consequences to those you underwent before. AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - please address the topic talknic (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your unproductive rhetorical strategies have become part of the discussion, since if you didn't persist in them, these discussions could be much shorter and more relevant to article improvement... AnonMoos (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - please address the topic talknic (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Again, responding to the RfC: can the opener please be specific what the question is? The first sentence currently says "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War ... was the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict." Fine, mentions Arab neighbours. Got that. The last sentence currently says "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements." No mention of Arab neighbours. Is that the issue? If so, well I don't see why the last sentence of the lead needs to repeat the first sentence. It could be longer, true, but I imagine that the 1949 Armistice Agreements article goes into more detail, so it's not necessarily horrible. I could see turning the last sentence into a paragraph mentioning some important points, the fate of the Palestinians certainly among them, but maybe also the borders, the subsequent wars, etc. What exactly do you propose as the last sentence, and why? --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban - "No mention of Arab neighbours. Is that the issue?" Read the title of the RFC. Addressing the exclusion of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs The inclusion of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs would not repeat the first sentence.

"the 1949 Armistice Agreements article goes into more detail" However;

[Relative emphasis] "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources. Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although this does not mean that everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text: specific facts will often appear only in the lead, such as quotations, examples, birthdates, and titles, depending on editorial judgment. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the emphasis given to material in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text"

"What exactly do you propose as the last sentence, and why?" First Paragraph "Attempting to reconcile the first line of the Article Lead which mentions Israel's neighbouring Arabs, with the closing line of the Lead which excludes any mention of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs whose lives and territories, through the Armistice Agreements, came under the military control/occupation of their neighbouring Arab States and the neighbouring Jewish State " ... talknic (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the bit about "neighbouring" refers to Arab countries neighboring the British mandate. It's kind of dubious in the first place, since Iraq was NOT a neighbor to the British mandate, and it certainly can't be extended to Arabs who were in the Mandate (NOT "neighbouring" the Mandate), so you're pretty much wasting our time with this completely useless proposal... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "the bit about "neighbouring" refers to Arab countries neighboring the British mandate" ... That is not what is in the article. It says: "State of Israel and its Arab neighbours" ... talknic (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You're proposing we write "Attempting to reconcile..." as the last sentence of the lead? I oppose that, it seems wordy and not to the point. If not, I repeat the question, what exactly do you propose as the last sentence? I agree with AnonMoos that neighbouring does seem to refer to countries, but I don't agree this proposal is useless, the last paragraph of the lead could stand improvement. What exactly do you propose, please? --GRuban (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban - AnonMoos is quite incorrect. The article says: "the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours"

This is the suggestion - The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Israel , Jordan and Egypt. ... talknic

Aha. Clearly "neighbouring" in the first sentence is unclear. AnonMoos (and I) thought it clearly meant countries, but you seem to think it means individuals. We can argue about it (a war with people on one side and a country on the other? the Arabs were pretty clearly organized into countries too) but it seems better to just remove or rephrase the word "neighbouring" since reasonably educated people are reading it two different ways. As for your suggestion, I don't like the words "Arabs under the occupation": people can't be occupied, land can be occupied. How about "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the territories of the former Palestinian Mandate under the occupation of Israel [1], Jordan [2] and Egypt."? --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the source talknic is using doesn't say Israel occupied anything. We had a discussion about this which you can see in the archives. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Yes it does.. //Shertock argued that American realism would not take seriously the so called imminent danger of Israel's occupation of Nablus, Jenin, the Galilee and perhaps Amman "Either they would have to approve these occupations, thus embroiling themselves very deeply with the Arab world or they would have to demand that we give up these conquests, thus fomenting an unnecessary quarrel with the Jewish world"// In the discussion we had in the archives you tried the same stunt. Occupation is mentioned twice ... talknic (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While the word "occupation" is mentioned there, it is not saying that Israel occupied anything. It's a quote of what someone said in the future tense. We have indeed been over this more than once yet you keep on going with the WP:IDHT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMG - The future tense was in respect to how the US would react to "Israel's occupation of Nablus, Jenin, the Galilee and perhaps Amman". You're attempting to say they weren't under Israeli military control (aka occupation) at the time Shertock expressed his concerns about how the US would react. Israel had already proclaimed Jerusalem occupied 12 Aug 1948 [25]and the British recognition saw it as occupation 27 April 1950 [26]. The US recognized Israel, as asked, on May 15th 1948, likewise Russia and the majority of the International Community, before Israel was accepted into the UN. We are talking about post recognition, as asked, post UN Membership, post Israel's statement to the UNSC May 22nd 1948

But according to your ever moving goal posts, Israel neither occupied or held any territories under military control at the end of the Arab-Israeli war and on the signing of the Armistice Agreements talknic (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban -- It is very clear, what you and AnonMoos thought it said, is not what it says.

"people can't be occupied, land can be occupied" NMMNG tried that one. Road blocks, checkpoints, et al are not to stop land from moving around.

"you seem to think it means individuals" Read what I have actually written and please refrain from posting nonsense

Your suggestion 1) The suggested change is not to the first part of the article. If you wish to change the first part, you'll now need to discuss it as you've place the notion in Talk and; it will still not address the exclusion of the Palestinian Arabs from the lede

Your suggestion 2) - There was no Mandate by the time the Armistice Agreements were signed, there is no need to refer back to it The Israeli Government clearly acknowledged what was and what was not Israeli territory on may 22nd 1948 in its statement to the UNSC [27] and; the Armistice Agreements didn't leave all the territories of the expired and no longer relevant Mandate, under Israeli military control/occupation and; it still doesn't mention the Palestinian Arabs who were indisputably a party to the Arab-Israeli war, whose territory was fought over and in whose territory most of the war was fought and; whose fate was indisputably dictated by the Armistice Agreements for almost three decades ... talknic (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"... divided between Israel, Jordan, and Egypt"? --GRuban (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban -- Weasel words have no place in WikiPedia. The sources I have given say 'occupied' dispute them and; the Israeli Government proclaimed it occupied Jerusalem [28] well before the Armistice Agreements were signed ... talknic (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Summary: Thus far arguments against have been -- completely irrelevant un-sourced dialogue (AnonMoos); The failure to understand what has been suggested (GRuban) and the nonsense "people can't be occupied, land can be occupied"; Change the title of the discussion (Itsmejudith); A refusal to comprehend it was the US's future response being discussed by Shertok (NMMNG) ... talknic (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK I didn't change any titles of discussions. I commented under a different heading when you had an RfC open. It very often happens on busy talk pages that discussions get fragmented and difficult to follow. I have no problems with my comments being moved for clarity. Actually, it was probably best for me not to comment under the RfC because people already involved in discussion aren't suppose to clutter up the space. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- the word "neighboring" is clearly meant to refer to Arab countries bordering the British Mandate of Palestine. The choice of the word "neighboring" was really rather dubious in the first place, since Iraq does not neighbor Palestine -- and when you try to twist it further to refer to Arabs actually in Palestine, then you only succeed in changing it into pure unadulterated nonsensical gibberish. AnonMoos (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A better summary: talknic - yea, everyone else - nay. Closely followed by talknic explaining why everyone else's opinion is "invalid". Time to get an admin to close this one as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Consensus - "Decision by consensus takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus that is aligned with Wikipedia's principles" ... "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." ... "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. " ... talknic (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You tried that argument with the previous RfC. How did that work out for you? An admin will close this, while taking into account all the valid arguments (in the sense of "complying with policy" not "arguments talknic agrees with"). I'm pretty sure your proposed change will be rejected again, but don't let that stop you from arguing endlessly with everyone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "You tried that argument with the previous RfC." False accusation. I've never cited the guideline on consensus before 12:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The last closure did not take into account the validity of any arguments in the sense of "complying with policy" as policy actually states. Sandstein admitted as much [29]

"How did that work out for you? " It was interesting. The record of mis-used and un-applied Wikipedia guidelines, flimsy excuses and numerous abuses grows ever larger ... talknic (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your ability to read whatever you want into what other people say never ceases to amaze. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- Please cease you personal comments ... talknic (talk)

Not sure why you seem to enjoy "gloating" and including "unnecessary personal affronts" (your words) in your edit summaries so much... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Please stop your personal vendetta. Provide sources for your claims. Thx ... talknic (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - I did not say you 'changed' the title. Never the less, my apologies I ought have said you suggested "reword this RfC". Which is not in itself an objection

AnonMoos -- "Whatever, dude" WP:CIVIL (again) -- The Article already tells readers there was no British Mandate of Palestine as of May 14th 1948. Israel didn't exist as an entity in the period of the British Mandate, therefore Israel has never bordered the British mandate of Palestine. Furthermore, the British Mandate was not a place or territory, it was a set of conditions for the administration of Palestine. States/entities could/can not border A) a set of conditions that B) no longer exist.

The article clearly says "the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours". On May 22nd 1948 the Israeli Govt acknowledged Palestine as separate from Israel. To wit; "the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel" ... " under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel" [30] and; that "the military authorities of the State of Israel," (were) "adhering to international regulations" -- International regulations at the time were the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Art. 42 SECTION III) ... talknic (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTING: The addition of more information to the Lede for the consequences of the war for Jewish population [31], whilst omitting any consequences of the war on the Palestinians, contrary to WP:NPOV ... talknic (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened in Haifa?

OK, so we need to re-add something. Some or all of the following: 1) Haifa was the major port; most people leaving by sea left through Haifa. 2) There was planned evacuation of Arab children and mothers through Haifa. 3) Any orderly "evacuation" organised by the British or others was through Haifa. 4) There was a "Haifa turning point" in April 1948; I found a scholarly article asserting its importance in the course of the war - it was work apparently supervised by Avi Shlaim I should mention. The Jews gained control of Haifa. 5) The British tried to hold Haifa and then lost control. 6) The Arab population of Haifa left hurriedly; "fled" is a common term in the literature. This was in response to encouragement of Arab leaders, but also due to general fear. 7) The British evacuated their own troops through Haifa. 8) After the Haifa Turning Point the exodus of Arab Palestinians accelerated. I'm not a historian of this period! I am only reading stuff on Google Books preview, which is uncomfortable because I believe you should have read a source in its entirety before you cite it. I might have left stuff out or not described it in the best terms. I would love now to leave this to other people to thrash out. It might make sense to get it right in the main article on the 1947-1948 civil war and then summarise it here. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- This is already under a discussion you started. [32]... It should be addressed in full, NPOV, in the Article 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine ... talknic (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest returning to the version we had last week. There was really only one person who objected to that, and I suspect he won't be around soon considering his behavior. I left it out because I thought you're going to work on it, but if not I don't see any reason not to put the text back in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should be described in full in the main article. We are talking about the summary here. OK NMMNG, restore what we had for the time being, but you know I summarised rather rapidly and just by cutting down what was already there. I agreed with talknic (yes, really) that it didn't do justice to all the historians' accounts but it seems not to be possible to find a good form of words. I might go to WikiProject Milhist. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as someone is working on it, I don't mind leaving it out if only to improve the signal to noise ratio on this page. Maybe it should be framed in the context of the exodus which currently isn't mentioned at all in the background section but really should be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Arab Palestinians left the country in large numbers, and this accelerated after Jewish forces took Haifa in April 1948." (Gelber, Morris, Karsh) Any use? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start. I think it should be beefed up a bit, maybe to a short paragraph including something along the lines of "Factors involved in the flight include the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes, the collapse in Palestinian leadership, an unwillingness to live under Jewish control, Jewish military advances, and fears of massacre after Deir Yassin, which caused many to leave out of panic." which I cribbed from the lead of Nakba. I doubt just saying they "left" will remain unchallenged. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - You will be finding find sources to support your work, yes? "Factors involved in the flight" 'flight' = fleeing. "to leave out of panic" = fleeing. "voluntary self-removal" is so cute ... talknic (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He was only making suggestions, and they were helpful. Ideally we find language as neutral as possible. "Left" is both neutral and accurate. "Flee, fled, flight" are used by the historians and I am not against them appearing here. The wealthier classes left first and in a more planned way. In my experience the solution NPOV disputes is to keep it short and factual. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I copied the text directly from the lead of the Nakba article, where it is sourced and is a result of consensus. I think it's relatively short, factual and covers the major factors in an NPOV way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - From the Co-founder of the New_Zionist_Organization - Schechtman, Joseph (1952). The Arab Refugee Problem. New York: Philosophical Library. pp. 4 -- NPOV ?

His work on the Palestinian refugee problem was heavily criticised by Erskine Childers of the UN for misquoting, carefully selecting words, and taking statements out of context to fit his narrative ... talknic (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I like how you say that as if you knew anything about it before reading his wiki article two minutes ago. Anyway, like I said, I got that text from the lead of Nakba, why don't you go over there and try to get it removed? Or suggest some other text? Or continue just objecting on general grounds to everything anyone tries to do until we all get tired of trying to improve this article and the exodus isn't even mentioned in the background section? Up to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - It's irrelevant when one finds information. The record shows I've not once objected to the subject being mentioned, nor do I object to 'everything' anyone tries.

"I got that text from the lead of Nakba".. which you wrote in large part [33] and this source [34] actually says "masters" not 'control' and gives rates of pay to show why he meant 'masters'

I shall indeed 'go over there' at some stage ... talknic (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not write that in large part, although you might get that impression if you compare two of my edits with 170 intermediate revisions. I'll chalk that one up to ignorance. Directly quoting from a wikipedia article (with a small edit to remove a name without a wikilink) and presenting it as your opinion is something else completely.

Anyway, what exactly are you arguing here? I have no idea what you're talking about re: masters. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- I'll chalk it up to what's there. Of the four references two, as far as I can tell, were added by you. One attributed to the Co-founder of the New Zionist Organization: "Factors involved in the flight include the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes" BTW 'voluntary self removal' are such cute weasel words for "flight" ... The other: "an unwillingness to live under Jewish control" 'beefing up' the opinion of only one person, who said "masters" and gave the reasons for specifically using that word [35]

"Directly quoting from a wikipedia article..etc etc " Joseph Schechtman [36] and the New Zionist Organization are quite clickable. Meanwhile I had to search for the 'beefy' "Factors involved in the flight include the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes...etc etc.." which is in quotes and was un-sourced until you were prompted ... talknic (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to suggest improved wording? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"As far as [you] can tell" is based on your comparing non-concurrent versions of the article. But since it's pointless to try and explain this stuff to you, feel free to believe whatever you like. For the record (and for the last time) I did not add what you claim I did and only someone who doesn't understand how comparing versions works would think so (leaving once again you on one side and everyone else on the other). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - Being a summary here and in the stubbed down[37] version, I've already proposed this //A blockade of Jerusalem was lifted by the Hagana in April 1948. A small number of Haifa's children were evacuated before the Haifa was abandoned, most Palestinian Arabs fled the violence by whatever means possible . This is believed to have helped accelerate the flight of Palestinians that had become general by early May.// As I said before, it fulfills your criteria, giving some detail for both evacuation 'flight'. It can then be 'beefed' up NPOV in the main body ... talknic (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The body of this article is not the place for a full discussion of what happened before May 1948. The version you are suggesting is not a good summary of the exodus. I don't know why you would prefer such a partial picture discussing only one city to a larger overview, other than your usual rejection of anything anyone else suggests. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- We are discussing a summary. Yes? Wherever the main discussion is going to be it can be elaborated on. "The version you are suggesting is not a good summary ..." The excuses you gave last time were a tad flimsy

1) "I doubt we can use a snippet where we can't even see the full sentence." Click the link -- 1 page matching "More than one hundred thousand Palestinians fled Haifa and Jaffa by the second week of May" in this book[38] It does exist and folk can see it does exist.

2) You then gave an alternative. A Times article[39], which was not attributed to any author ... 3) Another alternative "Some 15,000 Arabs probably evacuated Haifa during 21-22 April". 'probably' is rather un-encyclopedic ... 4) Elsewhere, "Anyway, we can say they "fled or were evacuated" if that'll make you happy" This was after I'd already suggested one source that includes both.

Now we have; "I don't know why you would prefer such a partial picture discussing only one city to a larger overview" Amazing!! especially when the title of the discussion is "What happened in Haifa?", wherein you'd like folk to believe Palestinian Arabs just left in a fit of "voluntary self-removal".

"...other than your usual rejection of anything anyone else suggests" Will you please stop your silly personal affronts. If something appears to be awry, the nature of Wikipedia is to challenge, discuss and rectify it. There have been plenty of edits I've not challenged and others I've supported ... talknic (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A. You really can't use a snippet where you can't even see the whole sentence, and even if you could you can't even see the whole paragraph. Have you read that book? A chapter from it? A page? Again, this is not a game of gotcha. You can't see the context of what the author is saying from a snippet.

B. While I know you like to rehash old discussions over and over and over again, we have moved on. It makes more sense to summarize the whole event rather than just focus on a specific part of it. Any particular reason you want just Haifa rather than the whole thing? Other than contrarianism that is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy --A) How odd. Your Schechtman ref shows us nothing. Look here. Count the references that are not available on line. ..... Click on the link I gave [40]. Above the snippet it says "1 page matching "More than one hundred thousand Palestinians fled Haifa and Jaffa by the second week of May" in this book"

B. "Any particular reason you want just Haifa rather than the whole thing?" It has something to do with the topic Itsmejudith tabled. What happened in Haifa?. I guess she meant what happened in Haifa?

"While I know you like to rehash ..etc etc etc.." & "Other than contrarianism that is" Please stop your personal affronts. Address the topic. Challenge the suggestion according to what WP:V & WP:SOURCEACCESS actually say ... talknic (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try explaining this to you one last time. The issue is not that the source is offline, it's that you have not read more than 30 words of it. Or can you provide a longer quote? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Interesting. Please point these alleged necessities out in the guidelines. Thx. Meanwhile did you look here at the number of already existing references that lack the same criteria you now claim. BTW your reference to Schechtman doesn't fulfill your own criteria ... talknic (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're calling my reference to Schechtman. Can you provide a diff showing I added it to an article? I mean a diff of two consecutive edits, not a diff of two edits with 170 intermediate revisions in between.

Also not sure which of the refs in the article you have a problem with. Are you saying someone added a ref without laying eyes on even one paragraph from the source? I'm going to need a diff again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG "Not sure what you're calling my reference to Schechtman." Quote it verbatim. Prove you've read more than a sentence.

"Can you provide a diff showing I added it to an article? " I did. If it wasn't there prior to your edit and it was there after your edit, you wrote it. Quite simple really.

"Also not sure which of the refs in the article you have a problem with" All those that do not fulfill your own criteria. All those showing only the title, author and year of the work and not available online from the cited reference.

"Are you saying someone added a ref without laying eyes on even one paragraph from the source?" Prove they did lay eyes on more than what they have cited, then prove those not available on line actually exist.

Again - your answer did not include any specific guideline. Please quote it verbatim and address the topic per WP:Whatever the guideline actually states, sans unnecessary personal affronts. thx ... talknic (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's not my fault if you don't know how to use the diff tool. That you say it's "quite simple really" when you use it incorrectly is pretty funny. This is an actual diff of the edit I made on 17 Sept to that article. No Schechtman in sight. I know ZScarpia doesn't like it when I say that this kind of behavior is trolling, so maybe he can come up with a description I can use for it.

If you read my comment above, you'll see that I tried to explain to you that the fact a source is offline is not the issue. This is like trying to teach a pig to sing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- My apologies, I retract all related allegations from 11:57, 8 October 2011. I've never tried to find who and when information has been added to an Article. Quite different from the Talk pages which carry a signature, (even easier if everyone provided edit summaries). If only Snakeswithfeet had provided an edit summary[41]. Again, my apologies.

"I tried to explain to you that the fact a source is offline is not the issue." Indeed you did, I have no idea why, because the issue is your "You really can't use a snippet where you can't even see the whole sentence, and even if you could you can't even see the whole paragraph. ... You can't see the context of what the author is saying from a snippet"

A) Per WP:VERIFY, confirmation was provided that the citation exists 1 page matching "More than one hundred thousand Palestinians fled Haifa and Jaffa by the second week of May" in this book[42].

B) You demand to see more than WP:VERIFY requires, at the same time you stand by a statement which might well exist, but which we cannot see at all.

C) "This is like trying to teach a pig to sing" WP:CIVIL

D) I asked for the specific guideline, whereby I should have to read or supply more than 30 words, provide a longer quote or have read the book. Please quote it verbatim, as there are quite a number of references already in the article, presumably by consensus, from which we can not see any of the things you demand of my reference ... talknic (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you now understand that your thinking something is "quite simple really" doesn't necessarily mean you're reading it correctly. Now if only we could get you to understand that about a few other things...

Go to WP:RSN. Search for "snippet". There are quite a few discussions about the issue. The general consensus is that they should be avoided if this is the only access you have to the book. You have not read this book. You have not even read a single page of it. You are cherry picking something you like, as you often do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - I've apologized for my error. I've provided more than the snippet shows. It can be seen by anyone who clicks on the link by the statement of the search engine. Meanwhile, clicking on the Schechtman and numerous other similar references shows the reader nothing. By your criteria they should not be used at all ... talknic (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

An apology is unnecessary. Just stop doing it. Stop insisting you understand everything better than everyone else. Stop making stupid accusations when someone tells you they're not true and the record is there for everyone to see. Stop insisting you understand policy better than half a dozen very experienced editors who have been here for years. Stop not listening to what anyone else tells you. Just stop.

As for the snippet view, have you read a single page of that book? Do you think an encyclopedia should be made out of cherry picked sentences from books editors have not even read a single paragraph of? Again, the issue is not that the source is offline. It's that you as an editor do not have enough information about what the author is saying to make a reliable judgement about whether it can be used in the article. This is my last response to you about this issue. You can take your source to RSN and get the same answer from a bunch of other editors who you can argue endlessly with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - I've quoted far more than the snippet view and shown it exists. Here it is again above the snippet view, per your demands of "more than 30 words" & "can you provide a longer quote?" [43] 1 page matching "More than one hundred thousand Palestinians fled Haifa and Jaffa by the second week of May. Jewish forces captured Tiberias on April 19, and Haifa on April 23. The Jewish holy town of Safed was captured on May 11 " in this book

The sources you've provided 1) an un-attributed Times article. 2) a source that says 'probably' ... talknic (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Morris p. 105, well fine in principle, but when I search on Google Books it's excluded from the preview. No-one really should be adding material to the article if they haven't read at least a substantial chunk to be sure they're not cherry-picking. That has been established a lot of times in discussion, e.g. in articles relating to Gibraltar (yawn). Gelber's book is available in full Google preview. P.81 might support the following: "An evacuation of Arab children through Haifa was organised. A disorderly mass exit of Arab Palestinians "driven by trepidation" began (Gelber).Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI : I have all these books and I'd like to point out that this articles lacks Palestinian historians... (such as here) or this Rosemarie Esber, Under the Cover of War, ...

The evacuation of the children of Haifa is anecdoctical. It sounds logical in a period of war and only concerns a small fraction of all of them. The main exodus occured after the Haganah offensive. And in any case, this happened before 15 May and doesn't concern the first Arab-Israeli War.

In this article, what happened in Haïfa is better described in the global context of what happened in all the mixed cities between beginning of April and mid of May : Tiberiade, Safed, Beit-Shean, Haïfa, Jaffa, Acre (these last two out of the Jewish State) were depopulated from more than 95% of their Arab population, half of them after Haganah, Palmach or Irgun offensive.

81.247.169.98 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

81.247.169.98 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already mentioned the Khalidi article, which is about the "Haifa turning point", not about exodus. I listed above all the things I think "happened" and could be mentioned, in relation to Haifa as the seaport through which people from various places left and a city whose population also left. Again, I am left without knowing what you actually suggest as an improvement to the article. As a brief summary, did you not like my suggestion above from Gelber? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he is agreeing with me that it makes more sense to summarize the whole exodus rather than focus just on Haifa. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with NMMNG.

In Gelber's book, there is not a chapter named : the Haifa turning point. There are only few historians' papers talking only about Haifa. Most papers deal with the exodus as a whole. Most cut this in two phases (before and after 15 May), some such as Morris in several phases. Haifa was chosen by Morris as an exemple illustrating the complexity and the mix of causes of the exodus but not to give a particular importance to this event (even if it was important of course).

I think it is right that Haifa was one strategic city, if not the most strategic one but there was a harbour at Tel-Aviv too. Jaffa enclosed in the Jewish State was more populated with Arabs and had a harbour too. And in fact, from the Yishuv point of view, everything was important. Strategically speaking, they were in a very critical position. If the coastal plaint fell, they were cut in two, if the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem corridor fell, they lost the control of the most populated city of the country with 100,000 Jews, if the Jezreel Valley fell, the lost East Galilee, ... At the end they just "lost" the connexion with Negev.

For what concerns the exodus, the most important point is to talk about the exodus of the "mixed cities" globally and the relevant points I think are : the exodus of 95% of the Arab population of these cities with half of them during or after the attack of the Haganah, Palmach or Irgun.

But this is a fair summary. Why don't use this ? 91.180.207.119 (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did Frederico revert the background section ? It is neutral, quite complete et perfectly sourced... It is taken from the synopsis of the article about the civil war...91.180.207.119 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)