Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Talknic (talk | contribs)
1,730 edits
Line 671: Line 671:


Reverted No More Mr Nice Guy's added source. The consensus he demanded was not reached. This was the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has added a source without the consensus he demands [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 11:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Reverted No More Mr Nice Guy's added source. The consensus he demanded was not reached. This was the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has added a source without the consensus he demands [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 11:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
:1. You have violated [[WP:1RR]]. Self revert or you will be reported.
:2. You have just reverted by claiming "no consensus" without adding any substantial challenges to the source I provided. After you brought up [[WP:DRNC]] in another discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=prev&oldid=421493707] the only conclusion that can be drawn from your behavior is that you are seeking conflict. You really are trying to get yourself banned, eh? [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 12:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


== Yishuv forces - Irgun ==
== Yishuv forces - Irgun ==

Revision as of 12:44, 1 April 2011

Template:WikiProject Echo

False Citation??

footnote 101, quoting "this will be a war of extermination..." cites historians Benny Morris and Sachar. I checked these books for the quote using google book search and could not find it mentioned. Elsewhere I saw NY Times cited for this quote, and I searched their archives without luck. I am loath to edit until I physically peruse these sources, but I may never get around to it. So if I have yet to do so, and you have the time or sources at your disposal, please investigate. - Levi Keller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.177.251 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous allegations and quotes made by Zionists which are totally unsupported, if not outright false. I can't tell you whether this is another one, but it's entirely possible. Benny Morris is an extremely right-wing Zionist, his works are much used for (and presumably correct) when documenting massacres and so forth committed by Israel, he should not be trusted on anything that reflects on anti-Israeli forces. Cumbria4 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, this is only one of many, many disturbing elements or thoroughly POV editing in this article, and it needs tagging as POV. Cumbria4 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of Morris' "Righteous Victims" can be viewed by anyone with an Amazon account. The quote, now at footnote 107, does indeed appear in that version of the book, on page 217. It is also referenced, if anyone wishes to carry on from there. Morris, furthermore, is a highly respected and highly quoted historian and a leading authority on the subject on the 1948 war. The suggestion that he should be employed only when his subject matter is approved by one particular POV is, at best, slightly amusing. Poliocretes (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you provided the URL we'd be able to check. On the subject of Benny Morris, he has said he supports ethnic cleansing, anything he claims in it's favour should not be taken at face-value. Cumbria4 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps I took it for granted that people would understand what I mean. Go to Amazon.com and search for the book. If you're a registered user, the site will allow you to go through the contents. Poliocretes (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you may think about Benny Morris, Poliocretes is right. The answer to Levi's original question is a resounding "no". The Citation is not false. I found the quote on page 219, not 217, but it's definitely there. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba

I noticed that the Arabs calling this war al-Nakba is unsourced in the article (and appears only in the lead). Anyone got a source handy? I intend to use this source in the Nakba article as well. If A=B then B=A. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a source? Should I tag with cn or remove the statement completely? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove this statement completely. Noisetier (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why, when it's common knowledge among tens of millions of people? AnonMoos (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmad H. Sa'di and Lila Abu-Lughod (eds) Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the claims of memory Columbia University Press 2007. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What timeframe do they use for the term? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a collection of essays so may vary. Introduction, p.9 "such a short period - a matter of months". Implying, a name for the 1948 war. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... Because Nakba more refer to the Civil War period because the Palestinian was defeated after operation Nachshon mainly, before the intervention of the Arab armies even if the "catastrophe" went on after. So Nakba fits more the 1948 Palestine War period. Noisetier (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think NMMNG has a point, the Nakba seems to usually refer to the expulsion of the Palestinians and not the coinciding war although it seems a little murky. Is this what all Arabs call it or should it just say Palestinians? Sol (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to doubt it -- the mindset of Arabs in 1948 was such that they regarded the existence of Israel as being a "catastrophe" all by itself, and "Nakba day" seems to be chiefly observed by protests against the existence of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a bit tricky. Various sources use Nakba as referring to the Palestinian exodus alongside the war and the creation of Israel (or even just the time period) or combinations thereof. I'm not digging up anything discussing the Nakba as a reference to the war by itself. Perhaps one of our Arabic speakers could dig something up. Sol (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree, which is why I originally asked this question. I haven't changed anything in either article yet, but my understanding is that "nakba" is not a reference specifically to the war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the term used this way, so I did some digging through the edit history, and I think I solved the mystery. It was like a game of telephone, where each successive edit, lost information, and we ended up with original research.

August 2007:

For Israelis, the war marks the successful establishment of the Israeli state, but for Palestinian Arabs, it signifies the beginning of the events referred to as "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe"), a term used to describe the fleeing or expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents from the newly created state of Israel…

October 2007:

For Israelis, the war marks the successful re-establishment of the Israeli state, but Palestinian Arabs call it "al Nakba" (Arabic: النكبة, "the Catastrophe"), a term describing the expulsion and flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents from Israel.

2010

"The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known by Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: ‫מלחמת העצמאות‬‎, Milhemet HaAtzma'ut) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: ‫מלחמת השחרור‬‎, Milhemet HaShihrur) and by the Arabs as the Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba),

I corrected the lead, but kept a mention of Nakba in it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still wonky and quite interesting to see the Palestinian Arabs being s l o w l y written out. Quite creepy. Especially in an article on a war fought in Palestine, over Palestine and by the Arab States on the behalf of "the people of Palestine".
There are three issues
1) The opening paragraph says "... wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict"
The Palestinians are Arab neighbours to Israel in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict. Al-Nakba was not visited upon or commemorated by Israel's neighbouring Arab States. It is commemorated by Israeli Palestinian Arabs and 'neighbouring' Palestinian Arabs, I suggest we write the Palestinians back in :-)
"Much of what the Palestinians refer to as the Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) occurred amidst this war."
2) In the same paragraph we have "The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements." It should be a separate paragraph. Which brings us to a further issue effecting the whole opening
3) The Armistice agreements were only between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states, not the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. The opening paragraph says "... wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict" The written out Palestinians are Arab neighbours, who have never had an armistice with Israel.
In order to reconcile the opening line with the closing line I suggest
"The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." talknic (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no valid objections or further comments, I suggest the change be made talknic (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version works better. First of all not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe. Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon? Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "I think the current version works better." The opening line does not reconcile with the closing line, which does not mention the Palestinian Arabs as neighbouring the State of Israel.
"..not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe" Irrelevant to the omission of the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs.
"Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?" '..the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours' See the opening line, as it stands, to which you have no objection.
"Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt" Indeed, it would be incorrect to say, especially as that is not what was suggested.
If there are no valid, unbiased, objections or further comments, I suggest the following change be made in order to reconcile the closing line with the opening line : "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." talknic (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The State of Israel and its Arab neighbors" obviously refers to neighboring Arab states.
It is quite relevant who calls it the "Catastrophe".
The line about military control by Israel, Jordan and Egypt is still incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "obviously refers to neighboring Arab states" It says quite clearly "between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours". It does not say "between the State of Israel and its neighboring Arab states". Obviously if it said 'State' on the one part, it would have said 'states' on the second part. The PALESTINIAN Arabs are neighbours to the State of Israel, they live NEXT TO IT!!! Folk who live next to each other are (.........)? (try to fill in the blank.)
"It is quite relevant who calls it the "Catastrophe"." It doesn't change the people next door, aka NEIGHBORING Palestinian Arabs.
"The line about military control by Israel, Jordan and Egypt is still incorrect" Your opinion is not a valid, verifiable, secondary source. According to you, you require a secondary source and you need a second secondary source showing the relevance of your first secondary source. talknic (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a secondary source to show that something you made up is incorrect. The onus is on you to show why the material you want to include belongs in the article. You are again showing you are not understanding policy and guidelines. As a new editor with all of 130 edits (around 60 of which are on this talk page), it would behoove you to stop being so aggressive with something you have a pretty limited understanding of and try to listen a bit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a secondary source to show that something you made up is incorrect." The onus is on you to show why the material you want to include belongs in the article. You are again showing you are not understanding policy and guidelines. As a new editor with all of 130 edits (around 60 of which are on this talk page), it would behoove you to stop being so aggressive with something you have a pretty limited understanding of and try to listen a bit. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy
No More Mr Nice Guy -- You have shown NO VALID reason why is is incorrect. According to your often voiced opinion, your opinion alone is worth no thing. And I don't need a second secondary source to show why the first secondary source is relevant. It is NOT a condition in the editorial POLICIES.
"The onus is on you to show why the material you want to include belongs in the article." I gave it already.
What is your objection to it? Would it be that Palestinian Arabs living next Israel are OBVIOUSLY neighbors? Most if not all people living next door are neighbours. Perhaps you mean occupation. Which you have alleged I made up .. how un-becoming. To wit..
1) Jordan Handbook of International Law By Anthony Aust Page 27. "On the basis of Security Council Resolution 62 (19-18) of 16 November 19-18, general armistice agreements were concluded between Israel and the neighbouring States in 1949. Articles V and VI of the Agreement between Israel and Jordan fixed the armistice demarcation line (called colloquially the "Green Line' because of the colour used for it on maps) separating Israel and the territory of West Bank of the Jordan river, which was at that time occupied by Jordan."
2) Egypt Israel Yearbook on Human Rights: 1993, Volume 23; Volume 1993 By Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory Page 41. "Egypt never claimed sovereignty over the Gaza strip during it's military occupation over the area from 1948-1967"
3) Israel The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics By Joseph Heller Page 39 "Shertok argued that American realism would not take seriously the so-called imminent danger of Israel's occupation of Nablus, Jenin, the Galilee, and perhaps Amman: "Either they would have to approve these occupations, thus embroiling themselves very deeply with the Arab world, or they would have to demand that we give up these conquests, thus fomenting an unnecessary quarrel with the Jewish world." Israeli policy makers, then, did not believe that American policy, perceived to be neutralized by the conflicting approaches of the White House and the State Department, could play a decisive role in the Arab-Israeli war."
If there are no VALID, unbiased, supported objections or further comments, I suggest the following change be made in order to reconcile the closing line with the opening line : "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel (1) , Jordan(2) and Egypt(3)." talknic (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources talk about "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs", they talk about geographic areas. Both the one about Jordan and the one about Israel do not use the term "military control" or "military occupation". The one about Israel is not only about a discussion that happened before the armistice agreements were signed, it is also talking about a theoretical possibility. Unless Israel captured Amman or Nablus and all the books about the war neglected to mention it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Having no interest in reconciling the first part of a section with the last, seems a strange way of improving the section in an article?
If there are no further VALID, unbiased, supported objections or further comments from parties obviously not interested in improving the article by their absence from the discussion and finding none of the references already listed as invalid, based on No More Mr Nice Guys critiques (people living next to each other are not neighbours unless it can be shown by a verifiable secondary source), I suggest the following change be made in order to simply reconcile the opening line of the section with the closing line section. To wit:
"The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs (1) under the occupation of Jordan(2). Egypt (from 1948-1967 - 3) and leaving Israel occupying territories occupied(4) page 142 in the lead up to the war and over which Shertok later expressed concerns(5) page 39 prior to the armistice agreements which eventually saw Israel as an occupying power(6) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 18:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you changed it from "military control" (your term) to "occupation" (the term used by your sources). The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people.
Can you provide the full paragraph from your "neighboring Palestinians" source? It doesn't look like its talking about the 1949 armistice agreements.
Your source for Israel occupying "the neighboring Palestinians" is just a search result for "Israel occupation 1949". You need a source that explicitly says that Israel occupied a group of people (we can discuss the exact term separately) if that's what you want the article to say.
Shertok's concerns prior to the armistice agreements don't belong in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - Let's start with Shertok. I am completely aware that it is irrelevant to and un-necessary in the lead. It was YOUR suggestion that further sources were required.
To the rest ....As can be clearly seen in the preceding posts, based on your recommendations, consistent insistence and your interpretations of the guidelines, the numerous edits to a simple change has resulted in an overblown, completely inappropriate entry for the lead, which, if one were to continue to follow your instructions, would still not reconcile the opening sentence with the closing sentence and would still not have mentioned the THIRD MAJOR party.
//"The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." // The suggested change was only to the last sentence of the lead, in order that it reconcile with the first sentence and reflect a neutral POV that included all the major parties to the conflict without being an over blown, multi-linked, fully explained essay.
The analysis of Bob drobbs @ 08:33, 30 December 2010 shows us that the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs have been slowly and COMPLETELY written out of the lead, resulting in a major third party to the conflict not being mentioned at all in the lead, which is in contradiction to the guidelines.
As I first pointed out, the first line says "between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours". It does NOT say neighboring Arab States! The slowly written out Palestinian Arabs are A) NOT a minority and B) Normally a neighbour is a neighbour until such time as they are not living next to each other. Source - common sense, which is obviously not accepted on wikI/Pedia. Sans common sense, one should read the guidelines. I wonder, by demanding an editor have a secondary verifiable source for their own words, what are the consequences of misconstruing a guideline or demanding a non-existent guideline be observed, in order to prevent one of the THREE major parties being represented in the lead of an article?
Furthermore, you have
A) misrepresented what was written in the previous overblown (at your insistence), over-linked (at your insistence), suggestion. Where instead of improving the suggestion in good faith, it has been rendered completely in-appropriate. To wit: "You need a source that explicitly says that Israel occupied a group of people"...what was actually written "and leaving Israel occupying territories".
B) misconstrued guidelines "Can you provide the full paragraph from your "neighboring Palestinians" source?" //Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.//
I wonder what are the consequences misconstruing numerous guidelines demanding a non-existent guideline be observed, of misrepresenting what has been written, in order to prevent the lead article representing one of the THREE major parties and the eventual status of their territories after the armistices had been signed?
If there are no further VALID, unbiased, supported objections, guidelines to be misconstrued, misrepresentations of the suggested post or further comments from parties obviously not interested in improving the article, (indicated by their absence from the discussion), I suggest the following change be made in order to simply reconcile the opening sentence with the subsequent closing sentence in order to truly represent the THREE major parties to the conflict and the status of their territories after the signing of the armistices. To wit:
"The war between Israel and the four Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Jordan and Egypt and Israel. talknic (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not suggest, say, or imply that you should put unnecessary and irrelevant things in the lead. I said you need to source whatever you want to put in. Which you do.
I'm not going to address your ramblings about me which include, but are not limited to, your misunderstanding of policy and guidelines, treating wikipedia as a message board/court room, and general belligerence. I will once again suggest you find an editor you trust or go to one of the boards and ask if the way you're interpreting policy is correct. I also suggest cutting down all the bold and caps if you don't want to come across as shouting.
The sources you have provided still do not support the change you want to make for the reasons stated previously. It would be easier for you if you stuck to ideas and terminology commonly used by experts rather than your personal theories. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy "I'm not going to address your ramblings..."
Best start house cleaning then ..
The THIRD MAJOR party to the conflict is not mentioned in the lead. Refusing to assist in forming a manner in which they are included, is quite simply NOT not good faith.
"I also suggest cutting down all the bold and caps if you don't want to come across as shouting." I suggest reading guidelines re their use.
I also suggest that the lead, ought mention the Palestinians in keeping with editorial policies. A) Israeli & State of Israel are linked. Neighbouring Arab states are not. Palestinians are not mentioned at all. To that end B) I call for contributions to shape the lead so that it does or being no valid objections thus far, accept the following change to the last sentence of the lead. "The war between Israel and the four Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the Palestinian Arabs under the occupation (or military control) of Jordan and Egypt and Israel. talknic (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which guidelines do you suggest I read re bold and caps? WP:SHOUT perhaps? You should really read all of WP:TPG#YES while you're there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases... policy has priority.....implies nothing about ease of access to sources...primary sources are permitted if used carefully
Calling again for all those comments and suggestions as to how to include the third major party to the conflict in the lead. A Question -- Is it good faith to not object, not comment, not try to better an article after numerous calls, then suddenly object in order to prevent the Palestinians being mentioned? Yet another suggestion for the change..
"The war between Israel and the four Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Jordan and Egypt (ref 1) Military control Page 46 and Israel Military control Page 25 (ref 2) (Full reference "After the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the activities of the Arab community were regarded primarily as concerns of Israel's security system, and most of the areas inhabited by the Arabs were placed under military control) talknic (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are fooling only yourself by quoting sentence fragments from the guidelines and policy. I noticed you tend to do that when quoting other editors as well. Considering everyone has access to the originals, what exactly do you think you're achieving? I will once again suggest you go and seek the advice of experienced editors. You can start at the helpdesk.
Your sources once again talk about geographic areas, not people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The sentence fragments are linked to the whole and have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the third major party to the conflict is not mentioned in the lead.
Now the objection being voiced is that although territory was under the Military control of Egypt, Jordan and Israel, the people living in the territory, for some strange reason, were not. I point you up the page to where the original objections were voiced to the original, almost identical suggestion for a change. I can't see the latest objection there.
Having called numerous times for input, valid suggestions/contributions/critical dialogue, so that the last sentence of the lead be improved to reconcile with the first sentence in the lead in order to re-include the written out Palestinian Arab neighbours, who were and still are, a major party to the conflict and neighbouring Arabs to Israel.
Noting no other valid objections have been forthcoming from other opposing contributors and that to now object would not be in good faith; and having reached a general consensus at this point in time with No More Mr Nice Guy that the territories were indeed under military occupation by Egypt, Jordan and Israel, I suggest the following change be made
"The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Jordan and Egypt (1) and Israel (2). talknic (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached no such consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Reminder "Glad to see you changed it from "military control" (your term) to "occupation" (the term used by your sources)."
Military authority is military control is military occupation is occupation. Current since 1907 Definition according to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
Voice some valid objections or contribute in good faith to how the opening sentence in the lead can be reconciled somehow to remove the bias of not mentioning Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs at all. talknic (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Military authority is not the same as occupation. For example, a military base is under military authority, but not under occupation. In our case, your source about Israel is not saying that Israeli Arabs were under occupation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy --- 1) All the non-Israeli territories under military occupation or control or authority by Israel, were a military base? An interesting personal theory to be sure. Alas not a valid objection to removing the bias displayed by not including a major party to the conflict in the lead to the article. --- 2) Glad you caught on at last ... Israeli Arabs (obviously people) were under military authority. But according to you, the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs were not people? Or they were not under military occupation or control or authority? Perhaps Israel held no neighbouring territories under Military control or Military occupation after the signing of the armistice agreements? I'm not sure what you're trying to imply.
Your demands result in a bloated over verbose, multi linked, essay, contrary to the guidelines for the lead of an article, which at present does not name a particular, specific, major party to the conflict, Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours.It's been an interesting discussion watching the goal posts move. However..
My justification for making the change is to remove the bias shown by not including a mention of a major party to the conflict, Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours. The Bob drobbs analysis shows in fact, they were written out. The State of Israel is named, the other states signing the armistice agreements, Jordan and Egypt are named. The people most effected by the signing of the armistice agreements and a major party to the conflict, the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs are not. I am not required to justify the call for making the change any further.
Either accept my original suggestion or contribute in good faith to how an unbiased lead can be formulated. My suggested change to remove the bias against the Palestinian Arab neighbours reads thus "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." Please contribute thx talknic (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that any territories were a military base. I'm having trouble deciding if you really don't understand what people are saying to you or you're just playing silly games.
My "demands" are that you adhere to policy and guidelines, particularly that you supply reliable secondary sources for the things you want to put in the article. You are obviously going to find that to be difficult when you're trying to include terms you make up and theories that are not supported by scholarship. While the Palestinians were a party to the conflict, they were not a party to the armistice agreements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The dialogue from the outset of our discussion shows you changing your demands each time one has been met. That is not a show of good faith.
"particularly that you supply reliable secondary sources..." It is not a requirement in the lead of an article to source everything in minute detail. In fact we're asked not to. Interpreting the guidelines in order that it becomes so cluttered as to not comply with the guidelines is not a show of good faith.
"You are obviously going to find that to be difficult when you're trying to include terms you make up" The prior dialogue shows that to be a false accusation, which is not a show of good faith.
"..the Palestinians were a party to the conflict, they were not a party to the armistice agreements" Exactly as I said earlier. Yet the most effected by the Armistice Agreements, a major party to the conflict and one of Israel's Arab neighbours, yet they are not named. Either give a valid reason they should not be named or assist in including them in the lead to the article.
My suggestion stands all the issues it contains are addressed in the bulk of the article. "The war between Israel and the neigbouring Arab States concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." Please contribute thx talknic (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the way you've been conducting yourself, I have serious doubts you understand what good faith means.
If you come up with any new sources, I'll have a look at them. Otherwise my objection is noted above and I'm done wasting my time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noting No More Mr Nice Guy's refusal to contribute to how the omission of Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours from the Lead of the Article might be addressed within the policy for the lead of an article. talknic (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems inaccurate

"Abdullah kept his promise not to attack the Jewish state, and the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem and those parts of the designated Arab state that Jewish forces invaded." I say not. After all, he invaded Jewish Jerusalem, and put the resident Jews there under seige. That was not a defensive maneuver. The Jewish forces had not invaded that area. This sentence should be removed since it is neither true nor sourced. I bring it up here but expect to remove it shortly if no justification and proof for it is presented. Thank you. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition, There were other areas that were attacked by the Jordanian Legion that were within Israel proper besides West Jerusalem and the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. I would support removal of that sentence as it is inaccurate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence seems to be accurate. I'll see if I can find a source to back it up. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in Morris' book "1948". Morris writes that "the king had decided - as became clear from the Legion's subsequent actions - to move into Arab Palestine while trying to avoid war with the Yishuv and refaining from attacking the territory of the UN-defined Jewish state. [...] 'Abdullah's aim was to take over the West Bank rather than destroy the Jewish state". However, Morris does not use the word "promise" about the November understanding between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency. Morris also speculates that Abdullah refraining from attacking the territory allocated to the Jews may in part have been due to his army running out of ammunition. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History, there was never an agreement between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was an agreement made in November, but the agreement was not reaffirmed in the talks the following May between Meir and Abdullah. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the book. Anyway, I forgot to say that my point was that we can't say there was an agreement or a promise or whatever in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Karsch dispute the November meeting?. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he addresses it at length. His conclusion is that there was no agreement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the sentence as it is unsourced and contrary to mainstream sources--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As seen above, Morris partially supports the sentence, although he do not phrase it quite that way. The sentence should be modified to be more in agreement with what Morris says. A complete removal of the sentence is not called for. --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can say that Abdullah didn't attack areas allocated to the Jewish state, and attribute opinions about his motivation to whatever sources make the claim. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds acceptable. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: "Abdullah refrained from attacking areas allocated to the Jewish state, and the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem and those parts of the designated Arab state that Jewish forces invaded." How about that? --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable. Abdullah attacked Jewish West Jerusalem as well as the Jewish quarter of East Jerusalem and the Mt. Scopus area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's incorrect to say that the Arab Legion was limited to defending Arab areas of Jerusalem, etc. See Morris (2008) page 211 "His Majesty... is extremely anxious and indeed insists that a force from Ramallah with artillery be sent to attack the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote continues: "The Jews are attacking ... the Old City ... An attack on the Jews would ease the preassure. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Still, he attacked Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem (this wasn't the only instance) so I think your suggested wording doesn't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Abdullah refrained from attacking areas allocated to the Jewish state, "preferring to establish defensive perimiters around the areas Jordan coveted". The quote is from "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (6th edition) by Charles D. Smith, page 205. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty good. I think the only thing that's missing is pointing out that Jerusalem was not allocated to either state and/or that the areas Abdullah "coveted" included a Jewish population. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regarding the missing bits; The status of Jerusalem according to the Partition Plan is already covered in same the section: "Jerusalem was given neither to the Arab nor the Jewish state, but was to be an internationally administered area". Jordans occupation of the Jewish Quarter is covered in the section 1948 Arab–Israeli War#Intervention by Arab League countries. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the section needs work as well, since it's stating as fact there was an agreement between Abdullah and the JA, which as I pointed out above is disputed. Anyway, upon looking at your suggestion again, I guess what bothers me is that it sounds like he was totally defensive, which isn't correct. He did set up "defensive perimeters", but he did that after taking over some predominately Jewish areas like the Jewish Quarter and the Etzion block. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[deindenting -- AnonMoos]

A few cats for the pigeons to contend with. It is true that Jerusalem was not allocated to either state in the UNGA Res 181. However, UNGA Res 181 only came into effect if a party or parties declared. At the time the Mandate expired, Jerusalem was a part of Palestine. Israel did not declare Sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. Confirmed in statements by the Israeli Government to the UNSC 22nd May 1948. Corpus separatum was not implemented.

So, when did the status of Jerusalem legally change from being a part of Palestine? It didn't. The Jewish areas were in Palestine.

We can see this reflected in the fact that there are numerous UNSC Resolutions passed against Israel for attempting to "change the status" of Jerusalem also UNSC Resolutions 267, 271, 298, 465, 476. There is no UNSC Resolution condemning TransJordan for A) Taking control of Palestinian territories B) changing the status of territories it [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/legsess.htmlannexed as a temporary trustee (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950)]. There's no UNSC Resolution simply because Jerusalem was still a part of Palestine. (I cannot provide a link to the non-existent] Under the UN Charter, Regional Powers have a right to take control of non-self-governing territories they represent and attempt to expel foreign forces. Anyone who took up arms, even for self defense, Jewish or non-Jewish, became a belligerent talknic (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic -- Unfortunately, your comments have very limited usefulness, since you seem to be confusing the use of the word "Palestine" to refer to the British Mandate of Palestine with the use of the word "Palestine" to refer to the Arab state which would have been hypothetically created out of the British Mandate of Palestine under the provisions of the November 29th, 1947 partition plan. (This second usage was actually not very common during the 1947-1949 period.) Also, the condemnations of Israel occurred AFTER the 1967 6-day war, and did NOT cover West Jerusalem (as you seem to imply). Many Israelis have been somewhat cynical about the fact that there was no condemnation of Jordan for destroying Jewish synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, and consider that it reveals some of the worst features and consistent biases of the UN system... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You both.
Try to use sources before stating what you believe is true.
Noisetier (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noisetier ..Acknowledged.. sources added to previous. Apologies for the length and detail in countering some of the notions expressed here.
AnonMoos - When you can show that the name of the territory remaining after Israel was declared, has been officially changed to something other than Palestine, you might have a point. According to this map from the National Library of Israel, in 1480, 440 years prior to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region was called 'Palestina'. During the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region was called, oddly enough, 'Palestine'. Prior to the end of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, the region was called 'Palestine'. After the mandate expired and for 60 seconds before the Declaration for the Establishment of Israel came into effect, the area that had been under the Mandate was still called Palestine. One minute after the Mandate ended and the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect, a part of Palestine was renamed Israel. What remained was still called Palestine. (Resolution 49: The Palestine Question 22 May). It IS very commonly used in EVERY UNSC Resolution on the matter. None of which called for peace in Israel. (Sorry cannot provide a source for something that does not exist)
The confusion comes because in whatever shape or form it has existed, no matter how much of it has been whittled away, what remains of Palestine, is still called Palestine. Unlike the area declared independent of Palestine, which was renamed Israel.
"the condemnations of Israel occurred AFTER the 1967 6-day war, and did NOT cover West Jerusalem (as you seem to imply)"
Indeed the condemnations did come after Israel's first attempt to annex any of the territories it had 'acquired' by war. A condemnation of unilateral annexation could hardly have come before any annexation was attempted. UNSC Res 252 says precisely this "2. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status;" Unless otherwise stated, that would be ANY of Jerusalem.
"..there was no condemnation of Jordan for destroying Jewish synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, and consider that it reveals some of the worst features and consistent biases of the UN system..."
A) Unfortunately, when folk take up arms and position themselves in places of worship, the structure becomes a valid military target. B) When the Torah Scrolls are removed from a Synagogue, it has been de-consecrated. Similar to a de-consecrated Church, it's just another building.(1) (2) (3) It is a pity that some fine buildings with historical religious connections were destroyed, but it is a fallacy to say they were all Synagogues. C) Did the UN condemn Israel for it's destruction of non-Jewish places of worship, de-consecrated or not? To mention one and not the other is hypocrisy.
"...consistent biases of the UN system."
This allegedly biased UN gave the Jewish Federation/Agency the opportunity to establish a Jewish State (UNGA Res 181) in some 56% of 1948 Mandate Palestine, of which Jewish institutions, (who were not citizens of Palestine), over seas Jewish investors, (also not citizens of Palestine) and Jewish Palestinians, had purchased 'real estate' (not territory). Simple maths (no link) tells us this constituted only a tiny fraction of the territory allocated to the Jewish State, GRATIS. Some bias.
The UN Charter, GCs, Human Rights Conventions, were based in large part on the circumstances that befell our Jewish fellows under the Nazis. Under the Charter, GCs, Human Rights conventions, Israel and Israelis have exactly the same rights afforded every other people and State. They also have the same prohibitions. One should bear in mind that not all peoples are in entities or states that are UN Members.
The Resolutions against Israel are for the most part reminders. E.g., UNSC Res 252 is ONE resolution, which, if Israel had adhered to it's obligations, would not have brought a further five reminders. UNSC Resolutions 267, 271, 298, 465, 476. Same for almost every other resolution against Israel. Is the gas company biased when you don't pay your bill?
In conclusion and back to the point. By default, what was not the Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel on May 15th 1948, was Palestine, which encompassed the Jewish areas in Jerusalem. talknic (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "He did set up "defensive perimeters", but he did that after taking over some predominately Jewish areas like the Jewish Quarter and the Etzion block." Areas which were still within Palestine. Corpus separatum had not been instituted, it's status had not changed from being a part of what remained of Palestine after Israel had declared it's own boundaries in accordance with the resolution enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

Re: 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

"In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the explosions of joy amongst the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expressions of discontent amongst the Arab community.[citation needed] Soon thereafter, violence broke out and became more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals killed dozens on both sides."

This statement is misleading and contributes nothing to helping ordinary readers understand the legal mechanisms by which Israel became a recognized state within the UN. The UN does not have any legally binding power to divided lands and create nations. So, to say that "In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan ..." is misleading in that it leads the reader to incorrectly conclude that the UN has the legal authority to 'approve' the division of lands and create nations, which it does not. What they approved was a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution based upon the British Plan for the Partition of Palestine, and nothing more. This is not the legal mechanism by which Israel came to be and any inference that it was is improper.

The resolution most often cited (though erroneously) as being responsible for 'creating' Israel is UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which accepted the British Plan for the Partition of Palestine as the basis for the resolution. While it is true that this resolution was 'approved', it was meant to lay the framework for later negotiations between the adverse parties (viz, The British Plan). 'Later' means after the expiration of the British Mandate, which was to be supplanted by a UN administrative mandate over the Palestinian territories in order to fill the legal void that would be created at the expiration of the former's legal mandate. That the UN failed in the ensuing chaos of war to establish its mandate over the area and that Zionist forces during the legal void that followed unilaterally declared independence upon the exact date and hour of the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine lends no credence or support to the perception that this statement infers that Israel was somehow created by the UN.

Restatement or disambiguation to clarify that the UN was not the legal 'mechanism of creation' of Israel should be made possibly along with reference to UN 181, or the statement dropped. --DanKaiser (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UNGA resolution 181 was not an endorsement of a British plan, because at that point the British pretty much had no plan, which is why they threw the matter into the lap of the United Nations in the first place (a plan drawn up by the British would have much more closely resembled the 1937 Peel plan than UNGA resolution 181). UNGA resolution 181 never came into force (because it was not agreed to by both parties), which is the most directly relevant fact. AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"UNGA resolution 181 never came into force (because it was not agreed to by both parties), which is the most directly relevant fact."

That UNGA resolutions do not by definition have any legal force is more to the point. The entire opening statement of this section is misleading and to imply that one side accepted it and the other did not misleads the reader to conclude that an offer to both sides was proffered and, when one side refused it, the UN concluded in favor of the other party by "approving" of it. None of this is true much less accurate, which is why either clarification should be provided for the sake of historical accuracy and perspective or dropped. --DanKaiser (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"UNGA resolution 181 never came into force (because it was not agreed to by both parties)"
A declaration of independence is by it's very nature unilateral. Look up the word 'independence' There was no article in UNGA Res 181 requiring both parties to co-sign. The parties were not required to declare at the same time in order that either be recognized. The notion that there had to be an agreement is against the very basic principles of declaring independence. Either they accepted the deal or not. Israel accepted unconditionally, to declare Sovereign Independence over the territories recommended in UNGA Res 181 and abide by the laws governing such a declaration.
That the Arab states rejected UNGA Res 181 is a non-argument. If the parties wished to declare Sovereign Independence they had until had until no "later than 1 October 1948", during which time either entity could unilaterally declare.
If one declared and was recognized before the other, the second party was not bound to declare independence over what remained. In fact, they could have subdivided the allotted territory even further, had they wished. However, by May 15th 1948, Jewish forces under the preemptive Plan Dalet were already controlling territories slated for the Arab State.
Under Customary International Law an entity can only effectively declare Independent Sovereignty if they alone control all of the territories they are declaring sovereignty over. Note in the notification of Declaration, Israel's declaration came into effect "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" after the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine had expired. I.e., after Palestine was no longer under the control of the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine
Israel was not declared independent of Britain. Israel did not exist under the Mandate. Israel was declared independent of Palestine, to which the territory it declared, formerly belonged.
Note: ** Since declaring, Israel been in control of territories slated for the Arab State, "outside of Israel". There has never been an opportunity for the Palestinians/Arab States to effectively declare Independent Sovereignty over what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. In fact there has never been an opportunity throughout the entire history of Palestine. For over 2,000 years, there has always been some entity or another in control of some or all of Palestine.**
UNGA Resolutions -- although non-binding, will often reaffirm, cite, remind the parties of the Law. All law is binding. They often cite the UN Charter, binding in it's entirety on all UN Member States, without exception. Remind the parties of previous binding UNSC Resolutions. Such an UNGA resolution is a plea to states to adhere to what IS binding.
UNGA Res 181 -- The parties were obliged to it ONLY IF THEY DECIDED TO DECLARE, wherein they were bound to : declare according to Customary International Law governing the declaration of Independent Sovereignty and subsequently bound by their Declaration and any voluntary obligations it contained (e.g., to be "faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" even though Israel was not yet a Member State) This included the Customary Laws of War, all Customary International Law and importantly, the UN Charter Chapter XI.
UN Members not recognizing an entity which has been recognized by the majority, are still bound to the UN Charter and must have "respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"
Israel accepted UNGA Res 181 without reservation and enshrined it in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel. According to the statement by the Provisional Israeli Government on the 15th May 1948 Israeli sovereignty was ONLY "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" to come into effect "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" Also available as PDF from the Truman Library Israel's statements in attempting to gain acceptance into the UN also cite UNGA Res 181.
Israeli's declared sovereign extent, also defined what was NOT Israeli. What remained of Palestine was and still is called Palestine. Unlike the new Jewish State, the territory did not undergo a name change. Israel did not declare sovereignty over Jerusalem. Corpus separatum was not instituted by the UN. Jerusalem's status did not change. It was and still is, a part of what remained of Palestine after May 15th 1948.
Note: ** There is some confusion generate by Palestine not being renamed. Prior to Israel's independence, UN/UNSC resolutions name 'Palestine', which referred to all of Mandate Palestine after TransJordan was declared independent. After Israel's independence, 'Palestine' in any UN/UNGA Resolution, refers ONLY to the area "outside of Israel" and not within the sovereign extent of the other states. **
When a UNSC Resolution post May 15th 1948 says "...in Palestine" It is not referring to any part of Israel. Careful reading of the UNSC resolutions, cease fires, armistice and peace agreements show us that the wars between Israel and the other Regional Powers, were IN Palestine. They call for peace 'in Palestine', not 'in Israel'. They also tell us the wars were between High Contracting Regional Powers, to a large degree over and IN Palestine except where Israel occupied the territory of a neighbouring state. Between High Contracting Powers, the Laws of War were applicable and when the Geneva Conventions came into force, they were also applicable. Meanwhile, the UN Charter Chapter XI has always been applicable to all UN Members and all who oblige themselves to be faithful to the UN Charter.
Israel had confirmed it's boundaries on at least two occasions before it became a UN Member State and before it made it's first illegal claim ( 31st Aug 1949 ) to territories it had previously stated in correspondence with the UNSC, (May 22nd 1948) were "..outside of Israel" Israel's claim was turned down by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.
The UN -- It is not within the UN's mandate to grant recognition to entities in order that they exist as states. States must exist BEFORE they can be recommended by the UNSC for acceptance into the UN.
Recognition of a declaring entity in order that they be recognized by individual states is NOT put to a vote in the UN. Individual countries either recognize or not, whether they are UN Member States or not. We can see this in the fact that there are UN Member States not recognized by other UN Member States, they are never the less, legitimate states, recognized by the majority.
Once a declaring entity is recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations/States, the entity's Sovereignty according to their declaration, information provided to the International Community of Nations/States and the recognition given by them based on that information, becomes irrevocable. (Much the same as when a convention is ratified by the majority of States, it passes into Customary International Law)
Prior to acceptance into the UN, the UN can only issue recommendations or a 'statement' acknowledging the process or that a new state has been formed and/or recognized by the International Community of Nations/States. The UN/UNSC can only pass resolutions directly addressed to an entity after they have become UN Members. We can see this in the UNSC resolutions which, even though Israel obliged itself to be "faithful to the principles of the UN Charter", do not mention Israel until Israel becomes a UN Member State. There after, Israel was named/directly addressed.
BTW Israel was not declared independent of Britain. The mandate ended BEFORE the Israeli declaration came into effect. Israel has never been under the control of the British. Israel did not exist during the mandate period when the British had control of Palestine
To conclude. "the legal mechanisms by which Israel became a recognized state within the UN" cannot be explained in a few paragraphs. Omission of any of the key points leads to misunderstanding.
talknic (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic -- let's not get into abstract metaphysical theological exegesis of UNGA 181 again (something which has generated hundreds of thousands of bytes of mostly somewhat repetitive discussions on the talk pages of several articles, without really directly leading to the improvement of any single Wikipedia article). At the simplest level, if the Arabs denounced the November 29th 1947 United Nations partition plan with abundant vitriolic vehemence and copious contumely in 1947 and early 1948, and refused to abide by any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as minority rights, respect for the holy places of other religions, borders open to trade, etc. etc.), then it's extremely difficult to see how they can validly claim that any UNGA 181 provisions are binding on Israel. It's perfectly true that UNGA 181 was kind of a stepping stone to recognized Israeli statehood (and could have been a stepping stone to recognized Arab statehood too, if the Arabs had been even a little unified, instead of being torn by the conflicting claims of Abdullah of Transjordan, the king of Egypt, Nazi collaborator Haj Amin al-Husseini, etc.), and also that UNGA 181 lays down some enduring basic principles. However, the specific details of the partition boundaries and the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal have never had any meaningful legal force, and are simply stone-cold dead now... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos The purpose here is not to confirm or reiterate what we believe. Which most of the hundreds of thousands of bytes of mostly somewhat repetitive discussions tend to do. The discussion on talk pages takes place in order that we might eventually distill an informed, impeccably sourced, neutral, way of presenting accurate information. Hopefully along the way, we will also inform ourselves, often contrary to notions often derived from sources that often attempt to justify, rather than honestly inform. Impeccably sourced justification is the stuff of propagandists, which should be weeded out. How long it takes is irrelevant. The talk pages are where the process transpires in all its critical, exacting, meticulous, billion byte, pedantry.
It would have behooved you to have addressed the detailed points raised countering DanKaisers notion. Instead, you've made further assertions, most of which were already covered in my initial reply. Never the less... let's look at some Official ISRAELI GOVERNMENT statements.
First. UNGA Res 181 was non-binding, it only effected the parties declaring by its conditions and the UN in respect to corpus separatum. That the Arab states rejected the resolution is irrelevant. It did not prevent Israel from being declared in accordance with UNGA Res 181, as witnessed by the declaration and the following official statements of the Israeli Government itself.
1) 5 months 17 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, the Jewish Peoples Council accepted UNGA Res 181, without reservation, enshrining UNGA Res 181 in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, obliging Israel to those "enduring basic principles", the UN Charter and existing Customary International Law in their entirety. (the reference to UNGA Res 181 is still in the Declaration)
5 months 18 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, the Israeli Government sought recognition as ".. an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" and was recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of Nations, over riding the legal objection of the Arab States.
5 months 25 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, in answer to the UNSC question "Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?", the Israeli Government stated "the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel".
1 year 4 days after the Arab States rejected UNGA Res 181, Mr. Shertok for the Government of Israel stated that he could see no reason for such a far-reaching departure from the political settlement envisaged "in Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947"
All these Israeli Government statements were made AFTER the Arab States chose to ignore UNGA Res 181, which was their right. An entity cannot be forced to declare independence. It is completely at odds with the notion of independence. Ref - any dictionary. An entity may if it wishes remain a non-state entity and still have a right to all its territory, whilst Declared Independent Sovereign UN Member States are obliged to the UN Charter Chapter XI in its entirety and to all Customary International Law in existence at the time it stated its intention to adhere to International Law.
2) To your assertions:
A) "the Arabs denounced ... refused to abide by any of the obligations which would have been binding on them under UNGA 181 (such as minority rights, respect for the holy places of other religions, borders open to trade, etc. etc.)" How odd you a)provide no support b) their official statements are contrary to your claim. Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine "a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, (and whereby) minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and (whereby) the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed" Almost to a word the notions of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
B) "...could have been a stepping stone to recognized Arab statehood". Impossible. Jewish forces under the preemptive Plan Dalet, controlled some areas allocated for the Arab State, before the Mandate expired, during and after Israels Declaration. A declaration of Sovereign Independent Statehood is not effective until the territory being declared is completely under the control of the declaring party. 1. The entity must exercise effective and independent governmental control. 2. The entity must possess a defined territory over which it exercises such control.
C) "the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal have never had any meaningful legal force. Indeed, it was never implemented. Its status as a part of what remained of Palestine, after Israel was declared independent of Palestine, has never changed from legally being a part of Palestine. Its status is reflected in the fact that (1) There is no UNSC condemnation of Jordans annexation of what became the West Bank. The Palestiniansrequested it, according to Customary International Law regarding the annexation of territories. The Arab States demanded Jordan annex as a temporary trustee (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950) (in keeping with UN Charter Chapt XI) (2) Whereas the UNSC "Considers that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status" UNSC Resolution 252 21st May 1968, UNSC Resolution 267 3rd July 1969, UNSC Resolution 271 15th September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 25th September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 1st March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 30th June 1980.
D)" Nazi collaborator Haj Amin al-Husseini" did not represent the Palestinians at the time. He'd been booted out of every position he was not elected to by the Palestinians. When he did represent the Palestinians, by appointment of one "Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner of Palestine", a Jewish chap, the Palestinians of today were either tiny babies or not even born. Reference - simple maths.
If any of the above can be shown to be incorrect, inaccurate, untrue, irrelevant, unreliable, unverifiable, so be it.
Otherwise I suggest they be incorporated in accordance with WP:PSTS Policy:(Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source)
talknic (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are using primary sources to draw conclusions, which is not allowed per wikipedia policy. You can't say that primary source A + primary source B = conclusion C. That's WP:OR. I suggest you spend less time informing us of your personal opinion and more time finding a secondary source that says what you're trying to say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy.
A) The above is a dialogue answering to the completely un-sourced, un-verifiable remarks by one AnonMoos (who I notice you have not taken to task AT ALL?) and who asserted that "the specific details of the partition boundaries and the Jerusalem corpus separatum proposal have never had any meaningful legal force, and are simply stone-cold dead now"
The topic is not 'now' and there are numerous references to UNGA Res 181 by the Israeli Government during the war, specifically to the extent of Israels Sovereignty at the time.
B) I have not outlined exactly how the separate pieces of information in that post ought be introduced, except to say it should be incorporated in accordance with WP:PSTS Policy. The nature of a talk page is to discuss how WE can present information in accordance with the guidelines if WE find or decide the information is of value in order to present a neutral article. Is it verifiable? As a primary source, yes, confirmed numerous times all given above. Is it of value to the topic? Yes, in any war, the actual status of borders is paramount. WP:PSTS is quite clear about how a primary source might be injected into an article. To wit, each or any of the individual items needs to be placed and introduced (in line with WP:PSTS) according to specific points being made.
Given the importance of the status of borders in any war, especially this war, a reference to it ought be include early in the article. The Declaration itself gives everything but the extent of Israeli Sovereignty and the exact time the Declaration came into effect. I suggest the actual status of borders be introduced, without any interpretation, in the Background. It is an essential part of the background in terms of where hostile forces stood at the beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and what territories, belonging to whom, were actually invaded.
Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)"
Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,(newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)" talknic (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, find a secondary source for your claims. It makes little sense replacing the deceleration of independence as source with a letter to the US government just because you like a bit of text in the latter.
AnonMoos has yet to make any changes to the article based on his personal interpretation of primary sources. When he does, I'll "take him to task" as well. In the meanwhile, this discussion is not getting you any closer to finding consensus for the changes you want to make. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I give up on the primary source. Every published reference makes interpretive claims, analyses et al. And not a matter of whether I 'like a bit of text in the latter". The notion is to provide more exacting information. Based on the above reasoning, which I won't reiterate and a published book, complete with it's own biased interpretive claims (they all seem to have). I suggest the following changes.
Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)"
Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,(newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existingcite)" talknic (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interpretive claims and analysis by experts in secondary sources is what we're looking for. You just linked to a reproduction of the letter without any of that. That still won't work. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy
I suggest the following changes in the first part of Background
Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"
Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,( newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"
BTW The existing cite appears to be a primary source? talknic (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic -- The Arab governments in their concrete actions in reality conspicuously refused to abide by any of the obligations which would have been imposed on them by UNGA 1818 (such as minority rights, respect for the holy places of other religions, borders open to trade, etc.), so the purely theoretical verbiage of a "Declaration" which was composed mainly to appease and/or confuse world opinion is distinctly less than impressive... AnonMoos (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos -- Didn't sign up for obligations = no obligations. Did sign up for obligations = obligations
The Declaration was submitted to and accepted by the UNSC, without condemnation (sorry no source to a condemnation that does not exist) talknic (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion = irrelevant. Secondary sources saying something = can be used in articles. This is getting quite tiresome.
By the way, the issue of borders was deliberately left out of the DoI, see here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - The dialogue in answer to AnonMoos is quite clearly separated by a line running across the page. Not relative to what might be put into an article. I've yet to see you comment on AnonMoos for interjecting with un-sourced personal opinion, adding NO thing of any value at all. I have merely answered to it in an informed and objective manner.
Yes I know the borders were deliberately left out. Purposeful deception is nothing to brag about. Do you intend to use it? talknic (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: I suggest the following changes in the first part of Background

Currently "..on May 14th 1948 Israel was declared a State, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment of the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"
Making the change to "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,( newcite) with a provisional government taking charge one minute after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)"

Comments please... BTW Is the existing cite what might be called a primary source? talknic (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments.
First of all, please stop using lines running across the page. While it may seem clear to you what they mean, they are not commonly used on talk pages. It would also be nice if you could indent properly. And if you know something is not relevant to what may be put in the article then it doesn't belong on this talk page.
Second, I object to your proposed change for reasons I stated at least 10 times over the multiple places you opened this discussion. The fact you admit you know the borders were deliberately left out of the DoI but are still trying to argue based on your personal opinion and an obscure letter that Israel bound itself to specific borders makes me question the good faith of your editing. You have spent quite a lot of time arguing your opinion but have yet been able to produce a secondary source supporting it. This makes me think this is not an opinion supported by experts.
Third, are you challenging the fact that Israel declared its independence on 14th may, with a provisional government taking charge from the moment the mandate was terminated? If you are not challenging it I suggest you stop playing games. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy --- 1) Call AnonMoos to order and there'll be no lines. Nothing he has contributed belongs in this page..
2)I just gave a secondary source, per the guidelines, of additional information pertinent to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, relative to the legal extent of territory. Under what guideline is additional information prohibited?
3)The 'obscure' letter was from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States. It is referenced in about 30 books That meet the criteria.
4)That the borders were deliberately left out of the DoI only tells us they didn't want to mention them.
I suggest the changes in the first part of Background, adding additional material relative to the legal extent of territories in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War be made "..on May 14th 1948 the state of Israel was declared as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, with a provisional government taking charge one minute after( newcite) the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)" talknic (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's referenced in 30 books, it should be quite easy for you to supply a secondary source explaining its relevance. So far we have your opinion that this letter means something. Your opinion is not enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Now a secondary source explaining the relevance? Thanks for your assistance in helping me better understand the editorial requirements. Could you please show me where a secondary source explaining relevance is required under the guidelines. You seem to have forgotten to provide it. talknic (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown you the relevant guidelines repeatedly. You just seem not to want to get it. This is getting quite tiresome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- I'm afraid you just don't get it You're disrupting by claiming a guideline that simply DOES NOT EXIST. Could you please show me where a second secondary source explaining relevance is required.
suggested change, with additional, relative information from a verifiable secondary source. //..on May 14th 1948 the State of Israel was declared as an independent republic, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute after( newcite) the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)" // talknic (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious I am unable to explain to you how WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH work. Please find an editor you trust and ask them if what you're trying to do is within wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious you are unable to show where, in any of the policies you have referenced, that it is necessary to also supply a second secondary source explaining the first secondary sources relevance. Likewise, you have not been able to the show guideline preventing additional information presented in accordance with the guidelines. In fact (No More Mr Nice Guy 08:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)) you have now TWICE suggested: giving additional information and twice suggested breaching the specific guideline on labeling people or groups as terrorists -- (No More Mr Nice Guy 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)). Deliberate obstruction, proposing that guidelines be broken, preventing changes by citing non-existent wiki policies. Rather out of order according to the criteria YOU have referenced. talknic (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are valid objections, I suggest the following additional information be added to the existing //..on May 14th 1948 the State of Israel was declared as an independent republic, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute after( newcite) the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing cite)" // talknic (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested change has been objected to by two editors. Feel free to take it to one of the boards and attempt to try find consensus for it. I'm not going to try and explain policy and guidelines to you anymore since that is obviously making you upset and belligerent, and creating an uncollegial editing atmosphere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- After repeated requests, you have failed to point to the specific policy on having to have a second secondary source to explain the relevance of the first secondary source. There is no such requirement in your recommended reading. Your objection is invalid. Furthermore you have not, after repeated requests shown the guideline where additional information presented in accordance with the guideline is prohibited. There is no such requirement in your recommended reading. Misrepresenting the editorial policies is not a valid objection. The relevant 'objections' by AnonMoos are un-sourced otherwise they are completely irrelevant = disruption which is not a valid 'objection'. Unless the secondary source provided in the suggested change can be shown to be invalid according to editorial policies, objections based on personal bias and your personal opinions are completely worthless according to your own criteria talknic (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just edit my comment? Don't do that. FYI, if you're trying to get yourself banned, just keep up this kind of disruptive editing. This plus your personal attacks, incivility, wikilawyering and general tendentiousness will make a pretty easy case for the admins. Did you notice the banner at the top of this page that says this article is under active arbitration remedies? I strongly suggest you follow the links up there and do some reading.
Anyway, you do not get to decide that other editors' objections are invalid. Editorial decisions are based on consensus. Feel free to proceed with dispute resolution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just edit my comment? " Not that I am aware of. Apologies if I did, it was inadvertent. Please re-state.
"Your personal attacks incivility....etc.." topic please.
"..you do not get to decide that other editors' objections are invalid." Indeed. Policy does and objections should surely reflect policy and be reliably sourced if referring to a source. To Wit //"To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority". // "for a particular statement" The list is ONLY applicable to sources that have undergone that process. Otherwise the policy has priority. The list of reliable sources is not definitive. Nor is there a requirement in the guidelines for having a second verifiable secondary source explaining the relevance first secondary source.
Unless there is a valid objection according to the guidelines, I suggest the following additional information be added to the existing for the following reasons. It tells us Israel is an independent republic, not apparent in the Declaration alone. What it's borders were at the outset the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, also not apparent in the declaration and that there was one minute from the time the Mandate ended until the declaration came into effect. //..on May 14th 1948 the independent republic State of Israel was declared, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute (newref) after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing ref" // talknic (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal interpretation of policy and your wikilawyering notwithstanding, you do not have consensus to make the change you want. If you make it, you will be reverted. If you make it repeatedly, you will be reported. I will not be commenting further on this issue. Do not take that as agreement for your suggested change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "If you make it, you will be reverted" I gather then, you will still be reading. Best have a really good reason, because I intend in talk, to give my reasons and call for opinion, contributions, comments and I will thoroughly read the guidelines as you have recommended.
Could it be that in order to be a part of general consensus, after numerous calls for comments, numerous calls for VALID reasons why the change should not be made and failing to respond to numerous calls for VALID suggestions as to how the change might be presented with ample explanation for why the change ought be made within the criteria set by POLICY, that you will then object?
Is general consensus reached by misconstruing the POLICY regarding verifiable sources, valid?
Is it not true that the list of reliable sources ONLY reflects those that have been questioned on PARTICULAR issues and that unless there is a call for the source and PARTICULAR statement to go through the process, IT CAN BE USED if it still fulfills the criteria according to POLICY?
Is the list of verifiable sources definitive on all statements from a particular source?
Is it not the ARTICLE that eventually needs to be balanced, with DIFFERENT POVs presented within the guidelines, according to POLICY?
I wonder... what are the consequences for misconstruing the guidelines HUNDREDS of times by claiming the list of verifiable sources applies to ALL statements from a particular source, in order to prevent an ARTICLE having additional information added so as to present a fuller understanding of the issue, when the PARTICULAR statement from a verifiable source according to POLICY, has NOT yet gone through the process?
If there are HUNDREDS of instances where the guidelines on verifiable sources have been misconstrued in attempting to prevent further information being present that FULLY complies with the requirements according to POLICY, by claiming a source is not valid yet there has been no call for the source and the PARTICULAR statement to be subjected to the process for inclusion in the list, I wonder why ALL those misconstruing the guidelines should not be banned?
In consideration of the above, I call for VALID objections to the following change. I also call for comments on how it might be improved : //..on May 14th 1948 the independent republic State of Israel was declared, accepting the frontiers approved by the United Nations General Assembly resolution enshrined in the declaration. A provisional government was to take charge at one minute (newref) after the termination of the Mandate on May 15th (existing ref)" // talknic (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having had no response since 04:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Calling again for valid objections to the change. I also call for comments on how it might be improved. Reversion might well be seen as not acting in good faith. talknic (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if this is not on anyone's watch list - re-iterating the above talknic (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention by Arab League countries

This is misleading. The items are out of order and truncated.

"The official motives for their intervention were set out in a statement[95] of 15 May 1948 :
'...the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries ....:

There were numerous statements, that was only one, incomplete.

"The main legal objection the Arab League had to the division of Palestine in UN Resolution 181 was that it did not respect the rights of its Arab inhabitants "

That's NOT what it says. THIS is what it says "the people of Palestine "!!!

I suggest the following, with things in order & more wholesomely quoted chunks, (if we must have large chunks).

The official motives for their intervention were set out in the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine submitted to the UNSC S/743, 15 May 1948. The Declaration outlined the historical context and gave the main Arab League objection to the partition of Palestine under UN Resolution 181. Finally it gave the legal basis for intervention, emphasizing their belief that a unitary Palestinian state was the solution.

9. When the General Assembly of the United Nations issued, on 29 November 1947, its recommendation concerning the solution of the Palestine problem, on the basis of the establishment of an Arab State and of another Jewish [State] in [Palestine] together with placing the City of Jerusalem under the trusteeship of the United Nations, the Arab States drew attention to the injustice implied in this solution [affecting] the right Of the people of Palestine to immediate independence, as well as democratic principles and the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations.
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:
(...)
First: That the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and [the Charter] of the United Nations and that [the Palestinians] should alone have the right to determine their future.
Second: Security and order in Palestine have become disrupted. The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes and in their taking refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries.
Ninth The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.talknic (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting comments, suggestions. If there is no objection registered, I suggest the change be posted (with excessive chunks referenced) talknic (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As usual you're using primary sources and your personal opinion on what they mean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy; The existing uses the exact same source. I can find no objection by yourself to the existing. The editor has misrepresented the evidence in the existing exact same source, by taking items out of order, truncating and misquoting. All of which are listed above. In the changes, I have taken the existing, ordered it and cited it un-truncated (suggesting it be referenced), corrected the misquoted "Arab inhabitants".
As you have not previously objected to the source you cannot claim now that it is invalid and as you have not previously objected to the dialogue, can you please show me where, in the guidelines, that additional material from the cited source cannot be added in accordance with editorial policies. Thx. BTW Citing NON-existent policy guidelines is a reportable offence talknic (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and report me for whatever "reportable offence" you think I may have committed. Your attempts at conflict are starting to bore me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Why do you want to be reported? I have no intention of reporting anyone. Attempting to fully inform people is not conflict and your boredom is of little interest or relevance
I see no actual VALID objection in your last comment and no VALID reason for preventing additional material in accordance with the guidelines. The edit retains the existing source, to which there have been no previous objections. The opening is the same with the exception that the 'statement' has been replaced to reflect the fact that there were 'statements'. The structure is basically the same, though now correctly ordered. The truncated statement has been un-truncated and will be referenced to quote the full statement. Likewise with other verbatim quotes. The errant "it did not respect the rights of its Arab inhabitants" corrected to accurately reflect the existing source. To wit:
//The official motives for their intervention were set out in the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine (1st ref) submitted to and accepted by the UNSC S/743, 15 May 1948. The Declaration outlined the historical context and gave the main Arab League objection to the partition of Palestine under UN Resolution 181. Drawing attention to the resolution undermining the rights of the people of Palestine (2nd ref ), contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations and United Nations Charter.
Finally it gave the legal basis for intervention and emphasized their opinion that the solution lay in a democratic unitary Palestinian state with equal rights and freedom of worship for all, including access to and preservation of religious sites.(3rd ref )// talknic (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noting no response since 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Calling again for valid objections or suggestions as to how this might be accurately conveyed talknic (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of an entirely new section: The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War

I realize the issue of borders is discussed elsewhere, but considering the legal extent and status of territories at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War is one the most important factors of the the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It should be given more than the cursory glance it is thus far afforded here.

I suggest the addition of an entirely new section directly after 1 Background

2 The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the war

Containing:

1) The extent of Israel's declared territories
2) Palestine by default of A) Israel being declared independent of post Mandate Palestine and B)the failure to implement corpus separatum.

talknic (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no recognized or ratified "legal" definition of the "extent of territories" at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" -- the Arabs had torn the November 29th 1947 partition plan into tiny little pieces and flushed it down the crapper, while the British refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to either Arabs or Jews as they withdrew... AnonMoos (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It is irrelevant what the Arabs did in respect to UNGA Res 181. It was a non-binding resolution, under which either party could declare if they wished or they could simply ignore it. There was no clause telling the parties to sit down and co-sign or sign at the same time. No clause preventing one state being declared without the other. A declaration of Sovereign Independence is by its very nature UNILATERAL.
Either they unconditionally took the deal or they didn't. Israel did. Without reservation. UNGA resolution 181 is still enshrined in the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.
These two documents tell us Israel considered itself to have declared its boundaries as being "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947"
1)
May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” It was not withdrawn. It was the basis of US recognition. The Israeli Government did not refuse US recognition
2)
The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.
Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
“In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.” talknic (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above on the pointlessness of delving into ex-post-facto abstract metaphysical theological exegesis on the legal status of UNGA 181 -- and also the rather poor taste and dubious legality involved in the Arabs rejecting the United Nations partition proposal with a flaunting show of contemptuous scorn in 1947 and early 1948 (and refusing to abide by any of the obligations that would have been binding on them under the plan), but then turning around 20 or 40 or 60 years later and claiming that the plan is now binding on the Jews! Your snarky and self-satisfied edit summaries also don't add anything constructive to the conversation.
In May 1948, the really serious fighting hadn't started yet, and some people in New York (though extremely few in the middle east itself) still thought that some variation of the partition plan could bring peace. Later events greatly changed the situation. Since Israel was not admitted to the United Nations on any condition that it accept the 1947 partition plan boundaries, it's all water under the bridge now, and legally quite irrelevant.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In May 1948, the really serious fighting hadn't started yet".
You don't know this topic. More than half of the deaths of the '48 war occured before 15 May ! The fights for the control of Jerusalem and its blockade started jan '48. Arab Liberation Army forces (+5000) entered in Feb and March. Cities of Haifa, Jaffa, Beit Shean, Tiberiade and Safed were conquered by the Jewish forces before 15 May. The coastal plain and whole West of Galilea too. Massacres of Deir Yassin, Hadassah hospital and Massacre of Kfar Etzion occured before 15 May too. Noisetier (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, much of that fighting was by irregular or poorly armed forces -- the Israelis didn't yet have significant Czech heavy arms, the Arab armies hadn't openly crossed over the borders, neither side had any airplanes, etc. It may sound incredibly unrealistic, but some people thought that if no set-piece battles between formally-organized armies with tanks, planes, and artillery pieces had taken place, then the peace had not been irretrievably shattered, and there might be some chance of implementing some plan after all -- and the Jews were careful not to needlessly contradict such views, so as to appear reasonable and hold on to whatever international support they could. That has more to do with the May 1948 stuff posted above than does Israel supposedly binding itself unilaterally to obey all of UNGA 181 for all time even while the Arabs obeyed none of it -- which is unfortunately nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful if you showed us what text you're proposing to add, keeping in mind that without reliable secondary sources it's unlikely to make it into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Per No More Mr Nice Guy.
State precisely what you want to change and give the *secondary* sources that concur with it. Noisetier (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos Would you please address the verifiably sourced points, with some verifiable sources of your own that counter those I have provided. UNGA Res 181 was NON-BINDING. Take or leave it. The Arab States didn't take it, they were not legally obliged to. Israel did, without reservation (sorry no sources for reservations that don't exist)
"..the plan is now binding on the Jews"
The Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel (which has not been withdrawn or appended and which still enshines UNGA Res 181) and the subsequent official statements of the Israeli Government are binding on ISRAEL. Israel has a 20% non-Jewish population. The Declaration and subsequent statements by the Israeli Government confirming it's declared boundaries are also binding on the state they live in. Israel.
"Your snarky and self-satisfied edit summaries also don't add anything constructive to the conversation."
Your personal affront is against the guidelines. Please desist.
"the really serious fighting hadn't started yet, and some people in New York etc etc"
Unless these 'some people' are cited and sourced, it's not admissible here. Furthermore under the preemptive Plan Dalet, launched prior to Declaration, escalating the civil war, saw death and dispossession visited upon hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish folk who WERE NOT militant at all. That war has never ended in an armistice or peace treaty (sorry no sources for a non-existent armistices and treaties )
"Israel was not admitted to the United Nations on any condition that it accept the 1947 partition plan boundaries"
Israel was already recognized "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" Israel WAS admitted on the basis that it adhere to the UN Charter in its entirety and the existing Customary International Law in its entirety. You're not addressing the topic with anything verifiable.
No More Mr Nice Guy A) Primary sources fitting the WP:PSTS policy are allowed. To wit "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"
B) Under the WP:PSTS policy This (without interpretation): "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" cited from this "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" fits that guideline precisely.
C) The questions in the "Letter dated 18 may 1948 from the Assistant Secretary-General for Security Council Affairs addressed to the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and reply dated 22 May 1948 addressed to the Secretary-General concerning the questions submitted by the Security Council" IS a secondary source for the Israeli Government statement to the President of the USA, May 15th 1948.
D) The notion of talk is to thrash out a verifiably sourced, well informed way to present valid information in neutral manner. WE as editors have undertaken to find a way of doing this. The actual Sovereign extent of countries' boundaries are one of the the most important issues in any war. This is no exception. That you continually remove it seems to point to a bias unbecoming of the guideline for neutrality. talknic (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos "...the Arab armies hadn't openly crossed over the borders" ... They'd be the borders you claim don't exist?
"..neither side had any airplanes" Where did this come from I wonder..'Two Egyptian Air Force Spitfires bombed Tel Aviv. One of them was shot down and its pilot taken prisoner. However, the Egyptian Air Force continued its bombing raids over the city, and efforts were later made to shell the city from the ground. The fledgling Israeli Air Force responded by bombing military installations inside and near Damascus and Amman." and this "on May 29, after Israel's fledgeling air force performed its first combat mission, when four Avia S-199s attacked Egyptian armored column of 500 vehicles on its way to Ashdod. The Israeli planes dropped 70 kilogram bombs and strafed the column, although their machine guns jammed quickly. Two of the planes crashed, killing a pilot."
"That has more to do with the May 1948 stuff posted above" It has more to do with the fighting. This is about 'The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War'
"... than does Israel supposedly binding itself unilaterally to obey all of UNGA 181 for all time..." Israel is bound to its Declaration and subsequent official statements regarding it's boundaries. "....even while the Arabs obeyed none of it" They were not bound to accept it and didn't.
Please stop posting your completely un-sourced opinion. Please respect the talk page guidelines, talknic (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, when I said "the Arab armies hadn't openly crossed over the borders", I very clearly meant the 1923-1948 borders of the British Palestine Mandate (not the theoretical hypothetical abstract metaphysical lines in the November 29th 1947 partition plan, which were never "borders"[sic]). And the Egyptians had airplanes, but the Arabs and Jews fighting within the mandate territory before May 1948 didn't. And your edit summary accompanying your edit of 22:31, 19 March 2011 was far more of a "personal affront" than anything that I've addressed to you...
And meanwhile, you seem to be doing anything to avoid confronting the main issue -- namely, that the Arabs spent a large part of 1947 and 1948 vehemently and vitriolically denouncing the November 29, 1947 United Nations partition plan proposal, and spinning elaborate theories as to why it was null and void and without any legal validity whatsoever, so it seems quite ethically and legally dubious for their grandchildren to turn around 180° and all of a sudden now claim that it is enshrined as a pure and undisputable legal charter sent down from the skies (not to mention the additional dubiousness of claiming that the terms of a proposed agreement which never entered into force are binding on one side only, while the other side is perfectly free to ignore the obligations that would have been imposed on themselves). AnonMoos (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy has been here in the same time frame as AnonMoos and surely must have witnessed the havoc...But he hasn't taken AnonMoos to task. WHY NOT? talknic (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding policy. A letter is a primary source, even if it's in a collection of letters on a web site. A secondary source would be, for example, a book written by someone with some expertise in History or International law, explaining the significance of the letter and what it means. When you try to use such a letter to contrast something from a reliable secondary source you are engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
I have no problem whatsoever in including the above information if you find a reliable source for it. Considering many books have been written about the subject of this article, it shouldn't be a problem for you to find such a reliable source.
I'd also like to point out that this is not a discussion forum. All the back and forth about stuff like airplanes and what editors personally think the law is regarding various decelerations and letters is irrelevant, just wastes everyone's time, and makes the discussion about actual editing hard to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic -- Unfortunately your "sources" are semi-obscure documents which were quickly overtaken by events; and only people who already agree with your views are likely to be impressed by the absolute perpetual and non-contextual hair-splitting legalistic interpretation that you give to them. The United Nations in 1949 didn't consider that those documents overrode everything else to the end of time, so why should we do so now? AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- "On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable".talknic (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? See my comments above about how "It's perfectly true that UNGA 181 was kind of a stepping stone to recognized Israeli statehood... and lays down some enduring basic principles". However, S/RES/69 (1949)-S/1277 of 4 March 1949 and A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949 make no mention of forcing the specific partition-plan lines onto Israel, so your belated personal attempts to do so would appear to be supererogatory... (See further Abba Eban's remarks at A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949, which were the basic Israeli diplomatic commentary on the terms under which it was admitted to the United Nations.) -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- So look up irrevocable. S/RES/69 (1949)-S/1277 & A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949 weren't about recognition. Israel had already been declared & recognized by 4 March 1949 / 11 May 1949. A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949 Abba Eban is reported as saying " the State of Israel had proclaimed its independence, in accordance with the explicit instructions of the General Assembly itself" talknic (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look up "pettifogging lawyering" and "abstract metaphysical exegesis". If there was any kind of consensus at the UN in 1949 that it was at all realistic or legally requisite to insist that the November 29 1947 partition plan boundary lines be implemented, then the UN would have required this at its point of maximum leverage -- when Israel was being admitted to the UN. Conversely, the failure to insist on the November 29 1947 partition plan boundary lines in the documents recording Israel's admission to the UN is an indication that the UN did NOT consider their implementation to be at all realistic or legally requisite. As for the rest, your oversimplified categorical and absolutist -- and peculiarly one-sided -- personal legal interpretations, in which the obligations of UNGA 181 are binding on one side only (so that one side has "all the pleasures" of UNGA 181, while the other side has "all the pains", as Dr. Johnson might have expressed it) are extremely unlikely to convince anybody who doesn't already fully agree with you.... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos --- Your post is un-sourced, irrelevant to the topic, 'The legal status and extent of territories at the outset of the war'. Please stop derailing and stick to the topic. talknic (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the outset of the war, things were kind of confused and tumultuous, and certainly not formally legally codified -- insofar as the partition plan lines are concerned, the Arabs had torn the November 29th 1947 plan into tiny little pieces and flushed it straight down the crapper, while the British refused to hand over sovereignty or territory to either Arabs or Jews as they withdrew (as I already said above, in my very first reply in this section)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos|AnonMoos --- Irrelevancy noted talknic (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni - Amin al-Husayni wasn't the Grand Mufti of anywhere at the time of the war

I suggest the following change and the subsequent removal of the term Grand Mufti and/or Mufti from the rest of the article.

"After his removal from office as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (ref), Amin al-Husayni and Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. " talknic (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be "the chairman of the Arab Higher Committee" to conform with English grammar. Under whatever title or lack of title, he was the undisputed single leading Arab Palestinian political personality from the 1929 Wailing Wall riots down to Nasser setting up the ever-glorious Ahmad Shuqeiri as his rival in 1964... AnonMoos (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - It wasn't Amin al-Husayni and the Chairman. He was the Chairman. On further checking...
the Arab Higher Committee ceased to exist 27th September 1937 when it was outlawed by the British.
I now suggest - "Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II, after his dismissal from the office of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1936 (ref) and after the Arab Higher Committee was outlawed by the British on 27th September 1937."
The second part of your post is irrelevant to the nature of the suggested change. Ahmad Shuqeiri"The neutrality of this article is disputed" talknic (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is again WP:OR. If you want to say he didn't represent the Palestinians in any official capacity, you're going to have to find a source that says so explicitly. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Rpt of suggestion To wit:
I now suggest - "Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II, after his dismissal from the office of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1936 (ref) and after the Arab Higher Committee was outlawed by the British on 27th September 1937." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reliable source (per WP:RS) that says there was a "close collaborative relationship between Nazi leaders and the grand mufti of Jerusalem". I see no reason to change the text. I'll add the ref to the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- None of the quotes in the article say "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" talknic (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Noting your reversion. The JPost article is about a report. None of the quotes from the report, say "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" This seems to be a dubious source. From the Jewish Virtual Library we have the following "The mufti was dismissed from his position following the riots of 1936."
Your change was made without addressing my objection of 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC). A consensus was not reached. talknic (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JPost is considered a reliable source. If you disagree you may try to convince other editors at the relevant discussion board (in this case WP:RSN), but if you do a search on the board you'll find that this issue has come up before and there is a wide consensus JP is reliable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - "Secondary sources are written accounts of history based upon the evidence from primary sources." "Accuracy of information provided within articles". The evidence from their primary source does not mention 'Mufti' and the information provided within the article, not the opinion they provide with the article. In this instance JPost is not a reliable source. I suggest a source that does fully fill the criteria. talknic (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, in general, but for history articles we prefer works by academic historians to newspapers. Does anyone have such an academic source to propose in this case? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judith, could you please explain to Talknic how WP:RS works? I don't seem to be getting through to him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to explain to anyone, and I don't think the Jewish Virtual Library document is RS. But actually I think that the problem and solution lie elsewhere. This stuff should really be in the biography of al-Husayni. The paragraph currently in this article is too long and goes too much into stuff that happened before the 1948 war. Remember, we're writing hypertext. People can click on links to know more. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- JPost does not fulfill the criteria for a reliable source in this instance. based upon the evidence from primary source The primary source does not say the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Does not even say Mufti. JPost has inaccurately given it's own opinion. //WP:RS Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.// talknic (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). I don't think that looking at the Jerusalem Post's sources is the way to proceed with this. A newspaper is not a very good source for this period in history, and the JVL source isn't good either. So right now we have nothing at all to describe al-Husayni's functions in 1948. Some things are pretty certain. Al-Husayni was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at one time. During the war, he still considered himself GM (he would do, it was the source of his authority). The Nazis considered him GM. During the war, he was not fulfilling the functions of GM in Jerusalem. No-one else had the post of GM; the post of GM of Jerusalem is not always filled. In 1948 he was in Cairo. In 1948 he was in charge of the Arab High Committee, which had been recreated after the war by the Arab League. Where does that leave us? Searching through Google Scholar and Google Books for sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith is right : in this article JPost or JVL should not be considered wp:rs or at least for what is discussed here above.
In '48, Amin al-Husseini / Husayni was the leader of the Arab Higher Comittee. That can be sourced eg from Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948, 2006, p.393 : "Arab Higher Committee (AHC) [was] [t]he representative body of the Arab community in Palestine (1936-7 and 1946-8). [I]t was dominated by the Mufti but included all Arab parties and public organizations."
Concerning al-Husseini / Husayni, "he collaborated with Germany" would more fit reality than "he collaborated with the Nazis", as proven by the same author, some book p.400 and/or by sources coming from historians withoug agenda but that is definitely impossible to discuss this here. Noisetier (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noisetier -- Considering that Hajj Amin al-Husseini met personally with both Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler (there are photographs of both meetings: File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A,_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Alber-164-18A,_Großmufti_Amin_al_Husseini,_Heinrich_Himmler.jpg), and personally recruited for an SS unit, changing it from "collaborated with Nazis" to "collaborated with Germany" could be seen as whitewashing. If you want references, there are plenty on the Husseini article... AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the Nazis called him "Großmufti" in the original photo captions.
Could someone please also explain to Talknic that he doesn't get to decide if a reliable source was using primary sources correctly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple more refs for the Nazis calling him Grand Mufti - [1] [2] (see also page 67 in the second one). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the deletion of the JPost reference and insert a verifiable source giving the date on which he was officially dismissed from the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. I'd also like someone to explain why the Jewish Virtual Library does not fill the criteria of a secondary source in this instance. The primary source on this point, would surely be a copy of the actual dismissal notice talknic (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JVL's a secondary source, it just isn't a reliable secondary source for this. JVL often acts as a host for documents published elsewhere, in which case it can be a good source of convenience. But its short, unattributed essays, well we just don't know quite enough about how much fact-checking has been done. Look at the end of this article. There is a long list of books by historians. Many of the historians have Wikipedia biographies; they have posts in well-known universities of various countries; their books are published by the main academic presses. That's the kind of thing that makes a source look good enough for an article on a topic relating to national history. You can get more opinions on the reliable sources noticeboard. WikiProject History has sourcing guidelines. And WikiProject Military History is one of the best projects on the encyclopedia. You don't have to take my word for it, lots of people would be pleased to advise you on sourcing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". "The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability." talknic (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- "If you want references, there are plenty on the Husseini article.." Word count Nazi/s 10. German/y/s 8. In the JPost opinion, Nazi/z 8 German/y/s 2. In the report the article is reporting Nazi/s 2 German/y/s 6. What do we believe? The opinion of JPost or the report it is required to accurately reflect according to editorial policies?
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "Note also that the Nazis called him "Großmufti" in the original photo captions" 'original' = Primary source.
"Could someone please also explain to Talknic that he doesn't get to decide if a reliable source was using primary sources correctly?" Neither do you "While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy". "The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Identifying reliable sources. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability."
"Here are a couple more refs ..." In the reliable sources list?
Are The Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization reliable sources? talknic (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Benny Morris, Ephraim Karsh and Yoav Gelber are reliable, although even then their interpretations may be contested. We should attribute and when the historians disagree both sides should be presented. If you find historians of the period who are writing in languages other than English, please present them, because we need to show a world view. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic -- I don't understand half of your most recent comment, and am not sure I care to expend any effort to try to understand it (hint: if you want to be widely comprehended, then please try to cut down on the sed references -- I've never used sed, and never will use sed, and 99% of people would have no idea what you're talking about). However, it seems that you're working yourself into some kind of frenzy of semi-irrelevant Wikilawyering... If someone met personally with Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler and connived with high Nazi officials to make sure that Jews did not escape, then I really don't see why we can't say that that person "collaborated with Nazis". AnonMoos (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops forgot to sign a post. Apologies.
AnonMoos -- "I don't understand .......... Wikilawyering..." Uh....... huh
"If someone met..........I really don't see why we can't say that that person "collaborated with Nazis" " Me either. If Hajj Amin al-Husseini met personally with Adolf Nazi and Heinrich Himmler and connived with high Nazi officials to make sure that Jews did not escape, then he collaborated with Nazis. You may quote me verbatim. Meanwhile, stick to the topic. please talknic (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be treated with civility, then why don't you start by treating others with civility? (And cutting down on the sed references...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmejudith "No."
You mean the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization have NEVER BEEN discussed "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority.
"..it just isn't a reliable secondary source for this" But JVL has not been discussed "for this"
"If you find historians of the period who are writing in languages other than English.." Please find some, I'll submit them for translation. I have no foreign language skills in order to find them and I am not aware of any already in the article.
Based on the reliable sources policy and the possible mis-use here of the nature of Reliable sources noticeboard and/or WP:IRS and the fact that neither JVL or the Jewish Agency for Israel or The World Zionist Organization have yet been discussed on Reliable sources noticeboard and/or WP:IRS in respect to this "particular case" and the consensus at this point in time that JPost does not fulfill the criteria for a reliable source in this "particular case", I suggest the following change and the subsequent removal of the term Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and or Mufti of Jerusalem from the article.
//After his official removal from office as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1936 (ref) and after the British had outlawed the Arab Higher Committee in 1937, Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II// talknic (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have told you JVL is not a reliable source for this. The onus is on you to take it to W:RSN if you think otherwise. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and other principles#Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:IRS "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult the reliable sources noticeboard, which seeks to apply this policy to particular cases. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). In the case of inconsistency between this policy and the WP:IRS guideline, or any other guideline related to sourcing, the policy has priority
The list of reliable sources is ONLY of those that have been discussed in relationship to particular cases. The list is not definitive.
Purposeful obstruction by deliberately misconstruing the guidelines has no validity what so ever. talknic (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider that maybe it's you who is misunderstanding the guidelines rather than others misconstruing them. I have wasted enough time making a good faith effort to try and explain these things to you. I will not be commenting further on this issue. Do not take that as agreement for your suggested change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - I gather then, you will still be reading. Then you should consider..
Is stipulating a guideline that does NOT EXIST on numerous occasions, GOOD FAITH?
Is (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab%96Israeli_War&oldid=419941322#Yishuv_forces_-_Irgun TWICE suggesting] the guidelines be broken, GOOD FAITH?
Is attempting to prevent a change based on grammar, GOOD FAITH?
Could it be that in order to be a part of general consensus, after numerous calls for comments, numerous calls for VALID reasons why the change should not be made and failing to respond to numerous calls for VALID suggestions as to how the change might be presented with ample explanation for why the change ought be made within the criteria set by POLICY, that you will then object?
Can anyone please explain: If there are HUNDREDS of instances where the guidelines on verifiable sources have been misconstrued in attempting to prevent further information being present that FULLY complies with the requirements according to POLICY, by claiming a source is not valid yet there has been no call for the source and the PARTICULAR statement to be subjected to the process for inclusion in the list, why ALL those misconstruing the guidelines should not be banned?
Can anyone tell me, is general consensus reached by misconstruing the POLICY regarding verifiable sources, valid?
Can anyone please explain the consequences for misconstruing the guidelines HUNDREDS of times by claiming the list of verifiable sources applies to ALL statements from a particular source, in order to prevent an ARTICLE having additional information added so as to present a fuller understanding of the issue, when the PARTICULAR statement from a verifiable source according to POLICY, has NOT yet gone through the process?
Can anyone please explain: Is it not true that the list of reliable sources ONLY reflects those that have been questioned on PARTICULAR issues and that unless there is a call for the source and PARTICULAR statement to go through the process, IT CAN BE USED if it still fulfills the criteria according to POLICY?
Can anyone please explain: Is the list of verifiable sources definitive on all statements from a particular source?
Can anyone please explain: If, WITHOUT prior objection, a source ALREADY being used to present one editor on a PARTICLUAR statement, why that SAME source cannot be used by another editor to add further information on the same PARTICULAR statement?
Can anyone please explain: Is it not the ARTICLE that eventually needs to be balanced, with DIFFERENT POVs presented within the guidelines, according to POLICY?
If not, I suggest the following change be made and call for suggestions on how it might bettered.
//After his official removal from office as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1936 (ref) and after the British had outlawed the Arab Higher Committee in 1937, Amin al-Husayni had collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II// talknic (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - "If you want to be treated with civility, then why don't you start by treating others with civility?" Cite the instance/s
"(And cutting down on the sed references...)" Your evidence being? I have no idea, or interest in what you're talking about talknic (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the "German/y/s 8" etc. nonsense in your post of "21:25, 23 March 2011" above seems to be expressed in some variation of sed syntax. The vast majority of people without any knowledge of obscure obsolete Unix command-line utilities would have no idea what you were talking about, and even I don't know what you mean... AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[deindent AnonMoos]

Two questions for contributing editors..(also posed at Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni ) 1) Did the Jewish Agency officially or un-officially recognize him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been officially dismissed from his position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem prior to Declaration? 2) Did Israel officially or un-officially recognize him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after he'd been officially dismissed from his position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? If not, isn't it rather telling to be still calling him the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem? talknic (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jews of the Mandate / Israel "recognized" him as one of their most bitter and spiteful enemies from the 1929 Wailing Wall riots continuously down to the day he died. However, it really was not the role of Jewish leadership to decide who they thought was or was not the Grand Mufti before 1967, since the Jews didn't have any control over the Temple Mount platform holy sites before 1967... AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The British dismissed him from the secular position they had appointed him to. They didn't dismiss him as Grand Mufti, because that obviously was not within their power. See, for just one source, Encyclopedia of Islam. The JVL document you referred to is mistaken on the point and there is no other source that says he was dismissed as Grand Mufti. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos sed .. Irrelevant, unproven opinion. Most browsers have a find facility for the content on a page. I can count. That simple.
AnonMoos -- "it really was not the role of Jewish leadership to decide who they thought.." Oh? Whose role was it to decide what they thought? "The JVL document you referred to is mistaken"...It reflects the Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization. Do you have any secondary sources for your opinion? You did not answer the questions.
Itsmejudith -- His official position, by appointment by the British, was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the British officially dismissed him from the role of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, he was simply a mufti.
"there is no other source" -- The Middle East maze: Israel and her neighbors David A. Rausch - Page 33The British finally dismissed this Grand Mufti in October 1937. You did not answer the questions. talknic (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Taking the discussion to the Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni main page // talknic (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted No More Mr Nice Guy's added source. The consensus he demanded was not reached. This was the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has added a source without the consensus he demands talknic (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have violated WP:1RR. Self revert or you will be reported.
2. You have just reverted by claiming "no consensus" without adding any substantial challenges to the source I provided. After you brought up WP:DRNC in another discussion [3] the only conclusion that can be drawn from your behavior is that you are seeking conflict. You really are trying to get yourself banned, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yishuv forces - Irgun

I suggest the following change in order to reflect the nature of the group

Here "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun, whose terrorist activities had been monitored by the British (ref) and a few thousand armed settlers.[50]" talknic (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your source says that the British files "records but otherwise does not go into much detail about various terrorist acts attributed to that organisation". Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -
Mi5 labels their activities as terrorist [4] "Subsequent files focus chiefly on Irgun's post-war terrorist activities. KV 5/35 (1946) includes reports on attacks on trains and the kidnapping of British servicemen. The attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, including discussion on the conflicting claims as to whether or not a warning was given, is covered in KV 5/36. This file includes a message from Kim Philby to the Security Service of 9 July 1946 warning of possible Irgun attacks against the British legation in Beirut, just before the attack on the King David. KV 5/37 includes some discussion of the possibility that Irgun might accept assistance from the Russians and the implications of this. It also includes (at serial 142a) examples of stickers posted by Irgun activists in Montevideo that were forwarded to the Security Service by Kim Philby in September 1946.
The attack on the British embassy in Rome is covered in KV 5/38 (1946-1947) "
"I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict."
I can't find that condition within any guidelines. Moderate according to criteria. Edit how you see fit. talknic (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was kidding. We don't use the encyclopedia's neutral voice to label stuff as terrorist, per WP:TERRORIST. I was just curious to see how you'd respond. You can say that the British called these activities "terrorist" though, although forcing it into the sentence you suggested seems a bit weird. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2nd suggestion "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun, whose terrorist activities had been monitored by the British (ref), plus a few thousand armed settlers.[50]" talknic (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between this and the 1st suggestion above, but anyway you're still calling it "terrorist activities" in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. It also still seems forced. How about just wikilinking Irgun and Stern Gang? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about you just do your job. ("Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist..." No mention of an action ) 3rd suggestion "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern, a few thousand armed settlers and Irgun[50], who had been monitored by the British and whose activities were considered by Mi5 to be terrorism(ref). " talknic (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's my job?
Now it looks like the whole list were monitored by the British. You're trying to force this terrorism thing into a place where it just doesn't work. Why is it important to note in a section that assesses the size of the opposing forces that Irgun were monitored by the British? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. What is your role here?
"Now it looks like the whole list were monitored by the British." It's correctly punctuated, the source is provided. People can see it only refers to the activities of Irgun. BTW it was very likely they were all monitored.
Unless you can show a legitimate reason why additional informative material, describing the nature of Irgun, should not be added, I suggest the third version be added. If you wish to do the same for other groups involved in this conflict, according to the editing criteria you have so kindly helped me with, go right ahead. talknic (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to do my job. What do you think my job is?
The sentence might be correctly punctuated, but it is ambiguous. Also, as I mentioned above, it is not clear to me why this is necessary in this context. So what if Mi5 considered them terrorists? What does that have to do with the size of the opposing forces in a section titled "military assessment"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - "the size of the opposing forces" is not the only assessment already presented under "military assessment". To wit: ' underground paramilitary force'...' clandestine groups'...'covert arms acquisition'
Being a relative newby to editing in Wikipedia, I certainly appreciate your worthy assistance in honing acceptable contributions to Wiki pages. In the interests of fully understanding editorial policy, could you please show me where additional, relevant, informative, secondary sourced information presented within the guidelines, is prohibited. Because it seems rather strange that earlier you in fact offered a rather odious proposition wherein you "wouldn't object to ... doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict" under this very same section, thereby providing additional information to notions like underground, clandestine, covert, etc in respect to the "other groups involved in this conflict".
Finally, if here you have no more authority than I, your 'job' is fast becoming apparent by the failure to censure the disruptive AnonMoos and now only having your opinion left in attempts to prevent the addition of relevant, secondary sourced, material once the editorial criteria have been met. Again, thanks for your help.
I now suggest the following changes : 4th suggestion "The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern, a few thousand armed settlers and Irgun[50], the latter of which had been monitored by the British and whose activities were considered by Mi5 to be terrorism(ref). " talknic (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop with the thinly veiled personal attacks before you find yourself blocked from editing. This is not a discussion board. Earlier, I was wondering if you were planning to label anyone else as "terrorist". Obviously you aren't. That's no big surprise at this point.
In the interests of fully understanding editorial policy, I suggest you read WP:NPOV, where it says significant views should be "represent[ed] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". When you have a simple list of groups and their sizes, and you try to label just one of them a terrorist group in the encyclopedia's neutral voice, you are not representing views proportionally or fairly. I think you answered the bias part when you declined to add anything to the other groups.
Anyway, and to the point, saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, for example, lower in the "Yishuv forces" section where various groups are discussed in detail. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- "personal attacks"? Please be specific
"...planning to label anyone else as "terrorist". Obviously you aren't." Please stop making false accusations by inference. I have not labeled anyone as a terrorist. It's against policy to label people/groups as terrorists. Why did you suggest it be done? To wit :"Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict"
"I think you answered the bias part when you declined to add anything to the other groups." I 'declined' your completely bizarre proposition to label people/groups as terrorists. A proposal to go against the guidelines, call people terrorists, 'here'= in Military Assessments, which you now wish to change. Furthermore, it is quite obvious we haven't gotten past the first instance on the page. The next down the page awaits your able contribution. WP:NPOV Go ahead, add additional, relevant, informative, secondary sourced information presented within the guidelines.
"...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, for example, lower in the "Yishuv forces" section where various groups are discussed in detail."
Happy to agree, sans "saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group" You're forgetting the wiki guideline. Again. Suggestion 1) "The two clandestine groups had 2,000–4,000 and 500–800 members, respectively. Irgun, who had been monitored by the British and whose activities were considered by Mi5 to be terrorism(ref) and Lehi."
Which additional material would you now like to add? talknic (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What wiki guideline am I forgetting "again"?
And in the off chance that you really didn't get that my suggestion to label groups as terrorist was made tongue-in-cheek, allow me to assure you that it was not a serious suggestion, as I made clear (for the few I thought might actually not get it) in my next post in the thread. I hope that clears up your misunderstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - "What wiki guideline am I forgetting "again"?" Labeling groups or people as terrorists is prohibited. After a hasty retreat from your ghastly proposition, you suggested "...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, "
"And in the off chance that you really didn't get that my suggestion to label groups as terrorist was made tongue-in-cheek, allow me to assure you that it was not a serious suggestion" What you really don't get, is the fact that you have since repeated it "...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit, " talknic (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Reference added in the "Yishuv forces" section as you have suggested (naturally sans labeling people or groups 'terrorists')
We can now proceed. Please start an appropriate heading in order to discuss the changes you have in mind for "other groups involved in this conflict". Without any reference to them being called terrorists, please talknic (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group is not labeling people or groups as terrorist, it's reporting what the British thought. You really should understand the guidelines better before trying to use them in silly attempts at belligerence. Not to mention I was obviously not suggesting that exact text be put in the article. I really hope another editor will show up and be able to explain these things to you, since I have obviously failed at explaining them, and you don't understand them properly when you read them yourself.
By the way, the ref you added doesn't load and the prose is again awkward. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy "Saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group is not labeling people or groups as terrorist, it's reporting what the British thought." The source says activities. " You really should understand the guidelines better" You really should stop misrepresenting, it's against the guidelines you advocate.
"Not to mention I was obviously not suggesting that exact text be put in the article." Uh huh //"Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist", I wouldn't object to you doing it here if you'll join me in doing the same for other groups involved in this conflict"// and again, after your hasty retreat //"...saying the British considered Irgun a terrorist group would fit.."// You did suggest exactly that. In the same sentence, you advocated breaking the very guidelines you yourself described.
"I really hope another editor will show up and be able to explain these things to you, since I have obviously failed at explaining.." No sir, you have done an admirable job talknic (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIKILAWYER.
I hope you'll soon realize that this is not a discussion board where you score virtual points for being more "clever" than everyone else, or your stint as a wikipedia editor is going to be quite short. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The prose was not challenged at 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agreed to your suggestion of 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) at 15:45, 22 March 2011 March 2011 (UTC) (sans labeling people or groups as 'terrorists')
The change was implemented at 01:04, 23 March 2011 without registered objection
The ref link was rectified at 16:21, 23 March 2011 Thanks for your help.
Please start an appropriate heading in order to discuss the changes you have in mind for "other groups involved in this conflict" talknic (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. Nobody can accuse me of not trying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking issue resolved talknic (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Maths - 22 is 39% of 56 not 18%

1) Do we need a secondary source for maths? Israel was allocated 56% of 100% 78 less 56 is 22 22 is 39% of 56 It should read "This was about 39% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it." Objections? talknic (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that says "When the war ended, the territory under Israeli control was 21 percent larger than the area allotted to in under the UN partition plan". I will fix the discrepancy and add the ref later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. Your source has the math wrong. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll wait for more sources. It's not really that this source has the math wrong, as much as these things are ambiguous (used to the advantage of marketers everywhere). 78% is 22% more than 56%. 78% is also 28% larger than 56%. 78% is also a 39% increase on 56%.
Let's get a few sources and see what most of them say.
While you're here, feel free to join in some of the other discussions. As you may have seen, I'm having some difficulty explaining policy and guidelines to talknic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Percentages are indeed (mis)used in many ways on a daily basis. But mathematically speaking, only the statement that "78% is also a 39% increase on 56%" is correct. "78% is 22% more than 56%" is false and " 78% is also 28% larger than 56%" is false as well. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78/100 - 22/100 = 56/100. 78% is 22% more than 56%.
78/100 - (78/100 * 28/100) = 56/100. 78% is 28% (of 78%) more than 56%.
78/100 - (56/100 * 39/100) = 56/100. 78% is 39% (of 56%) more than 56%.
The second and third are quite commonly used. I'm sure we can find relevant sources discussing this. It took me maybe 2 minutes to find the one above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how you got those numbers. Here's another one: 100% is 100% as much (i.e. twice) as 0%. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do need a secondary source for maths (even though you seem to have got the numbers right). --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that citation needed tag that was added after I made my above comment remains there, I'm going to have to put the source I provided in the article to replace it.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it'd be far more accurate to get a mathematical scholar, rather than the opinions of biased 'marketers'
[[5]] Suggested Question to ask : There is 56% of an area allocated. It is increased to 78% of the area. This is ??% more than the original allocation.
Ask or not ask? talknic (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is the key. Saying this is "n" percent more than the original allocation is somewhat ambiguous, implying "n" additional percentage points. Saying this is "n" percent larger than the original allocation would be an improvement. Even better—if 56% and 78% are the correct figures—would be to say, or add, something like, "nearly two-fifths larger..." Hertz1888 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about... 56% is increased to 78%. n% more than 56% talknic (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "39% larger than 56%?" Hertz1888 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion is "This was about 18% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it." The question must reflect the assertion .. 56% is increased to 78%, n% more than the original 56% ... The altered statement need only correct the maths talknic (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the actual numbers are 56 and 78, the assertion is stated misleadingly. Following it will put misleading information in the article. 18 is the difference, not the proportionate increase. I think we're going around in circles here. Aren't the actual areas, in sq. km or sq. mi., available somewhere, so that we can take a fresh, different approach? How long must this discussion go on? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The actual areas in sq. km or sq. mi. are already reflected in the percentages. Simply change the incorrect maths to reflect the correct proportional increase. It isn't difficult except of course if someone is purposefully trying to make it look less than the actual proportional increase, which will ensure the discussion goes on meanwhile the article reflects incorrect information, which can hardly be said to be acting in good faith
To that end I suggest the creaky maths be changed and add 'proportionally' which tells the reader how n% was reached, retaining the structure & grammar & what the author meant to show "This was proportionally about 39% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted it." talknic (talk) 04:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That should work. Doesn't seem likely to confuse anyone. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be consensus on the maths and wording. Change agreed? "This was proportionally about 39% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted it." talknic (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't agree. No unsourced calculations should appear. While it is sometimes OK to make a simple calculation like a percentage, it must never be done unless the numerator and denominator come from the same source, and in this case because it is such a sensitive question, I don't think it should be done at all unless a good source has made the percentage comparison itself. All calculations should therefore be left out until we have seen a good source for them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion on the source I provided above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a scholarly source, thanks. Ideally we would follow up the footnote and cite both this text and the text noted. But I don't get all the chapter footnotes in Google Books preview, so can't do that myself. What do you think about leaving the whole thing out for now? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Any opinion on the source" Yes. The statement is based on the premise of an 'proportional increase' to what Israel was allotted. The maths does not reflect the proportional increase as stated. It reflects the difference between, say 78 and 57. Finding what the author cited would only reveal the same problem talknic (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Itsmejudith --- " leaving the whole thing out for now" OK talknic (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the footnotes either, unfortunately. As I indicated above, I'm in no rush to change this, and I wouldn't mind leaving it out either. Although I do think the source fulfills wiki requirements. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what's happened, though. A source that is reliable for history has fallen foul of the "journalist's error", mistaking "percentage difference" and "percentage point difference". Not so reliable for arithmetic. We can leave the whole thing out. Or we give the before and after in square kilometres if we have a source for each. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They've cited a source that has failed to make the distinction or, possibly, found a source that fails to make the distinction.
Agreed to remove it for the moment? talknic (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[ BTW ] talknic (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UpDate by our esteemed mathematician companions on Wikipedia [ HERE ]
If it goes to a deliberation on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I'll be citing their conclusion.
Any further contribution on a change to the number? If not I suggest it be changed talknic (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors have told you that secondary sources are required. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- Four editors have pointed out that the current statement is inaccurate. Two have agreed it should be left out pending further verifiable information. Two suggested it be referred to the maths boffins on Wikipedia, two of whom resolved by default of showing the correct maths according to the statement, that the current statement and 18% is simply wrong. A further reference citing anything other than what our esteemed colleagues have resolved, within the same statement, will be challenged.
At the top of the discussion page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article.
Please point out where it says consensus is required in order to make minor changes to the article or is a valid reason, without explanation, for reversion...thx WP:DRNC
Noting your continued failure to contribute in good faith to resolving any issue I've pointed out and the continual mis-use of the guidelines, I again suggest that the statement be kept and the faulty maths corrected. To wit : "This was proportionally about 39% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted it." talknic (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRNC is an essay, not a guideline, but anyway it talks about reverting something without discussion. Here we've had a discussion, the conclusions of which are clear. If you want to remove the text, nobody minds. If you want to change it in the way you're proposing, you're going to have to find a source.
I'm getting a little tired of your constant accusations of bad faith. The only person to supply a secondary source in this discussion has been me, and I've agreed not to use it pending more sources being found. You on the other hand tagged the article with a cn tag after I provided a source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please let's assume good faith. The source proposed by NMMNG simply made a mistake in maths, these things happen. My proposal is that we look for sources that give the land area before and after rather than making a percentage comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy -- Someone put the statement there in order to contribute to the article. It gave no secondary source and I cannot find a complaint about that prior to pointing out the faulty maths. The call for a citation is based on the faulty maths within the statement, not the statement. I believe it should be left and simply correct the maths, which has been confirmed as awry by the Maths boffins on Wikipedia, without it being identified as an wikI/Pedia issue. The correction of a single number is hardly a major edit. Meanwhile, you've not contributed to how it might be resolved except to hastily suggest another wrongly concluded figure and offer to rush off an change it without discussion, as you did with the JPost reference to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. On both accounts, you didn't call for the consensus you now demand.
Itsmejudith -- "we look for sources that give the land area before and after rather than making a percentage comparison" The result is the same and could be put in percentages as well, within the existing statement. Editors do not require a trial by high jury to make minor edits. I could have just corrected it, but having been so thoroughly guided by NMMNG brought the issue here to be resolved in an amicable manner. Maths issue having been resolved, I could remove the call for a citation, we could change the percentage. Then it becomes an issue of what exactly? talknic (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Galnoor already cited is from an academic press. It looks to be reliable and on-topic for this article. We should follow Galnoor's figures and probably also his method. There is no reason to do our own calculations. If you insist that we need to make our own calculations, it doesn't need to go to Wikiproject Mathematics, anyone slightly numerate can do it, but where it should go is the no original research noticeboard, for further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Galnoor says "approximately 75%" not "78%". He does supply an actual figure in km2 though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy/Itsmejudith--- "The source proposed by NMMNG simply made a mistake in maths" (Itsmejudith). No More Mr Nice Guy -- The exact percentages are irrelevant to the problem. As the maths boffins at Wikipedia have confirmed, the basic premise for reaching the figure is wrong within the context of the statement. The determination to propagate a wrongly concluded figure is rather telling talknic (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just put the basic numbers in, or I will do it from Galnoor. End of problem. No need to attribute motivation. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The correct numbers? Or the numbers based on a completely incorrect premise for the statement from a dubious source for this particular issue? "The source proposed by NMMNG simply made a mistake in maths, these things happen" talknic (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Galnoor is not the source I posted above, it's a source already in the article. Could you please spend more time actually reading and less time accusing people of stuff? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- I said Galnoor? Where? thx .... Meanwhile see Itsmejudith.. BTW what source? at the point it incorrectly says 18%, it was and still is un-sourced. talknic (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say "approximately 75%" as that is wrong. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post a source you think is "right" rather than just saying the rest are "wrong"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78% is approximately 75%. 78% may be spurious accuracy. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - Here's one the maths boffins say is right BTW I haven't found any complaints but my own about there being no secondary sources for the present incorrectly arrived at 18%.
Itsmejudith - 75%, 78%, land measures et al are irrelevant to the issue raised. The premise on which the calculation is made, is incorrect for the statement made. The editors claim must be proven. All a challenger has to do is show it's wrong. I have sought expert advise and they say, very simply, it is wrong! talknic (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78% is approximately 80%, not 75%. No source is needed for that. That is how one approximates numbers to nearest multiple of 5. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Early in 1949 the contending parties - Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan signed general armistice agreements which recognized de facto Jewish control over half again as much territory as had been allocated to Israel under the plan for partition". Encyclopedia Americana - Volume 30 Page 533. talknic (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=prev&oldid=421811148