Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

WP:VERIFY violations in the Lede supported by consensus?

The issue was an un-sourced statement, contrary to WP:VERIFY. An impeccable secondary source was inserted The War of Independence (1947-49) by Netanel Lorch, Ph. D., Lt.Col.(Res), Ambassador and former Secretary-General of the Knesset, founder of the IDF Historical Division.

Netanel Lorch was chosen to be published on the Israeli Government website by the majority elected Government of the Israeli people, representing an overwhelming majority POV. There are some 718 book results"Netanel+Lorch"+"Israel's+War+of+Independence%2C+1947-1949" for Netanel Lorch's Israel's War of Independence, 1947-1949.

The dialogue was subsequently re-shuffled and as a matter of course and according to NMMNG's own criteria, reformatted appropriately. The reasons were clearly stated [1]

NMMNG's subsequent reversion states "backdoor unbolding after your bolding attempt failed. restoring long standing consensus version" [2].

A) "backdoor"? [3] ... back-door? [4]

B) Un-sourced material is in direct violation of WP:VERIFY no matter how long it stood by consensus.

C) The appropriate step in reverting should have been to challenge the source or to have brought it to Talk. Neither was done. Subsequently it has been re-reverted and brought here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• You have violated 1RR (again). Self revert or you will be reported (again) and will probably be topic banned (again, only this time for longer).
• There is an ongoing discussion about a merge and what names historians use for the war in general and for each part of it. You are participating in that discussion. Making a revert while discussion is ongoing to also an offense that may result in a topic ban.
• Of all the historians that have been brought up in the discussion, this is the only one that divides the war into three phases. See WP:FRINGE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period).

• My first change was an edit per WP:VERIFY, not a revert. Your subsequent revert to un-sourced material is in violation of WP:VERIFY
• "Making a revert while discussion is ongoing to also an offense that may result in a topic ban." A) I edited it did not change any information. You reverted. You are also involved in that discussion. I removed your revert "while discussion is ongoing" ... BTW there were two prior edits to my edit. Both addded/changed information, you didn't object to it, why not?. I changed no information.
• "Of all the historians .. etc..etc" The statement was un-sourced. The basis of my edit was per WP:VERIFY and subsequent adjustment of order and format. Not a revert. The content/information remains exactly the same. I could have just removed the un-sourced statement. Instead I gave an explanation for the edit AND brought my reversion here, based on WP:VERIFY
• I sincerely doubt the the source I gave qualifies as a fringe theory ... talknic (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to try to explain policy to you since you never listen, but think back to the previous two times I told you that you were reverting and you argued you weren't. One got you notified of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and the other got you blocked for 31 hours and topic banned for 3 months. Consider your past experience with this type of thing and think carefully about your next step. The next time you're reported you will probably be blocked for 6 months as sanctions usually escalate. I am not going to discuss this further here with you. If you don't self-revert you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- 1RR(one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period)

"the previous two times.." are not this time ... "..you argued you weren't." It was in fact only once and the particular page did not carry the IRR warning. You added it after, remember? [5] ... talknic (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to discuss whether this is "an impeccable secondary source". I don't think it can really be called that. It's an unsourced overview of several wars. The author is said to have a PhD and has written books that would seem to be about the history of the war, but we don't know what field the PhD is in and we don't know what the status of the books are, except that they are quite old, and that the author was a participant in some of the events. It might count as "a self-published expert source". It would be likely to be biased (pro-Israel) but that's a minor issue. It's well written and could perhaps be a guide for what we can include in our articles, but if we did use it as a guide in that way we would have a lot of reshaping to do. It divides the 1947-1949 war into four phases rather than two as in our current article structure. I would be interested in reading any other comments about whether this is an appropriate source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- Published on the Israeli Govt Web site, is not self published.

"we don't know what field the PhD is in" A PhD is not his only qualifier. Also Lt.Col.(Res), Ambassador and former Secretary-General of the Knesset, is the founder of the IDF Historical Division, author of the Edge of the Sword (Putnam's 1961, reprinted in Military History Classics, Easton Press 1991), One Long War (Keter 1976), Shield of Zion (Howell Press 1992), and Major Knesset Debates (UPA and JCPA 1993).

Netanel Lorch has already been used as a reference for his books that "seem to be about the history of the war" [6] ... [7] ... [8]... [9] ... [10] ... talknic (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a history article so we source mainly to academic historians. The Israeli government is not an academic publisher. Official government documents are reliable for all sorts of things but not usually for history when it relates to an ethnic or national conflict. Yes, I saw all the credentials you have listed and they are impressive in their own way, but are they relevant here? Cited elsewhere in WP is neither here nor there. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "academic historians" -- Netanel Lorch is the founder of the IDF Historical Division and; [11]

"Cited elsewhere in WP is neither here nor there" Odd, "cited elsewhere in WP" has been used numerous times in debates I've been involved in as a reason FOR inclusion ... talknic (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting question I now see. Historiography section of 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle has many ramifications for sourcing in this article. If we go along with what is written there (and we might not, it is only WP after all, and may be OS), we must regard Lorch's work as superseded by Morris. Ah, but this is a later text by Lorch. Yes, but then it is only a short unreferenced thing on a government website. Sorry, it is clear from WP:V and WP:OTHERSTUFF that cited elsewhere in WP is neither here nor there. Used in numerous times in debates is also neither here nor there. Would be really good to have comments from others, or we could take to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
I confirm that the history department of the IDF is not a wp:rs source -generally speaking- BUT for the information that is talked about here (number of phases) it is of course reliable. The question is in fact not to know if there is an historian who divide this into 4 phases but what the majority does...

Once for all, and please, don't ask sources for this so obvious it is for who knows the story but check, eg, in Gelber's book in reading this fully :

• the Palestine war is usually divided into 2 phases : before and after 15 May
• the Arab-Israeli war is often divided into 3 phases : 15/5 to 10 june - truce - 10 days campain - truce - Remaining operations - armistice (we get the 4 phases discussed here above) but there are other ways to structure this : Morris divide this into about 10 phases because Morris always go deep into details...
• the war of independence is not the Arab-Israeli War, the war of independence is the 1948 Palestine War
• al-Naqba is not the Arab-Israeli War, al-Naqba is the 1948 Palestine War.

91.180.207.119 (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The four phases in the document talknic wants to insert are not as you mentioned above. It's 29/11/47-1/4/48, 1/4/48-15/5/48, 15/5/48-19/7/48, 19/7/48-10/7/49. I have never seen another historian divide the war in such a way, and I've read quite a few books on the subject (rather than dig stuff up from google and pretend I know what the book is talking about). This is pretty fringe and does not belong in the lead. Not to mention, again, that since there's ongoing discussion about what this group of articles should look like, and how they should be called, trying to de-bold Israel War of Independence (which is a redirect to this article) after not being able to get something else bolded is just tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- "I've read quite a few books on the subject (rather than ... etc .. etc ..)" Irrelevant, cannot be proven here and; please stop your personal affronts.

"This is pretty fringe and does not belong in the lead". Per WP:VERIFY and your own demands, un-sourced information should not be in Wikipedia at all. The statement could have been removed. Instead I provided a verifiable source (albeit now contested), re-shuffled & reformatted, without altering any actual information.

Itsmejudith contested the source (appropriate), you reverted to an un-sourced (by consensus what's more) statement as did Space City USA (both inappropriate). I note no objection on your part to the edit which did change the information[12], while the discussion you referred to continued (for which you've failed to provide the alleged WP:POLICY). One might conclude you're WP:HOUNDING. ... talknic (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did contest (and fix) a part of the edit you claim I didn't object to. The rest was copyediting that didn't change the meaning of what the article said.

You on the other hand substantially changed the meaning of the lead (with implications on redirects that point to this article) while there is an ongoing discussion relevant exactly to the part you changed (very inappropriate). You did it because you weren't able to convince anyone with your arguments to bold another part of the lead (very inappropriate). Changing back to the status quo while discussion is ongoing is appropriate (see WP:BRD). You should consider yourself lucky someone reverted you since it's obvious your ego wouldn't allow you to self-revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - 'fixed', but did not revert something which added information to the page. 'fixed' changed the added information BTW. Nor did you object to this information being added [13] which adds information on the consequences of the war only from the Jewish POV, yet there is no information on the consequences of the war on Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. WP:NPOV.

The record shows my addition of a source did not 'substantially' change any information on the page, in fact it complied with WP:VERIFY albeit against a consensus in contravention of WP:VERIFY. "You did it because.." .. it was not sourced and is still not sourced and importantly, it is not sourced oddly enough, by consensus. "..consider yourself lucky .." As status quo was and still is in contravention of WP:VERIFY, you had no actual basis to report me. "..it's obvious .." I gave the reasons for A) my edit, B) undoing YOUR revert, then initiating this discussion. I've complied with WP:BRD with the one exception as previously mentioned.

Your constant hounding is on the record as is that of AnonMoos, despite numerous requests for it to cease. It has resulted in copious amount of un-necessary dialogue and clutter on issues I've raised. Speaking of which;

Please address the issue, which is at this stage either a suitable source or even deletion of the statement altogether ... talknic (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That you claim I'm hounding you on a page I was editing before you even joined wikipedia is just more of the same of your usual, let's call it "unique", interpretation of how things work around here. Feel free to go ahead and report me if you think you have a case though.

Your interpretation of BRD is just more of the same. Who could have guessed you'd think the R in BRD would be your last revert? It's not like what this basically means is that if you change something and people object you should discuss it without continuing to revert after an objection.

What this group of articles should be called, and by extension which alternative names should be used for each article, which implies what should be bolded in the lead is currently under discussion. You know this since you are participating in that discussion. In fact, just a few days ago you were arguing something else should be bolded like the names you de-bolded now. When that failed you moved on to de-bolding. This is not good faith editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - The record shows other edits have been carried out on the Lede as the merge discussion has been in progress, including by yourself. The issue is un-sourced information by consensus. Please address it. (Providing edit summaries would be helpful BTW)... talknic (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You are either unwilling or incapable of understanding what I'm telling you. I'm done here. I have warned you about making edits to something that's under discussion. I will report you without further notice if you do it again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- You didn't warn the other editor and even made your own edit. The issue is: WP:VERIFY violations in the Lede supported by consensus. Please address it ... talknic (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted to un-sourced by consensus version. Source provided by Jaakobou gave the date for the War of Independence from Nov 19th 1947 ... talknic (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow Jaakobou's link, but in principle there's no reason why an Israeli government website couldn't be a reliable source for what the war is called in Israel. Also, Wikipedia policies tend to somewhat discourage fact-tagging in the opening paragraph of an article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "I didn't follow Jaakobou's link" What a pity... "in principle there's no reason why an Israeli government website" Best you click on the link he provided [14]. Meanwhile, I already used the Israeli Govt Website [15]. It was reverted by NMMNG. Argued against by Itsmejudith. Consensus has it that it should be un-sourced, contrary to WP:VERIFY. However, that's not the reason I reverted Jaakobou's contribution ... talknic (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTED: Revert and un-necessary 'VANDAL' slur by user (with rollback privileges), to un-attributed Ynet source giving dates from Nov 1947 and; adding another an-attributed source [16] (Addressed here [17] )... talknic (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the un-attributed Ynet entry, giving the date as of Nov 1947 and un-attributed Kibbutz article being retained by consensus? ... talknic (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We need good sources for everything, but we are allowed to have unreferenced sources in the lede so long as they summarise material that is well sourced in the body of the article. Does that answer your question? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith -- "Does that answer your question?" Yes. It certainly does. WP:LEDE "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources

"We need good sources for everything," Er yes.... What on earth do you think I've been saying about the current sources? ... talknic (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious tag - Saudi Arabia

There have been two dubious tags on the following sentence since 2008:

"Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800 men[76]–1,200[77][dubious – discuss] to fight with Egyptian and Jordanian forces.[78][dubious – discuss]"

I'd like to remove these tags since the presence of Saudi troops is well documented. Morris, 2008 (p. 205) cites the following:

"British embassy, Jedda, to Bernard Burrows, 18 August 1948, PRO FO 371-68788 speaks of 1,200 "regular" Saudi troops as well as irregulars"

Morris also mentions "some Saudi, Sudanese and local irregular companies" serving with the Egyptian expeditionary force's Fourth Brigade on page 322 and says "Egyptians and their Saudi auxiliaries had fought bravely..." at Huleikat on 19-20 October on page 326. GabrielF (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the dubious tags. I also changed the text to read that Saudi forces served with Egyptian rather than Egyptian and Jordanian troops since there's no mention of Saudis serving with the Jordanians in Morris. GabrielF (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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..." [18]

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[19] .. (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[20] .. (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[21]) 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 [22]. 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)

[23]"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 of 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)

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. [24]. 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)