Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 4

A chart showing the real issue with the page titles
The page view stats shown in this chart illustrate the real problem with the article titles – that most readers don’t see the nuanced difference we are discussing between the titles 1948 Palestine War and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. As a result, most traffic goes to the most well-known title, despite it being only half the story and not the main / top-level article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comment.
 * What we could do then is the following :
 * 1948 Arab-Israeli War redirected to 1948 Palestine War
 * the content of 1948 Arab-Israeli War renamed in 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What about organizing a move debate on 1948 Arab-Israeli War ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This proposed solution is bad, since it replaces the subtle distinction between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948 Palestine War with an even subtler (and less justifiable) distinction between 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War Zekelayla (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1948 Arab-Israeli War will be a redirect to this article... That's what was asked by you and many others here above. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Something with "Arab-Israeli War" in the title should be the top article since that's obviously the most common name and most common search. See above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not for historians. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Historians would know that's the most common search name. MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Data about name prevalence
Following is comprehensive data about the prevalence of different names throughout millions of printed publications in English. The data shows that "First Arab-Israeli War" is most common, followed by "Israeli War of Independence". The current title, "1948 Plestine War", is about 6 times less common.

The Google NGram corpus is one of the largest collections in exitsance of English language publications.



Source: Google Ngrams, (Query). Shaferjo (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - query - that Israel's War of Independence is even more prevalent than Israeli War of Independence - surpassing the falling First Arab–Israeli War. The NGRAM data strong supports a move to Israel's War of Independence.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So what would be the correct thing to do now? Should we start a new vote for a name change? Get more people to review this data and voice an opinion? Shaferjo (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would still support "First Arab–Israeli War" as it is the most neutral. It is as popular as Israel's Independence War and Israeli Independence War.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bolter. "First Arab-Israeli War" is more neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Bolter.--Shrike (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As this source and others attest, what Israelis call their War of Independence, the Palestinians call the Nakba.

So the Ngrams chart should also include that term.

Updated query here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The main problem with that is that Nakba doesn't refer only to the war or even necessarily to the war, as our Nakba article helpfully points out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * yeah, and "1948 War" wins the battle: . Could we please stop bringing in more things that distract us from the fact that "1948 Palestine War" is by far the least WP:COMMONNAME? I would have loved to use "1948 War", though I prefer "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Historically, the war started on 30 November 1947, but throughout the first month, it was not a war. The war officially ended in July 1949 with the last armistice signed with Syria, but the last millitary action in this war was made in March 1949, but in these three months of 1949 there weren't too many things happening on the battlefield. Just like the War of 1812 lasted until 1815, the "1948 War" lasted from the last month of 1949, to the start or middle of 1949. This is the most common name, used in scholarship, media and propaganda. I prefer "1948 Arab–Israeli War" because it is more spesific and encyclopedic. It is not perfect, but no name is perfect and would satisfy everyone. So please, can we get a consensus here?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also a fan of 1948 War as the best solution here. I think your explanation about 1947 and 1949 should go into the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then what is our next move?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been WP:BOLD and moved the previous 1948 War page to disambiguation and the current one to redirect here. I think we should open a discussion about moving to that name. Like the War of 1812... Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In the ngram data, shorter and more general terms will usually have higher prevalence. So "1948 war" would be more common than "1948 Arab-Israeli War" or "1948 War in Mandatory Palestine", because is it is short and not very specific.
 * There are two ways in which the count for "1948 war" could be too high, counting things that are not relevent here:
 * * An article that deals with (say) the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" might use that full name once in the begining, and then use the shorthand "1948 war" in most subsequent mentions. So the article would contribute more to the ngram count of "1948 war" even though the author uses that only as a shorthand.
 * * There might be other contexts in which the phrase "1948 war" appears, with a different referent. The first Kashmir war is probably one such instance, because it also took place during that year. Again, this can inflate the counts of "1948 war" in a misleading way.
 * Thus, we should only compare phrases that are specific enough and can be considered "full names" for this war (and are suitable as a title).
 * Goin over the list, we see that:
 * * "1948 War" is not specific enough (eg first Kashmir war is also in 1948).
 * * "Nakba" is too POV.
 * * "Israel's War of independece" is probably less syntactically suitable for a title than "Israeli" (cf. American War of Independence, not "America's").
 * * "First Arab-Israeli War" is ambiguous becuase there is no universally agreed-upon account of what are the 1st, 2ed, 3rd etc Arab-Israeli wars.
 * Thus, I would support "1948 Arab-Israeli War" which is the most common among the names listed that meet all the criteria. 71.202.175.213 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The word chocolate is more common than any other words suggested here above.
 * The problem is that the word chocolate does not fit the topic.
 * So google research on a word does not prove anything.
 * That exactly the same with the different proposals !
 * As explained in the lead of the article and explained many times in different talk pages :
 * the First Arab-Israeli War started on 14 May and refers to something else than this article. This article does not just cover the war between Arab States and Israel but the period that started 6 months before.
 * Other names for this period are Israeli War of independence or Nakba which are both totaly equivalent in all aspects: they only take care of 1 point of view and are therefore pov-ed.
 * Numerous historians (WP:RS) and from all sides (WP:NPoV) refer to this period as the 1948 Palestine War, ie the War that took place in Palestine in 1948.
 * See this chart
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am starting to feel like such comments as you made should render unimportant and ignored. You bring facts without backing them. I've already responded to your list of sources that use "Palestine War", which is full of errors by the way. We have already shown that "1948 Palestine War" is by far the least popular title, and even if it was popular, it still doesn't cancel out other titles. Me and Oncenawhile would like to see "1948 War", but as it seems most users here support either "First Arab–Israeli War" or "1948 Arab–Israeli War". You have an opposing opinion, supporting the current title, but bring it confindently without any regard to the facts.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want other name you should initiate a formal move discussion--Shrike (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should do a series of RM, with only one move option each time. I also think "1948 War" is not specific enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we would do well to summarise the arguments for and against the main options (including names for all three articles for each option) first. Otherwise it will be another mess. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bolter21, you didn't bring any argument but statistics that are not link with the matter as explained with the analogy with 'chocolate'.
 * A solution was brought here above :
 * 1948 Arab-Israeli war can be a redirect to 1948 Palestine War and 1948 Arab-Israeli war renamed eg 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war or First Arab-Israeli war.
 * The only problem with that solution is just that it uses the word 'Palestine' and that you (3) have problems with that word.
 * That's even more proven by the fact there is not ambiguity given the structure of these articles is explained in their lead. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't deny the obvious personal issue with the word "Palestine", but if it wasn't the least popular name, I wouldn't try to change it. It is is a fact that this article gets the least views and it is a fact that books refer to this war as "1948 Palestine War" the least.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We haven't ascertained that "Arab-Israeli war" is more common as a name for the subject of this article vs. "1948 Palestine War", because many of the references to Arab-Israeli War may well have been referring just to the post-1948 period. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We strictly used "1948 Arab–Israeli War".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed; my point holds. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1948 Arab-Israeli War does not refer to the topic of the article.
 * There nothing to understand more than the words: 1948 Arab-Israeli War concerns the war between Arabs [States] and Israel
 * And when they use this title [most] scholars refer to that. Israel didn't exist before 15 May 1948. Arab states were not involved before 14 May either. 1948 Arab-Israeli War started on May 15. This article refers to an Israeli traditionnal historian referred to as the "forgotten" part of the War.
 * And so, the 1498 War refers to the whole war that started 5 months sooner. And this is reminded by the references that I gave. The other references provided exist but they refer to a part of it.
 * As already stated the solutions is to follow scholars on the issue :
 * 1948 Palestine war
 * 1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
 * First Arab-Israeli War
 * We can make a redirect from 1948 Arab-Israeli War to 1948 Palestine War if contributors feel that people miss these subtilities (which I can understand) and who look for 1948 Palestine War when they type 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
 * The other point : 1948 Palestine war is very clear, neutral, accurate and fits perfectly the topic.
 * It refers to the war that took place in [former] Mandatory Palestine for its control (another option would be 1948 War for Palestine). This war is known by the Israelis as their War of Independence and by the Palestinians as a Naqba.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Arab states were not involved before 14 May either, wrong. The Arab Liberation Army, often refered as the "Arab League's Army", which was comprised mostly by Syrian volunteers, was created by the Arab states and at the end of the civil war phase, before the declaration of independence, was the main Arab belligerent. The Jordanian Legion also took part in the battles before 15 May. And when they use this title [most] scholars refer to that. Prove it please. I used Google's tool and looked at some 60 book references to the title "1948 Arab–Israeli War", and in cases I could confirm, most of them used the term to refer to the entire war, especially where the war or the conflict is the topic of the book.

World War II started in September 1939, but it truely became a World War somewhere in the mid of 1940, when battles were fought in Africa. The "Arab–Israeli War" wasn't always an "Arab-Israeli War", but it eventually became a one, and it is part of the same war.

You have a minority opinion here, and as I see it, you really struggle to face the fact "1948 Palestine War" is the least popular term for the war, and you repeat the same arguments without providing good evidence to back them.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the ALA is an army of volunteers that was settled by the Arab League (but not Arab States). And it has nothing to deal with the Arab armies that intervened after. What about Israel before 15 May ?
 * No. The majority of the scholarly sources do not refer to the whole war as the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
 * No. I don't have a minority opinion. And the evidence was provided numerous times already form scholars (specialists and focused on that period and from all opinions) here above :
 * Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0
 * Efraim Karsh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Osprey publishing, 2002.
 * Walid Khalidi, Selected Documents on the 1948 Palestine War, Journal of Palestine Studies, 27(3), 79, 1998.
 * Saleh Abdel Jawad, The Arab and Palestinian Narratives of the 1948 War, in Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict, Indiana University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-253-21857-5.
 * Benny Morris, 1948, Yale University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9
 * Eugene Rogan & Avi Shlaim, The War for Palestine — Rewriting the history of 1948, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
 * David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948. Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge, 2004.
 * Henry Laurens, Palestine, 1948. Les limites de l'interprétation historique, Revue Esprit, 2000.
 * I can add that I have provided sources that discuss the name to give to this war (and the reasons why it is discussed). I can also add that I knew and used these sources much before this discussion. I am not discovering the toping during its discussion in using google to support (luckyly) the point that I defended... Eg:
 * Yoav Gelber, in Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, Sussex Academic Press, 2d rev ed. 2004, p.4. or here: Based on new or newly interpreted Israeli, British and Arab documents, this book attempts to integrate present controversies concerning the development of the Jewish-Palestinian war from December 1947 to mid-May 1948 and the consecutive Israeli-Arab war (a source that you have claim does not clarify the problem...)
 * Another reason why the title Arab-Israel War is not right by the way is that it was a much more complex one that the unfamous "7 Arab States vs Israel". They were not less than 5 sides in that war (British - Israel - Palestinians - Jordan - Arab League).
 * Last but not least, I have also provided a solution that fits all points of view, except the one of those who have some problems with the word "Palestine" :
 * 1948 Palestine war
 * 1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
 * First Arab-Israeli War
 * All other titles redirect to 1948 Palestine war.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bolter, Pluto, I suggest we don't try to force this discussion through by assessing whose opinion in minority or majority just yet. You both have good, well thought through positions. Rather than going back and forth, a constructive way forward could be to work together to agree on the answer to a few "sub questions", and then present those agreed answers to the community in a final all-emcompassing RFC. The main question I think it would be useful to agree on is:
 * Which names do individual scholars and media organizations use to describe the whole period, and the pre-and post 15 May periods?
 * Bolter claimed above that Pluto's previous list contained errors. If we focus on getting a list that everyone agrees on, we can then consider that as a community.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a subpage for that purpose: Talk:1948 Palestine war/Name Onceinawhile (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "1948 War" is not specific enough, but what about "1948 War (Palestine)"? This clarifies "1948 War" without making use of the very rare term "1948 Palestine War". I continue to favor "Israeli War of Independence", but I think "1948 War (Palestine)" is a good compromise.Zekelayla (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No - because the significant phases of the war, from May 1948, did not happen in Palestine but rather in (mostly) Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * that's incorrect. Israel didn't exist on the moment of the declaration; they were not officially recognized yet, and their borders were undefined. See our article on the declaration: Eleven minutes after midnight, the United States de facto recognized the State of Israel.[21] This was followed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania, and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the first nation to fully recognize Israel de jure on 17 May 1948,[22] followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Ireland, and South Africa.[citation needed] The United States extended official recognition after the first Israeli election, as Truman had promised on 31 January 1949.[23] By virtue of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III), Israel was admitted to membership in the United Nations on 11 May 1949.[24]
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Palestine" in "1948 War (Palestine)" refers to the region of Palestine, not a political entity. That is the standard English term for the area encompassing Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Zekelayla (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel existed from May 1948, and was recognized by many countries. UN recognition does not make a country (and if it did - we would have to strike many hostoric countries, nor is the specific date of accession particularly relevant). The war, for the most part, occured within Israel and not in the Palestinian territories (at bordering areas there were at most advances that were repulsed, e.g. Jenin and Jewish losses at the old city and Gush Etzion).Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the US waited until after the war to give official recognition.
 * You can see from documents such as these how the region was referred to by all countries during the war:, ,
 * The world talked about the region as Palestine during the war.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It takes time for new terms to catch on, but in modern terms this was in Israel. Likewise English speakers still have not caught up with Czechia for Czech Republic - but once we decide the former is the common name we would us it (and not stick to the prior common name based on the date of the stmt).Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * After 15 May, most of the war took place in what would become Israel (but not in the area attributed by the Partition Plan to the Jewish State...). Talking about this : the war started the day after the vote of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The meaning of the word Palestine here is the same as in the article 1948 Palestine war. And it does not create any problem. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The more reading I do on this question, the more convinced I am that "1948 War" is the best title. It's what all scholars seem to go to when trying to be neutral and accurate. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Benny Morris explains it very good in Righteous Victims, p.191: "The first Arab-Israeli was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, starting at the end of of November 1947 and ending in mid-may 1948...and a conventional war, from May 15, 1948 until early 1949, between the newely founded State of Israel and the armies of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq..."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In 1948 Morris wrote instead: "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 (milhemet hakomemiyut) – was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 30 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"
 * See Talk:1948 Palestine war/Name - Bolter, your input at the subpage will be very important to help us reach an agreed position on what the scholars and media are really saying. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Benny Morris prefers indeed to talk about the 1948 War. But the problem is that he puts himself in the context of the I-P conflict. Out of this context, it does not work because there was numerous wars in 1948. The most famous being the War in India and Pakistan rather than the one in Palestine. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence the need for "1948 War (Palestine)" to disambiguate. Zekelayla (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

loss of their land
POV source
 * That is a false, or if you like, a misleading edit summary. The page is full of sources supporting an Israeli government or Zionist perspective, and idem for the Palestinians. We do not erase an authoritative source because we dislike the viewpoint of the author. (You do this all too frequently). Philip Mattar is an authoritative source on this topic, and he is not quoting his personal view, but an estimate made by another scholar Richard Fischbach, on the basis of archival study. Fischbach is a leading authority on Palestinian land tenure.
 * My edit changed 'loss of their land' (land qua Palestine) to 'the land they lost' (the lands in Palestinian possession, tenure indicated by the statistics, and therefore not 'Palestine') and it is not disputed by anyone in the world that Palestinians lost an immense amount of land and personal property. That was a compromise between two opinions in a revert war. Your joining the edit war simple flags the fact that you think there is no ground for compromise. Stating ' loss of what they consider their land' is absurdly POV, in  implying that the known and massive parcels of land, housing stock in Palestinian hands until 1948 was only subjectively considered to be Palestinian, when under Mandatory Law much of it was Palestinian: they paid taxes on it. So edit warring to make one POV triumph is unacceptable, and editwarring to elide a compromise that steps round the impasse is even worse.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this in the past. As you know, estimates vary widely here, and most of the land that is claimed was in fact registered as state, waqf, and in some cases private land of foreign individuals which tenants farmed. Various farming/grazing (usually in a joint commune) rights is not the same as ownership.Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, the sentence isn't trying to get at percentages - it is simply saying that they were forced from their land - whether "their land" was 90% or 1% isn't the point here. And either way, "my home/my land" is still considered "my home/my land", even if I am renting, and particularly so if my lease is a very long one from the state. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reread closely what I wrote. You ignored it. I'm awaiting an intelligent and focused reply, not sand in the eyes.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for an answer. In the meantime to refresh your memory, this is a universally acknowledged statistic.
 * "'a year before the UN adoption of the Resolution, the Arab population of Palestine comprised 68 percent of the total and owned about 85 percent of the land; the Jewish population comprised about one-third of the total and owned about 7 percent of the land.' Abdel Monem Said Aly, ‎Shai Feldman, ‎Khalil Shikaki, Arabs and Israelis: Conflict and Peacemaking in the Middle East, Palgrave Macmillan 2013 p.50"
 * To have for this period the side that possessed 7% of the land deny that the majority which had 85% of the land did not, in mourning the nakba, lose their land is bad enough. To refuse a compromise which, rather than revert, found a fair solution that refers to the catastrophe of losing purchase on the land (not the country) they had is, well, frankly, obscene. I say this because I have the tragedies of the Roman devastation of Vespasian and Hadrian's war in mind. If that has grieved Jews for 2,000 years, those identifying with that history should reach our for a compromise that doesn't rudely dismiss the Palestinian loss as 'subjective' nor assert that the whole of the land was Palestinian. The  battle has been one, and its fruits enjoyed, but that doesn't alter historical realities.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops. I just realized Shabbat has kicked in, so I won't expect an answer until late tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're 24 hours early - it's still Thursday... Onceinawhile (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus (or source) for the addition of the weasel words "what they consider", added in this edit a few days ago. your behavior was edit warring, plain and simple. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't fucking accuse me of edit warring, right? Irondome (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Irondome, please do not threaten editors. I would ask that you strike this comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't bloody accuse me of edit warring then. A compromise wording had been agreed to which I was comfortable with by Nish. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I accept that your intention was not to edit war. As a side note on terminology, WP:EDITWAR defines it as "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions... An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Despite your good intentions, you did in fact revert someone else's revert-of-a-revert-of-a-revert-of-a-revert without coming to the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification . I believe you may be aware, that I am not a particularly notorious edit-warrior. If your point, which I believe is to use Talk as a first resort, then it is taken. I apologise for the F bomb. Regards, Irondome (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do acknowledge that Simon - your reputation as a collaborative and fair editor, I mean. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about anticipating Shabbat. Woeful fatiguing day in hospital wards, and I came home thinking that at least there would be consolation in watching the second episode of Rowan Atkinson's impersonation of Maigret, scheduled for Friday night. Just after making my remark, I switched on the boobtube and realized I had to wait another 24 hours, and imagined my error would only confirm rumours of incipient dementia. My option was to get back on line and erase the error, or trust that my pal Simon would imagine I'd just skolled the rest of the virtual bottle of Chivas Regal he sent my way. Simon had his reasons for challenging the original formulation. I might not agree, but I'm not surprised that he now endorses the change I suggested. I've never seen Simon editwar. It's simply not his style. And the expletive, for someone with his record, is normal. I use it all the fucking time even when I'm not being fucked up by tiresome editwarring. Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Their land" is POV, as POV as saying that it's not their land. Nishidani's "the land they lost" looks like a good compromise.&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
In the Aftermath section, under Demographic consequences, there is a lot of information on where Jews fled to after the war and in what quantities. But the section seems to only provide information on one party of the war. I’m curious as to what the numbers were for the Arab/Palestinian side. Where did they go to and in what numbers? I have no opinion on the conflict, there just seems to be an imbalance of information. Both sides should be represented by a [relatively] equal amount of facts to give new-comers to the topic a more unbiased teaching of the subject. I personally don't know the numbers and facts for each side but think this imbalance creates the image that there were many exiled on one side and not the other. My point here is to create a more wholesome view of the war, one Wikipedia aims to provide (I don't know if this is just my opinion). RebeccaHUNY (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC) RebeccaHUNY

We already have a separate article on the 1948 Palestinian exodus.: "more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war. Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished." Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"The author believes..."
I removed this statement in the section on Operation Danny: The author believes that Operation Dani, under which the two towns were seized, revealed that no such co-operation existed. There's no document or book referenced in the section, so it seems that "the author" here is the editor of the Wikipedia page itself. I removed it; I don't know if it's important to do some research on whether there was possible joining up of forces or not. --ESP (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2019
Please add at the end of this section the following text (without making a separate paragraph):

Tensions between Arabs and Jews led to violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936–1939.

Also please remove the extra space between the start of this section (the title) and the body text.--213.8.34.194 (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please request an unblock from your main account if you wish to edit here.  nableezy  - 14:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Vote
Revised voting table below. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment

 * The plain option "1948 War" is not suitable :: other clashes of arms were also in progress in the world in 1948. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * compare War of 1812 (disambiguation) and 1948 War (disambiguation).
 * Also, 1948 is the choice of most scholars, and it’s the only topic which shows up when putting 1948 War into google. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I put "1948 Palestine War" into Google I get "1947–1949 Palestine war" as first and "1948 Arab–Israeli War" second and the other doesn't appear at all.
 * If I put "1947–1949 Palestine war" instead, I get the same result. With "1948 War", I get the same two but reversed and still no mention of the third.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Google search is also influenced by your own search history and also by global searches which are probably influenced by the titles of Wikipedia articles chosen by petty arguments such as this one.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It must be really petty if it's gone on for 10 years.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Point is, I don't think google search should be used here as accurate statistics.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no accurate statistics (even the page view stats are not completely reliable). Scholarly usage is also insufficient, since that is usually set in some context, a book, for example. If it were a simple thing, this would have been resolved a long time ago. There is no right answer, everything's a compromise.Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The current situation is akin to having an article called the Great War, covering the period 1914-18, and then a sub article called World War I covering the period 1917-18, on the logic that it only became a world war after the entry of the United States.
 * The two names “1948 Palestine war” and “1948 Arab-Israeli war” are synonyms in common speech, so our unique way of treating it causes confusion to readers, as evidenced by the pageview stats. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If we only want to consider common speech, I would say that most people refer to it as the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflicts and having set a context, then start talking about dates and whatever else.Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is correct. “1948 war in the Arab-Israeli conflict” or “1948 war in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is common usage in the sources. “1948 Arab-Israeli war” is not, for the reasons covered elsewhere. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a latecomer to this mess, fwiw I would be inclined myself to take the two articles Arab Israeli conflict and Israeli Palestinian conflict and do everything that one would like to do in there and just leave these other articles to their fate.Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Calling this the "Palestine War" is not only historically incorrect, it is biased toward the Palestinian narrative. Historians have always referred to this as the 1947-48 Arab-Israeli War or the 1948 War of Israeli Independence. Following the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, not only did the local Arab population rise up and attack the Jews, but armies from seven Arab states invaded the nascent State of Israel as well. Therefore, it is termed the ARAB-Israeli War. Palestinian political feeling of the time was centered around the objective of ejecting the British and exterminating the Jews - all aspirations toward an independent state were not yet formulated and would only be officially declared by the establishment of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.143.223 (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not biased towartd the Palestinian narrative. It refers to the fact that the whole area was named "Palestine" at the time of the events.
 * More, historians refers to this as the "1948 Palestine war" as it was demonstrated numerous times. 85.201.162.174 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

My rationale for my !vote:
 * Current scheme - neutral, as while the current scheme is broken in my eyes (with an unclear parent/child structure) - it isn't bad in terms of NPOV.
 * 1948 Arab–Israeli war, 1948 War - support both. Both are neutral and are common names. I think this war in 1948 wins out on COMMONNAME vs. other wars in 1948 - so we can use just 1948 War, but if not - the other title.
 * 1948 Palestine war - oppose - as following May 1948 the war took place (mostly) in Israel.
 * 1948 Palestine-Israel War - strong oppose - as evident from our own infobox (which has Army of the Holy War as the sole Palestinian participant - and it was small, insignificant, and affected by outside forces... Arab Liberation Army was larger, but not quite Palestinian) - no entity called "Palestine" was a side to the conflict.
 * Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I question the correctness of "following May 1948 the war took place (mostly) in Israel". It is true that the war took place mostly within the region later bounded by the armistice lines, plus Jerusalem, but calling that region "Israel" before the armistice agreements is not justified. The only region for which a case can made for calling "Israel" at earlier times is the Jewish part of the partition plan. A large amount of the fighting took place outside that part. Zerotalk 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The partition plan was rejected. The only lines with binding status are the lines Israeli was admitted to the UN with (in 1949, following the armistice). In terms of internal Israeli law (which I think matter less in this discussion), all mandate areas under control of Israeli forces are considered Israeli from May 1948 - . Regardless - at the very least large portions of the war took place in Israel. Constructively in terms of titles - if we manage to do 1948 War (which at present is a redirect here) - then we manage to avoid all these possible issues in the title.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The Green Line was a demarcation line used in the armistice agreements. It marked the part of Palestine which was under Israeli control when the agreements came into force. As such it may have acted as a de facto border, but was not a de jure one. When the Mandate expired at midnight on the 14/15th May 1948, Jewish forces were in control of the area allotted to the "Jewish state" under the Partition Plan plus some areas allocated to the "Arab state". Most of the fighting which followed in the 1948 War took place on what was supposed to become an Arab state. Writing that "following May 1948 the war took place (mostly) in Israel" is anachronistic and therefore misleading and non-neutral. Where most of the fighting took place wasn't what most people would have viewed as Israeli territory at the time. The Americans, for instance, only gave de facto recognition to the State of Israel in May 1948 after being given assurances that its borders coincided with the ones in the Partition Plan. You wrote: "The partition plan was rejected." The resolution containing the Partition Plan did not depend on its acceptance by the parties involved in order to come into force. It was, however, non-binding and the British refused to implement it on the grounds that it was not accepted by both. Although not implemented, it does affect the position in international law on areas such as sovereignty over Jerusalem. A reason why the resolution recommended partition was because the Jewish leaders refused to accept a unitary state, which would have had an Arab majority. When the Jewish Agency indicated accetptance of the Partition Plan, they were indicating acceptance of something they had insisted on.       ←   ZScarpia  12:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sophisticated bullshit, the title Arab–Israeli war is widely supported by reliable sources. Some editors prefer referring to the Zionist entity rather than Israel. Outside of the Arab world "Palestine war" is not a common way to refer to this war. Ask yourself why @Onceinawhile did not include an option for "Israeli war of independence."Jonney2000 (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolter21 explained this here.
 * Scholars have explained this numerous times: Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name
 * And it has been covered on these talk pages numerous times.
 * Spoiler alert: “Nakba” is Palestinian POV, Israeli “War of Independence” is Israeli POV. If you disagree, please read the links above and the archival discussion before commenting again.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I dare say this whole affair must be quite depressing, I would be happy to assist you in editing the two articles Arab Israeli conflict and Israeli Palestinian conflict should you get fed up with repeating yourself here (assuming you are not yet fed up with it, that is).Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your empathy – it is appreciated. Sadly your kind suggestion would not bring me much relief from this clean-up effort – see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration from 3.5 years ago.
 * On the bright side, in the discussion here I think we have successfully focused the debate down to just three options: Pal war, A-I war, and 1948. It feels like trying to negotiate Britain’s exit from the European Union - we have consensus for a move, but we can’t agree what type, and the only way to ensure a move is for all those who believe in it to compromise. Luckily for us this debate is somewhat less significant. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Still, looking at the commentary I suspect compromise is going to remain difficult. Not completely sure, I don't think I have ever edited any of these articles, perhaps I should:) Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The current titles are common, neutral and descriptive. The proposed cure is worse than the disease, which is as Icewhiz notes merely "an unclear parent/child structure". I am also unconvinced by arguments that the current setup does not meet our guidelines. See this ngram. Note that "an unclear parent/child structure" could be claimed for many other wars, e.g. World War II, Pacific War and Continuation War. Srnec (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree.      ←   ZScarpia  12:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just the way I read it, I had thought the problem was the page view stats, not the parent/child structure per se (although the structure could be and probably is a contributing factor I don't myself see that as being the primary cause of the page views issue).Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * But it could well be that what people are really interested in is the interstate war which began on 15 May 1948, in which case the viewing statistics don't indicate a problem. If that's true, the only thing to ensure is that, at the head of the article on the latter, there's a guide pointing towards the other articles.     ←   ZScarpia  16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not possible because if that was the case someone would have published a book or movie or similar just focusing on that part of the conflict. Noone has done so, yet we have hundreds of books on the full 1947-49 period.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's how the Encyclopaedia Britannica handles it (though I'm guessing that somebody else has pointed that out during the preceding ten years of discussion): "1948–49: Israel’s War of Independence and the Palestinian Nakbah", "The war of 1948". Presumably 1948, rather than 1947, is given as the start date in the former because Israel didn't exist until then (as has probably also been a subject of discussion). I suppose it wouldn't be helpful to start listing the terminology all the sources I have access to use, though I will note that both a "revisionist" account, War for Palestine, Rewriting the History of 1948 by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim, and a "traditionalist" account, Osprey Essential Histories - The Arab-Israeli Conflict, The Palestine War 1948 (2002) by Efraim Karsh (the "preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist [politically-rightist] Movement in Zionism") refer to the 1948 Palestine War.      ←   ZScarpia  18:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. I can't put it in to words how refreshed I feel that someone in this discussion has bothered to properly review sources; this is the best representation of my reaction I can muster. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile requested I add my vote to the new table. My big difference is that I somewhat disagree with the premise: that this overview article is the "main" article and the Arab-Israeli War article merely a spinoff subarticle thereof, which all 4 of option 2s buy into. I believe many readers are much more conversant in, familiar with, and interested in the Arab-Israeli War, and the civil unrest at the start is considered more like a background thing. The Status quo is fine. I might be okay with "1948 Arab–Israeli war" as the overview article, but I'd want better sub-articles - parenthetical disambiguation isn't needed here and it very much frames this as one overview and 2 subevents rather than two events that happened back-to-back. So even for option 2b, something like 1948 Arab Israeli War / 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine / (some other article that focused specifically on the war aspects) miiiight be okay, but it's really more of a content reorganization where this article & the '48 article are semi-merged. SnowFire (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for voting.
 * For others reading the first half of this comment, please please please review the sources first. A quick search of 1948 Arab-Israeli in google books proves that the term is primarily used to refer to the full 1947-49 period, such that our use of the term to apply only to the second phase is not supported by the sources. It's like us having an article covering the Great War during 1917-18 post the entry of the US, and calling it "World War I". Which would obviously be nonsense - World War I started in 1914, irrespective of a large part of the world not joining until 1917. Whatever WP:OR ideas people have about what is background and what is not can only be judged by the sources, and the sources are clear that 1948 Arab Israeli war includes the first phase as a core component. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If the vote is inconclusive, would a way of solving the immediate problem be to go with the suggestion to rename the "1948 Arab-Israeli War" article to "First Arab-Israeli War" and then do a redirect using the former title to the root article?      ←   ZScarpia  13:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Simple and efficient. 85.201.162.174 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's like using a sticking plaster in place of an operation. Havradim (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A number of things make this quite tricky: figuring out how to take the naming and neutrality policies into account; the range of names used in the sources, contradictions in what they say and differences in the way names are used; trying to guess at what the least-worst title as far as minimising future dissension; personal bugbears and points of view. My current state of thinking is along the following lines:    ←   ZScarpia  11:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Option 2d) 1948 War: Is a name commonly used in sources, is unarguably neutral and is simple. It may not be very descriptive and it may be misleading in that the putative period of the was was 1947-1949, but the title isn't used for any other war and shouldn't cause confusion. As has been pointed out, it should be as acceptable as the title of an article as War of 1812 is.
 * (Option 2c) 1948 Palestine-Israel War: This is the only title I would oppose rather than feel neutral about or support. There are a range of issues associated with it and it is the only one, as far as I know, which doesn't bear any resemblance to names used in sources.
 * (Option 2b) 1948 Arab–Israeli war: Is it intentional that war with a lower-case 'W' is used? I feel neutral about this one. It has the advantage that it is a name used by sources, but it runs against some of my personal bugbears: probably contrary to the majority view, I think of the name as pertaining to the inter-state part of the conflict rather than the whole; the war lasted from 1947 to 1949 and wasn't confined to 1948; from my viewpoint, Israel wasn't 'established' until the Mandate ended, six months after the purported start of the conflict; it could be said that, at the start of the conflict, most 'Israelis' were actually Arab.
 * (Option 2a) 1948 Palestine war: As we have shown that this is a name used by both 'revisionists', 'traditionalists' and pro-Palestinians, it should, in theory, be a neutral title, but obviously some editors aren't going to view it that way. Personally, I would support it, but I wonder whether it would cause so much future dissension as to be not worth it. Again, I'm wondering why 'war' with a lower-case 'W' is being used and, though I could live with the use of '1948', I have a bit of a preference for '1947-1949' being used.
 * (Option 1) 1947–1949 Palestine war (the existing scheme): Personally I can live with the current scheme, but it has obvious shortcomings: it uses '1948 Arab–Israeli War', which perhaps the majority of people view as the name for the whole conflict, as the name for the second, inter-state, part only; in a previous discussion, editors agreed that we should adopt common prefixes in the titles. As a solution to the first problem, the title of the article on the second stage of the conflict could be changed from '1948 Arab–Israeli War' to 'First Arab–Israeli War' and the original title used as a redirect to the overview article. That scheme is based on the assumption that sources that use the title 'First Arab–Israeli War' pretty much universally to refer to the second part of the conflict, which seems to be true, but if it's not then the scheme fails. Again, I have a preference for using '1947-1949' rather than '1948', but can live with the latter ... and I'm wondering why 'war' with a lower case 'W' is used.
 * You will have to bite the bullet and vote, after 10 years I suspect that further discussion is not worth the candle :)Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I, of course, have only been part of this conversation for a matter of weeks. I thought I should explain my reasoning. And see if anyone would care to explain how I've strayed from the path of truth and light.      ←   ZScarpia  20:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Categories One related issue which needs solving is the categories (Category:1948 Arab–Israeli War; Category:People of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; Category:Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War; Category:Battles and operations of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War). These categories all include articles from both the "second phase" and the "first phase", yet are named per our "second phase". Onceinawhile (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've contacted David Tal (historian) and presented the issue. That was his response:

Stav shalom, none of the names mentioned are entirely adequate, and you are right in pointing to the problems each name entails. Hence, the only way to deal with the issue is not to ask what is the correct name, but what name can convey as accurately as possible (and you can’t expect to get more than that) the meaning of the war. In my opinion, it is the First Arab-Israeli War, or its variant, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Indeed, Israel did not exist during the first part of the war (30/11/47-15/5/48), but in actuality, the Jewish people who fought prior to May 1948, were the same people who fought after the declaration of independence. This certainly applies to the Arab side, even if the Arabs that fought before May 1948 were different from those after May 1948,

Best

David

This enhances my support for both options. I have also contacted Yoav Gelber and Ephraim Karsh. They haven't responded yet.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2019
The previous request looks reasonable. I'll take responsibility. If article covers so many events in the background section, it should mention Arab riots in the 1920s and 1930s. If someone wants to modify the text, please do. In the meantime, add the following sentence at the end of this section:

Tensions between Arabs and Jews led to violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936–1939.

Also it seems there is an unnecessary space between the start of this section (the title) and the body text.--80.246.137.4 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  04:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the idea of the edit but normally, we need a reference for edits like this as using Wikipedia as a source is not OK. Who decided these are the only 4 notable? What about 1947 Jerusalem riots? Let me see if I can find one.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)