Talk:Lausanne Conference of 1949

Necessary rewrite if not total overhaul
The current state of the article dedicates little time to the enormity of the Lausanne Conference, 1949 and seems to rely on historians that might not otherwise paint a completely objective picture of what occurred: see: Ilan Pappé. And considering the article relies almost solely on his interpretation of Israel (plus criticisms) with little information besides the bare minimal (this was the purpose of the conference [end scene] - here is israel's "real motivation" - more analysis.

Welcome to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.165.227 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is so much information available and the article hardly represents the realities of the conference. I mean heck, the only sub-section is simply criticisms. totally unacceptable IMO. For now we should minimize Pappe's beliefs, merge in more moderate sources and incorporate actual events recorded by the UN and responses by respective governments. Interpretation by extremely leftist historians should be at the bottom of the to-do list. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think is seriously wrong? I think the organization is odd, and there are things missing, but nothing flagrantly false. Pappé's views here are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial as far as I can see.John Z (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's as far as you can see. The article should be focusing on the actual events recorded by the United Nations. Pappe's views are not universal and belong to a very niche side of Israeli history. A person who reads this article will leave with no understanding at the events that occurred outside that it failed, and Israel planned that all along. Hardly a balanced perspective. We should move the article (i.e, Criticisms of Israel's involve with x) or rewrite it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article shouldn't focus on primary sources but on historians' interpretations of them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the article should focus on the actual topic and describe the events and then move to a balanced series of interpretations by historians. Though preferably, an effort should be made to include the opinions of the countries involved which were extensive. It is suspect to go directly to an extremely hostile historian, almost exclusively. Suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree about the rewrite. Will try to do this. The section "Criticism of participants" has only one (sortof) reference, and that reference doesn't appear to say anything about the bulk of what is written there. The content seems to have been selected from primary source material, the references given below do not appear to support what is written, and the material has been in place and unreferenced since 2006. My intention is to remove that section altogether barring complaints and proper references. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ok rewritten. Will expand later.  Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest we revert to the old version first and then incorporate needed changes step by step. The old version wasn't that bad. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - Snakeswithfeet just replaced one POV with another - exactly the opposite. Such a tendentious form of editing is not acceptable. Let's try to be constructive and include both. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

inflammatory language
As I was reading the article, I questioned the use of certain inflammatory words. Granted a history can have different perspectives and this article relates to other topics which remain sensitive to this day. However, I think we could use more neutral language than "Jewish immigrants stole properties" in the background section.

I am going to review the cited sources best I can and look for more neutral language. If the original source is inflammatory, the language needs to be quoted and the context clarified. Otherwise, less inflammatory sources are preferable as well as neutral language. Dstern1 (talk)

POV
Thus article has serious POV issues, apparently introduced by two editors, user:Wickey-nl and User:Ashurbanippal, who made substantial changes, without ever discussing them. Both these editors have been subsequently topic banned or blocked. I am attempting to remove some of these POV issues, ad make the article consistent with its cited sources. Users who repeatedly undo my edits, without explanation or discussion of their edits should expect to see their behavior reported. Specifically, I have changed the following statements - which are either unsourced, or state something completely different from the sources they cite - "By signing the Protocol, Arab countries for the first time recognized the Resolutions 194 and 181 as basis for settlement of the Palestine question, which they had rejected previously. " ; "but Israel remained persistent in its rejection of UN Resolutions 181 and 194. The meetings were suspended between 1 and 18 July. " Both of these were reverted without explanation by User:ElCommandanteVzl. I will report this behavior if it is repeated. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Galloway "quotation"
This revert by Epsom Salts is typical. Let's see how it stacks up. Zerotalk 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Despite the citation, the source is not the US Senate, nor is it Alexander Galloway.  The source is "Rev Karl Baehr, Executive Director, American Christian Palestine Committee" who claimed Galloway had made these remarks to Baehr's "study tour group" over a year earlier.[Palestine Refugee Program. Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-Third  Congress, First Session on the Palestine Refugee Program, May 20, 21, and 25, 1953, pp. 98–103; which I have examined].  So it was a verbal claim from the leader of a Christian Zionist lobby group about an alleged verbal statement of a UN official.  Where has WP:RS gone?
 * 2) Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky (two historians of right-wing persuasion) wrote in A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography Middle Eastern Studies, 46: 5, 655–675 that they could not verify Baehr's claim or even confirm that Baehr had met Galloway, despite searching many archives and Baehr's private papers.
 * 3) As if that's not enough, this sort of barely-on-topic polemic rubbish doesn't belong in articles even if it can be reliably sourced.
 * I read the Joffe & Romirowsky paper. While they do state they were unable to confirm that the meeting took place, the impression you are trying to create here, that they doubt this meeting took place  or that the quote  is authentic is simply not in the article. They treat the  quote as consistent with other  well-documented statements by Galloway critical of UNRWA and the Arab nations' attitudes toward it and the refugee problem. I am resorting this with proper attribution and sourcing. Epson Salts (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't even write that J&R tried and failed to confirm Baehr's claim; a direct NPOV violation. This sort of quotation slinging does not belong on Wikipedia. Take it somewhere else and let those of us who want to raise the standard of articles do our work without harrassment. Zerotalk 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Many things are difficult to confirm via documentary evidence 70 years after the fact, so I don't believe this particular factoid is all that important, but you can add it if you feel strongly about it. Your dismissal of sources you don;t like  as "rubbish" carries not even an iota of weigh on wikipedia. Epson Salts (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lausanne Conference of 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720073744/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4A5EF29A5E977E2E852561010079E43C to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4A5EF29A5E977E2E852561010079E43C
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617161917/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E1FDBD46744526C785256BCF0077F9C9 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E1FDBD46744526C785256BCF0077F9C9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714232903/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ae4f41784aaf8f1285256af5005e0569 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ae4f41784aaf8f1285256af5005e0569
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060450/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/60FD15FF5B22CA0D85256101007A9D2E to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/60FD15FF5B22CA0D85256101007A9D2E
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615041505/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828175019/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Tag
I don't agree that this article relies on primary sources. Sure there are a few, as in any good article on modern history, but the bulk of the sources are secondary.

Please could you provide examples of those that gave you cause for concern?

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes mainly the sections about US position,Israel's reply to the US,Borders,Jerusalem and many others the article full of cherry picked primary sources to advance Anti-Israeli POV--Shrike (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. If these are cherry picked, what is the missing narrative? In other words, please can you explain the other POV which is being underrepresented? Then we can fill in the gaps. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no way to know because I am not historian we can not make our own WP:OR based on primary sources--Shrike (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you haven't read any of the secondary sources in this article?
 * On that basis I will remove the tag shortly. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did there is no consensus to remove the tag till the secondary sources will be provided --Shrike (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for the tag.
 * Above you claimed there was cherry picking, but when asked to verify you admited you have no knowledge of the subject, having done no reading. So your claim has no basis.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My claim has basis on that that all premises and conclusion were based on primary sources and hence WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY does not imply WP:OR, unless an article contravenes any of the "do nots" in the policy. This article does not. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It does because it interpret the primary sources--Shrike (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it does, then that violates WP policy. Instead the article should cite primary sources, which is allowed by WP policy. ImTheIP (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

West Jerusalem
can you explain your last edit. I couldn't understand your edit summary. What don't you like about the current version? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't like it because it didn't followed the secondary source that your brought.--Shrike (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it did. Can you be specific? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the source says provoked and the source clearly says for example what I did is fair paraphrase of the source --Shrike (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "for example" in the source relates to cooperation with Jordan. It has nothing to do with "opposed any exercise of independence", whic is not written anywhere. Your drafting is WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't use the word provoked and its your drafting that doesn't follow the source.The condemnation in the source brought as example and we should follow the source.I don't have a problem to say it was example of Arab States cooperation with Jordan--Shrike (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lausanne Conference of 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203064550/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312081655/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/61201e86bc8189f485256102005a8eab?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/61201e86bc8189f485256102005a8eab?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)