Talk:Lausanne Conference of 1949

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Necessary rewrite if not total overhaul[edit]

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

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

There is so much information available and the article hardly represents the realities of the conference. I mean heck, the only sub-section is simply criticisms. totally unacceptable IMO. For now we should minimize Pappe's beliefs, merge in more moderate sources and incorporate actual events recorded by the UN and responses by respective governments. Interpretation by extremely leftist historians should be at the bottom of the to-do list. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is seriously wrong? I think the organization is odd, and there are things missing, but nothing flagrantly false. Pappé's views here are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial as far as I can see.John Z (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That's as far as you can see. The article should be focusing on the actual events recorded by the United Nations. Pappe's views are not universal and belong to a very niche side of Israeli history. A person who reads this article will leave with no understanding at the events that occurred outside that it failed, and Israel planned that all along. Hardly a balanced perspective. We should move the article (i.e, Criticisms of Israel's involve with x) or rewrite it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article shouldn't focus on primary sources but on historians' interpretations of them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the article should focus on the actual topic and describe the events and then move to a balanced series of interpretations by historians. Though preferably, an effort should be made to include the opinions of the countries involved which were extensive. It is suspect to go directly to an extremely hostile historian, almost exclusively. Suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

ok rewritten. Will expand later. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest we revert to the old version first and then incorporate needed changes step by step. The old version wasn't that bad. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree - Snakeswithfeet just replaced one POV with another - exactly the opposite. Such a tendentious form of editing is not acceptable. Let's try to be constructive and include both. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

inflammatory language[edit]

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

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


Thus article has serious POV issues, apparently introduced by two editors, user:Wickey-nl and User:Ashurbanippal , who made substantial changes, without ever discussing them. Both these editors have been subsequently topic banned or blocked. I am attempting to remove some of these POV issues, ad make the article consistent with its cited sources. Users who repeatedly undo my edits, without explanation or discussion of their edits should expect to see their behavior reported. Specifically, I have changed the following statements - which are either unsourced, or state something completely different from the sources they cite - "By signing the Protocol, Arab countries for the first time recognized the Resolutions 194 and 181 as basis for settlement of the Palestine question, which they had rejected previously.[1]" ; "but Israel remained persistent in its rejection of UN Resolutions 181 and 194. The meetings were suspended between 1 and 18 July.[2]" Both of these were reverted without explanation by User:ElCommandanteVzl. I will report this behavior if it is repeated. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Galloway "quotation"[edit]

This revert by Epsom Salts is typical. Let's see how it stacks up.

  1. Despite the citation, the source is not the US Senate, nor is it Alexander Galloway. The source is "Rev Karl Baehr, Executive Director, American Christian Palestine Committee" who claimed Galloway had made these remarks to Baehr's "study tour group" over a year earlier.[Palestine Refugee Program. Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-Third Congress, First Session on the Palestine Refugee Program, May 20, 21, and 25, 1953, pp. 98–103; which I have examined]. So it was a verbal claim from the leader of a Christian Zionist lobby group about an alleged verbal statement of a UN official. Where has WP:RS gone?
  2. Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky (two historians of right-wing persuasion) wrote in A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography Middle Eastern Studies, 46: 5, 655–675 that they could not verify Baehr's claim or even confirm that Baehr had met Galloway, despite searching many archives and Baehr's private papers.
  3. As if that's not enough, this sort of barely-on-topic polemic rubbish doesn't belong in articles even if it can be reliably sourced.

Zerotalk 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the Joffe & Romirowsky paper. While they do state they were unable to confirm that the meeting took place, the impression you are trying to create here, that they doubt this meeting took place or that the quote is authentic is simply not in the article. They treat the quote as consistent with other well-documented statements by Galloway critical of UNRWA and the Arab nations' attitudes toward it and the refugee problem. I am resorting this with proper attribution and sourcing. Epson Salts (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You didn't even write that J&R tried and failed to confirm Baehr's claim; a direct NPOV violation. This sort of quotation slinging does not belong on Wikipedia. Take it somewhere else and let those of us who want to raise the standard of articles do our work without harrassment. Zerotalk 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Many things are difficult to confirm via documentary evidence 70 years after the fact, so I don't believe this particular factoid is all that important, but you can add it if you feel strongly about it. Your dismissal of sources you don;t like as "rubbish" carries not even an iota of weigh on wikipedia. Epson Salts (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lausanne Conference of 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

  1. ^ Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. pp. 66, 67, 72. Retrieved 24 July 2013. p.66, at 1946 "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state, with an Arab majority and minority rights for the Jews." ; p.67, at 1947 "The League’s Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called “aggression,” “without mercy.” The League promised them, in line with Bludan, assistance “in manpower, money and equipment” should the United Nations endorse partition." ; p. 72, at Dec 1947 "The League vowed, in very general language, “to try to stymie the partition plan and prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine 
  2. ^ UNCCP, Fourth progress report, 1 September 1949 ( A/992 d.d.22-09-1949)