Talk:1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine

The day after the UN decision of two states, the arabs of the mandate still held by Britain, started the war against Israel

typo error?
adopted a resolution on 29 November 1949 should be: adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947

Requested move 8 October 2022

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

The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

– Follows the recent move of the parent article, and the earlier discussions confirming scholarly treatment of this topic which resulted in formal RfC consensus that all three articles should have the same prefix. The RfC closer wrote: There is a consensus in favour of a common prefix. There is a clear consensus among involved editors that the current article names are problematic. The problems identified included the current set of titles causing confusion for readers because "1948 Palestine war" and "1948 Arab–Israeli War" are commonly used as synonyms, and also that no sources delineate the 1948 conflict into separate wars as our current titles do, only different phases. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine → 1948 Palestine war (civil war phase)
 * 1948 Arab–Israeli War → 1948 Palestine war (Arab–Israeli phase)


 * Comment: First, I do very much understand how this would be a sensible step forward in terms of reader navigation, as I am sure that first-time readers unacquainted with the topic get thoroughly confused at present, and yet I also wonder if this makes the titles a little too artificial and unnatural in their own right. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The proposal is more problematic than the current setup. Srnec (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current titles make more sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, some more constructive than others. Please could you proposal alternative solutions to this long-acknowledged problem? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Overall, I think 1948 Arab–Israeli War is clearly understood; 1948 Palestine war and 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine less so. Assuming this, as a very first step it would be worth adding a proper hatnote at 1948 Palestine war to clearly distinguish it from the 1948 Arab–Israeli War or the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, as that could be one source of immediate confusion. This page is meanwhile the one with the most obviously elongated and complex title, so it makes sense for the renaming to start here. I'm interested to know what the bulk of sources actually call this 'phase' - 'civil war' is certainly among the terms, but not a clearly dominant one. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Previous analysis at Talk:1948 Palestine war/Name has shown that the term "1948 Arab–Israeli War" is used in scholarship to cover the whole period, i.e. the period that forms the scope of our article 1948 Palestine war. This means two things: first, there is a disambiguation problem between our article names, and second, our 1948 Arab–Israeli War article has a scope which doesn’t follow the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and expanded the hatnote for now in any case. Should help for now regardless of the discussion talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose change to 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, for choice prefer Palestine war in some version rather than 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Talk:1948 Palestine war/Name is what we want to be looking at when trying to make sense of our titles not what particular sources say. From those it is clear that never the twain shall meet (different narratives). The title here is describing 47/8 between Jews and Palestinians, both theoretically "Mandate Palestinians" at the time, any title that reflects that is fine by me. As for the other two, well one for each narrative is also fine (bit like the Temple Mount thing, duplication bothers me less than one sided narratives).Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your statement but don’t understand your conclusion. Every single one of those scholarly quotations describes multiple names for the same conflict. None of these scholars use the term “1948 Arab-Israeli war” (or any other term for that matter) for just the bit after 15 May 1948. None of them. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To change that title, there should be a discussion on that page. Ditto 1948 Palestine war. Or a merge. Or whatever. What I am saying is that these titles are essentially descriptive and probably the result of attempts to reconcile two different narratives rather than common name as such, although I agree that Palestine war is more logical and I prefer it, I also preferred it when it said 47/8 but there you go. You just know that you are going to get a bunch of objections to any attempt to change 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Why is War capitalized anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is already on that page. There is a tag at the top of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War page pointing to this discussion. This is the correct process for discussing changing names of two related articles simultaneously. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, change my vote to answer both cases then. Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Post-RM discussion
Do you think we ought to have three articles as we currently do? I was going to respond to your question with this question, but the RM was closed first. Srnec (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, for us to match scholarship we would have just one article with the word war in the title. At the moment our three articles have readable prose size of: 30 kB (4867 words) [1948 PW], 61 kB (10218 words) [1948 CWIMP] and 93 kB (15409 words) [1948 AIW]. Merging them, removing the overlap, and with thoughtful copyediting, would achieve a combined article of 120 kB (18000 words). That is the best outcome for our readers who undoubtedly want to understand a single topic in a single place. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think that is true at all. The international phase and the civil war phase are definitely treated as two distinct parts of a wider overall conflict.  nableezy  - 15:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what is not true? Your statement is correct but does not contradict mine. There was one war with multiple phases. Benny Morris in his book “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War” divides the whole thing into four phases. Ephraim Karsh in “The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948” divides it into two stages. But it was one war. Please be more specific about what you don’t agree with. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Onceinawhile's argument cogent. There is a lot of repetition over the three articles, which could be cut significantly by treating the war as one with two phases, 30 November 1947-14 May 1948, and thereafter. The only significant objection I can think of is work-load: merging the three would be heavy yakka, but that should not be a problem if there was some readiness to do it. Most wiki articles sprawl out by the nature of tidbit editing, and, in time, our encyclopedic ends are only met when we grasp the elephantiasis by the balls and squeeze'em.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that there should only be one article and even if that were to be the case, there will never be agreement on a single name judging by past discussions. I say Palestine War, someone else says AI war -> Nocon. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

May 2023
Dovidroth, can you please explain how this edit makes the article better? إيان (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the picture you replaced the infobox with (which is already repeated in the article dealing with that specific battle) is better than the long-standing image that has been in this article for years? Dovidroth (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Haifa was a major event in the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine and in the greater 1948 War, representing a tactical and strategic shift and the opening of a major supply line that would impact the rest of the war.
 * What does the old image illustrate? إيان (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The battle for Jerusalem was even greater and more important than Haifa's. Also the image of Jewish fighters in Katamon is nowhere else in Wikipedia, while the Haifa image already is. Dovidroth (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against using an image in more than one article. The old image is a poor illustration of the civil war phase and even of the Battle for Jerusalem itself. It offers no context; the soldiers have their backs to the camera, taking cover behind a random rock wall and shooting at an unidentified target. In addition, while the Battle of Haifa is widely acknowledged as a major event in the civil war phase specifically, consequential parts of the Battle for Jerusalem happened after the declaration of the State of Israel and through July, in the next phase of the war. إيان (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture you removed and has been in infobox for many years took place during the civil war phase. I don't know what more context you need other than Jewish militias in Katamon during the battle for Jerusalem. There is no wiki policy against pictures of people having their backs to the camera or shooting at an "unidentified target" as opposed to irregular fighters or soldiers simply walking in Haifa (instead of taking cover, like you do in combat, which the picture from Katamon portrays). Dovidroth (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * إيان appears to have the better argument here, principally that the existing pic is devoid of context and the proposed of more significance. Selfstudier (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While Haifa was an important battle, I think Jerusalem edges it out.
 * 1. Jerusalem had a massive symbolic value to both sides.
 * 2. Jerusalem had 100,000 Jews living there at the time, and if the besieged city were successfully conquered then it would've been a massive loss for the Israeli Military, and Government.
 * 3. Controlling Jerusalem would've offered the Israelis easier access to the West Bank, since they would control the heart of it.
 * 4. Haifa could've easily been replaced by Nazareth and Tiberias, which would've also granted them easier access to the Golan Heights. Crainsaw (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Battle for Jerusalem was both before and after the declaration of the State of Israel; the Battle of Haifa was specifically in the civil war phase. And again, the old image was not particularly illustrative of even the Battle for Jerusalem. إيان (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But the war had De Facto already begun, like the Sudetendeutsches Freikorps, and their Undeclared war with Czechoslovakia. And there are no guidelines about which image to use, it just has to descriptive of the topic, which this image is Crainsaw (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The other is also descriptive of the topic as well as being just better. I'm open to finding another picture that is better still. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, if someone finds a more descriptive image, change, it, but a couple of men walking around with guns isn't enough to qualify as the image for the war which started the Arab-Israeli conflict Crainsaw (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't disagree with the importance of the battle for Jerusalem but the pic is not the battle of Jerusalem nor even the related Operation Yevusi, it's a random pic of some soldiers behind a wall. Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, the image is from the Katamon neighborhood in Jerusalem and was taken during the battle for Jerusalem right before Israel's declaration of independence. There are even commemorative plaques in Katamon about this. Secondly, his replacement is not acceptable, since that image is from the infobox of a different article dealing specifically with the battle of Haifa. No reason to repeat here. It's a bad change, not an improvement at all (not to mention it's not a very good picture depicting combat anyway). Dovidroth (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Tombah إيان and Dovidroth, stop edit warring and changing the infobox image till consensus is reached, just leave it as it is right now. Crainsaw (Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the date for this Katamon image? This article is only the civil war phase. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * May 1st, 1948 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katamon.jpg Crainsaw (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then there are no IDF soldiers, it is still during the mandate. Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The IDF was founded 25 days later on 26th May, and it was partially composed of former Haganah soldiers (The ones in the image), and various other paramilitaries and militias who's main goal was protecting jews in cities, against gangs, and jewish settlements. Crainsaw (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Operation_Yevusi seems more on point. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This one? It does, but let's establish consensus Crainsaw (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus vote
Which image should we choose? For discussion, go to the section above.


 * I think we should keep which was originally in the infobox. Crainsaw (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we should not keep and instead replace it with something else, haven't decided what yet.Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we should definitely keep the current image from the fighting in Katamon that has been in the infobox for so many years. It's an appropriate picture showing combat during the battle for Jerusalem. The last proposed image is not even from the civil war itself but a later reconstruction for documentation or entertainment purposes (you can even see the soldiers smiling for the camera). As for the image from the battle of Haifa, I have already explained why it doesn't belong here but in a different article. Dovidroth (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Replace the ambiguous old that illustrates nothing with one that actually illustrates something about the civil war phase of the 1948 War. We see the irregular militants typical of this phase, their weapons, etc. As explained above, the Haifa image is a better representation of the civil war—the battle was a major event in the civil war with consequential impact on the outcome of the later Arab-Israeli War, per reliable sources:
 * I'm surprised this improvement has been met with so much WP:Status quo stonewalling. It's clearly and objectively a higher quality and more illustrative image. I'd be open to a better, more illustrative and representative image than the Haifa image if one can be found. إيان (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the Infobox image shouldn't be replaced, I'm just saying the Haifa Image isn't illustrative enough, and that we need to find a better alternative. Crainsaw (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When a better alternative is found, I'm sure I would support it too, but for now the Haifa image is better than the Katamon image. إيان (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Far from it. Dovidroth (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No image at all may be the best outcome, and that is what is advised, per MOS:LEADIMAGE if there is no agreement. Images are not required, and the infobox is already lengthy due to being packed with information. None of the images convey much additional information, apart from individually providing grainy, low quality snapshots of very limited aspects of the conflict and/or fighting. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not what the policy says. If you don't have a better alternative, leave the infobox image alone, as it has been for several years. Dovidroth (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." (my bolding) - I'm curious as to how else you interpret this. Plenty of pages have no lead image. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of easy image representations of this article, including the current one. Dovidroth (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are plenty of easy image representations of this article why don't you propose a few since there has been substantial disagreement with the ambiguous Katamon image. إيان (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At least three editors (Tombah, Crainsaw and myself) agree that the long-standing image is better. Only you started this unnecessary mess by replacing it with the Haifa one (which, again, is repeated in another infobox article). Dovidroth (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Crainsaw above: I'm not saying that the Infobox image shouldn't be replaced, I'm just saying the Haifa Image isn't illustrative enough, and that we need to find a better alternative.
 * So it's just Dovidroth and Tombah, again, WP:Status quo stonewalling with no valid argument. That the image appears in the Battle of Haifa article, child article to this WP:Summary article, is not a valid argument against it.
 * So if there are indeed plenty of easy image representations of this article, please provide some because the arguments presented for clinging to the ambiguous Katamon image are invalid. إيان (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And if we don't find a better alternative, we should keep the original image. Crainsaw (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three who don't think the Katamon image is a good idea so I think not having any image is a reasonable solution while we try to find an acceptable alternative. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So if there are indeed plenty of easy image representations of this article, please provide some because the arguments presented for clinging to the ambiguous Katamon image are invalid. إيان (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And if we don't find a better alternative, we should keep the original image. Crainsaw (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three who don't think the Katamon image is a good idea so I think not having any image is a reasonable solution while we try to find an acceptable alternative. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Dovidroth wishes to present for consideration, though they abandoned the discussion for consensus and unilaterally added it to the article infobox. No arguments have been presented for what it illustrates about the topic or why it should be in the infobox. It's not an improvement. إيان (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What is your specific objection to the last image I added? You said you had a problem with people showing their backs to the camera, so I added a picture with a closer look where you can see the faces. It's a picture from Jaffa during the war in 1947. What's the problem now? Dovidroth (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted since there is a current discussion. In my opinion we would be better off without an image at this point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The infobox is already pretty lengthy, stretching well beyond the stunted lead and almost out the other side of the largely in-line citation-lacking background section, and no single grainy black and white does a good job anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * For me, it's either the original, or this image, proposed by Dovidroth. Both are equally good. Tombah (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think we should keep its the best we have so far, I think the rest of you want to unnecessarily remove a good image and replace (or even just delete) it with worse ones. Crainsaw (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth What is your specific objection to the last image I added? The main issue is that it was added with disregard for the discussion, in which there was consensus that no image is better until something is agreed upon in discussion. The issue with the Katamon image, again, was that it was ambiguous and devoid of context and not distinctively illustrative of any particular features of the war. The image you added without discussion of the Jewish militants behind the barricade is better than the Katamon image in that it illustrates irregular soldiers and their weapons, but that's about it. Combat on the Jaffa front in 1947 was not particularly consequential to the outcome of the war (and no reliable sources have been presented to suggest so); the city was not taken until the spring of 1948. The image is also misleading as an illustration of the topic because it shows Jewish forces in a defensive position, when the strategic shift to the offensive was the defining and consequential aspect of the civil war phase. If there is going to be an illustration, it should be a representative variety, using a template such as template:Multiple image like we have at World War I. It should feature all belligerent sides and represent major features of the civil war period of the war—asymmetrical warfare and sabotage, massacres, irregular militants, urban and rural combat, major battles etc. And images and what they represent should be supported by reliable sources and discussed here first. إيان (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Multiple images a la WW1 also OK. Seems there is still no consensus, I am not impressed with the arguments in favor of Katamon, I am not even clear about what they are, seem to be of type "Ilikeit". Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like the discussion has been abandoned, but I support Template:Multiple image lets add all 4 images above, it's better than no images at all Crainsaw (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
Change "Transjordan" to "Jordan". as the HyperLink it links to suggests, in : "When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states—Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria—" Gezellig~hewiki (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: was known as "Transjordan" until 1949. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023
Opening paragraph in Background should link to Balfour Declaration, as it provides further historical background and itself is an essential part of the background to pre-1948 conflict. 76.64.190.216 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The first mention of "Balfour" is in the section "Meeting of Golda Meir and King Abdullah I of Jordan (10 May)" and is not present in the section desired. This may be the issue your request is wanting to address, but you'll need to provide the exact prose to add along with reliable sources to support it (if it's already in the article just paste them here). — Sirdog (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2024
Operation cast thy bread is a an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. The source for these alleged attacks is a former Israeli soldier contacted by the researcher behind this document, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263206.2022.2122448, who was already dead at the time the accusations were published and as such unable to verify the claims. The source of this information is the provided paper currently used as a source for the claim. Please remove this section. 173.215.75.117 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Source needed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)