Misplaced Pages

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:19, 13 January 2012 editGabrielF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,064 edits →German & Yugoslav volunteers: respond← Previous edit Revision as of 18:43, 13 January 2012 edit undoJiujitsuguy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,155 edits →German & Yugoslav volunteers: agreement & compromiseNext edit →
Line 224: Line 224:
:::"Of the Arab states, only the Jordanians, who increased their roster of Britons during the war, managed to recruit and deploy foreign military experts to any real effect. The handful of ex-Nazi Germans or Bosnian Muslims recruited by Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian Arabs proved of little significance." (Page 403) :::"Of the Arab states, only the Jordanians, who increased their roster of Britons during the war, managed to recruit and deploy foreign military experts to any real effect. The handful of ex-Nazi Germans or Bosnian Muslims recruited by Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian Arabs proved of little significance." (Page 403)
::If reputable secondary sources do not consider this contribution to be significant, it really doesn't belong in the info box. ] (]) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (copied from my post on Jiujitsuguy's talk page) ::If reputable secondary sources do not consider this contribution to be significant, it really doesn't belong in the info box. ] (]) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (copied from my post on Jiujitsuguy's talk page)
:::A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend. Regards,--] (]) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


== Serious issues with article == == Serious issues with article ==

Revision as of 18:43, 13 January 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 25 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.
See discretionary sanctions for details
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSaudi Arabia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEgypt Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLebanon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 25 days 

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
(2x) ], (3x) ], (2x) ], (2x) ], ], ]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

WP:NPOV in respect to consequences of the war in the Lede

The Lede directly addresses the consequences of the War on the Jewish population only. Israel's neighbouring Arab Palestinians A) also fled the violence and/or were dispossessed B) Parts of their territory were acquired by war by Israel and never annexed to Israel and; under the armistice agreements, all of their territory was under military control/occupation by their neighbouring Jewish State and their neighbouring Arab States, effecting them for the next 19 years ... talknic (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- "This" is not "again". It has only arisen since the addition of information 29 September 2011 (against your own criteria of editing while a merge is under discussion)
Please address the issue. Perhaps you might explain how it doesn't contravene WP:NPOV given that Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs were also effected by the war. Or explain how the Palestinian Arabs didn't neighbour Israel or; how Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs didn't flee the violence and/or weren't dispossessed or; how, under the Armistice Agreements, Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs weren't controlled by their neighbouring Jewish state and their neighbouring Arab States for 19 years ... talknic (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As I explained to you in the past, this would be easier for you if you didn't make up terminology like "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- Are you desperately trying to say Israel has no neighbouring Palestinian Arabs? They don't exist? Usually people who live next to each other are neighbours. If they're Palestinian Arabs, then they'd be neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. It's how the English language constructs meaningful dialogue ... talknic (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The only desperate thing here is your repeated attempts to convince people that your personal opinions are worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. I gave you some advice. Take it or leave it. I'm done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- A) Noted your refusal to answer a very simple question. B) I've not suggested my personal opinion for inclusion. C) Please refrain from personal remarks. thx ... talknic (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, why the heck are you resurrecting this semi-nonsense gibberish about "neighboring" yet again another time after it was already found to be distinctly useless with respect to article improvement?????????? The word "neighboring" was chosen to refer to the Arab nations surrounding the British mandate territory (somewhat poorly-chosen, since in fact Iraq doesn't neighbor the mandate territory). It certainly can't refer to Arabs who were actually IN Palestine (and therefore not "neighboring" it), and your attempts to pretend otherwise became tediously monotonously tiresomely boring long ago. AnonMoos (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
AnonMoos -- A) The gibberish "neighboring" is already in the Article. B) The Article does not say "the Arab nations" or "the British mandate territory" (there was no Mandate after May 14th 1948) C) I've not asserted that Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs were neighbouring Palestine.
Please address the issue WP:NPOV in respect to the consequences of the war on Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. Thx ... talknic (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, if you have a concrete specific revision of the first paragraph in mind, then by all means present your proposed wording here, but PLEASE do not try to twist the word "neighboring" to give it a meaning which it transparently patently does NOT have in that context -- something which is a proven generator of distracting and semi-pointless tangential side-discussions, and also something of a sore point by now. Something else which is also pointless and useless for article improvement, a source of distracting diversions, and also a sore point by now is your monotonously tediously tiresome insistence that the never-implemented Arab-rejected, purely theoretical, speculative and hypothetical 11/29/1947 partition-proposal lines are somehow supposedly more important or real than the 1923-1948 British Mandate borders (which were actually implemented for 25 years or more, and still form the basis of the Israeli-Egyptian, Jordanian-Israeli, and Israeli Lebanese borders today).
I really don't understand why you keep on raising such points time and time again, since they significantly annoy other people, and do nothing to get your preferred wording into Misplaced Pages articles. If you have a compulsion to bang your head against the wall, then I would prefer that you do it as a solitary activity, rather than continually wasting other people's time. AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
AnonMoos -- A) The issue is not the first paragraph. B) The end of the first line is quite clear "the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict" BTW "Palestinian Arabs"/"Arab Palestinians"/"Palestinians" are already mentioned in the Article some 23 times. In the body of the Article, Egyptian Jews are mentioned once. There is no other mention of Jews from the other Arab States in the body of the Article.
If Jewish folk who were NOT in the region of the war and who are only mentioned in the Article body once have a place in the Lede, simple maths gives Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs who WERE from the region and are mentioned some 23 times in the body of the Article a place in the Lede in respect to the consequences during the period of the Arab-Israeli War.
The issue is in the third paragraph -- WP:NPOV. I.e., the inclusion in the Lede of the fate of Jewish population; who were NOT from the region where the war was fought, while NOT including the fate of the Palestinian Arabs who WERE from the region in which the war was fought and;
including the fate of Jewish folk who, under the Armistice Agreements, were NOT under the military control of Israel's neighbouring Arab States for 19 years, while excluding the fate of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs, who WERE left under the military control of their neighbouring Jewish State and their neighbouring Arab States for 19 years.
Furthermore as it is an "ongoing conflict", Palestinian Arab territories and the Palestinian Arabs within them, are still under the control of their neighbouring Jewish State
Please just address the WP:NPOV issue and; stop cluttering up the space with un-necessary off topic verbiage & personal comments .. Thx ... talknic (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Please propose text. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Istmejudith -- May I take it you agree, as it stands the Lede is need of balance? ... talknic (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's as bad as you say, because Nakba is linked. BTW, see WP:LEADCITE for how we don't necessarily have to have every point referenced. Although the tendency is to more referencing, so, please propose text. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Itsmejudith -- A) The issue is specific to the timeline of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. B) It has already been asserted, by consensus, that al Nakba is not specific to the timeline of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. C) The Armistice Agreements are however specific to the war and under which the Palestinian Arabs were controlled for the next 19 years, "..dictated exclusively by military considerations..."
Unless someone can come up with a shorter text encompassing the plight of the Palestinians in respect to the period of the war from May 15th 1948, I'm afraid the best I can do at the moment is re-submit the following with new Secondary Sources;
// The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements leaving the Palestinian Arab territories under the occupation of Israel .. (numerous pages), Egypt page 264 and Jordanpage 141 //
Although the suggestion is not based on any former rationale and despite their being mentioned some 23 times in the Article body, I imagine it will be vehemently opposed with all manner of excuses for excluding mention of the Palestinian/s/Arabs and/or 'occupation/occupied' in the Lede. (Especially by Israel, even though it is already in the body of the article) ... talknic (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Instead of telling us that a suggestion would be opposed, you might as well make a suggestion, and then we will see. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Itsmejudith - I made the suggestion "the best I can do at the moment is re-submit the following with new Secondary Sources" ... talknic (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I can't understand what you mean. Can you put it in quite basic English for me, thanks. Just say "I suggest we add this...." or "I suggest we take out this..." or "I suggest instead of .... we say ....". That sort of thing because we are all busy people. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Itsmejudith -- "re-submit the following.." IS 'That sort of thing' //The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements leaving the Palestinian Arab territories under the occupation of Israel .. (numerous pages), Egypt page 264 and Jordanpage 141 // ... talknic (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not try to match the wording of the second paragraph: "The war commenced after the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of an independent Israel at midnight on 14 May 1948..." by explicitly stating what happened to the territory that made up the British Mandate? Perhaps "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which left the former territories of the British Mandate under the control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." GabrielF (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GabrielF - Why? The Mandate ended May 14th 1948. GONE! OVER! FINISHED! The Armistice Agreements were signed 1949 at the END of the war, by which time Israel had been declared, recognized as requested, accepted into the UN and had signed the Armistice Agreements BEFORE ever claiming any territories (31st Aug 1949) beyond it's recognized Sovereign extent. Whatever lay outside of Israel was quite simply NOT Israeli and; most importantly there was never any Mandate border between the territory of Palestine which became Israel and what remained of the territory of Palestine after Israel was declared independent. Pre-Mandate ending and pre-Israeli declaration, were only Mandate borders between Palestine and it's neighbouring Arab States ... talknic (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, as has been repeatedly explained to you before, in many books and articles (on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere) about many wars and other events leading to territorial changes (often having absolutely nothing to do with the middle east), it's extremely common to compare and contrast the status quo ante boundaries with the post-event boundaries, so as to better be able to explain and understand exactly what the changes were. Furthermore, your insistence that the British Mandate borders (which were actually physically implemented for 25 years or more, and still form the main basis for the Israeli-Egyptian Lebanese-Israeli, and Israeli-Jordanian borders even today) were somehow less "real" or important than the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely hypothetical UN Partition plan lines is not only rather nonsensical, but also does not do anything to facilitate constructive or productive article improvements... AnonMoos (talk)
AnonMoos -- How amazing. Odd though...the Armistice Agreements, which is what we're discussing here, DO NOT contain the words "Mandate" or "British Mandate". Editors and their Secondary Sources, need to accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements if they're talking about the Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It really didn't matter in the slightest -- whether the word "Mandate" was mentioned or not, the mandate borders were still the status quo ante bellum, and the Lebanon-Israel Blue line was still the old Mandate border, the Israeli-Egyptian line south of Rafa was the still the old Mandate border (which had been the old Egyptian-Ottoman border as early as the 1880s), and the Israeli-Jordanian line south of the Dead Sea was still the old Mandate border. By contrast, the new "Green line" did not correspond with the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely theoretical 1947 partition plan lines (whose importance you keep trying to elevate) hardly anywhere... AnonMoos (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - the Issue under discussion is the Armistice Agreements. There is no mention of the word "Mandate" or "Mandate borders" or "British Mandate" in ANY of the armistice agreements ... talknic (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos puts it well. The issue here is conveying to the reader a summary of what happened. We say what the state of affairs was before the war, what happened during the war, and what happened as a result of the war. The clearest thing for the reader is to use the same terminology throughout. If you start introducing terms which haven't been previously defined such as "Palestinian Arab territories" you're just confusing the reader. What does "Palestinian Arab territories" mean anyway? Are you talking about the territories allocated to an Arab state under the partition plan? How is a casual reader supposed to know that's what you mean if they haven't heard of the partition plan? And why should we get into the complexity of discussing the partition plan in the lede of the article? This is supposed to be a brief introduction. It needs to be kept relatively simple and straightforward. GabrielF (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"The area of the former British mandate of Palestine" is neutral and informative. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
GabrielF /Itsmejudith - None of the Armistice Agreements use "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine". It does NOT accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements
""The area of the former British mandate of Palestine" could mean any former mandate territory, including TransJordan and Israel.
Thus far there has not been one valid objection accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Armistice Agreements - Israel/Egypt "the Egypt-Palestine frontier" Four times. Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"
Israel/Lebanon "Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine." Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"
Israel/Syria "Article V 3. Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line." Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"
Israel/Jordan Calls for "peace in Palestine" six times. No mention of "Mandate" or "British mandate" or "British Mandate of Palestine" or "former British mandate of Palestine"
Why are certain editors insisting on something which DOES NOT accurately reflect Armistice Agreements? ... talknic (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Primary source. Cf a secondary source . NB I don't regard this as a good enough secondary source for this article, but it is an example of how this is being presented to a general readership- and in a source that is required to be as neutral as possible. It's the first source after WP that comes up in a Google search for 1949 armistice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we agree that Haupert, J. S. (1969), POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE ISRAELI-SYRIAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE, 1949–1967. The Professional Geographer, 21: 163–171. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1969.00163.x is a good secondary source? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"as a result of the 1949 armistice that divided the new Jewish state of Israel from other parts of Mandate Palestine." The text is chronologically incorrect. The Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel 15th May 1948 & it's subsequent recognition by the International Community of Nations/States, which occurred AFTER the Mandate expired May 14th 1948, divided Israel from Palestine. There was no "Mandate Palestine" in 1949 at the time of the Armistice Agreements.
The map is also incorrect. The Armistice Agreements did not alter any borders. Secondary Sources must accurately convey the meanings of the Armistice Agreements they're talking about
How can we agree Haupert, J. S. is a good source, when we don't know what point Haupert is conveying? ... talknic (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
We look at the credentials of the author, the publication, and the publisher. They tell us whether the source is proper scholarly history. If it is, and it is on-topic, then we can use it. If we use it, we summarise its argument faithfully. That's the right way to work. The wrong way to work is to start with a WP:POINT we want to make and then scrape around for an author to back it up. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. You've not given the point on which Haupert is to be assessed. If it is this, it doesn't show all the Armistice Demarcation lines of 1949.
"The wrong way to work is to start with a WP:POINT we want to make and then scrape around for an author to back it up." What is it you're doing other than scraping around to prove a point? The Armistice Agreements do not change. Opinion on what they say does. When an opinion inserts a definitive word NOT contained or even alluded to in the Armistice Agreements, are they RS on that point? I'm not scratching around looking for a source to prove a point, I'm looking at the Armistice Agreements your sources are talking about ... talknic (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Over month of silence has passed ... " If we use it, we summarise its argument faithfully. That's the right way to work. " The source itself is also required by WP:RSto be faithfull to the documents it references. Consensus to retain information by Secondary Sources not accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements they reference, might well be seen to be the work of a group of propagandists ... talknic (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Claiming your interpretation of primary sources trumps the interpretation made in scholarly works might well be seen as the work of a tendentious editor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy - The sources I've provided for inclusion in the article are Secondary. Please stop making false accusations and address the issue ... talknic (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

SUMMARY : I brought the NPOV issue to Talk. Excuses and moving goal posts thus far consist of:

  • NMMNG - referring to the issue prior to the addition of material concerning the direct consequences of the war only for Jewish folk who did not even live in the region, whilst there is no mention of the direct consequences of the war for the Palestinians who did live in the region, thereby contravening WP:NPOV
NMMNG then goes on "if you didn't make up terminology like "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" However, Israel's "Arab neighbours" are already mentioned in the Lede and; the Palestinians, who do in fact neighbour Israel and; are in fact already been mentioned numerous times throughout the article. In the construct of the English language, we describe people living next to each other as neighbours. One can only presume NMMNG thinks the Palestinians didn't exist.
Hypocritically, NMMNG and company opt, by consensus no less, for the retention of the terminology 'Mandate Palestine', 'British Mandate' although the phrase is not mentioned at all in any of the Ceasefire/Armistice Agreements or UNSC Resolutions which, if referenced by Secondary Sources must be accurately portrayed. Furthermore, the Mandate did not exist at the time of the Armistice Agreements or for that matter throughout the war. Mandates are sets of conditions for the administration 'of' a territory and it's people. The Mandate itself has no territory.
NMMNG then goes on to accuse me of using Primary Sources, when they were in fact Secondary Sources.
  • Anomoos - saying "gibberish about "neighboring"" when the words "neighbours" already exists in the Lede referring to Israel's "Arab neighbours" and; instead of addressing the issue, fills the page with irrelevant, off topic nonsense, silly personal remarks and accusations more than obviously designed to frustrate and obfuscate.
  • Istmejudith - who asks me to propose a text, which I provide. She then asks me to propose a text, which I repeat! After which she asks me to propose a text, which I repeat again!! Quite bizarre and again a seemingly obvious attempt to frustrate and obfuscate.
Then ""The area of the former British mandate of Palestine" is neutral and informative." But it does not appear anywhere in any ceasefire/Armistice agreement or UNSC Resolution and; unless explained, could include Transjordan.
She then gives this "Nakba is linked." overlooking the fact that the consequences for Jewish folk, who did not live in the war zone, are already given space and the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries is also linked.
  • GabrielF - Who begins talking about a completely different section and the inclusion of a Mandate not mentioned in any ceasefire/Armistice Agreement or UNSC resolution. He then moves goal posts completely to the: "... complexity of discussing the partition plan in the lede of the article?" Which is not the issue at hand
Goal posts move again to "This is supposed to be a brief introduction" while arguing to have no mention of the Palestinian Arabs who were from the war zone and who were also effected by the war, ignoring the fact that there is already mention of the consequences for only Jewish populations who were not in the war zone at all.
Consensus to not include the word Palestinians or Palestine in the Lede of an article about a war fought over their territory and on their behalves and resulting in them being dispossessed, is completely bizarre and could be seen to be the work of propagandists.

Is there actually any valid reason for not giving equal space to the consequences of the war for the Palestinians in the Lede under WP:NPOV Retention of material by consensus to contravene WP:NPOV is bizarre and would appear to be the MO of propagandists active in Misplaced Pages ... talknic (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Shorter summary: Talknic wanted to make a change to the article. Nobody supported it. Talknic doesn't know how to let go. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Contravention of WP:NPOV supported by consensus likely points to the work of propagandists ...talknic (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
More likely points to your IDHT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - The added information described only the direct consequences of the Jewish victims who were not even from the war zone. It threw the Paragraph into a violation of WP:WEIGHT.
The section I removed has the same source as the Wikilinked article, where the detail is righfully discussed, NOT in the Lede of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
I left the article giving equal weight to both parties, both wikilinked. Reverts to versions that are, by consensus of course, in violation of WP policies, do not appear to be the work of an editor acting in good faith ... talknic (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Israeli victory

Talknic called into question the claim in the info box that the '48 war was a tactical and strategic victory for Israel, given, in his words, that the Arab states preserved territory in the West Bank and Gaza under Arab control. I've provided the requested citation, but I feel its worth reiterating that this explanation is ahistorical for the following reasons: (1) Israel achieved its stated war aims (establishing a state and beating back an invasion) while the Arabs did not achieve their stated goals (preventing a state from being established). (2) The defeat was a humiliation for the Arab world which helped undermine regimes such as Farouk's in Egypt. (3) Talknic argues that establishing Arab control over the West Bank and Gaza should constitute an Arab victory - in fact the Partition Plan would have allotted considerably more land to the Arabs than the armistice and the Yishuv had previously negotiated with the Jordanians to essentially give them control of the West Bank in exchange for allowing the establishment of a Jewish state. Clearly, if you go to war, get humiliated and then get less than you would have gotten had you accepted a negotiated solution in the first place you have in no sense achieved a strategic victory. That '48 was an Israeli tactical victory is indisputable. GabrielF (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The war was clearly an Israeli victory. The Arab states didn't achieve any of their goals. MathKnight 19:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
MathKnight - '"The Arab states didn't achieve any of their goals" How odd. They retained the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinians, about 50% of their stated goals. In fact, Israel Agreed in the Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
GabrielF - "given, in his words" best you actually use my words in future
"(1) Israel achieved its stated war aims (establishing a state and beating back an invasion)" A) Show a source for Israel's Declaration of war (stated war aims). B) On what date was it lodged with the UNSC? C) Israel was already established by declaration and recognition before being accepted into the UN (must already be an established Independent State), before the Armistice Agreements.
"while the Arabs did not achieve their stated goals (preventing a state from being established)." cite their stated aim of "preventing a state from being established" Their stated aims are in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, Secondary Sources must accurately portray that document, it being the official statement of their aims.
"(3) Talknic argues that establishing Arab control over the West Bank and Gaza should constitute an Arab victory - " Er, no I didn't. Quote me .. don't falsify..
"in fact the Partition Plan would have allotted considerably more land to the Arabs than the armistice" The Armistice did not allot ANY land to ANY of the parties. The armistice with Egypt says specifically the Armistice Demarcation Line was not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and; the provisions were dictated exclusively by military considerations.
"I've provided the requested citation" All you've provided is a book and page numbers. What are readers supposed to be looking for in the book? What is the context?
"in no sense achieved a strategic victory. That '48 was an Israeli tactical victory is indisputable." Problem, I haven't actually disputed those points. Best not to falsify what I've written ...talknic (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you believe that "a book and page numbers" does not constitute a citation? GabrielF (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
GabrielF - What are readers supposed to be looking for in the book? What is the context? Can you provide the full paragraph? Have you read a page? A chapter? These are the things I am required to provide by No More Mr Nice Guy's camp of consensus makers ... talknic (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to say that my "camp of consensus makers" includes many of the regular participants at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources.
I think many if not most of the regulars to this and related articles have read Morris' 1948. I have it in front of me right now. Are you really challenging GabrielF's reading or are you just trying to make a WP:POINT (again)? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - your "camp of consensus makers" at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources seem to behave like yourself - Line 324:, making false claims WhatamIdoing 00:39, 5 December 201 - Line 562: and GabrielF here, has unnecessarily misrepresenting what I've written. It seems to be common amongst your associates
GabrielF asserts that "Israel achieved its stated war aims (establishing a state and beating back an invasion" A) Israel didn't lodge an official declaration of war with the UNSC stating an aim of establishing a state. Israel was an Independent Sovereign State, already recognized BEFORE the Armistice Agreements were signed. C) Independent Sovereign States cannot be a part of non-self governing territories and be Independent Sovereign States. D) As for "beating back an invasion" The Israeli Government itself says "The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine establish law and order" (his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine:". From their stated aims, it is obvious they achieved at least 50% of their aim of protecting Palestine, Gaza and what became the West Bank ... talknic (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
My "associates", most of which I have never seen before that discussion at talk:Citing sources, behave like me because we all understand wikipedia policy, while you don't. On top of that, you never listen to anyone so I don't have much hope of you ever getting it.
Thanks for another long interpretation of primary sources. Riveting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Most actually didn't make any false accusations. You and certain others did however. Furthermore the discussion was to seek a change in WP policy, effecting any POV and any issue. You've made yet another a false accusation, of my not understanding policy.
"Thanks for another long interpretation of primary sources." Another false accusation. Quoted was the Israel govt spiel from after which begins the Primary Source, the Arab States Declaration, at 1.
Three false accusations in a row ... Please address the issue ... talknic (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Which issue is that? That you've never so much as read a book on this subject and you think a good way to write an encyclopedia is to fish google for sentences that support your personal POV? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Er no, the issue is: The Arab States did in fact achieve 50% of their stated aim to protect Palestine. If all you have to offer are false accusations and personal comments, you should not be here at all ... talknic (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Let us know when you find a reliable source (per WP:RS, not per talknic) that supports that claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - The statement 'failure' is contradicted by the next entry. "Territorial Changes" - "Jordanian occupation of West Bank, Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip" Both achievements. Both within the aims of the Arab States, to protect Palestine ... talknic (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is not a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Er... Territorial Changes is not my opinion ...talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if their aim was "to protect Palestine" and not to prevent the establishment of Israel, they have failed. First, to conquer only the territories that already offered to the Palestinian Arabs (but they refused) in the partition plan, is not a success. Second, if they keep waving the Nakba ("Catastrophe" in Arabic) in which many Arabs fled Israel and never returned, how does this qualify as success in protecting Palestine? (P.S. when they ment Palestine they ment the entire Land of Israel that was under the British mandate, and not only to the areas that are now under the Palestinian Authority control (only the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)). MathKnight 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
MathKnight - "Even if their aim was "to protect Palestine" " Read their Declaration, introduced here by a Secondary source, the Israeli Govt.
"to conquer only the territories that already offered to the Palestinian Arabs (but they refused) in the partition plan, is not a success. " A) The Arab States aim was not to 'conquer', but as stated in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, to protect. B) The territory 'offered' the Palestinians, was already Palestinian territory. C) They rightly refused to recognize the partition plan based on legal grounds under the LoN Covenant and the UN Charter which guaranteed them self determination.
"when they ment Palestine they ment the entire Land of Israel that was under the British mandate" Very funny. Israel has never been under an Mandate. The 'Land of Israel' is only what has been recognized by the International Community of Nations. No more, no less. Israel was recognized as it asked to be recognized. For example "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947". The US and the majority of countries who did recognize Israel, did so BEFORE Israel became a UN Member State, BEFORE the Armistice Agreements, BEFORE making any claims AFTER the armistice agreements were signed, to territory not belonging to any State. The Armistice Agreements and UNSC Resolutions differentiate between Israel and Palestine and call for "peace in Palestine." not 'in Israel'. The Armistice Agreements show that the Arab States did indeed protect both the Gaza Strip and what was officially renamed the West Bank, thereby achieving some 50% of their stated aims. Israel AGREED to the Armistice AGREEMENTS ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Declaration are declarations, and not always the true intentions. If their aim was only to protect the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS) why they invaded the land allocated to the Jews in the partition plan (the Egyptian army reached south of Ashdod and was forced back by the Jewish forces)? They invaded Israel in order to destroy it and they have failed - not only they didn't manage to conquer lands given to the Jews, they have also lost land allocated for a Palestinian state. If their true aim was only to protect the WB&GS, they would have stopped there and not push forward. Land of Israel is a geographic term (and not a political term), refering to the land the Hebrew ruled during ancient time, until the abolishment of Judea by the Roman forces after the Great Rebelion in 70AD. Most of the Land of Israel was renamed Syria-Palaestina by the Romans and later just Palestine by occupying forces. Land of Israel =/= State of Israel. You misinterperates the terms and therefore led to wrong conclusions. MathKnight 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
MathKnight -- "If their aim was only to protect the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS)" Their aim was to protect what was allocated the Arab State, which was not just the the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Look at the partition map. Israel announced it was proclaimed thus "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and that is how it was recognized.
"(the Egyptian army reached south of Ashdod and was forced back by the Jewish forces)" Ashdod didn't exist until 1957. Egypt went as far as Isdud, which was not allocated to the Jewish State or declared as Israeli. Neither was the huge chunk of territory Sth East of the Gaza Strip bordering Egypt or the big chunk of territory to the North bordering Lebanon. Furthermore there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab State for invading Israel. It is customary that UN Member States are censured if they violate the boundaries of another State.
If Israel's true aim was to protect Israel, why has it since being declared, acquired by war and never legally annexed over 50 % of what remained of Palestine?
"Land of Israel is a geographic term (and not a political term), refering to the land the Hebrew ruled during ancient time" Irrelevant from the day Israel was proclaimed thus "I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and recognized as such before admission to the UN, before signing any Armistice Agreements
Land of Israel =/= history. State of Israel = what was declared independent of Palestine May 15th 1948 ... talknic (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this discussion really worthwhile? Some Arab countries started this war to prevent the implementation of the partition plan, which they considered unacceptable. The obvious goal was to prevent the establisment of a Jewish state on 56.4% of Palestine (which most Palestinians and the Arab countries deemed gross injustice). And equally obviously, this goal was not only not achieved, the result of the war was that the state of Israel covered not 56.4% but 78% of Palestine. So that Palestinians refer to these events as the Catastrofe ("Nakba") is certainly understandable.
@talknic, it is true that frequently attempts are made to include lopsided pro-Israeli POV in the articles, but this is not an example of it. The only point may be that the wording "Arab failure" sounds rather un-encyclopedic. Wouldn`t "Defeat of Arab countries" be better? Paul K. (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul kuiper NL - Is accuracy worthwhile? "Some Arab countries started this war to prevent the implementation of the partition plan, which they considered unacceptable." A) Actually, they said it could not come about by force "Palestine" and; by the 14th 15th May 1948 Jewish forces were already outside of the territory allotted the Jewish State B) A Civil War was already taking place and had been escalated by Plan Dalet in the months prior to Israeli Independence. From the moment Israel became and was recognized as an Independent Sovereign state and with Jewish forces already outside of Israel, it became a war waged by a State on the non-self Governing territory of Palestine. The Arab States had a right under the UN Charter Chapt XI and a "sacred trust" to protect the non-self governing territories of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared and which they represented at the time. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine was submitted to the UNSC . There was no condemnation of it by the UNSC. Nor was there condemnation of Egypt and Transjordan occupying Gaza and the West Bank. In fact the Israeli Govt AGREED in the Armistice Agreements. Nor was there UNSC condemnation of Transjordan's unilateral annexation of what became the West Bank at the request of the Palestinians ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Your method here seems to be to take statements in primary sources as fact without considering the secondary sources that question them. That's bad scholarship and its inappropriate for wikipedia. What you should instead be doing is examining respected secondary sources and looking at how they explain these documents. GabrielF (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
GabrielF - Oh my. I provided Secondary Sources. So sorry ... talknic (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, earlier in this interminable thread, you mentioned that you felt other editors made onerous demands on you to demonstrate your understanding of your sources. The reason that other users are questioning your sources is that you are using the wrong type of sources. You are looking at original documents (treaties, public statements, UN resolutions, etc) and you are providing your own interpretation of these documents. That is not your job as an encyclopedia editor. If you'd like to publish an article in a journal arguing that the traditional concept of Israeli victory in 1948 is false, go right ahead, but Misplaced Pages is not the place for such original arguments. As an encyclopedia editor, your job is to look at how secondary sources have interpreted these documents and the other evidence that exists from this time period and to summarize and report what these secondary sources say. GabrielF (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
GabrielF - A) The version preferred by consensus (except 'casus'), was completely un-sourced. Any editor may simply remove it. B) The information in Territorial Changes is not my opinion. It shows the Arabs did in fact achieve some 50% of their stated aims of protecting Palestine on behalf of the Palestinians. C) If you want to say there was no success by the Arabs, you're gonna have to start re-writing all the articles saying Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West Bank. My you will be busy ... talknic (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed statement:s. Reasons - NPOV / WEIGHT & Consensus in violation of Misplaced Pages policy

  • Removed per WP:VERIFY //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. // Not supported by the source.
  • NMMNG's reason for revert "lead correctly summarizes article using consensus wording" british mandate is wikilinked in previous sentence so they likelihood that someone would be confused about what it includes is low"
A) Consensus to keep contentious non verifiable statements violates WP:VERIFY -- B) the Mandate was a set of conditions for administration. A set of conditions 1) has no territory 2) the article begins by telling readers the Mandate (set of conditions) expired May 14th 1948 -- C) NMMNG's wikilinked British Mandate has a map ... it includes Jordan!!!
  • Removed per WP:WEIGHT Last part of added material concerning Jewish folk // initiating the first exodus wave of Egyptian, as well as other Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities// Giving equal weight to the victims ... talknic (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The first statement about where the fighting took place is true whether the source supports it or not. It is also quite important and hence should be included. The source could be changed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Frederico1234 - The first part of the statement did not accurately reflect any UNSC resolution, any Ceasefire or Armistice Agreement and; Secondary Sources must accurately reflect the documents they cite and; the first part of the statement is not supported by the given source.
"The source could be changed" Look at the article history. The CN was vandalized and the statement kept unreliably sourced. (by consensus of course). Unless you can find a reliable Secondary Source accurately reflecting any UNSC resolution, Ceasefire or Armistice agreement saying "former territory of the British Mandate", it should be replaced with "Palestine", for which there are plentiful accurate Secondary Sources.
UNSC resolutions, a ceasefire agreements and Armistice agreements to the war say "peace in Palestine", because that's where most of the fighting took place, in Palestine, after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. (Note: Israel was impossible for Israel to have been declared independent of the British. Israel has never been under British rule, the Mandate ended before Israel's declaration came into effect 15th May 1948 When British administration existed, Israel didn't)
The phrase could lead people to think it includes Transjordan, as displayed by NMMNG's brilliant "british mandate is wikilinked" routine. With a nice a map which includes of all things, Transjordan! ... talknic (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This borders on vandalism. Not to mention editing against consensus, the 1RR violation, WP:POINT, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - consensus to violate WP:VERIFY WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT is the real vandalism. "1RR violation" there is none. A source was required for the word "controversial". I gave it. From Morris's own book BTW ... talknic (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This issue is now at AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Good ... talknic (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"War of Liberation" name

Just to clarify, when I searched for the Hebrew lettering more results came up, but Google Translate gives "Independence" as the only translation for the lettering. The Anglicization of the lettering is what only comes up with this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hebrew may be common, but the English is rare. It may need to be removed, unless it is to clarify the Hebrew. Certainly the current prominent placement in the lede, bolded, is problematic. Would the Battle of Britain lede provide a better model? Jd2718 (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the transliteration can be improved. There's an "official" way to do it, but I don't know how. These are the common names in Hebrew though. You can see them in the lead at he.wiki, for example. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I drop my opposition after finding that this is a valid translation and there is some usage of the term in English-language sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I've reordered the sentence to place the Hebrew first followed in parentheses. Seeing the above comment, should I flip it back? Jd2718 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
"war of liberation" should probably be capitalized, and may require bolding (I'm not going to go into a whole new endless discussion about that right now, though). Otherwise, looks fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure "known to Israelis" is really precise either. It's known in Hebrew as but War of Independence is used by non-Israeli English speaking sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This is hilarious. After all the Talk of not filling up a Lede with details that can, and should be, addressed via Wikilink or elsewhere in the body of articles, the lede is being now being bloated with what the war was to Israelis. Pushing the Lede and the first paragraph way over WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV, contrary to WP policies
... known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation" - stands at TWENTY NINE words. It consists entirely of the Israeli POV
... known to the Arab states as ... -- stands at ZERO words. ... known to the Palestinians as ... - stands at ZERO words
Furthermore, this is en.wiki. The current source is in Hebrew and is not attributed to any author ... talknic (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

If the current wording for the first paragraph is retained by consensus, it will be another in a long list of instances where consensus has been to violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, which might lead one to believe propagandists are busy at work, abusing the system ... talknic (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to Hebrew sources but I think that the War of Liberation as well as War of Independence is the period ranging from 1944 (when the IZL decided to stop the truce) to 15 May 1948 (when the British left the coutnry). The 1948 Arab Israeli War is something else. At best, references to these words should be used in the article about the 1948 Palestine War but not this one. 87.65.225.88 (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Arabic for "nakba"

There seems to be an edit war over this and someone mistakenly thinking we should add the foreign-language form of all proper names. That isn't the case. We only do it for article subjects. A simple compromise is to say 1948 Palestinian exodus ("Nakba"). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's fine the way it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I find the inclusion of the English translation unusual as most sources I know that refer to it by a formal name use Nakba, as opposed to its English translation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You can switch the English and Arabic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German & Yugoslav volunteers

According to Zeev Schiff, Benny Morris, Leslie Stein and Chaim Herzog, German ex-Nazi types as well as Bosnian Muslims and some Bosnians who fought with pro-Axis forces during the WW2, served as volunteers with Arab forces and not in insignificant numbers. According to Stein, as many as "500 Yugoslavs" fought as well as a "number of Germans," (Stein @ 44-45) I have therefore restored the edit.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Dozens of pro-Axis partisans and a handful of ex-Nazis is an obvious case of insignificant numbers when it is a war involving nearly 200,000 soldiers. That you are emphasizing the Nazi connection and inserting the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerent section to represent a handful of Germans is emblematic of the various issues with this article I have been aching to correct. Expect me to elaborate more soon.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is what Morris has to say about foreign volunteers in 1948:
"Of the Arab states, only the Jordanians, who increased their roster of Britons during the war, managed to recruit and deploy foreign military experts to any real effect. The handful of ex-Nazi Germans or Bosnian Muslims recruited by Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinian Arabs proved of little significance." (Page 403)
If reputable secondary sources do not consider this contribution to be significant, it really doesn't belong in the info box. GabrielF (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (copied from my post on Jiujitsuguy's talk page)
A discussion on the matter was held on our (GabrielF & JJG) respective talk pages and agreement as to the precise text concerning German and Yugoslav volunteers seems within reach. I'll formulate something over the weekend. Regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious issues with article

This article is replete with several severe issues that are in need of attention. To elaborate:

  • WP:NPOV is not being respected by the inclusion of material relating to the Nazis, the Holocaust, and antisemitism. The most recent offense has been the insertion of the flag of Nazi Germany in the belligerents section due to a handful of ex-Nazis fighting on the Arab side. It also emphasizes that out of several hundred Yugoslavs a few dozen were members of pro-Axis fascist groups. However, this is far from the only NPOV issue involved.
The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives. In a subsection about Husseini it starts out by mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis and adding an allusion to the Holocaust, without providing any context as to why he was collaborating with the Nazis and what he actually knew of the Holocaust at the time. This, mind you, in the "political objectives" section. Even more significantly there is no mention in the background section or political objectives about the history of Jewish settlement or Arab opposition to the way in which it lead to their expulsion from certain areas of the territory as well as widespread discrimination against them by the settlers.
Further down in a section on British diplomacy there are references to the British thinking all Jews are communists, wanting to cut Israel down to size, and evacuating without considering the consequences. Again comments without context, like the fact the leading Zionists were self-described socialists or the fact the Soviets thought Israel would be a major ally for the same reason.
Then you have the section for the demographic outcome. In the second paragraph it falsely asserts that "Arab nations refused to absorb Palestinian refugees" when it is widely-known that Jordan gave every refugee citizenship in its territory and it is also known that Lebanon gave some of the refugees citizenship as well. On the Jewish exodus the section claims "many of these immigrants were forcibly expelled" despite evidence suggesting a significant amount left voluntarily, something that is mentioned after that in a manner that implies it is not significant. What follows from there is a rather butchered run-on sentence that starts out by mentioning antisemitic violence and pogroms. It then mentions government persecution due to the war or "political instability" without elaborating and only after mentioning this does it point out the rather significant matter of many just wanting to settle in Israel or the West. Obviously, it does not go into any of the unique details related to the flight of Jews from each of these countries. Even more problematic is the sentence starts out without clarifying whether this applies just to immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries or whether it also includes European Jews who are mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
  • All of the above come together to violate WP:SYNTH by pushing a propaganda notion that the enemies of Israel do not have any legitimate reason for opposing it, but instead just hate Jews with some even wanting to have a redo of the Holocaust. Context is rarely given for the sides opposing/not supporting Israel, while the context given for Israelis ignores the less high-minded reasons for their actions. Honestly, this reads like something you would get from CAMERA or Arutz Sheva. The political objectives section heavily implies with the bit about Husseini that the Palestinians only wanted to kill the Jews and that the Yishuv were just stoically trying to survive. Throwing in the ex-Naxis mention and the Nazi flag in the belligerents section adds on to that little association game being played with the article. Amazingly the source provided for Husseini is a book about antisemitism written by an Israeli. With all the issues in the section about the British and the demographic outcome included, the obscenely incendiary and propagandistic nature of the resulting synthesis of material stands out plainly. I would say it easily reaches WP:COATRACK proportions.
  • There is also a somewhat less serious issue for fixing, merely by comparison, and that is the poor referencing in the article. Paragraphs and sometimes entire sections go without a citation at times. It is not strictly a case of minor or uncontroversial material either. A section on Operation Shoter mentions accusations of massacres without providing a single reference either way. Another paragraph in the section "Anglo-Israeli air clashes" is a huge block of text, it could easily be split into two or three paragraphs, with two citations tacked on at the end. The first two paragraphs of the background section have no citations either, though someone has at least added some citation tags there.

Looking over all this I am perplexed at how this article can still have a B-class ranking. This article is in need of some serious work to even be worthy of a C-class ranking, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the things you mention have merit, some I disagree with. It was very difficult to get anything done with this article for a while (you can see why if you check the archives). If you have any specific changes you want to make please either bring them up here or just go ahead and edit. Worse case you'll get reverted and then we can discuss. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(1) I think there was a clear consensus that the addition of Nazi Germany to the combatant list was not appropriate. Its a recent change that has been reverted, so I don't think it has any bearing on your argument. (2) Your statement that "The political objectives section starts out by describing the Yishuv "fearing a repeat of the Holocaust" and simply looking to survive without making mention of any other objectives" is simply false - this section, which cites a highly-respected source, lists three additional war aims beyond survival. (3) The text appears to imply that the quote "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy" is from a statement by Husseyni. Searching for the quote in Google Books, the earlier reference that I found was to a 1970 book by Jon Kimche, who was known as a critic of Israel. There are some later uses of the quote by dubious sources. I think that the quote does need to be tracked down and verified. The general point that Husseyni sided with the Nazis during the war is frequently made in secondary sources about the period and it was crucially important in 1948. I am sure that we could do a better job of presenting this. (4) I'm not opposed to adding some context to the statement that the Foreign Office thought that the Jews were communists. This is, however, a complex and nuanced subject - plenty of leading Britons in 1948 would have considered themselves socialists and a great many leftists in the West had not yet broken with Stalin. (5) I agree that a reference is needed for the section on Operation Shoter. The article Operation Shoter has a discussion of the allegations of massacres that appears to be well sourced. I will have to read through some of your other points carefully. I'm not convinced that the article is making the implicit point that you believe it is making - for instance the article makes it quite clear that King Hussein was willing to make a deal with the Yishuv to avert war and that the motivation of several Arab leaders was not hatred of Jews but a desire to expand their own territory and influence. GabrielF (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Point 1 is a nice sentiment, but that edit is symptomatic of the broader issue with this article. The second point is not really addressing what I said. It does mention other goals, but that is what it starts with so what I said was not false. Also, the parts after that are not any more respectful of NPOV. WP:V does not circumvent other policies. Can you honestly say that it is universally agreed by all major historians that the Yishuv were just looking to establish "defensible borders" and "reduce the size" of an Arab fifth column? Points three and four are welcome responses, though on the fourth point I think you are overlooking the recurring theme of antisemitism in this article. In fact, that is the main problem with your response. You do not see the obvious picture being painted. I have read enough on the conflict over the years and had enough debates about it to recognize that many of these points I am mentioning are very common claims amongst those who try to paint Israel's opponents or non-advocates as antisemitic or blind to antisemitism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. 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.
  2. Racheline Barda. The modern Exodus of the Jews of Egypt. "The 1948 War triggered their first exodus, forced or otherwise. In fact, the Jewish Agency records showed that 20,000 Jews, a sizeable 25% of the total Jewish population of about 75,000 to 85,000 , left between 1949-1950 of whom 14,299 settled in Israel."
Categories: