Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

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"[sic] 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 Wikipedia 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..." [1]

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[2] .. (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[3] .. (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[4]) 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 Wikipedia 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 [5]. 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)

[6]"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 Wikipedia ... 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)

The Green Line was not the result of the Armistice Agreements

Currently reads: "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established armistice lines, known as the Green Line, between Israeli forces and the forces in the Jordanian-held West Bank"

A) The Green Line (Moshe Dayan / Abdullah al-Tal map) was the result of a Cease Fire Agreement 30 November 1948. B) The Green Line did not depict all the Armistice Demarcation Lines set by the FOUR Armistice Agreements ... talknic (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Found a good scholarly text that does derive the Green Line from the armistice agreements. [7]. Do you have a problem with it? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- A) The Green Line does not reflect the FOUR armistice Agreements. B) Your source says "the Green Line boundary which separated Israel from the West Bank" The Green Line was the Cease Fire line of Nov 1948. It was taken as the basis for the 1949 Armistice Agreement, which set Armistice Demarcation Lines separating Israeli forces and Jordanian forces. Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change boundaries/borders/frontiers. (Legal annexation does. Israel has never legally annexed any territory)

The Jordan/Israel Armistice Agreement says this "the Armistice Demarcation Lines shall correspond to the lines defined in the 30 November 1948 Cease-Fire Agreement"

It says "defined in the 30 November 1948 Cease-Fire Agreement" three times

It says "Armistice Demarcation Line/s" twenty three times

It says "boundary" only once. Here "9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." 'without prejudice to' means it changes nothing.

Your source does not accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements, the Armistice Demarcation Lines or the Green Line. It's scholarly fantasy ... talknic (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Green line does indeed reflect the four armistice agreements. That it was based on an earlier case fire agreement doesn't change what it means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - "The Green line does indeed reflect the four armistice agreements" For a start, it doesn't reflect the Egypt /Israel Armistice Agreement "This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier" ... talknic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Other than you, talknic, disagreeing, is there any argument against this source by David Newman (political geographer) as RS?

About to use consensus to publish reliably sourced mis-information? Put to the RS test, it fails dismally in that it doesn't accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements .. Egypt - "This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier." ... Lebanon - "The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine" ... talknic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Folks, "green line" is not a formal name for anything. It is just an informal popular name. So arguing what it really means seems to be pointless. The only question is what its former and current popular meanings were/are. My impression is that now, today, it is used for the armistice line with a bit of a cheat around the Latrun salient. Some use it for all the armistice lines, some for just the Israeli-Jordan armistice line. I suggest that "known as the Green Line" should become "popularly known as the Green Line". Zero^talk 23:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Zero -- "popularly known as the Green Line" With an explanation of how it was originally defined in the 30 November 1948 Cease-Fire Agreement ... talknic (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The notion of Wikipedia is to inform readers. The notion of not fully informing them, leaving ambiguous statements, is quite bizarre ... talknic (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

my recent edit

I made the following changes to the article:

• In the template on the right, I changed the wording to "former Mandate Palestine". I believe that was the term most editors supported in a previous discussion we had.
• In the same template, I removed the text from the "casus" part. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be. Causes? Casus belli? In either case the description there wasn't correct so I removed it. Suggestions welcome.
• In the same template, in the "territory" part, I restored the wikilinks to the articles about Jordanian and Egyptian occupation and removed all the "protected" stuff which I don't think is supported by any sources. I incorporated with a small change talknic's text regarding the Partition Plan areas.
• I restored the wikilink from Green Line to Green Line (Israel) which I think is appropriate and I have to wonder if talknic even read the article before he reverted to the dab page link. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok for me. Noisetier (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - Your reasons for deciding to revert with changes is completely unsourced and so sudden (again only on my edit). I provided a VERIFIABLE, RS, Secondary Source in the edit summary, per WP:policy and; there was a pre-existing Source in the 'casus' section

"former Mandate Palestine". I believe that was the term most editors supported in a previous discussion we had."A) Alas no. Different section and different words actually. Same problem. The article is about the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, 15th May 1948. It begins by telling readers the Mandate expired on the 14th May 1948. Now the article is talking about the 'former Mandate Palestine' and not what existed in it's place. Israel and a non self governed territory called Palestine. Even the Israeli Government says Palestine B) Did most readers have a Secondary Source that accurately conveyed the meaning of the UNSC resolutions? In fact, they didn't, not a single one and; the term most editors supported isn't in the source they chose by consensus, to keep [8]. Any sources you might now care to provide referencing the UNSC resolutions and/or ceasefire agreements and/or armistice agreements must accurately reflect them and no UNSC Resolution or ceasefire agreement or armistice agreement on the matter says "former Mandate Palestine" maybe because it would have been quite imprecise. The "former Mandate Palestine" could include Transjordan.

"Causes? Casus belli? In either case the description there wasn't correct so I removed it" I actually corrected it to reflect the pre-existibg source. You didn't object when it was blatantly wrong according to the pre existing source. Only suddenly when I edited to correct it.

"I restored the wikilinks to the articles about Jordanian and Egyptian occupation and removed all the "protected" stuff which I don't think is supported by any sources" In respect to the Arab States, 'protected' was supported by the reference of the casus section you so suddenly and deftly removed. If Israel didn't protect the territory allotted by the Partition Plan, who did? and; Israel did occupy some 50% of the territory allotted for an Arab State. [9] ... [10] ... [11]

"I restored the wikilink from Green Line to Green Line (Israel) which I think is appropriate" What you think must be supportable.

"and I have to wonder if talknic even read the article before he reverted to the dab page link." Save your personal comments for an appropriate place, not in Wikipedia ... talknic (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you don't like the former mandate wording but it was supported by several editors and only you objected, so consensus didn't go your way.

I didn't notice the casus thing before you changed it. Like I said, I'm not sure what it means and anyway the text doesn't show up in the article, it's just in the template.

The ref that was in the casus thing was 1. a primary source and 2. didn't say anyone protected anything, it was a letter by one side of the conflict with what they say their intentions were. So even if we used it, it would need to be attributed, not stated in the encyclopedia's neutral voice.

Did you actually read the Green Line (Israel) article? Could you explain why you think it's less appropriate than a link to a disambiguation page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "I know you don't like the former mandate wording " False.- :WP:policy requires secondary sources that accurately reflect the documents they refer to.

"it was supported by several editors" False. The discussion was on a different section, did not say "former Mandate Palestine". I just gave the link to the discussion. Consensus without any Secondary Sources what-so-ever. Consensus to retain a statement NOT supported by the source that was and still is in the article.

"I didn't notice the casus thing before you changed it. " NMMNG the list of your reverts within a few minutes of my making an edit on articles, far exceeds all the changes (apart from reverts) you have made on any of those articles since I started editing Wikipedia.

"I'm not sure what it means" So you removed it, without knowing what it meant or even bothering to research where it came from or why it might have been there, otherwise I have no doubt you would have removed any other instance you could find.

"and anyway the text doesn't show up in the article, it's just in the template." False. You seem not to have bothered to look even in this Article.

"The ref that was in the casus thing was 1. a primary source" you complained on my edit. Which seems to indicate you are waiting for me as you rarely edit yourself and have not picked up GLARING errors. You could have put a request for a better source on it on. You did not ask for a Secondary Source, you did a wholesale revert. Here [12] There are numerous others.

"and 2. didn't say anyone protected anything, it was a letter by one side of the conflict with what they say their intentions were. " Precisely, their intention was to protect and guess what, they DID. The Gaza strip and what was renamed the West Bank. Which is in fact, partial success.

"Did you actually read the Green Line (Israel) article?" Yes. My error on the disambiguation page. The Green Line is not only applicable to Israel. The article title Green Line (Israel) in itself is NPOV ... talknic (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please report me for hounding you already? Reading your silly accusation in every post you make is not only quite boring, it makes the chore of reading your long rambling diatribes all the more unpleasant.

Former British Mandate - wording was supported by several other editors in another discussion. You're the only one who objected. It's called consensus.

Casus - still not sure what it means. You have not provided any explanation, not to mention a plausible one. How can we know if the text fits if nobody knows what it's supposed to be describing?

Protected - I don't think you understand how to use the encyclopedia's neutral voice properly.

Green Line - your edit summary and reply above leads me to believe you didn't read the article that was linked to before you reverted it. You saw the word "Israel" there and reverted because of that.

Did I cover everything? I think I did. Since I'm not going to repeat myself for your amusement, and another editor supported the changes I made, I will not be responding further unless an editor other than you raises concerns. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

NMMG - " your long rambling diatribes " Detailed and exacting, addressing the issue, points raise, questions asked. Unlike your personal comment

"Former British Mandate wording was supported by several other editors in another discussion." Yes. "It's called consensus"..without any supporting source, which is a rather bizarre interpretation of WP:Policy and; it was for another Article, not this one and; the 'former British Mandate' was the set of instructions under which Palestine was administered. I doubt any war has taken place in a set of instructions. "another editor supported the changes I made, " One or thousands, consensus to use un-sourced material is hilarious.

"Casus - still not sure what it means" I didn't put it there you didn't complain until I made an edit. "How can we know if the text fits if nobody knows what it's supposed to be describing? Your presumption that your own seemingly (feigned) ignorance extends to all other readers is no reason. Removing something because you didn't know what it means='I don't like it' "You have not provided any explanation, not to mention a plausible one" I did in fact[13]. The list of false accusations grows ever longer.

"Protected - I don't think you understand how to use the encyclopedia's neutral voice properly" Uh? The Arab League stated "10. Now that the British mandate over Palestine has come to an end, without there being a legitimate constitutional authority in the country, which would safeguard the maintenance of security and respect for law and which would protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants, the Governments of the Arab States declare the following:" Where in the described the steps they intended to take to protect the lives and properties of the inhabitants. They did protect the lives and properties of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

"You saw the word "Israel" there and reverted because of that" Another false accusation. I didn't see the names of any of the other parties. Israel didn't sign the cease fire or Armistice Agreements with itself. The title of the article is NPOV

"Did I cover everything? I think I did" No matter that: none of it is supported by any Secondary Sources; there are false accusations; you think consensus supported by no Secondary Sources to include unsourced highly contentious information is somehow legitimate ... talknic (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"former Mandate Palestine" unless explained, could lead readers to believe it includes Transjordan .. added WP:CN Arab failure addedWP:CN the the Arab States achieved 50% of their stated aim, protecting the lives and property of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on behalf of the Palestinians. The statement 'failure' is contradicted by the next entry in Territorial Changes ... talknic (talk) 17:10, 17 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:"[14]. 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 [15] 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)

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[16] 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 [17]. 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 [18] ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed statement:s. Reasons - NPOV / WEIGHT & Consensus in violation of Wikipedia 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)