Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Suggest the inclusion of the occupied Palestinian territories in the first section

Currently the opening reads

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet HA'sikhror) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur) – was the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinians were also Arab neighbors, the war for the most part was fought in their territory and they were most effected at the end of the conflict

Suggest following in order to reconcile the last paragraph with the opening paragraph.

The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Israel The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics - Joseph Heller Page 39 "..they would have to approve these occupations", Jordan Handbook of International Law - Anthony Aust Page 27 "..at that time occupied by Jordan" and Egypt.Israel Yearbook on Human Rights: 1993 Volume 23 - Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory ,Page 41. "Egypt...military occupation of the area from 1948-1967" talknic (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we have this discussion a few months ago, before you were topic banned?

By the way, you added a cn tag to the article where you say Transjordan was under the French. That's incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy: A) Yes. It was never resolved. Valid objections? B) CN Yes, my error.... talknic (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not resolved in the sense that you were unable to gain consensus for your proposed change but still want to make it. Is that what you mean? I have nothing to add to the previous discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - The proposal was not defeated by consensus. The discussion shows goal posts being moved every time your criteria was met, to the point where you claimed "None of your sources talk about "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs", they talk about geographic areas" as though they were empty of people who were under military occupation.

"Palestinian Arabs" are already mentioned in the article 16 times. Bearing that in mind, please address the current suggested proposition without personal comments and un-necessary dialogue. You must have a valid reason for your objection. talknic (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Having read through the previous discussion and; noted the arguments and; in order to comply with your past objections re - occupation vs military control, I suggest the following to keep from cluttering.

The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the under the military control of Israel [1], Egypt [2] and Jordan [3]

(BTW See the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [4] “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised") talknic (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal was indeed defeated by consensus. You were the only editor who supported it while several others objected. I'm done discussing this. If another editor joins in and supports your position, we can reopen the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - "You were the only editor who supported it while several others objected" Name them... thx

Throughout your objections have all been met. I have compromised on EVERY point you've raised and provided sources. (none of which were contested BTW) This is a brief history of the previous discussion:

1) "I think the current version works better. First of all not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe." I was not and am still not addressing the Nakba but the inclusion in the lead of the article of Israel's OTHER Arab neighbours, the Palestinian Arabs, who are mentioned 16 times through out the article.

2) "Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?" It's a ridiculous notion that the Palestinians do not neighbour Israel.

3) "Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt" I've shown (and again this time) valid references stating otherwise. Sources for "occupied", then "military control" then under the "control" of. Each time goal posts moved, the objection was met

4) "None of your sources talk about "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs", they talk about geographic areas" The laws of military control/occupation concern the movement, actions and control of PEOPLE. A checkpoint is not there to stop a geographical area from moving.

5) "Glad to see you changed it from "military control" (your term) to "occupation" (the term used by your sources). The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people." You moved the goal posts from 'military control' I complied, changed it to 'occupation', supplied sources, you agreed, then you claimed, again, that the people were not under military control/occupation.

6) "Military authority is not the same as occupation. For example, a military base is under military authority, but not under occupation" Bizarre we are not discussing a military base. " In our case, your source about Israel is not saying that Israeli Arabs were under occupation" The text I referred to was not about Israeli Arabs.

This: "The State of Israel and its Arab neighbors" obviously refers to neighboring Arab states" Which could then be changed to ACTUALLY say that...(but then there are 16 instances of "Palestinian Arabs" in the article which ought also be dealt with)

The proposed change stands as stated 18:07, 8 September 2011, Please address it. The history of the article shows where Palestinian Arabs have been slowly edited out of the lead, yet there are already 16 other instances where the "Palestinian Arabs" are mentioned in the article.

PS: For ease can we please keep the discussion to this top section, much of the delineated dialogue is not really relevant. talknic (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a severe case of WP:IDHT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - There was no consensus by "several others" when we discussed it last.

I've summarized that discussion here in order to continue and objections presented anew here thus far, simply do not justify blocking the addition.

1 The Palestinian Arabs were also neighbours to Israel. It is undeniable. "Palestinian Arabs" are already mentioned 16 times in the article.

2 Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours were more in number than Israelis. The majority civilians, severely effected by the war. At the end of the war, those people living the "geographic areas" were under the military control of their surrounding Arab neighbours and their Israeli neighbours.

3 Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours are a major factor in the whole issue, whose fate was dictated by the 1949 Armistice Agreements at the end of the war.

4 You have not contested the last suggestion at all. It complies with the ever changing "occupied" and/or "military control" and/or "control of" demands

5 The criteria have all been met. It is concise, it rounds out the lead, inclusive of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs, who are not afforded WP:DUE in the lead of the article.

It can be summarized in a very simple change to the lead. Could you please address the issue constructively talknic (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When you find another editor who supports your change, we can discuss it. I'm not going to let you suck up huge amounts of my time again.

If you make the change despite knowing you do not have consensus for it, you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Why are you making threats and false assertions? There was no consensus by "several others" when we discussed it last

You've not given one valid reason for objecting to the inclusion of the change as it stands at the last suggestion, which fulfills EVERY objection you have previously put forward.

Either mount a valid challenge to the last suggestion or cooperate in the spirit of Wikipedia by suggesting how Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs be given WP:DUE in the lead to the article talknic (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you have consensus to make the change you wanted? No. Am I going to waste my time reading walls of text and going around in circles with you again? Fat chance.

If another editor supports your change we can discuss it. That's unlikely to happen because the change you're proposing is nonsensical and a-historical.

I'm done here. Do not take my not replying to you further as agreement for your proposed change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - There has been no discussion whatsoever on the change as currently suggested, wherein all your previous objections have been met.

"the change you're proposing is nonsensical and a-historical" Please present your argument based on the current suggestion.

You've made a blatantly false allegation of "several others" in the previous unfinished discussion where I attempted to address you stated objection/s, comply with and compromise in keeping with the guidelines.

Some of your objections can only be described as a bizarre ("the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?")&("The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people.") Neither of which can be considered valid. Both territory and people are under the military control of a foreign government (aka occupation) and to say the Palestinian Arabs do not neighbour Israel is quite ludicrous.

Furthermore, I've made an alternative suggestion which you have not addressed at all. Change the lead to read "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet HA'sikhror) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur) – was the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its neighbouring Arab States in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict." talknic (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Talknic -- Your rhetorical strategies and method of operating on Wikipedia article talk pages the last time around conspicuously failed to "win friends and influence people", did not result in any significant lasting changes to Wikipedia articles, and ended up getting you a 6-month topic ban. So it's somewhat mystifying why you seem to be enthusiastically resuming most of your old bad habits. Do you expect doing the same thing to lead to a different result this time around? And don't tell me that I'm going "off topic" if I'm not discussing your proposed change to the article wording -- unfortunately, by your behavior you have made yourself a topic of discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not once addressed the actual topic talknic (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you devoted as much energy to other things as you do to coming up with insulting edit summaries, then you might have much more impact on the contents of Wikipedia articles... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please address the actual topic talknic (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Talknic -- I hardly know how to make much sense of your proposal, because you've chosen to use the word "Palestinian" in a way which is completely anachronistic for 1948 -- and so would be highly confusing and inappropriate if added to the article -- and because the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" is quite meaningless as applied to the results of the 1948-1949 war (unless you choose to regard Tel Aviv as "occupied Palestinian territory"!). There was no territory whatsoever that was initially assigned to either Arabs or Jews at the beginning of the war (since the Arabs had turned down the November 29th 1947 partition plan), so either ALL the land seized by BOTH sides was "occupied" (including Tel Aviv by the Jews and Nablus by the Arabs) or none of it was... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Before we continue, ( 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)...

Not differentiating between Israel and Palestine is "highly confusing and inappropriate". The area that became Israel was renamed. The area of Palestine that remained "outside of the territories of the State of Israel", is still called Palestine in UNSC Resolutions pertaining to the matter. It's surely better that people are informed. Israel is not in Palestine.

May 22nd 1948 After Israel was declared and recognized - Israeli Government statement to the UNSC (S/766)[5] differentiates between the territories of the State of Israel and those of Palestine. "In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard."

International regulations in that regard were the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [6]

22 May 1948 United Nations Security Council Resolution 49 and all following UNSC resolutions calling for an end to hostilities or peace or a truce or a ceasefire say "in Palestine".

Do you have any valid objections? talknic (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your original research? Again, we've been over this repeatedly so it's not like you don't understand you can't make changes to an article based on your interpretation of primary sources, so why are you trying to waste everyone's time again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy

A) The changes I have suggested to the lead of the article do not use primary sources. Valid objections?

B) My conversation with AnonMoos is not a part of the suggested change to the 'lead of the article', but in answer to his rather silly discussion on the 'Talk header' .. "because the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" is quite meaningless .. etc" I didn't suggest using the phrase in the 'lead of the article'. Never the less, two points 1) In Talk a primary source can be used to prove the validity or not of a secondary source. 2) In an Article, a primary source can be used "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"

"why are you trying to waste everyone's time again" Attempting to improve articles is one of the basic notions of Wikipedia, attempting to prevent valid improvements is wasting everyone's time talknic (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that unfortunately your little vacation did not improve your understanding of wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain them to you for the nth time, nor am I going to rehash the same discussion we had a few months ago, at least not without the participation of at least one more editor supporting your position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - A) Please keep the discussion to the topic. B) The issue was not resolved 'a few months ago' C) There is no necessity for another editor to support the suggested change to the Lead of the Article. Consensus to prevent a valid addition of relevant information must also be based on valid reasons, otherwise it would be a mis-use of policy. D) Thus far you have even attempted a valid objection to the suggested addition.

Israel's "Arab neighbours" include/d/s the Arab neighbours in what remained of Palestine after Israel was Declared. At present the "Palestinian Arabs" appears 16 times in the article. Either add the suggestion in order to reconcile the first part of the Lead with the last AND bring it into line with the other 16 instances of "Palestinian Arabs"

OR we could address changing the first part to read "between the State of Israel and its neighbouring Arab States"..... However changing the first part to "neighbouring Arab States" will negate the inclusion of or necessitate changes to some, if not all, of the 16 references to "Palestinian Arabs" already in the Article. talknic (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal was indeed defeated by consensus. You were the only editor who supported it while several others objected. I'm done discussing this. If another editor joins in and supports your position, we can reopen the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - See reply in first section above the delineation lines. thx talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

---

Talknic -- Unfortunately your use of the "State of Palestine" in that context is an example of your sometimes somewhat disingenuous approach. In fact, the phrase "State of Palestine" does NOT actually occur in the document http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 (but is merely your added personal interpretation) -- and in 1948 BOTH Arabs AND Jews were commonly called "Palestinians", and the leading Jewish newspaper was called the "Palestine Post". It's OK sometimes to loosely use contemporary terminology in place of the strictly historically correct terminology actually used during the 1947-1948 period -- but NOT where this would result in glaring flagrant anachronisms, or create muddled confusion. Furthermore, while http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 is an interesting document, it's really a preliminary military situation update written in the "fog of war", and not something which bound or binds the Jews or Israelis to anything in particular... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A) You're discussing the header for Talk, which is NOT the suggested change to the article lead. B) I didn't write "the State of Palestine" anywhere (another example of your somewhat disingenuous approach) C) UNSC S/766 is an official Israeli Government statement to the UNSC. Your opinion is appreciated but rather irrelevant to the 'lead of the Article'

Do you have any valid objections to the suggested change to the 'lead of the Article' talknic (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- Unfortunately, the phrase "Palestinian territories" is terminologically anachronistic and almost meaningless in the context of May 14-15 1948 -- and in fact does NOT appear in http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 . If there had been an occasion to refer to the concept you have in mind, the phrase used would have been along the lines of "territory that would have been in the Arab state according to the November 29th plan" or similar -- NOT "Palestinian territories". In any case, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 is pretty much a provisional battlefield communiqué (as I already stated), and will not really bear any elevated diplomatic significance that you might try to project on it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A) Why on earth are you talking about the 'header of the comments section' again, instead of the suggested changes to the 'LEAD OF THE ARTICLE' B) UNSC S/766 is an official Israeli Government statement to the UNSC (also irrelevant to the changes being suggested for the LEAD OF THE ARTICLE) Never the less, thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion

B) Could you please address the suggested changes to the LEAD OF THE ARTICLE thx talknic (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- you were the one who choose to give great prominence to that phrase. However, "leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Israel" is not much different and not much better -- if it's not mentioned that there were plenty of other Arabs, formerly of the British mandate, who were left under the occupation of Egypt or the occupation of Transjordan. (Of course, there were no Jews under Arab occupation, because they had well-founded fears of what would happen to them in such an eventuality...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "you were the one who choose to give great prominence to that phrase" I didn't suggest "that phrase" for the Lead of the Article. You might also consider the 16 references to "Palestinian Arabs" already in the Article talknic (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "if it's not mentioned that there were plenty of other Arabs ... left under the occupation of Egypt or the occupation of Transjordan." That is PRECISELY what I have suggested for the Lead in the Article. Please read the suggestion BEFORE making disruptive comments.... talknic (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

---

By the way, the tag you added is almost complete gibberish, since Transjordan was in the British part of the Sykes-Picot division, and also part of the original British League of Nations mandate. It did not "achieve independence from Palestine"[sic] -- rather it was unilaterally administratively separated from Palestine in the early 1920s by the British. I'm going to wait a day and replace it by a simple bare unadorned "fact" tag, because your annotations are hardly helpful... AnonMoos (talk)

My error - re the French (we all make mistakes). However it is arguable that Jordan achieved independence 'from' Britain. A) It was not British, so it didn't secede. It was formerly a part of the Provisional State of Palestine B) Independence was recognized 'by' Britain not specifically 'from' Britain. C) Independence is from all other entities, including Palestine.talknic (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I greatly prefer my original wording -- neither Palestine nor Transjordan was independent in the 1920s or 1930s (Palestine was a directly administered colony, while Transjordan was a closely-supervised British protectorate), so it's very hard to say what "Transjordan achieved its independence from Palestine" really means... AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather irrelevant here now as I have agreed I was mistaken, removed your 'fact' as it is not currently disputed. Perhaps it could be addressed on a page about Jordan. In that respect Trans-Jordan was a part of Palestine, not Britain. It became an Independent Sovereignty 'recognized' by Britain. talknic (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically Transjordan was a colony (a.k.a mandate) before being handed off to the hashemites from Arabia. The high-profile nature of this conflict unfortunately makes it difficult to add comprehensive changes without a serious, serious consensus. This discussion is probably more relevant at Palestinian people or Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 - "a colony (a.k.a mandate)" A Mandate is an set of conditions/agreement. A colony is not talknic (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A colony can include a set of conditions/agreement. British/French referred to the land they conquered as mandates, but really they were colonies. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the LoN Mandate for Palestine very carefully. "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations" Then Read the LoN Covenant Art 22 Para 5

I will no longer be a party to this part of the discussion. It is irrelevant to the suggested change to the Lead of the Article talknic (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bolding of The Catastrophe / al-Nakba - Due weight in formatting

As it stands: "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence ... or War of Liberation .... Much of what Arabs refer to as The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) occurred amidst this war.

What is " known to Israelis as " has been bolded.

What the "Arabs refer to as " is not afforded the same emphasis.

NMMNG stated "nakba is not an alternative name for the war" The equal emphasis I gave to what "Arabs refer to as " by bolding it, did not alter the previously existing meaning talknic (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What is described as the "Nakba" occurred during the war, but it is not the war. We don't describe the Iraq War or World War II with modifiers noting the exodus of millions of people during the conflict. It isn't a matter of weight, but facts. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The bolding of The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) (giving equal weight in formatting), did not change the facts. It reads exactly the same! If it is not a matter of weight then you won't mind if I un-bold "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence .... or War of Liberation ? talknic (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What is described as the "catastrophe" occurred during the conflict, it is not the conflict. The first Arab-Israeli War is not predicated on the displacement of people - this is not unique to the Arab-Israeli war and is an element in virtually all wars fought in the past century. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be equating one part or aspect with the whole. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Bold is used for synonyms. "Nakba" is not synonymous with 1948 Arab–Israeli War. See WP:LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1st objection was NMMNG "nakba is not an alternative name for the war" Bolding did not change the meaning. There was no objection to what stood before. No words have been added, subtracted or changed. Nor has the order or punctuation.

The 2nd objection Wikifan12345 "What is described as the "Nakba" occurred during the war, but it is not the war" Again, the meaning was not changed from what stood before, to which there was no prior objection.

The 3rd objection Wikifan12345 "We don't describe the Iraq War or World War II with modifiers" But the War of Independence ... or War of Liberation have modifiers!!!!

The 4th objection Wikifan12345 "It isn't a matter of weight, but facts." The facts have not changed.

The 5th objection Hertz1888 "Yes, you seem to be equating one part or aspect with the whole" The wording and meaning have not been changed.

The 6th objection NMMNG - Synonym "Synonyms are different words with almost identical or similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous" Synonymous with each other. e.g., :::::: What was "known to Israelis" and what the "Arabs refer to". 'refer to' and 'known to' are synonymous.

Further more - It is not the only use of bolding. WP:LEAD e.g., Las Meninas (Spanish for The Maids of Honour) is a 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez" another example The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba)

WP:LEAD Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable. How is it different from The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba)? talknic (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you do not understand that "Nakba" does not mean the same thing as "1948 Arab-Israeli war". It's explained right there in the lead which you selectively quoted above. I pointed you to the relevant guideline about bolding in the lead. It's not very hard to understand either. Why do you insist on wasting everyone's time with this nonsense? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG. A) I find it hard to believe you think the meaning is somehow changed by bolding the first appearance of Proper nouns in the first sentence. The wording is exactly the same. I can find no previous objection to the wording.

B) You gave one use of bolding (That being - 'words' synonymous with each other). There are other uses of bolding. Proper names when they first appear in the first sentence and synonymous words. The Catastrophe / al Nakba are Proper names in the first sentence. al Nakba is synonymous with the Catastrophe talknic (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "Nakba does not in fact redirect to this article... " Why would it? The wording has not changed, the meaning has not changed and the redirection has not changed. I can find no prior objection to it redirecting to the Catastrophe / al Nakba. talknic (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with the wording. There is a problem with your bolding in violation of WP:MOS. I'm done here. As usual, don't take my not responding to your attempts to suck up my time as support for your proposed change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "There is no problem with the wording" That was your first objection "nakba is not an alternative name for the war". After I pointed out that the wording hadn't changed you moved the goalpost to;

"Bold is used for synonyms. "Nakba" is not synonymous with 1948 Arab–Israeli War. See WP:LEAD." But in WP:LEAD it descrbes 'words' being synonyms of each other. Not of bolded content being being synonymous with the title. I gave instances of the permissible use of bolding for the first appearance of proper nouns from WP:LEAD. Now the goalposts have moved again to;

"There is a problem with your bolding in violation of WP:MOS" Care to point out exactly under which guideline in WP:MOS Because as I've shown, it is permissible to bold both the first appearance of proper nouns and their synonyms or translations according to WP:LEAD & WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"nakba is not an alternative name for the war" therefore it should not be bolded in the lead. Now you're just trolling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - You've moved the goalpost back to a your first position. Thus far I haven't as yet suggested it as an alternative name for the war. al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead, see WP:LEAD. BTW I note you don't even bother upper case it.

As I said, thus far I haven't suggested al Nakba as an alternative name for the war. However it seems rather odd that only Israelis have a name for the war and Israel's neighbouring Arab States and neighbouring Palestinian Arabs didn't. To that end, I've had a closer look.

1)1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Prof. Benny Morris "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)"

2) Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East - By Neil Caplan - Routledge, 1997- Page 17 "...the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence,an-Nakba(the(Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war"

3)Israel or Palestine? Is the two-state solution already dead? - Hasan Afif El-Hasan - Algora Publishing, 2010 - Page 33 "The Jews called this war “The War of Independence” and in Palestinian historiography it is called al-Nakba (the Catastrophe)"

4)Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature - By David Cook - - Page 15 "in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (often called al-Nakba, the disaster)"

5)Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home and migration - Sara Ahmed -Berg, 2003 - Page 87 "The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, war and their aftermath (named The War of Independence by Israelis), is called al-Nakba - the catastrophe - by the Palestinians."

6)The contemporary Middle East - Karl Yambert, Arthur Goldschmidt - Westview Press, 2006 - Page 51 "The Palestinian community was shattered by the fighting and flight in 1948-1949, which they called al-nakba (the disaster)"

7)Israel/Palestine: how to end the war of 1948 - Tanya Reinhart - Allen & Unwin, 2003- Page 7 "following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba — the catastrophe"

8)Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Selections from CQ Researcher- CQ Researcher - SAGE, 2010 - Page 216 "in what the Israelis call the war of Independence and the Palestinians call the Nakba"

9)The Israel/Palestine question - Ilan Pappé - Routledge, 1999 - Page 172 "the first Arab Israeli war, which they call al Nakba or the Disaster"

10)Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present - Itamar Rabinovich - UPNE, 2008 - Page 47 "what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what the Palestinians call al naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally, the 1948 war"

11)Who are the Christians in the Middle East? - Betty Jane Bailey, J. Martin Bailey - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 - Page 155 "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe"

12)The Arab world: an illustrated history - Kirk H. Sowell - Hippocrene Books, 2004 - Page 202 "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe"

"Now you're just trolling." Would you please just address the topic talknic (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Talknic -- In addition to the points raised above, Nakba does not in fact redirect to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Then surely it belongs with the points raised above, rather than intentionally messing up the flow of yet another discussion. To that end I have answered it with 'the points raised above' and will not respond here to anything you might add here talknic (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, everyone relax. Talknic, 1948 Palestinian exodus (referred to as the "Nakba" by some) was part of the 1948 war, but it wasn't the war. I'm trying to make this sound as simple as it can. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catastrophe and al Nakba are proper nouns. It is permissible to bold both the first appearance of proper nouns and their synonyms or translations according to WP:LEAD & WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- When I'm raising a somewhat new issue or going off on a semi-tangent, then I often peremptorily de-indent, and I don't particularly care whether it meets with your approval or not. And it matters because the main purpose of "wikibolding" is to signal what is the main topic of this one particular article (i.e. which this article focuses on more than any other article does). Therefore "wikibolding" of Nakba (which has its own separate article) would not be very useful... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you have at last actually addressed the issue, al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You were the one who chose to raise the "off-topic" issue of discussion thread formatting! Anyway, wikibolding is for what each article covers more than all the other articles, not for mere proper names in the lead section... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos wikibolding doesn't exist. Please be specific. al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead, see WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wikibolding" is an informal term for bolding the ACTUAL TITLE of an article, and sometimes also ALTERNATIVE TITLES of the article (but a word or phrase can't really be an alternative title of one article if it's also the main title of a completely separate article). As for the rest, look at Angelina Jolie: Jon Voight, Jonny Lee Miller, Billy Bob Thornton, and Brad Pitt are all mentioned in the lead section yet none of their names are bolded... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos wikibolding doesn't exist. WP:LEAD does exist and al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead. BTW Do you really think that only Israelis had a name for the war? talknic (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that the names Jon Voight, Jonny Lee Miller, Billy Bob Thornton, and Brad Pitt should be bolded in the lead section of the "Angelina Jolie" article? If so, then please go to Talk:Angelina Jolie and stop wasting our time here... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Angelina Jolie, Jon Voight, Jonny Lee Miller, Billy Bob Thornton et al are not preceded by " known to ?? as " and/or a synonymous " ?? refer to as " .. talknic (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are arguments on both sides, i.e. "nakba" can mean one part of what happened in the war but also sometimes it is used synonymously with the whole war. The important thing now is not to let the argument go round in circles but to find a practical way to establish consensus. RfC? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument isn't going round in circles. There's one editor who wants to make a change, and counting the previous discussion, about 5 who don't support it. Looking at the Nakba article also doesn't seem to support the change. If there's an RfC I'll comment on it, but otherwise I'm out of this discussion. I don't have the time or inclination to read walls of text by someone who never listens. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not going to read walls of text either. I'll see if someone wants to take it to dispute resolution and will comment then. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- RfC - Done talknic (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- There was no previous discussion on the issue of bolding the existing proper noun and its synonyms per WP:LEAD and;

There was no previous discussion on the issue of including Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs in the final sentence of the lead to the article.

In both instance you are incorrect. Furthermore, the above shows that your objections starting with "nakba is not an alternative name for the war" you then moved goalposts and at 16:45, 13 September 2011 returning to "nakba is not an alternative name for the war", which is rather circular if anything. I have attempted to move the issue along by addressing each of your objections. talknic (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "I'm not going to read walls of text either" A) the walls of text are there because NMMG's moving goalposts are being addressed in an attempt to better the article. B)If you don't read can you be sure of the exact nature of this issue, which was not previously discussed by anyone. Nor was the suggested inclusion of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs discussed by anyone other than myself and NMMNG talknic (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Judith -- there would be an argument if Nakba weren't a separate article... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- It has nothing to do with there being a separate article. Both the Catsatrophe and/or al Nakba are proper nouns and synonyms of each other, appearing for the first time in the lead, per WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG/Itsmejudith/AnonMoos -- The article lead gives the impression that A) Only the Israelis had a name for the war, and; B) it omits Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs completely. The war was fought over and predominately in their territory, resulting in armistice agreements which dictated their fate talknic (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- if the Arabs had a specific name for the war itself (i.e. which would be more relevant for this article than for the Nakba article), then there would be no reason in the world why we couldn't include and bold that name in this article. But if no such name exists, then it's really not a problem for this article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. "Nakba" is actually somewhat of a retrospective/retroactive term, which could have hardly been coined until the latter part of 1949. I'm sure that the Arabs had other terms for the war which they used during at least 1948 and early 1949, and if you could research those terms, then you would be doing a real service (unlike most of your usual Wikipedia antics). AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, due to your odd indenting practices, you missed the sources provided above. Or perhaps you hold a rather weird belief that only Israelis could possibly have had a name for the war and that only Israelis are important enough to mention by name in the lead of the article. It seems rather odd that Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs are afforded no part in the lead of the article when hundreds of thousands of Israel's neighbouring civilian Palestinian Arabs were dispossessed and all of their territory put under the military control and/or occupation of their neighbouring Arab States and the neighbouring Jewish state via the Armistice Agreements at the end of the war. To that end here are the aforementioned sources for your perusal and/or analysis.

1)1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Prof. Benny Morris "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)"

2)Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East - By Neil Caplan - Routledge, 1997- Page 17 "...the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence,an-Nakba(the(Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war"

3)Israel or Palestine? Is the two-state solution already dead? - Hasan Afif El-Hasan - Algora Publishing, 2010 - Page 33 "The Jews called this war “The War of Independence” and in Palestinian historiography it is called al-Nakba (the Catastrophe)"

4)Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature - By David Cook - - Page 15 "in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (often called al-Nakba, the disaster)"

5)Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home and migration - Sara Ahmed -Berg, 2003 - Page 87 "The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, war and their aftermath (named The War of Independence by Israelis), is called al-Nakba - the catastrophe - by the Palestinians."

6)The contemporary Middle East - Karl Yambert, Arthur Goldschmidt - Westview Press, 2006 - Page 51 "The Palestinian community was shattered by the fighting and flight in 1948-1949, which they called al-nakba (the disaster)"

7)Israel/Palestine: how to end the war of 1948 - Tanya Reinhart - Allen & Unwin, 2003- Page 7 "following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba — the catastrophe"

8)Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Selections from CQ Researcher- CQ Researcher - SAGE, 2010 - Page 216 "in what the Israelis call the war of Independence and the Palestinians call the Nakba"

9)The Israel/Palestine question - Ilan Pappé - Routledge, 1999 - Page 172 "the first Arab Israeli war, which they call al Nakba or the Disaster"

10)Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present - Itamar Rabinovich - UPNE, 2008 - Page 47 "what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what the Palestinians call al naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally, the 1948 war"

11)Who are the Christians in the Middle East? - Betty Jane Bailey, J. Martin Bailey - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 - Page 155 "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe"

12)The Arab world: an illustrated history - Kirk H. Sowell - Hippocrene Books, 2004 - Page 202 "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe" ..... talknic (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Per AnonMoos, since there's already an article Nakba, we do not consider "Nakba" to be a synonym for "1948 Arab-Israeli War", therefore "Nakba" should not be emboldened, but it should be linked. The alternative is to merge the two articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "Per AnonMoos, since there's already an article Nakba" 1) In the current wording "known to Israelis as" and "what Arabs refer to as" are already synonymous to each other and; the Catastrophe precedes and is synonymous with al Nakba and; the Catastrophe and al Nakba are proper nouns/names, first appearing in the lead.

Furthermore, no one has addressed the sources I've tabled e.g., "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe" talknic (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And Jon Voight, Jonny Lee Miller, Billy Bob Thornton, and Brad Pitt are proper nouns/names, first appearing in the lead of Angelina Jolie...

Talknic -- Judith is absolutely right: If your laboriously-assembled quotes mean anything at all in Wikipedia terms, it's that article Nakba should be merged with this article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies don't really allow for "Nakba" to be wikibolded in this article while also being the main title of a separate article... AnonMoos (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Angelina Jolie, Jon Voight, et al are not preceded by " known to .. as " and/or a synonymous " .. refer to as ". The war of independence is preceded by " known to .. as " . al Nakba is preceded by " refer to as" They are already synonymous with each other. If " known to .. as " is synonymous with the war, then so too is " .. refer to as "

" Wikipedia policies don't really allow for "Nakba" to be wikibolded in this article while also being the main title of a separate article" Where specifically is this alleged policy?

WP:BEGINNING "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[3] " I.e., not exclusively synonyms. Furthermore proper noun/names and their synonyms first appearing in the lead, may also be boldface talknic (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Balance in the Lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War‎

Debate on the bolding of proper nouns and their synonyms first appearing in the lead of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War talknic (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to debate; conforms to standard practice in lede paragraphs. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Orangemike -- Is that confirming proper nouns can be bolded when they first appear in the lead? (per WP:LEAD & WP:LEAD ) talknic (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only can, but should be. "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." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not an alternative name for the war. See below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG Rather irrelevant to the stated purpose being; the bolding of proper nouns/names on their first appearance in the lead of an article. talknic (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree This has been already explained and discussed in the preceding section. The same goes for the other RfC on this page. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe - A little more detail please. talknic (talk)

My view on this issue is summed up by the first four replies you got in the preceding section (Bolding of The Catastrophe / al-Nakba - Due weight in formatting). The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brutaldeluxe - However, the first four replies didn't address the proposition, which was the bolding of the first appearance of proper nouns/names in the lead. That is what this RFC calls for. talknic (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe - could you elucidate on your objection to the other RfC on this page.... Thx talknic (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, thanks for valuing my opinion so much, but as the lead now stands there is nothing wrong with it and I agree with the thoughts of every other editor who has interacted with you on this issue. I regard your other Rfc on this page as a fork of your first one, and I think other editors involved do too. Therefore, you will not reach a consensus for the changes you are proposing. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Brutaldeluxe - Again, you have not addressed the actual issue, nor did the first four answers you've cited. BTW if you are to address the 'other RFC' please do so in the other RFC. talknic (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Do not bold - "Nakba" is not synonymous with "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Nakba is the exodus, part of which took place during the event this article is describing. If anything, it is closer to 1948 Palestine War than to this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- This RFC refers only to the bolding of proper nouns/names, as did the original proposition. aka balance in formatting talknic (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the guidelines. Not every proper noun is bolded, only ones that are synonymous with the article title. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MNNG -- You seem to be missing the point I made very clear at the very beginning of the discussion. "known to as" & "refer to as"

The example "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain"

Article -- "known to Israelis as" followed by proper nouns/names....then ... "what Arabs refer to as" followed by proper nouns/names.

'known to Israelis as' & 'what Arabs refer to as' are already in themselves synonymous with each other. The proper nouns/names that follow are deserving of equal bolding in their first appearance in the lead talknic (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent the guidelines. The only proper nouns that should be bolded are those which are synonyms of the subject; those and only those. So if you're misinterpreting it to say that "Nakba" should be bolded, that's nonsense. --20:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the very first two lines of the Talk discussion. I have not proposed to alter any words. The wording already exists in the article. "known to as" & "refer to as" which are in themselves synonymous with each other. Therefore both deserving of having any following proper nouns/names bolded in their first appearance in the lead. talknic (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The guidelines are crystal clear: you only boldface SYNONYMS of the subject of the article. "Nakba" is not a synonym for "1948 Arab–Israeli War" and therefore should not be bolded. Do not misrepresent the guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

" you only boldface SYNONYMS " Who exactly is misrepresenting the guidelines? [WP:BEGINNING]] "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[3] " I.e., not exclusively synonyms .. talknic (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"known to as" & "refer to as" are synonymous. If the 1st instance is synonymous with the Arab-Israeli War, so is the second. Furthermore I have provided some 12 secondary sources all very similar

1)1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Prof. Benny Morris "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)"

2) Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East - By Neil Caplan - Routledge, 1997- Page 17 "...the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence,an-Nakba(the(Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war"

3)Israel or Palestine? Is the two-state solution already dead? - Hasan Afif El-Hasan - Algora Publishing, 2010 - Page 33 "The Jews called this war “The War of Independence” and in Palestinian historiography it is called al-Nakba (the Catastrophe)"

4)Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature - By David Cook - - Page 15 "in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (often called al-Nakba, the disaster)"

5)Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home and migration - Sara Ahmed -Berg, 2003 - Page 87 "The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, war and their aftermath (named The War of Independence by Israelis), is called al-Nakba - the catastrophe - by the Palestinians."

6)The contemporary Middle East - Karl Yambert, Arthur Goldschmidt - Westview Press, 2006 - Page 51 "The Palestinian community was shattered by the fighting and flight in 1948-1949, which they called al-nakba (the disaster)"

7)Israel/Palestine: how to end the war of 1948 - Tanya Reinhart - Allen & Unwin, 2003- Page 7 "following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba — the catastrophe"

8)Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Selections from CQ Researcher- CQ Researcher - SAGE, 2010 - Page 216 "in what the Israelis call the war of Independence and the Palestinians call the Nakba"

9)The Israel/Palestine question - Ilan Pappé - Routledge, 1999 - Page 172 "the first Arab Israeli war, which they call al Nakba or the Disaster"

10)Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present - Itamar Rabinovich - UPNE, 2008 - Page 47 "what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what the Palestinians call al naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally, the 1948 war"

11)Who are the Christians in the Middle East? - Betty Jane Bailey, J. Martin Bailey - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 - Page 155 "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe"

12)The Arab world: an illustrated history - Kirk H. Sowell - Hippocrene Books, 2004 - Page 202 "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe" ... talknic (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

NMMNG - "Not every proper noun is bolded, only ones that are synonymous with the article title" ... Orange Mike - " you only boldface SYNONYMS " .... Itsmejudith "we do not consider "Nakba" to be a synonym for "1948 Arab-Israeli War", therefore "Nakba" should not be emboldened"

The guidelines actually say WP:BEGINNING "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[3] " I.e., not exclusively synonyms. If the variations are proper nouns/names, appearing for the first time in the lead they may also be boldfaced. To this end I have provided instances of secondary sources showing variations from the Palestinian and Arab POV specific to the same period and synonymous with the War of Independence talknic (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many people need to tell you you're wrong before you consider that a possibility? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Your insults have no place in WikiPedia -- People once thought the earth was flat....then someone checked. The guidelines seem rather clear when cited verbatim. Boldface is not exclusively the reserve of words synonymous with the title

Furthermore 'the War of Independence' is only a variation, not synonymous with the title of the article. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war must also include what the Arabs and/or Palestinians called the war to be NPOV. To say they had no name for the war is simply ridiculous. Any such name and it's synonym/s may be boldfaced in the first mention in the article talknic (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone please put the specific question this RfC is about at the head of this RfC? Otherwise it's not clear what exactly we're debating. I dug around, but am still not sure. Is the question:
  1. Should "War of Independence" and "War of Liberation" be bold in the lead?
  2. Should "al-Nakba" and "The Catastrophe" be bold in the lead?
  3. Something else?

For what it's worth, I'd say yes to #1, maybe to #2, per Wikipedia:LEAD#Abbreviations and synonyms. The "maybe" is because I'm not clear that Nakba is a synonym to the war. From our article on it, it seems to refer to the exodus, which is not the same thing as the war. It is true that Benny Morris seems to use the word as a synonym to the war, but we shouldn't have two articles, one saying that it means the war, and the other the exodus. If you can convince the editors at Nakba that the word actually means the war, then yes. Until then, no.

I do, however, have a counter-proposal. The same Benny Morris reference says "called by the Arab world the First Palestine War". That seems like a fine synonym to put in the lead and bold. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban - It's quite clear. The Catastrophe and al Nakba are also proper nouns/names. They're also prefaced with 'refer to as' which is synonymous with 'known to as'

Benny Morris gives "the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)" In his instance there's possibility of three bolded synonymous/names 'the First Palestine War' which is synonymous with 'al Nakba' which is synonymous with 'the Disaster'.

The proposition was to simply bold what is appropriate, not change the wording. I draw your attention to WP:BEGINNING "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.[3] " I.e., not exclusively synonyms. Proper noun/names and their synonyms first appearing in the lead, may also be boldface. talknic (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If no one has any objection to the actual wording of WP:BEGINNING (I doubt consensus based on mis-reading the guidelines is considered valid) and; no one has any objection to the B Morris source. Are there any other excuses as to why the change, adding the B Morris reference, should not happen ? talknic (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If there were no separate article Nakba, then there would be no problem with bolding Nakba in the introduction to this article. Unfortunately, the fact that that there is a separate article Nakba means that there is a problem, no matter how often and how loudly you claim that there isn't a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as AnonMoos writes. --GRuban (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos / GRuban -- Can you show me the exact guideline please ... talknic (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LEAD#Abbreviations_and_synonyms. According to our Nakba article, al Nakba does not refer to the war, but rather to the exodus. While the exodus was an important part of or result of the war, it was not synonymous with it, or a variation of it. Saying that the 1948AIW is also known as al-Nakba would be like writing: "The Cold War, also known as the Berlin Wall...; World War II, also known as The Holocaust...; The American Civil War, also known as the Emancipation Proclamation..." --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban -- Wikipedia:LEAD#Abbreviations_and_synonyms says it can be bolded. It does not say anything about there being another article. Can you show me the exact guideline please!

Furthermore, I have cited numerous secondary sources that say "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe" or similar ... talknic (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have cited numerous secondary sources. And they may be good ones. Not for me to judge, I'm not a very involved editor in this area, I'm just a guy responding to your RfC. Note my requirement for bolding - get the editors on the Nakba article, or rather redirect, to agree that your secondary sources are stronger than whatever secondary sources they have for calling it 1948 Palestinian exodus. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes inconsistent: in one place, we'll be saying Nakba means 1948 Palestinian exodus, and in another that Nakba means 1948 Arab–Israeli War. We can't have it both ways. No, I won't be able to cite you a guideline that says we can't have two articles that directly contradict each other, but I'm pretty confident it's a bad idea. --GRuban (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban -- Thanks, there is no such guideline. From Nakba "during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and " It refers to both there is no inconsistency ... talknic (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"during" is not the same as "another version of". "Wednesday" occurs "during" the week, but "Wednesday" is not another version of "the week". It looks like we've hit an impasse. If this is your only argument, mark me as opposing your proposal. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

GRuban - I stated a justification for the change. I have not deviated from it. The issue is bolding proper nouns/names the 1st time they appear in the lede, based on the existing wording for which there was no previous objection! and was in fact shaped by some of the current objectors.

As each objection has been registered, I have addressed it. "Not every proper noun is bolded, only ones that are synonymous with the article title" But when we look at WP:BEGINNING that's not what the guideline actually says.

Suddenly there must be secondary sources for the existing wording, even though no one had previously objected to the existing wording. I provided numerous, not one has been challenged, instead;

Up pops some supposed guideline... that just so happens, no one has yet been able to cite!

Now we're way off on a tangent quite irrelevant to the issue of; bolding proper nouns/names & their synonyms when they 1st appear in the lede, based on the existing wording ... talknic (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thus far, we have: Orangemike, who 1st says it's OK. Then changes his mind when he finds it means affording bolding to proper nouns used by Palestinians/Arabs. He then begins misrepresenting the guidelines NMMG misrepresenting the guidelines. Brutaldeluxe/The mayor of Yurp, not addressing the suggestion at all & claiming it has already been addressed by others when in fact it hadn't. GRuban misrepresenting the guidelines. AonMoos & ItsmeJudith ... trying to use a guideline that doesn't exist. GRuban agreeing with the non-existent guideline. Objrctions to the existing wording when no objections were previously registered to the wording, which oddly enough , was shaped by some of those now objecting to it. But no VALID objection to the bolding of proper nouns and their synoyms when they 1st appear in the lede ... talknic (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In short, not a single editor agrees with the change you want to make. Could it be that you are misunderstanding the guidelines rather than everyone else misrepresenting them? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG they disagree, with justifications that simply do not address the actual nature of the suggested change. Hopping from one excuse to the next, completely missing the point.

"Could it be that you are misunderstanding the guidelines rather than everyone else misrepresenting them?" I've cited them and they do not support the objections.

I've also asked for the exact guideline for Anonmoos's claim "the fact that that there is a separate article Nakba means that there is a problem,"

The reason given for reverting was based on the wording, which I believe you helped craft, which was not at issue. Consensus by misrepresentation is hardly valid. Thus far, no one has actually given any actual reason why I should not go ahead and re-instate the change as I had it ... talknic (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're the one who's completely missing the point? Is that possible? You haven't been able to convince a single editor to support your change. What does that tell you? Anyway, we should get an admin to close this RfC. You can argue about valid interpretation of the guidelines with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "What does that tell you?" Not much, because apart from blatantly denying what the guidelines actually say re-balding and; arguing about the exisitng wording, to which there was no suggested change and to which there had been no previous objection registered (having been shaped by some of those now objecting to the wording), no one has given any valid reason why boldface should not be equally applied to proper nouns/names when they first appear in the lede of an article.

"we should get an admin to close this RfC" Why? I doubt that consensus based on misrepresentation is in any way valid. It would be far better to admit what the guidelines actually say and afford the same baldface status to proper nouns/names used by the Palestinians/Arabs appearing for the first time in the lede. Quite a simple matter, supported by the guidelines ... talknic (talk) 11:43, 26 September 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 [7]and the British recognition saw it as occupation 27 April 1950 [8]. 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 [9] 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 [10] well before the Armistice Agreements were signed ... talknic (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead - "mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate" is odd & misleading.

Problem bolded - "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 in 1947–1948. 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."

A) I can find no reference in the source to where 'the war took place' as stated in the article.

B) (1) The Paragraph begins by telling readers the Mandate had terminated, yet reverts back to the Mandate for where the war was fought. (2) It also tells us that Israel had been declared independent, I.e., no longer in or part of any other place.

C) The problem section ought surely read something like "The war took place mostly in what remained of Palestine after Israeli Independence and for a short time also etc etc." or "The war took place mostly in Palestine and for a short etc etc" or "The war took place mostly in Palestinian territory and for a short etc etc ." talknic (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"The former territory of the British Mandate" is a precise description of a well defined area. "Palestine" is ambiguous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy -- "The former territory of the British Mandate" could be taken to include what became TransJordan, quite imprecise. Any suggestions? talknic (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The boundaries of the Mandate were fixed in 1923, and 1948 is 25 years after 1923... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - The boundaries of the Mandate fixed in 1923 included what became Israel on May 15th 1948. What remained of Palestine and where most of the fighting took place after Israel was declared, was and still is called Palestine talknic (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're calling Jordan part of Palestine after 1923 (a position more commonly associated with right-wing Israelis than with Arab advocates), then what you're saying doesn't seem to make much sense... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - The boundaries of the Mandate fixed in 1923, included what became Israel on May 15th 1948. The phrase "the former territory of the British Mandate" is imprecise. Most of the fighting took place in Palestine. talknic (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in... It is really hard to figure out exactly what this dispute is about or who supports what choice, but here's my take. Between 1922 and 1946, the "British Mandate for Palestine" (a legal instrument, not a place) covered both Palestine and Trans-Jordan, but "Palestine" meant only the part west of the Jordan River. In 1946 Trans-Jordan became independent, so from then on the "British Mandate for Palestine" covered only Palestine and all of the phrases "British Mandate of Palestine", "Mandatory Palestine", "Palestine", and "territory of the British Mandate" meant exactly the same thing. The one preferred by mainstream historians to describe the region is "Mandatory Palestine". The war took place within the former boundaries of Mandatory Palestine almost all of the time. Alternatives that are smaller regions than Mandatory Palestine would be the Arab and Jewish sections in the UN partition resolution, and the region that became Israel (meaning the region within the green line). None of those three smaller regions includes most of the 1948-1949 fighting, so they aren't suitable. So there doesn't seem to be much choice: find a wording you like that uses an expression such as "the former boundaries of Mandatory Palestine". Zero^talk 14:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero - 1) The article begins by telling the reader the Mandate expired and Israel was declared 15th May 1948, an act which resulted in there being two separate entities in the region. One being the State of Israel, the other being what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent. There is no need to use an imprecise phrase such as "the former territory of the" expired British Mandate. The fighting took place mostly in Palestine. The majority of the UNSC resolutions post 22 may 1948 call for peace in Palestine, not in Israel.

2) "the region that became Israel (meaning the region within the green line)". Armistice demarcation Lines do not alter borders and Israel has never legally annexed any territories. talknic (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your objections are based more on abstract metaphysical philosophy than factual history. Whatever land was not under Israeli control was under the control of the armies of various different Arab states, but was not an "entity" in any very meaningful sense (and went on to be split into three areas with three completely separate fates -- the eastern shore of the Kinneret annexed by Syria, the west bank of the Jordan annexed by Transjordan, and the Gaza strip occupied but not annexed by Egypt). AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "your objections are based more on abstract metaphysical philosophy than factual history" Stick to the topic please.

"Whatever land was not under Israeli control was under the control of the armies of various different Arab states, but was not an "entity" in any very meaningful sense " The UNSC disagrees with your odd theory. Israel was declared INDEPENDENT May 15th. I.e., not part of or in any other entity, including Palestine. The majority of UNSC resolutions on the matter call for peace "in Palestine". Not 'in Israel' or any weird concoction you'd wish them to have. Being under the Military control of three separate entities in no way precludes the three areas under control being from the one non-self governing territory of Palestine.

Numerous statements in the Israeli Govt reply to the UNSC 22May 1948 (S/766) also disagree with you.

"the eastern shore of the Kinnere:t annexed by Syria," What was the date of the referendum prior to annexation? What was the annexation date? BTW Why would a sovereign annex it's own sovereign territory? talknic (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your habit of calling anything except a debate conducted solely on your own terms -- using exactly your particular terminology and presuppositions -- somehow supposedly "off topic"[sic] is rapidly growing extremely tiresome and tediously monotonous (not to mention that you yourself have introduced several such supposedly "off topic"[sic] excursions, such as on discussion thread formatting). I would strongly advise you to severely nip this bad habit of yours in the bud, because otherwise it will be evidence of non-cooperative habits that may eventually result in a repeat of your previous sanctions. AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Syria annexed the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee under Uti possidetis and didn't bother with the most of the legal formalities which you seem to think necessary. Since it was a ten-meter wide strip of land, no-one lived there (but if anyone had lived there, they would have fled, along with 100% of the Jews who lived in areas of the Mandate which later came under the control of Arab states)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos --- Again, Please stick to the topic talknic (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is Syria didn't annex the eastern shore of the Kinneret, nor would it be required to annex any of it's own sovereign territory. Your assertion is unsupported and unsupportable. talknic (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You really don't know what you are talking about. Page 370, Cairns 60-61. Zero^talk 12:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero - The document says nothing about Syria annexing any territory. It is the March 7th 1923 Agreement between the British and the French as to where the boundaries actually lay BEFORE Syria became an Independent Sovereign state. When Syria became an Independent Sovereign state the territory in question was Sovereign to Syria. Sovereigns do not annex territory already within their Sovereignty talknic (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- Before 1948, the Syrian border was ten meters from the shore of the Kinneret, but Syria had control over the land right up to the water from 1949-1967, and now and for many years has claimed it (and sometimes even more) as Syrian territory, which is what most people would call "annexing". AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - You have shown nothing to support your theory. Sovereigns have no need to annex their own sovereign territory. Zero provided a document clearly placing those territories within the frontiers of Syria before it became an Independent Sovereignty, before the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. talknic (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, we could really do without your meaningless accusations of supposedly being "off-topic"[sic] (see my directly-preceding comment) and your pointlessly gratuitously insulting edit summaries -- neither of which has done anything to resolve any issues about article improvement, or has produced any kind of constructive collaborative atmosphere which would make agreeing on article improvements any easier. AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Please stick to the topic talknic (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, we could really do without your meaningless accusations of supposedly being "off-topic"[sic] (see my directly-preceding comment) and your pointlessly gratuitously insulting edit summaries -- neither of which has done anything to resolve any issues about article improvement, or has produced any kind of constructive collaborative atmosphere which would make agreeing on article improvements any easier. AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"The fighting took place in Palestine" is accurate, informative and less awkward than the current wording. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To Talknic: I don't really understand you, but it seems like you are claiming that fighting mostly took place in the part of Palestine that didn't become Israel. But that is factually incorrect. Actually, well over half the fighting took place in the region that became Israel. To Itsmejudith: I agree with you 100% that "in Palestine" is accurate and less awkward. If it was just up to me, that's what it would say. The problem is that many people are conflicted over what "Palestine" means after Israel declared independence, so I was trying to find some words to avoid that issue. Zero^talk 05:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero0000 - "Actually, well over half the fighting took place in the region that became Israel" The region that became Israel did so on May 15th 1948, by declaration. Israel has never legally annexed or legally acquired any territory since declaring. Legal annexation is the only means by which modern states can legally acquire territory.

Israel declared according to the conditions of UNGA Res 181, without registering any reservations and; Israel asked for recognition according to UNGA res 181 and; was recognized as asked and; was admitted as UN Member State before ever claiming (on 31st Aug 1949 ) any territories Israel had previously confirmed (on 22nd May 1948) were "outside the territory of the State of Israel"

The region that became Israel was renamed Israel. The region that did not become Israel has never been renamed. It is still called Palestine. It includes the West Bank which was once temporarily annexed to Jordan as a trustee. talknic (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. To many readers "in Palestine" is ambiguous in this context. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - Then it should be made clear instead of insisting on the even more ambiguous "former territory of the British Mandate" the notion is to improve articles. talknic (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Former territory of the British Mandate" is awkward but not ambiguous. An alternative is "took place in Palestine (the area of the British Mandate)". Or "took place in the area of the British Mandate of Palestine". Or "took place in present-day Israel, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan". "In the Holy Land,... the Levant,... the Near East...". Lots of possibilities. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- It is not only awkward and ambiguous, but confusing. After just having said the mandate expired, it suddenly refers back to before the mandate expired. ???

For anyone not familiar with the issue it could be taken to include what had become TransJordan. When in fact in '48, TransJordan was no longer part of any Mandate or part of or in Palestine during the period of the war and;

it could be taken to include the territory that became Israeli May 15th 1948. When in fact during the period of the war, the territory that became Israel was no longer part of any Mandate or part of or in Palestine and;

it could include territory some people think (magically) 'became' Israeli. When in fact Israel had never legally annexed any territories (nor ever). Legal annexation is the only way territory outside of Israel could gave 'became' Israeli.

As it is, it completely ignores the fact that on Israel's declaration, two entities were created, one being Israel the other what remained of Palestine, called Palestine, outside of Israel and not belonging to any other State in the region. talknic (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To Talknic: I find your argument incomprehensible. Of all the regions that can be named in the 1947-1949 time frame, the "former territory of the British Mandate" is the one most precisely defined and also the one best fitting the sentence "the fighting mostly took place in X". It doesn't have anything to do with independence or sovereignty, I have no idea why you keep bringing those up. Zero^talk 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero -- "in the 1947-1949 time frame" That would be the 1948 Palestine war. This is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It is post the expired Mandate.

"It doesn't have anything to do with independence or sovereignty" It has everything to do with defining in whose territories most of the fighting took place. As of 15th May 1948 two entities existed in the area formerly covered by the expired Mandate. One entity, a state called the State of Israel. The other, what remained of Palestine, called Palestine. Most of the fighting took place in Palestine, not Israel. talknic (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- it's quite common and convenient in accounts of the fighting in many wars to refer back to the immediate status quo ante boundaries, and this article is no different. AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be trolling. It's time to ignore you on this issue. Zero^talk 12:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero - "trolling" ? I've addressed the inaccuracy of your "in the 1947-1949 time frame" statement. talknic (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, it's simply not the case that there were "two entities"[sic]. Whatever land was not under Israeli control was under the control of the armies of various different Arab states, but was not an "entity" in any very meaningful sense (and went on to be split into three areas with three completely separate fates -- the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee annexed by Syria, the west bank of the Jordan annexed by Transjordan, and the Gaza strip occupied but not annexed by Egypt). If the Arabs had wanted two entities to come into being, then they knew exactly what they needed to do to bring that outcome into existence (i.e. agree to the November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan proposal), and instead they chose -- very deliberately and with eyes fully open -- not to do it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - What remained of the non-self governing territory of Palestine after Israel was declared, was under the military control of three separate entities.

"the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee annexed by Syria" On what date and why would a sovereign annex its own sovereign territory?

"If the Arabs had wanted two ..etc ..." Irrelevant. By declaring, Israel was created. What lay outside of Israel is not Israeli. Non-self Governing territories are under no obligation to declare talknic (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you imagine that placing insults in your edit summaries does anything to advance a discussion which is supposed to be about improving the article? AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - A) Quote these alleged insults B) please stick to the actual topic C) Please stop your personal vendetta talknic (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but pointing out the insults which you frequently include as part of your edit summaries is not a "vendetta", and in many contexts is not particularly "off-topic" (no more so than the discussion which you started about discussion comment threading above). Anybody who feels like wasting 5 minutes of their life can scroll down in the edit history of this page and see them all... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "pointing out the insults " You haven't pointed any out. Please quote them verbatim. Please stick to the topic talknic (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to -- anybody who feels like wasting 5 minutes of their life can scroll down in the edit histories and see them all... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please stop your disruptive comments, stick to the topic. If you're not interested in advancing the quality of the article please desist. talknic (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're currently causing far more "disruption" here than I am, though you have managed to unite the two sides -- those who lean pro-Israel and those who lean pro-Arab both agree that you're not making too much sense! AnonMoos (talk)

AnonMoos - Please stick to the topic talknic (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The weasel words 'former territory of the British Mandate' have no place in WikiPedia articles. Israel was declared independent. It is not in nor has it ever been in or part of Palestine or any other territory or entity. Israel's 1st official attempt to claim the territories in question was made after the signing of the Armistice Agreements, on the 31st Aug 1949. It refers to UNSC Res 73 of 11 August 1949 and UNSC res 62 of 16 November 1948 which clearly call for peace in Palestine. The unsuccessful attempt received this reply 5th Sept 1949 It also refers very clearly and only to Palestine. talknic (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic apparently doesn't know the meaning of the English word "former". Zero^talk 04:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Zero0 - Please save your insults for somewhere else. The period in question is post the expired mandate. There is no need to mention the former territories of an expired Mandate, when there were two entities existing at the time. One the State of Israel, declred by the Jewish People's Council on May 15th 1948, the other what remained of Palestine, after Israel was declared independent, still called Palestine and referred to by the UN/UNSC as "Palestine" and; referred to by the Israeli Government itself on May 22, 1948 in the reply of the Provisional Government of Israel UNSC S/766 as "Palestine". BTW Secondary sources can be shown to be unreliable by primary sources. talknic (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, it's simply not the case that there were "two entities"[sic]. Whatever land was not under Israeli control was under the control of the armies of various different Arab states, but was not an "entity" in any very meaningful sense (and went on to be split into three areas with three completely separate fates -- the eastern shore of the sea of Galilee annexed by Syria, the west bank of the Jordan annexed by Transjordan, and the Gaza strip occupied but not annexed by Egypt). Furthermore, it's quite common and convenient in accounts of the fighting in many wars to refer back to the immediate status quo ante boundaries, and this article is no different from all the others... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

AnoonMoos - You bring nothing to the table except your opinion, which, for the purposes of WikiPedia, is irrelevant. The Israeli Government statement of the 22nd May 1948 refers to one entity Palestine. UNSC resolution 73 of 11 August 1949 mentions one entity, Palestine. talknic (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Section tag

I am putting an NPOV-section tag on the section "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs". The reasons:

• The section is entirely based on one polemical source (Karsh). All citations are to that source and no attempt at balance is made. Actually the density of copying from this source is so much that it probably constitutes a copyright violation.
• Some examples of statements requiring balance:

• "In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) and because of fears that Article 39 of the Chapter 7 of the UN Covenant might involve sanctions against the Arab states." Actually Britain voted in the Security Council for ceasefires on May 22, May 29, July 7 and Jul 15 (i.e. all the ceasefire resolutions passed by the UNSC in that period, starting only 7 days after the beginning of the war). Then it says "The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948" which is incomprehensible since it was already late spring when the war started. Moreover, Britain enforced the UN arms embargo on the Arab states rigorously, which hurt the Jordanians very much. (The section spins this as British plot, which should be balanced by the more sensible analyses of better historians.)
• Cherry-picked minor officials such as Bernard Burrows are quoted as if their opinions were British policy.
• "In February 1948, the British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin assured the Jordanian Prime Minister Tawfiz Abu al-Huda of British support for a Jordanian invasion once the British left Palestine". As is well known, the British imposed on the Jordanians the restriction of not invading the parts of Palestine given to the Jews by the UN partition decision, which in fact they never did.

I could go on, but this is enough to justify the tag. The presence of Karsh's idiosyncratic views has to be reduced to a fraction and more mainstream sources have to predominate. Zero^talk 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is all from Karsh and that it would be better to use other historians' views alongside his. Which other sources do you suggest? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way if the section is rewritten, we should no longer include direct quotations, but use reported speech to summarise what historians say. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 15 September 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 [11]

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 [12] 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[13] and; the Israeli Govt is a reliable source for Israeli Government documents [14] 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)

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 [15]and was recognized as asked. The Israeli Government itself stated areas "outside the territory of the State of Israel" May 22nd 1948[16], 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 [17]. 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"[18] — 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 [19] @ 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" [20]. 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)^{(WP:NPA     ←   ZScarpia   13:36, 2 October 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)

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 [21], asked for recognition by its conditions [22], was recognized as asked, confirmed the extent of its frontiers and that Israel was a separate entity from Palestine [23], was accepted into the UN as recognized, before Israel ever laid claim (31st Aug 1949 [24]) to any territories "outside of the State of Israel" [25]. 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 [26] ... 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)

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)

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 (except in Talknic's fantasy universe, of course!) 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)

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)

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)

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)

Against - I can't comment there, but I think there's a clear differentiation between the war between countries (this article) and the civil unrest prior to that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC) clarify 09:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

p.s. it doesn't matter really what I think -- Gelber, Yoav Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem. 2nd ed. Sussex Academic Press, 2006 p. 138. thinks that there's a clear differentiation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not exactly the issue. It's whether we need 3 articles, one on the first "phase" (if phase it is, civil war), one on the second "phase" (Arab countries also involved), and one overall article. It's the existence of the overall article that I'm most concerned about. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Judith (though it seems that it should be merged with the civil war article also). AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a merge can happen. Since some historians refer to both the civil war and the international war parts of one unit (as someone correctly pointed out on the other page) we'd need to merge both the civil war and this article into the 1948 Palestine war article, then that would become too big and then we'd just need to split it again. So there's really no point.

If you want to give it a shot, go ahead though. Consider me neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Query: which is the 3rd article that is supposed to summarize it all? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The three articles are 1) 1948 Palestine war, which is meant to be an overview from 1947 through 1948; 2) 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine which is meant to cover the "first phase" of the whole war (or is it a civil war in its own right?) and 3) this article which is meant to cover the "second phase" of the whole war (or is it a war in its own right?). There's a potential for readers to get very confused. Do historians usually describe one war in two phases or two separate wars? I think maybe one war. Then the argument is that if all three articles were merged, the result would be far too long. That would certainly be true if all the current material were kept in, but it may also be possible to take out some of the purely military detail into sub-articles that aren't POV forks. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be advisable to smoosh everything together into one big article, since the post-May-14th-1948 fighting was much more internationalized, and with free use of heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, planes), while the British were absent (except of course for "Glubb Pasha") etc. etc. -- so there was a real difference. AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a personal observation not based on sources or knowledge of the occurrences -- but why not merge 1948 Palestine war into 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of thoughtful arguments have been made, many thanks to all contributors. I'll let the discussion go a little longer and then post on the 1948 Palestine war page. There are several possible solutions and I'll summarise the pros and cons of each (as I see them). Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 30 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 [27], Gamal Abdul Nasser (a rather important source there, ahem :-)) and Walid Khalidi [28], Time Magazine [29] 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" [30] //... As NMMNG has noted, the War of Independence is in the period inclusive of the civil war.

Your second source [31] 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 [32] 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)