Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Changing the name of the article

Hello!

I'm known as Moto53. I ERGE every moderator, and menager of wikipedia to change the name of this article from: 1948 Arab-Israeli War to Israeli Independence War.

Why? Because in November 29th 1947 the UN published a map that seperated Eretz Yisrael to three:

  • Israeli State
  • Palestinian State
  • Jerusalem region (UN control)

The Israelis agreed to this proposal and agreed to form a country under these terms. But the Palestinians said no, and attacked the Israelis. In those attacks many Israeli Jews died.

Lets go back alittle. Before Jordan was independant, the area of Jordan was declared as Palestinian. Infact, 1,951,603 Palestinians were written as citizens of Jordan in 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan#Demographics). This means that most of Jordan are Palestinians. Why isn't Jordan their country?

Before the 14th of May 1948, the battles of the Israeli Independence War, the attacks by the Palestinians were called the Tashakkh Riots (Tashakkh, - 1948 in the Jewish calendar; תש"ח). After 14th of May 1948, it was called the Israeli Independence War.

For the sake of the State of Israel, please change it because I believe we are the only country to be descriminated, because of our religion or ethinicity, I'm not sure. But the other countries have their independence wars marked as INDPENDENCE WAR.

Thank you --Moto53|Talk to me! 08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, if the name of the article were to be changed, it would be to "Israeli War of Independence", not "Israeli Independence War". But I doubt it will be changed -- there was a lot going on, and probably most importantly it was not a simple case of the Yishuv fighting to gain its independence from the colonial overlords (that was secured when the British promised in 1947 to pull out), but rather to preserve its newly-gained independence under attack from Arab armies. Also, you used some anachronistic terminology above -- the word "Palestinian" was not very commonly used in that meaning during the 1947-1949 period, and in any case, Israel's most dangerous enemies came from outside the British mandate territory. The terminology actually used in UNGA 181 is "Jewish State", "Arab State", and "Corpus Separatum"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Article titles are based on the most commonly used name in English (see WP:COMMONNAME). If you can show the title you want to change to is the most common (which I doubt), then we can discuss changing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Moto53, please read WP:NPOV. "For the sake of the State of Israel" is not ever a valid reason for changing something. Zerotalk 17:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni was dismissed as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1937

Noting NMMNG's immediate reversion with a source that can be conclusively proven to be incorrect by referring to Hansard, the record of the authorities in Mandate Palestine 1937. Subsequently I have reverted. According to NMMNG's criteria and his source's cute theory, Olmert is still Prime Minister of Israel. talknic (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your source (primary, as usual) does not "conclusively" prove anything other than that the British called him "ex-Mufti". I have provided multiple other sources that show that others continued to consider him Mufti, including but not limited to the Mufti himself, Abdullah King of Jordan and the Nazis with whom he collaborated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
LOL. This is talk. I used no primary source in the article.
Whether others considered him to be the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been dismissed from that position by the authorities at the time, is like the notion that Olmert still Prime Minister of Israel. Completely stupid.
All you have shown is stupid people writing stupid things for stupid people to believe. Propaganda that can be shown to be conclusively wrong by the records of the actual authority at the time. That you hold stupid notions so dear is odd to say the least and seems to point to something other than a desire improve the quality of articles.
Noting also your reasons for the reversion. "with a source that directly supports it rather than one that talks about events years after what this sentence is discussing" Your source gives the date of his death. I.e., talking about it after he died. Furthermore, it is one tiny reference, published decades after his death.
The source you attempted to replace mentions it in context with events on the ground at the time, not once but at least a dozen times. A source BTW which you claimed was WP:RS "professor David Tal is an expert in the field...If you think the Kahanoff Chair in Israeli Studies at the University of Calgary, Canada, is not a reliable source for use in this encyclopedia, you know where to take that discussion."
You then sought to misrepresent (in good faith I'm sure) what I'd written "I seriously doubt you'll find consensus for your opinion based on a blurb we don't even know he wrote "
The record shows I didn't claim Tal wrote the blurb. Karsh wrote it, it is in the book. I pointed it out. Peer reviewed by someone who misrepresents the Armistice agreements they cite.
What I have used from the book is at least in the book. talknic (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The source I used explicitly says that the Grand Mufti collaborated with the Nazis and supports what the article says. You just picked a term you like from a discussion about an unrelated issue in a book you repeatedly argued is not RS [1].
Please try to keep all your backpedaling about Tal in one place. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy -- You're misrepresenting what I said of the source. I believe it's called lying, false accusation. Meanwhile the source you use is quite simply wrong. A person dismissed from office by the authorities at the time, no longer holds that office. Quite simple really, unless of course you're inclined towards propaganda.
Furthermore how I found references in a book is irrelevant. It mentions the ex-mufti not once, but numerous times, each time completely in context to events on the ground at the time. In that respect it is RS. Furthermore the term ex-mufti can be found in numerous books. [2] I chose a book you favoured. A book you claimed was RS (apparently for all issues) which is of course a misrepresentation of policy. talknic (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Reverting Poliocretes "Undid revision 425026766 - contentious edit, multiple sources use plain "Mufti", neither was substitute ever appointed"
1) Multiple sources sources also say Ex-Mufti [3] I chose a book NMMNG favoured. Does it not support my edit?
2) "neither was substitute ever appointed" A) An admission he was dismissed B) Not a valid reason for your reversion. Between the time of his dismissal by the authorities at the time (Oct 1937) and Jordan appointing a new Mufti, the position was vacant. Simple really. However, by your criteria, when you're dismissed from a job, you still have that job. I'm sure an ex-employer would be amazed.
3) The original entry was 'contentious'. talknic (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It's called WP:OR. I believe I tried to explain it to you several times already, apparently with no success. Tal does not discuss the Mufti's collaboration with the Nazis, or even the same timeframe. You can't pick a term you like from a book and stick it on information that book doesn't even discuss.
Two editors have objected to your change. Nobody has supported it. You are now edit warring against consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy - The source I used in the article is not WP:OR. You've made another false accusation. In respect to the information I have conveyed at the point it has been inserted, it is WP:RS on this specific instance. You know where to take it if you think otherwise.
"Tal does not discuss the Mufti's collaboration with the Nazis" So what? The reference is inserted at Ex-Mufti, giving his official status at the time of the war and at the time he met Hitler. ( A point I have not disputed BTW )
The subject of the section is "Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni" The section should convey his actual status at the time of the war. By 1948 he'd been dismissed from the position as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. That you'd prefer to convey inaccurate information, is quite alarming.
BTW the record shows who is edit warring, none of the excuses you or Poliocretes gave were actually valid reasons for reversion. If you have a problem with the section as it is now, either take the source to WP:RSN or contribute for once to putting the article right instead of promoting biased propaganda by consensus. talknic (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The source is not OR, what you're doing with it is OR. The reliability of the source is not the issue here, so I have nothing to take to RSN. The source needs to explicitly support the statement you're using it for, in this case the status of the Mufti when he was collaborating with the Nazis. It doesn't do that, therefore using it here fails WP:V. These things are not so hard to understand and I'm at a loss as to why it is so difficult for you.
Also, as I explained to you at least 10 times already, you don't get to decide if other editors' arguments are valid or not. It's doubtful you'd recognize a valid argument anyway, considering how little you understand policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt into this pleasant conversion. This issue is discussed in detail in Elpeleg's book "The Grand Mufti". "Mufti" was a government appointment, but by tradition the appointment was for life. In 1937, the British dissolved the Arab Higher Council and dismissed him from his position as president of the Supreme Muslim Council, but he retained his "mufti" title in theory. The British thereafter refused to relate to him as mufti (they issued a warrant for his arrest instead), but in principle he still was mufti (p48). I also have the text of a British communique announcing his dismissal from the Supreme Muslim Council, but yet still calling him Mufti of Jersualem. (Btw, it is disputed whether the "Grand" was ever part of his official title.) Zerotalk 14:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same. It is similar to calling ex-presidents "President Clinton" or ex-senators "Senator" or retired judges, "Judge" etc. Plus the British, as was pointed out earlier, could not remove him from a position of religious leader from which he was elected. The Mufti position was "something less than a bishop" according to Jon Kimche (Seven Pillars, 1950). Also, I read somewhere that the appellative "Grand" was of his own making, but not sure where I read that so can't document it now. Talknic does have an RS referring to him as "ex-mufti," but that is not how he is commonly referred. Also, I think that at the time he was collaborating with Hitler, he actually was the acting Mufti at the time, or no? All the photos of him with Hitler label him as the "Mufti" or "Grand Mufti" so that would seem to be the most common usage. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Elpeleg argues in his book that the title "Grand Mufti" was given to him by the British, and cites primary documents in support. Mattar, who also wrote a book and many academic papers on the mufti, argues that the "Grand" was an informal usage not a formal title and cites other primary documents in support. We mortals can't penetrate the matter further than that. However, we can be sure that al-Husayni did not invent the title "Grand Mufti" since his predecessor Kamil al-Husayni was also called that. Zerotalk 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Mattar "...He was appointed not Grand Mufti, but Mufti of Jerusalem." That being true, it is possible that he "aggrandized" himself, pun intended. Not to suggest that there was never a grand mufti title. As I said, I read that somewhere but right now can't document it. "Elpeleg" is not given as a reference in the article. Do you have book and page number for verification? Snakeswithfeet (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Snakeswithfeet -- Odd that the British were the authority at the time and they allegedly didn't have the authority. " that is not how he is commonly referred" It is by people who know he was dismissed in 1937. Maybe you're talking about people who are either not aware or people who are blatant propagandists..BTW Jon Kimche (Seven Pillars, 1950) says Haj Amin, the ex mufti of Jerusalem page 109 . Shall we use it? talknic (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, he may well have used it that way, but on page 186 of that book, he says:" The immediate effect of the Mufti's return to the Middle East in 1946 was to unnerve most of the Arab leaders......The Mufti's spokesman among the Palestine Arabs threatened that the Arabs of Palestine would turn to Russia for help ..." Apparently he still calls him "Mufti" in 1946 when he had already been "dismissed" by the Brits in '37. Maybe by page 186 he forgot what he knew on page 109? Or maybe it means he is only half aware or half a blatant propagandist since he used "ex-mufti" a bit earlier? Possibly he uses it because, as I said earlier, it is a common usage. I can find 100 unaware blatant propagandists authors, at least some being RSs, who continue to call him Mufti after 1937 to every two who call him "ex-mufti". Personally it is no big deal to me what you call him. I would call him a real murderous SOB, but that would be unkind to dogs as well as POV and unencyclopedic. [[User:|Snakeswithfeet]] (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Snakeswithfeet - "he may well have used it that way," Uh? He did use it that way. test it against the records of the time. "but on page 186.." maybe we see sloppy proof reading. " it is a common usage.." Common usage is not always correct. "Personally it is no big deal to me what you call him." Strange, you've been spending an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent his official status at the time he met Hitler from being in the article. BTW [4] that he collaborated is not being disputed. talknic (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think it's a good idea that the diff you're using to show you don't dispute the fact the Mufti met with Hitler (as if you could actually seriously dispute that) is one where you're making fun of another editor's typo? In fact, you did it again 4 days later, well after the editor corrected his mistake [5]. I have to wonder what you think you're achieving with this nonsense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy - You're really scraping the barrel. "as if you could actually seriously dispute that" Save your bile, why on earth would I want to dispute it? Furthermore you want I should now comb through looking for changes to everyone's comments days after they've commented? Under what policy does that fall? How far back is mandatory?
You never C&P from your own comments? The 2nd instance was a cut and paste from my previous simple cut and paste. Verbatim. The way folk's comments should be referred to if you're going to use what they have said. It prevents their being misrepresented. For now you're going to have to prove I first 'made fun' then that the 2nd instant didn't come from my previous C&P. Thx.
BTW How about sticking to the topic. talknic (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Zero0000 -- Nice 'theory' - Olmert is still Prime Minister of Israel I guess. In 'theory' then in 'principal' seems to trip over itself quite nicely and un-shown, un-attributed, text, is irrelevant. talknic (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG, "removing OR and restoring proper source" That's your reason for reverting? The previous source was as proper. In fact RS by your own standards. I'm guessing you mean you just don't like what is says.
The section is not called 'Amin al-Husayni Grand Mufti of Jerusalem'! al-Husayni was once the official Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. However, he was officially dismissed from the position in Oct 1937 by the official power in the region at the time, wherein he no longer officially held the position. The article should reflect that well known information. To say otherwise, even by consensus, is rather bizarre and points to less than honourable intentions (by consensus of course) especially when sources NMMNG and Snakeswithfeet seem to think are WP:RS, both say "Ex-Mufti"'
'valid' by consensus in WikI/Pedia when it comes to Snr Amin al-Husayni the ex-mufti of Jerusalem, is the equivalent of 'the earth is still flat'. talknic (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If you don't stop insulting other editors, I'm going to file a complaint that is likely to get you banned. The sources I cited are better than yours, they are respected academics who made detailed studies of the mufti and didn't just write about him in passing. Avi Shlaim is another. The contemporary record also supports the theory that he wasn't actually dismissed; the majority of newspapers (with the exception of the NYT) continued to refer to him as the Mufti of Jerusalem after 1937. What actually happened in 1937 was reported in a British communique issued on Oct 1: "Haj Amin Effendi al Husseini has been deprived of his office as President of the Supreme Muslim Council and of membership of the General Wakf Committee of which he was chairman" (no mention of his post as mufti) [Palestine Post, Oct 3, 1937, page 1]. The same in The Times, Oct 02, 1937; pg.12. Zerotalk 07:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
A 'better' source would be at least historically correct. The "theory that he wasn't actually dismissed" is just that, a 'theory'. Support of this 'theory' depends on leaving out one very important 'detail'. The British record. The first place any academic ought look is at the records of the actual authority of the time. British Hansard.
That they reference everything but the records of the authority of the time, shows either their research is incredibly sloppy or that their intentions are likely less than honourable and; if their peers didn't check against the British record, their research is also very sloppy or their intentions are also less than honourable. That you desperately want to use sources which can be shown to be conclusively wrong by the record of the authority at the time and insist by consensus to do so, also shows less than honourable intentions.
So go ahead, lodge a complaint, just remember the diffs will also show everyone else's handiwork. NMMNGs misrepresentation of policy, NMMNGs false accusations, the sources claimed by NMMNG and Snakeswithfeet as RS, that say "Ex-Mufti". talknic (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
So you couldn't find any official statement that he had been dismissed from the post of mufti, all you did was confirm what i wrote in my first message: "The British thereafter refused to relate to him as mufti". And I also know how to form google searches to bias the results. Search without the "ex" and you'll find plenty of cases where members of parliament called him the mufti without qualification. The inconsistency is because he was never officially dismissed and the use of "ex-mufti" was a rhetorical device. Try this one: [6]. In [7] you can read an referral to him right from the top as mufti after his other dismissals. And in this 1938 statement by the Secretary of State for the Colonies he is explicitly called "the present Mufti of Jerusalem". And here again in 1939. Look, here in 1946 the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs twice calls him "the mufti" then declines to answer an explicit question "is he the Mufti or the ex-Mufti?". So was he dismissed in 1937 as many claim? Find an actual statement from the British government, or a contemporary record, that he had been dismissed from the position of mufti, it shouldn't be that hard. Zerotalk 15:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Reversion -- Until such time as the source I've used can be shown to be invalid, "a proper source" and "atleast cite to both " don't really seem a valid reason for reverting.
Zero0000 -- [8] "The British thereafter refused to relate to him as mufti" Thereafter what? His dismissal perhaps?
Considering you were reverted by 3 editors, and two more have stated on the talk page that they do not support what you're trying to do, do you think you have consensus for the change you're trying to make, or are you knowingly edit warring against consensus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Considering the reasons for reverting... "a proper source" and "atleast cite to both " = you don't like it. Nothing the opposing editors have put up is in any way valid. The source is secondary, it supports the edit. I've shown the secondary sources you have said are RS also say 'ex-mufti'. Zero0000 claims 'a theory' is supported.
On October 1st 1937 The British deposed Haj Amin... More The deposed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem More deposed More deposed Mufti of Jerusalem More ousted from office More deposed Grand Mufti More Lewis telephoned me that the Mufti had been deposed More deposed the Mufti talknic (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So you acknowledge that you're knowingly edit warring against a 5:1 consensus? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy -- I know you and your friends are edit warring with bottom of the bucket excuses, but nothing that actually challenges the validity of the source or the edit talknic (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
By my count, the consensus is now 8:1 against your proposed change. If you persist, I think this should be taken to WP:AE. Two for the show (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Two for the show - Not one gives a valid reason. for preventing information they don't like being included. talknic (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree w/the consensus here, and with the thought that it might be the better course to follow wp:consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Epeefleche on this one. On this one only at the moment, but who knows? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Epeefleche/Itsmejudith --- On what basis do you agree? "a proper source" or "atleast cite to both " ? You've given no thing. It amounts to consensus by 'I don't like'. talknic (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

al_Husseini's war-time activities have almost nothing to do with the 1948 war, so I don't see how it belongs on this page at all. However, Talknic is wrong about him having been deposed from his position as Mufti of Jerusalem. Above I gave two examples of statements from the British Secretary of State that he was the "present Mufti of Jerusalem" in the years after his supposed dismissal. Now I found a page that seems to explain the situation in authoritative detail: [9] Unfortunately that server seems to be down so I can only report the tantalising snippet provided by Google: "Haj Amin is thus technically still Mufti of Jerusalem, but the fact that there is no intention of allowing Haj Amin, who has openly joined the enemy, ..." If someone else manages to get to that page, please report the whole passage (including who the speaker was). Zerotalk 23:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Zero0000 -- 1st link of two goes nowhere. 2nd hansard.millbanksystems.com has been down for almost a week talknic (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here it is. I don't like to say "told you so", but I told you so.

House of Commons debates, 1 December 1943
Mr Samuel Hammersley (Willesden East) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why no appointment has yet been made to fill the posts of Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Moslem Supreme Council?
Hon. Oliver Stanley (Westmorland) :
An important distinction must be drawn between the two offices referred to by my hon. Friend. The post of Mufti of Jerusalem is a purely religious office with no powers or administrative functions, and was held by Haj Amin before he was given the secular appointment of President of the Supreme Moslem Council. In 1937 Haj Amin was deprived of his secular appointment and administrative functions, but no action was taken regarding the religious office of Mufti, as no legal machinery in fact exists for the formal deposition of the holder, nor is there any known precedent for such deposition. Haj Amin is thus technically still Mufti of Jerusalem, but the fact that there is no intention of allowing Haj Amin, who has openly joined the enemy, to return to Palestine in any circumstances clearly reduces the importance of the technical point. As regards the presidency of the Supreme Moslem Council, the Government do not propose, in the absence of any request from the Council, to intervene in a matter which is giving rise to no trouble, and which is not impeding the adequate transaction of business in those affairs for which the Council is responsible.
Mr Samuel Hammersley (Willesden East) : Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give an assurance that no nominees of the ex-Mufti will be appointed?
Hon. Oliver Stanley (Westmorland) : I am not at the moment intending to appoint anybody.

Zerotalk 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC) An accurate compromise would be to replace "ex-mufti" by "exiled mufti". Zerotalk 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Zero0000 -- A) 'technically' gives way to "..give an assurance that no nominees of the ex-Mufti will be appointed? " Hon. Oliver Stanley (Westmorland) : "I am not at the moment intending to appoint anybody." = no one holds the post.
It also seems odd that al-Husayni could be appointed to the position by the British, yet "no legal machinery in fact exists for the formal deposition of the holder" I guess Abdullah I of Jordan officially appointed Hussam Al-din Jarallah to the position although it wasn't empty and there was "no legal machinery in fact exists for the formal deposition of the holder"? Something about the Hon.Oliver Stanley's opinion doesn't seem to add up when pitched against the notion that Abdullah I of Jordan could depose al-Husayni. BTW Years later Ekrima Sa'id Sabri was removed from the position, I guess some mechanism exist/ed.
"Today after lunch, Lewis telephoned me that the Mufti had been deposed..."
From Chaim Weizmann "The British reacted vigorously; they deposed the mufti Haj Amin al-Husayni and disbanded the Arab Higher committee.." talknic (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, you should give up on this point, it is getting embarrassing. I was right, get over it. Zerotalk 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Zero -- produce a credible secondary source, not simply calling him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but showing he had not been dismissed. I have produced a number now, all of which are RS showing he had been dismissed. The point is not what people called him, but what his actual position was after Oct 1937 talknic (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I gave you one already, in my first posting above. Elpeleg's book "The Grand Mufti", page 48. It is the most academic of the half dozen or so books on the mufti. Exact quote: "officially he now retained only the title of Mufti (following the Ottoman practice, this had been granted for life)". Then I quoted the carefully worded official statement of the British government in 1943 (the cabinet secretary for the Palestine portfolio answering a question on notice in the Commons - it does not get more official than that). Zerotalk 04:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Reverted - Reworded with additional information from the Chaim Weizmann biography. Noted a concerted edit war by the same old team. Noted the excuses "a proper source" or "atleast cite to both " really do not meet the criteria for reversion. None challenged the previous source. The latest being "The info re the Mufti is widely known and accepted" The world was once thought to be flat! talknic (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be quite obvious to all by now that the section title is inappropriate "Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni" He had been dismissed from his position in the Arab Higher Committee. Shown by Zero's Hansard collection by much of the discussion and by almost every source cited here in talk and that currently in the article talknic (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong again. Quoting Elpeleg, page 79: "(Although this committee had been disbanded by the Mandatory authorities in 1937, it continued to exist in practice.)" Try this google search for zillions of mentions of the Arab Higher Committee up to 1948 and beyond, including United Nations documents and other official stuff. Zerotalk 04:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting. Here's one from 1949 [10] calling Husseni the President of the AHC. I'll go fix the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Schechtman

Regarding Joseph Schechtman, he was employed by the American section of Jewish Agency at the instigation of Moshe Shertok. It is documented in a book of Rafael Medoff that can be read at google books. In any case, no citation has been provided that justifies the inclusion of al-Husseini's activities in Europe pre-1945 in an article on the 1948 war in Palestine. Zerotalk 19:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So the fact that he was employed at the Jewish Agency is grounds for dismissing Schechtman as a paid propagandist? What years was he paid by the Jewish Agency, and was his salary for writing? Your assertion gave me the opportunity to check carefully into his writing career, which started in 1927 in Yiddish and in French. Later he wrote in Russian and in German; and finally turned to English. He wrote a grand total of two books which are credited to the Jewish Agency, one in 1960 and one in 1964, which I highlighted. Here you claim the same about Maurice Pearlman that is, that his work on the Mufti is a "propaganda tract". Obviously you don't agree with either Pearlman or Schechtman's world-view, but surely after looking at this list and the link to Pearlman, you must acknowledge in good faith that they cannot be reverted and dismissed as mere "propagandists," paid or otherwise?
  • 1927 - Yiddish wrote a brief about the pogrom in the Ukraine/ later that year wrote a book in French on the same subject
  • 1929 - German- published Ju¨dische Irridenta : Transjordanien und Palaestina, mit 2 Kartenskizzen
  • 1932 - Russian & German - Wrote a book about the Dobrovolcheskoi pogrom in the Ukraine published by Ostjudisches Historisches Archiv
  • 1933 - German & Yiddish - published a work about Revisionist Zionism, plus another in Polish, a subject I cannot make out.
  • 1937 - German -Selbstliquidation der Diaspora & Transjordanien im Bereiche des Palastinamandates & Territorialistische Illusionen
  • 1939 - Spanish: El sionismo de estado : programa, desarrollo, estructura & a previous book was published in Romanian
  • 1944 - English: Jews in German-occupied territory published by the Union of Russian Jews & The option clause in the Reich's treaties on the transfer of population
  • 1946 - English - European population transfers: 1935-1945 published by Oxford University Press & The elimination of German minorities in southeastern Europe Spanish & Yiddish -- A book about Aliyah Bet
  • 1949 - English - Population transfers in Asia Hallsby Press
  • 1951 - English Like a tree which bears no fruit; a report on Oriental Jewry - published by United Palestine Appeal & The Jews of Aden Pub - Conference on Jewish Relations & Exodus from Iraq-- United Jewish Appeal of Greater New York
  • 1952 - English - The Arab refugee problem Philosophical Library publisher & The repatriation of Yemenite Jewry by Conference on Jewish Relations
  • 1953 - English - Evacuee property in India and Pakistan Indian Council of World Affairs & Minorities in the Arab World
  • 1955 - Hebrew - published a biography of Ze'ev Zabotinsky
  • 1956 - English - Rebel and statesman; the Vladimir Jabotinsky story pub by T. Yoseloff NY
  • 1959 - Hebrew , published 2nd and 3rd part of the life of Jabotinsky.
  • 1960 - English - On the Wings of Eagles: The Plight Exodus and Homecoming of Oriental Jewry. pub T. Yoseloff & Jewish education in the United States; a working paper on facts and problems published by Jewish Agency-American section
  • 1961 - English - Star in eclipse; Russian Jewry revisited' - T. Yoseloff - numerous of his books were republished by T. Yoseloff, including his 3 part bio of Jabotinsky
  • 1962 - English - Postwar transfers in Europe: 1945-1955 University of Pennsylvania Press
  • 1963 -English- The refugee in the world: displacement and integration --By A.S. Barnes and Co. NY , and T. Yoseloff - London
  • 1964 - English - Fact sheet on Arab refugees pub by The Jewish Agency- American section & The refugees in the world; displacement and integration Barnes
  • 1965 - English - The Mufti and the Fuehrer; the rise and fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini, NY T. Yoseloff
  • 1966 - English - The United States and the Jewish State movement: the crucial decade, 1939-1949 Herzl Press, T. Yoseloff & Zionism and Zionists in Soviet Russia: greatness and drama published by Zionist Organization of America
  • 1968- English Nasser's Egypt: an imperialistic force by Zionist Organization of America & Forgive them not: the lesson of Poland & Jordan: a state that never was Cultural Publishing Company
  • 1970 - English - Israel explodes Dir Yassin blood libel published by United Zionists-Revisionists of America & History of the revisionist movement 1925-1930 Hadar Publishing (with Yehuda Ben-Ari)

Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't just employed by the JA, he was employed by them to write books. The works you list on population movements were included (you can easily guess the motivation), also pamphlets and other materials that did not have his name on them. In any case it is irrelevant since there is still no case for including this material in this article. Zerotalk 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I challenge you to prove via an RS that he was employed by the Jewish Agency to write books! If you prove correct we will include that information in his biography. His Wikipedia article says only: "In 1963-1965 and 1966-1968 he was a member of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Israel." He started writing about Jewish identity and other issues as a young man in his twenties, and continued writing on similar subjects well into his seventies. He spent less than 5 years of his life as a member of the executive committee for the JA. Even if it were true, which I very much doubt, that he was paid by the JA to write books, that would not disqualify his work in his own right. I don't have to guess Schechtman's motivation any more that I have to guess Khalidi's (All that Remains) motivation or Pappe's (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) motivation. It is relevant because it was used as a justification for reversion. The issue of its relevancy in this article has not yet been fully addressed.
Also, I would also like to know on what grounds you assert that Maurice Pearlman was a propagandist as well? Here is a list of some of his work:
  • The capture and trial of Adolf Eichman
  • Mufti of Jerusalem. The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini
  • The army of Israel
  • Adventure in the Sun: an informal account of the communal settlements of Palestine
  • Digging up the Bible
  • Die Propheten
  • Dans les Pas de Moise

Snakeswithfeet (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please visit IDF Spokesperson's Unit and look for Pearlman there (Maurice Pearlman and Moshe Pearlman are the same person). Before that job he was a correspondent for the news agency "Palcor" which was run by the Executive of the Jewish Agency. page 263, see his Palestine Post reports for example there is one on Aug 8, 1947 with the Palcor byline. As illustrative of his style, I offer an example from page 17 of his book. He is referring to the Shaw commission of enquiry into the 1929 riots in Palestine.

  • Pearlman: "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned"
  • The Commission report (verbatim from the conclusions): "The outbreak was not premeditated."

In other words, he flat out lied about a public document. There are lots of similar things and a much larger number of more subtle distortions of fact that are clear to any knowledgable reader. Yet we are supposed to just take his word for things that are simply impossible to check (the content of radio broadcasts). It isn't reasonable; if we have any standards at all books like this should be excluded. Zerotalk 03:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Back to Schechtman, in one of the books of Medoff I mentioned earlier, we find "For Israeli government sponsorship of studies of other mass population resettlement, see Joseph Schechtman [ref to Israeli archives] which eventually resulted in a book by Schechtman that the Israeli government helped finance. Schechtman's previous book about European population transfers had been completed with assistance from the American Jewish Congress. ... Even after the committee's [Israeli committee on "transfer"] demise, Schechtman continued its work, and in March 1949, Shertok instructed the American section of the Jewish Agency to hire him to direct "research work pertaining to the problem of the Arab refugees and their resettlement in Arab countries," with Ambassador Epstein and the Israli ambassador to the UN as his supervisors. .. Schechtman proceeded to author (anonymously) two lengthy pamphlets [which I have]..which were published by the Jewish Agency in NY and constituted the Israeli government's official position on the issue for many years afterward." In another book of Medoff: "Schechtman was hired by Abba Silver and the AZEC in early 1949 to organize a propaganda campaign advocating the resettlement of Palestinian Arab refugees in the Arab countries". As for his later activities, as well as the roles you mentioned, he was Revisionist representative to the Executive of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization in 1948, the Zionist General Council in 1963 and to the Jewish Agency Executive again in 1967. So during the time he was writing and publishing his book on the mufti he was not only a Revisionist but a very senior one, not just in bias but in occupation. Although his work is much better than Pearlman's cheap nonsense, we should treat it the same way as we would treat a book by a member of the Palestinian parliament about a famous Zionist figure. Namely, it could be cited to illustrate a claim made by one side against the other, but not as an independent source. Zerotalk 03:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just back from wikibreak and there is a lot to follow in the above discussions, but I would sstill like to make a couple of points to help focus attention to points that actually matter in WWP terms. One. The place for explaining the actions of the Grand Mufti/non-Mufti is his biography. In this article, as in all Israel-Palestine articles, "background" should be kept to a minimum otherwise the whole conflict is rehearsed again and again. Two. We should use the work of academic historians. Would anyone like to say that Pearlman is an academic historian? If so, let's discuss. If not, let's move on. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Well Zero, you make a good case for your perspective, I haven't checked it all out but I am confident all the facts are verifiable. Thank you for presenting it. I haven't read the Pearlman book and since most of the information on the Mufti generally accepted as fact, we don't have to rely on either Schechtman or Pearlman. Btw, the reference to the Shaw Commission, is that the Pearlman book on the Mufti? I would like to check that, as that would be a gross error, and would have to agree with your assessment of him if that is the case. I do differ with your opinion of Schechtman. But I agree we should probably move on. Maybe will add a little something on your talk page if you don't object. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the Shaw reference is in the book about the mufti. Zerotalk 07:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Judith, ok agree to moving on about Schechtman and Pearlman. To the point about the Mufti I respectfully disagree. He was extremely influential, and in some ways pivotal. One has to remember that for the Jews, much of the point of self-determination (statehood) was to permit immigration what was left of the Jews after Hitler's campaign. In fact, had the Brits and Arabs allowed open immigration of Jews in the 40's, there probably would not be a Jewish state there today. It arose from the need for a safe haven from persecution. If it is true as is generally claimed, that the Mufti agitated for the death of Jews in both Palestine and Europe, that would have to be relevant. The view of such an important and influential religious and political leader such as the Mufti concerning the Jews and Jewish immigration and a Jewish state would be relevant indeed. According to Karsh, the Jews believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Mufti was responsible for orchestrating much of the Palestinian Arab violence against the Jews, before, during and after the war. As another writer put it: "After the collapse of the Nazi regime, Al-Husseini continued to operate from Europe, playing an important part in militarily organizing the Arabs in Palestine during the crucial years of 1947-1948. After the 1948 Israeli war of independence and the birth of the State of Israel, the Arab Higher Committee moved to Egyptian-held Gaza and al-Husseini was appointed president of the National Assembly." [1] I don't much care for the "Kill the Jews..." reference, since it is given without sufficient context, but his character should be expanded in the context of this article. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Snakeswithfeet,
This issue is complex.
It is true that after WWII for the Jews of Palestine, the Mufti symbolized the antisemitism of the Arab Ennemy but it is also true that this image had been built and amplified by the Jewish Agency to create and ideological unity in the Yishuv. On the Arab side, the Mufti had no real power. British who ruled Palestine and his future didn't want a Mufti-ruled Palestine. Abdallah had planned the annexion of the Arab Palestine and was organising this with Arab leaders. Syrians had their own views and didn't want the Mufti either ([syrian] ALA was under the command of Qawuqji one of his adversary) and Egyptians/Saudis only expect to counter Abdallah's plans and used him as a muppet. He had no revenue and only the prestige and followers of his familly. He was even not invited to the meetings of the Arab League where the future of Palestine was discussed. So the Mufti is only relevant for the image he had but he was the less relevant of the protagonist of the '48 war and only for the civil war period. After May, all his followers were desarmed and integrated in the Arab Legion.
"Mufti Equation" is simple. From a virulent islamist nationalist, propaganda transformed him in a virulent antisemite, then in a virulent Nazi supporter and holocaust organiser, then in the main Palestinian leader, then in the '48 war instigator, when he was just an isolated politician with no revenues and few means.
Noisetier (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Noisetier, I am certainly aware of the complexity of the issue! You made a number of allegations in your post but did not provide any source material for it. The Jewish Agency was the de facto government of Israel prior to May 14. 1948 & the establishment of the State. Really, the Jewish Agency at the time had its hands quite full enough, with its enemies from within and without, to worry about creating a propaganda picture of the Mufti. Karsh has said that the Jews of the Mandate under the Jewish Agency believed that the Mufti was responsible "for orchestrating much of the Palestinian Arab violence", and the link above says that he "...played an important part in militarily organizing the Arabs in Palestine during the crucial years of 1947-1948." It doesn't get much clearer than that! He did not have "only the prestige and followers off his family," Consider this : [2]

"We spent the day listening to the main Arab witnesses, Jemal Husseini, the cousin of the Mufti and Auni Bey [Abdul-Hadi] who spoke for the Arab Higher Committee. Jemal put in a written statement which began with the declaration that the Mufti alone could speak truly for the people of Palestine. ...When the interrogation started after lunch, I took with me into the hearings some photographs of the Mufti taking the salute of the Bosnian S.S. which had appeared in the Nazi illustrated papers. When it came my turn, I asked Jemal a series of questions on his attitude toward the Mufti and the Arab attitude toward the war. He answered with calculated candor, explaining why an Arab patriot could not help being indifferent, and expressing his conviction that the Mufti had always acted in the interests of his peple, and that when he was in Germany that was just what he was doing.... "

While perfectly true that he wanted the British out, it was equally true [3] that "From this position of religious and political authority, the Grand Mufti encouraged Arab opposition to Jewish immigration ... During World War II, he collaborated with Hitler's Germany in the hope that a Nazi victory would see both Jews and British expelled from Palestine."

The Mufti was not the only important influence of the time certainly, and Kaukji's (Qawuqji's) role should be clarified and expanded. Abdullah of Jordan plays a large role as well but he is already well represented in this article. But the opinion that Amin Husseini was just a nationalist nobody with little influence who was transformed by Jewish propaganda into an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler's extermination program is not acceptable. There is far too much evidence to the contrary, such as this one from the 1948 NY Post. [4] The Encyclopedia of Islam, says "he gave moral authority to Nazi policies..." That alone speaks volumes. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mufti certainly belongs in the 1947-8 story, despite the fact that finally he had little actual effect on the course of events. The problem I have is in emphasizing his war-time activities as a way of classifying him and by extension the Palestinian cause. This is a standard propaganda stunt to try to paint the 1948 conflict as one of Jews against Nazis, and we shouldn't be playing such games here. This article is about the 1948 war and we should focus on what role he played in that time period. Zerotalk 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Snake's sentence "During World War II, he collaborated with Hitler's Germany in the hope that a Nazi victory would see both Jews and British expelled from Palestine." is certainly true. He really did collaborate with Nazi Germany and assisted them (primarily as a propagandist). However, that doesn't make it necessary to accept everything said about him. Many of the facts, bad enough in truth, were "improved" in the telling. Take the "KiII the Jews wherever you find them" alleged statement that is repeated ad infinitum to make him sound like Adolf Eichmann. Pearlman, who published this first, gave no citation. Schechtman repeated the claim with the citation "Palestine (London), July 1944". Can anyone demonstrate that such a periodical existed? I tracked the original down in the "Daily digest of world broadcasts", compiled by the BBC. Here is the summary+transcript in full:
Appeal to Arabs by "A distinguished Arab Personality" (18 mins) - (German Overseas Service, 1.3.44, 17:30, in Arabic)
No power was strong enough to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. During the last war, Britain, despite her strength, failed in this undertaking. Every Arab would rise against this menace. "Moslems! Arabs! Live with honour or die, rise and stand firm against your enemies; sacrifice yourselves to overcome the ever-increasing Jewish menace. Inflict heavy damages on his war effort and kill as many as you can of your enemies - Jews and Anglo-Saxons - and Allah is with you!"
The thing to notice is that he refers specifically to the Palestine situation and identifies Britons as well as Jews as the enemy. It sounds pretty bad, but not the same as the Pearlman version sounds. Pearlman has "improved" it by removing Britons and the Palestine aspect. Zerotalk 09:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Your quote is most interesting. I shall try to research that (are there enough hours in the day?!) and see what I can come up with.Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll just repeat what I said much earlier about Schechtman. He is positively ancient in terms of I-P sources, and represents anything but the latest scholarship. There is no reason to cite such an outdated source when there are a plethora of much better, more accurate and more reliable sources to choose from for an article like this. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A source close to the situation in time and place can be more knowledgeable than later historical revisionists. The passage of time does not guarantee objectivity. Bias doesn't necessarily disappear over time, especially in an area still conflicted like this one. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The is not true. There are indeed enough historians from all sensitivities who published recently to avoid using dubious sources even more given the opening of the archives gave other perspectives to the events to all of them. Noisetier (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
@Snakeswithfeet,
Did I say that Mufti had not collaborated with Nazi Germany or that he was not antisemite ? Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti writes eg : In any case, there is no doubt that Haj Amin's hatred was not limited to Zionism, but extended to Jews as such. His frequent, close contacts with leaders of the Nazi regime cannot have left Haj Amin any doubt as to the fate which awaited Jews whose emigration was prevented by his efforts. His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by Nazi's Final Solution. I think this is quite clear.
Anyway, in 1948, his military power was limited to 2 main bands of militiamen : one around Jerusalem controlled by his nephew and another one around Lydda controlled by Salameh. He had also the indirect control of some local "national comittees" such as in Haifa, Acre, Safed, ... but we are talking about a few hundreds of men at each time. In '48, Mufti had no money (because if not Ex-Mufti :-) he was EX-Muslim supreme council Chairman and lost money from there and his troops had no ammunitions, no heavy weapons, no material, no supply chains, nothing to do better than guerrilla or road blockades... In truth, the Arab military operation during the last 6 months of the Mandate were ruled by an Iraqi general Safwat with the ALA volunteers but with not enough ressources and on the political area, the Mufti was not welcome to Arab League meetings and nobody supported him.
Even more : after May 1948 -and this articles about events from May 15, 1948 to July 22 1949- his bands were whether disarmed or integrated to the Arab Legion. To fix a date : end of June, out of the 50,000 Arab soldiers in Palestine I think he may have kept some in the Nazareth area (that I cannot source but I can source easily who ruled any other area).
What would like me to source ? I could source all the facts just given here above but I am not sure that you care about this. But if there is a point (any point) here above in which you would have doubt, please feel free to precise which one and I will give you the precise quote with reference from an historian of the '48 war and maybe even references.
Noisetier (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Noisetier, what you said was this "It is true that after WWII for the Jews of Palestine, the Mufti symbolized the antisemitism of the Arab Ennemy but it is also true that this image had been built and amplified by the Jewish Agency to create and ideological unity in the Yishuv." You said the Mufti symbolized antisemitism and that this image was built by the Jewish Agency for its own ends. You did not say that the Mufti was an antisemite who had collaborated with Hitler. You said only that he symbolized that. You went on to say: "From a virulent islamist nationalist, propaganda transformed him in a virulent antisemite, then in a virulent Nazi supporter and holocaust organiser, then in the main Palestinian leader, then in the '48 war instigator, when he was just an isolated politician with no revenues and few means." You claimed that he was not an antisemite but transformed into one by propaganda, presumably from the Jewish Agency who "built" and "amplified" this "image". I can't do anything with opinions of that nature. With respect to the Mufti's influence, there are RS who claim that the Mufti was responsible for the evacuation of Haifa. Considering that that constitutes roughly 10% of the total Arab exodus, it would indicate considerable influence. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the article about the Mufti ? Idith Zertal states about the antisemitism of the Mufti that 'in more correct proportions, [he should be pictured] as a fanatic nationalist-religious Palestinian leader'.[176] Also, "(...) the demonization of the Mufti serves to magnify the Arafatian threat" and that the "[portrayal of the Mufti as] one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry (...) has no (...) historical substantiation."[177]
Do you want sources about the Jewish Agency building of Mufti's image ?
Concerning Haifa, reliable sources on the topic all remind that the Local national committee referred to the Mufti to see if they had to evacuate Haifa or to stay and it is reported that the Mufti ordered them to leave. But this doesn't concern 10% of the exodus. Around half had already left the city and the main reason why those who fled in April decided to flee at that moment (and not before) is certainly linked the events that occured the 3 days before as reported in most reliable sources on the topic too : Haganah offensive on the city. In any case, the evacuation of Haifa occured on April 22, nearly one month before the beginning of the Arab-Israeli War, which is the topic of this article. Noisetier (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway : am I wrong or the topic of this discussion are :

  • not to use old sources on the topic, which is an issue the answer of which is obvious
  • to point not to focus too much on the Mufti and underlying his antisemitism, even if he is part of the '48 story of course, because it is wp:undue. And this question is obviously solved too.

Noisetier (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

comment

Wow!

I read your First two short paragraphs: The second: Wiki ""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.[11] Much of what Arabs refer to as The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) occurred amidst this war.""

So the War just "Commenced"! The Arabs didn't INVADE would-be Israel, the war just "Commenced"!

This place is SO PC (indeed Leftist/Arabist) it's Ridiculous.

You have NO credibility in any area where politics is involved. NONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu afak (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Who attacked first in 1948?

The first two paragraphs are overly neutral. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia on the same day it declared its independence.

http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html

What would be the motivation of Israel to attack any of the surrounding countries at a time of celebration?

108.49.25.235 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel was not the first to attack across the British mandate borders (to do so would have been to create unnecessary trouble for itself and alienate world opinion), but violence within the British mandate territory was already ongoing and chronic as of May 14-15 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
On declaration, Israel didn't withdraw Jewish forces from territories outside of the State of Israel. It could be said that on May 15th 1948 the civil war pre declaration, became a war waged by the state of Israel on the non-self Governing territories that remained of Palestine. As UN Member States (except Jordan, who used Iraqi troops), the Regional Arab Powers had a right to intervene in order to protect non-self Governing territories (see Chpt XI UN Charter) after lodging their intent, the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine (not Israel) with the UNSC (see Chapt VII) talknic (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all that your verbiage amounts to here is that since the Arabs refused to recognize the any binding force of the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines (and in fact loudly denounced the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines as being legally utterly null and void, with vehement vitriolic virulence), therefore the Jews also didn't treat the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines as having any binding force. If the Jews had stayed within the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines while the Arabs were crossing and recrossing them at will, then Jews might as well have slit their throats in advance and saved the Arabs the trouble -- as everybody at the time was well aware. The rest of your comments are merely applications of the "Talknic's ladder" method of very loose deduction (see talk page archives)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
AnonMoos - "the binding force of the theoretical 1947 partition plan" What binding force? UNGA resolutions are non-binding, though the Laws, UN Charter, relevant conventions they might refer to are binding. Furthermore no entity can be forced to declare independence. Look up the meaning of the word.
The Israeli Government Declared (enshrining UNGA res 181 in the Declaration [11]), sought recognition [12], was recognized as such and confirmed it's defined territories in an official Statement to the UNSC May 22nd 1948(S/766)[13] "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." ... "the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel"
International regulations in that regard were the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [14] talknic (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I changed "the binding force" to "any binding force", since the previous wording might potentially be misleading. However, the rest of your comments are classic "Talknic's ladder", which I don't feel like going all through again... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Uh? WP:REDACT Your post 21:59, 7 September 2011 is riddled with unnecessary verbiage and nonsense as the Israeli Government statement to the UNSC of the 22nd May 1948 shows. "Talknic's ladder" was and still is a completely irrelevant affront WP:TPNO. Please stick to the point being discussed talknic (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It's rather unfortunate that you seem to be reverting to your old bad habits of including inflammatory comments in your edit summaries. Maybe you should reconsider some of the things which led to your previous topic ban if you don't want to suffer further similar consequences in the future. As for "Talknic's ladder", it's NOT a mere meaningless insult, but refers in a highly-specific and relevant way to a particular rhetorical strategy and mode of reasoning which was ultimately not found to be too impressive by those who participate in Middle East Wikipedia article talk-page discussions, and which conspicuously failed to result in any significant article improvement. We went all through the problems with "laddering" before, and I have no interest in repeating those discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic, sans all un-necessary verbiage talknic (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do you feel it necessary to include personal insults in your edit summaries? It certainly didn't advance the cause of substantive meaningful discussions leading to article improvement in the past, and it certainly won't do so this time around either... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please address the topic. I am not interested in your personal vendetta talknic (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There you go again... Do you deliberately put insults in your edit summaries to try to annoy people? Unfortunately, the name for that would be "trolling"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
AnonMoos - Please address the topic. thx talknic (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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 [15], Egypt [16] and Jordan [17]
(BTW See the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [18] “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)[19] 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 [20]
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. WikifanBe 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. WikifanBe 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)

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. Zerotalk 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)

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.[5]"

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". Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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". Zerotalk 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)

Bolding-related discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am closing this RfC per the request at WP:ANI that an administrator do so. Consensus is that the words "The Catastrophe" and "al-Nakba" should not be boldfaced because they are not alternate appellations for the subject of the article, but refer to a separate (albeit related) topic, the 1948 Palestinian exodus.  Sandstein  18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

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

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. WikifanBe 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. WikifanBe 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. WikifanBe 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)

Thus far there has not been one valid reason put forward as to why proper nouns/names (the Catastrophe and al Nakba) first appearing in the Lede should not be afforded boldface. Consensus cannot be claimed by blatant misrepresentation of the guidelines (the RFC also contains blatant misrepresentation of the guidelines) To that end and unless there are any actual valid objections or consensus based on the actual guidelines, I suggest the change be made according to WP:LEAD .. WP:BEGINNING ... talknic (talk) 06:46, 5 October 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)

Thus far there has not been one valid reason put forward as to why proper nouns/names (the Catastrophe and al Nakba) first appearing in the Lede should not be afforded boldface. Consensus cannot be claimed by blatant misrepresentation of the guidelines (the Main Talk section also contains blatant misrepresentation of the guidelines) To that end and unless there are any actual valid objections or consensus based on the actual guidelines, I suggest the change be made according to WP:LEAD .. WP:BEGINNING ... talknic (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, you are (either inadvertently or deliberately) misinterpreting the guidelines as I understand them. Such disagreements are inherent to this process here. But furthermore, and this I do not tolerate, you are falsely accusing me of prejudice!!!! Such false accusations are a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as being a total misrepresentation of my participation in this discussion as an editor and professional writer (as well as in my trade as a historian). I hereby formally request that you withdraw this false allegation. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly feelings are being hurt here. Keeping this open longer isn't worth it. I think NMMNG's suggestion that we find an admin to close this is a good one; it's been open almost a month now, without new participants in weeks, and consensus should be pretty clear. I'll go post on WP:ANI for a closer. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Orangemike @ 17:21, 14 September 2011 "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."
List of additional names [21] ... BTW "known to as" & "refer to as" are already synonymous ... talknic (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Jerome A. Chanes (2004). Antisemitism: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO. pp. 144–145. ISBN 9781576072097. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
  2. ^ Richard Howard Stafford Crossman (January 1977). Palestine mission: a personal record. Ayer Publishing. pp. 130–. ISBN 9780405102400. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
  3. ^ David Downing (30 August 2006). Governments and Leaders of the Middle East. Gareth Stevens. pp. 25–. ISBN 9780836873351. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
  4. ^ [22]
  5. ^ Rogan, Eugene L., ed., and Avi Shlaim, ed. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007 p. 99.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War/Archive_14&oldid=1068427194"