Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Talknic (talk | contribs)
→‎Bolding of The Catastrophe / al-Nakba - Due weight in formatting: Cited a few sources for what Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs called the war.
Line 257: Line 257:
::::::::::"There is a problem with your bolding in violation of [[WP:MOS]]" Care to point out exactly under which guideline in [[WP:MOS]] Because as I've shown, it is permissible to bold both the first appearance of proper nouns and their synonyms or translations according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD#Proper_names_and_titles WP:LEAD] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD#Usage_in_first_sentence WP:LEAD] [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::"There is a problem with your bolding in violation of [[WP:MOS]]" Care to point out exactly under which guideline in [[WP:MOS]] Because as I've shown, it is permissible to bold both the first appearance of proper nouns and their synonyms or translations according to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD#Proper_names_and_titles WP:LEAD] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD#Usage_in_first_sentence WP:LEAD] [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::"nakba is not an alternative name for the war" therefore it should not be bolded in the lead. Now you're just trolling. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::"nakba is not an alternative name for the war" therefore it should not be bolded in the lead. Now you're just trolling. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::NMMNG - You've moved the goalpost back to a your first position. Thus far I haven't as yet suggested it as an alternative name for the war. al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LEAD#Proper_names_and_titles WP:LEAD]. BTW I note you don't even bother upper case it.
::::::::::::As I said, ''thus far'' I haven't suggested al Nakba as an alternative name for the war. However it seems rather odd that only Israelis have a name for the war and Israel's neighbouring Arab States and neighbouring Palestinian Arabs didn't. To that end, I've had a closer look.
::::::::::::1)[https://kindle.amazon.com/work/1948-history-first-arab-israeli-ebook/B001I04ALG/B001PO59EM 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Prof. Benny Morris] "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)"
::::::::::::2) [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Fwxfqfv19UEC&pg=PA17&dq=%22The+First+Palestine+war%22+%2BNakba&hl=en&ei=-41vTrzDMeqhiAehldDhCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20First%20Palestine%20war%22%20%2BNakba&f=false Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East - By Neil Caplan - Routledge, 1997- Page 17] "...the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence,an-Nakba(the(Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war"
::::::::::::3)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CjuzDY-WBr8C&pg=PA33&dq=%22called+al+Nakba%22&hl=en&ei=h6RvTqa1Mc2viQeYtpmyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22called%20al%20Nakba%22&f=false Israel or Palestine? Is the two-state solution already dead? - Hasan Afif El-Hasan - Algora Publishing, 2010 - Page 33] "The Jews called this war “The War of Independence” and in Palestinian historiography it is called al-Nakba (the Catastrophe)"
::::::::::::4)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5PjkU1gfTxIC&pg=PA14&dq=%22called+al+Nakba%22&hl=en&ei=h6RvTqa1Mc2viQeYtpmyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22called%20al%20Nakba%22&f=false Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature - By David Cook - - Page 15] "in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (often called al-Nakba, the disaster)"
::::::::::::5)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nH-2jBuCEA0C&pg=PA87&dq=%22called+al+Nakba%22&hl=en&ei=h6RvTqa1Mc2viQeYtpmyCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22called%20al%20Nakba%22&f=false Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home and migration - Sara Ahmed -Berg, 2003 - Page 87] "The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, war and their aftermath (named The War of Independence by Israelis), is called al-Nakba - the catastrophe - by the Palestinians."
::::::::::::6)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1XQMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22called+al+Nakba%22&dq=%22called+al+Nakba%22&hl=en&ei=HqhvTpXuOoSQiQfgr_nKCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBDgK The contemporary Middle East - Karl Yambert, Arthur Goldschmidt - Westview Press, 2006 - Page 51] "The Palestinian community was shattered by the fighting and flight in 1948-1949, which they called al-nakba (the disaster)"
::::::::::::7)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XE0V7XhTv0EC&pg=PA7&dq=%22call+the+war+of+Independence%22+%2BIsrael&hl=en&ei=TqxvTtnRMM-TiAeww8ClCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22call%20the%20war%20of%20Independence%22%20%2BIsrael&f=false Israel/Palestine: how to end the war of 1948 - Tanya Reinhart - Allen & Unwin, 2003- Page 7] "following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba — the catastrophe"
::::::::::::8)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=L7buXDxog0AC&pg=PA216&dq=%22call+the+war+of+Independence%22+%2BIsrael&hl=en&ei=TqxvTtnRMM-TiAeww8ClCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22call%20the%20war%20of%20Independence%22%20%2BIsrael&f=false Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Selections from CQ Researcher- CQ Researcher - SAGE, 2010 - Page 216] "in what the Israelis call the war of Independence and the Palestinians call the Nakba"
::::::::::::9)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=0nUqCwLOW-sC&pg=PA172&dq=%22call+the+war+of+Independence%22+%2BIsrael&hl=en&ei=TqxvTtnRMM-TiAeww8ClCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22call%20the%20war%20of%20Independence%22%20%2BIsrael&f=false The Israel/Palestine question - Ilan Pappé - Routledge, 1999 - Page 172] "the first Arab Israeli war, which they call al Nakba or the Disaster"
::::::::::::10)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iVJR9UZnTVAC&pg=PA417&dq=%22call+the+war+of+Independence%22+%2BIsrael&hl=en&ei=TqxvTtnRMM-TiAeww8ClCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22call%20the%20war%20of%20Independence%22%20%2BIsrael&f=false Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present - Itamar Rabinovich - UPNE, 2008 - Page 47] "what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what the Palestinians call al naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally, the 1948 war"
::::::::::::11)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xrGL7o69KBIC&pg=PA155&dq=%22call+the+war+of+Independence%22+%2BIsrael&hl=en&ei=2LBvTtqkLq-SiAeMvdHVCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22call%20the%20war%20of%20Independence%22%20%2BIsrael&f=false Who are the Christians in the Middle East? - Betty Jane Bailey, J. Martin Bailey - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 - Page 155] "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe"
::::::::::::12)[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=JK_RRzVVIn0C&pg=PA202&dq=%22call+the+war+of+Independence%22+%2BIsrael&hl=en&ei=2LBvTtqkLq-SiAeMvdHVCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22call%20the%20war%20of%20Independence%22%20%2BIsrael&f=false The Arab world: an illustrated history - Kirk H. Sowell - Hippocrene Books, 2004 - Page 202] "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe"
::::::::::::"Now you're just trolling." Would you please just address the topic [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


----
----

Revision as of 20:10, 13 September 2011

comment

Wow!

I read your First two short paragraphs: The second: Wiki ""The war commenced upon the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine and the Israeli declaration of independence on 15 May 1948, following a period of civil war in 1947–1948. The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[11] Much of what Arabs refer to as The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) occurred amidst this war.""

So the War just "Commenced"! The Arabs didn't INVADE would-be Israel, the war just "Commenced"!

This place is SO PC (indeed Leftist/Arabist) it's Ridiculous.

You have NO credibility in any area where politics is involved. NONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu afak (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the inclusion of the occupied Palestinian territories in the first section

Currently the opening reads

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet HA'sikhror) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur) – was the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbours in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinians were also Arab neighbors, the war for the most part was fought in their territory and they were most effected at the end of the conflict

Suggest following in order to reconcile the last paragraph with the opening paragraph.

The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Israel The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics - Joseph Heller Page 39 "..they would have to approve these occupations", Jordan Handbook of International Law - Anthony Aust Page 27 "..at that time occupied by Jordan" and Egypt.Israel Yearbook on Human Rights: 1993 Volume 23 - Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory ,Page 41. "Egypt...military occupation of the area from 1948-1967" talknic (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we have this discussion a few months ago, before you were topic banned?
By the way, you added a cn tag to the article where you say Transjordan was under the French. That's incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy: A) Yes. It was never resolved. Valid objections? B) CN Yes, my error.... talknic (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not resolved in the sense that you were unable to gain consensus for your proposed change but still want to make it. Is that what you mean? I have nothing to add to the previous discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - The proposal was not defeated by consensus. The discussion shows goal posts being moved every time your criteria was met, to the point where you claimed "None of your sources talk about "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs", they talk about geographic areas" as though they were empty of people who were under military occupation.
"Palestinian Arabs" are already mentioned in the article 16 times. Bearing that in mind, please address the current suggested proposition without personal comments and un-necessary dialogue. You must have a valid reason for your objection. talknic (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - Having read through the previous discussion and; noted the arguments and; in order to comply with your past objections re - occupation vs military control, I suggest the following to keep from cluttering.
The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the under the military control of Israel [1], Egypt [2] and Jordan [3]
(BTW See the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [4] “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") talknic (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal was indeed defeated by consensus. You were the only editor who supported it while several others objected. I'm done discussing this. If another editor joins in and supports your position, we can reopen the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - "You were the only editor who supported it while several others objected" Name them... thx
Throughout your objections have all been met. I have compromised on EVERY point you've raised and provided sources. (none of which were contested BTW) This is a brief history of the previous discussion:
1) "I think the current version works better. First of all not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe." I was not and am still not addressing the Nakba but the inclusion in the lead of the article of Israel's OTHER Arab neighbours, the Palestinian Arabs, who are mentioned 16 times through out the article.
2) "Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?" It's a ridiculous notion that the Palestinians do not neighbour Israel.
3) "Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt" I've shown (and again this time) valid references stating otherwise. Sources for "occupied", then "military control" then under the "control" of. Each time goal posts moved, the objection was met
4) "None of your sources talk about "neighbouring Palestinian Arabs", they talk about geographic areas" The laws of military control/occupation concern the movement, actions and control of PEOPLE. A checkpoint is not there to stop a geographical area from moving.
5) "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." You moved the goal posts from 'military control' I complied, changed it to 'occupation', supplied sources, you agreed, then you claimed, again, that the people were not under military control/occupation.
6) "Military authority is not the same as occupation. For example, a military base is under military authority, but not under occupation" Bizarre we are not discussing a military base. " In our case, your source about Israel is not saying that Israeli Arabs were under occupation" The text I referred to was not about Israeli Arabs.
This: "The State of Israel and its Arab neighbors" obviously refers to neighboring Arab states" Which could then be changed to ACTUALLY say that...(but then there are 16 instances of "Palestinian Arabs" in the article which ought also be dealt with)
The proposed change stands as stated 18:07, 8 September 2011, Please address it. The history of the article shows where Palestinian Arabs have been slowly edited out of the lead, yet there are already 16 other instances where the "Palestinian Arabs" are mentioned in the article.
PS: For ease can we please keep the discussion to this top section, much of the delineated dialogue is not really relevant. talknic (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a severe case of WP:IDHT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - There was no consensus by "several others" when we discussed it last.
I've summarized that discussion here in order to continue and objections presented anew here thus far, simply do not justify blocking the addition.
1 The Palestinian Arabs were also neighbours to Israel. It is undeniable. "Palestinian Arabs" are already mentioned 16 times in the article.
2 Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours were more in number than Israelis. The majority civilians, severely effected by the war. At the end of the war, those people living the "geographic areas" were under the military control of their surrounding Arab neighbours and their Israeli neighbours.
3 Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbours are a major factor in the whole issue, whose fate was dictated by the 1949 Armistice Agreements at the end of the war.
4 You have not contested the last suggestion at all. It complies with the ever changing "occupied" and/or "military control" and/or "control of" demands
5 The criteria have all been met. It is concise, it rounds out the lead, inclusive of Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs, who are not afforded WP:DUE in the lead of the article.
It can be summarized in a very simple change to the lead. Could you please address the issue constructively talknic (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you find another editor who supports your change, we can discuss it. I'm not going to let you suck up huge amounts of my time again.
If you make the change despite knowing you do not have consensus for it, you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - Why are you making threats and false assertions? There was no consensus by "several others" when we discussed it last
You've not given one valid reason for objecting to the inclusion of the change as it stands at the last suggestion, which fulfills EVERY objection you have previously put forward.
Either mount a valid challenge to the last suggestion or cooperate in the spirit of Wikipedia by suggesting how Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs be given WP:DUE in the lead to the article talknic (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have consensus to make the change you wanted? No. Am I going to waste my time reading walls of text and going around in circles with you again? Fat chance.
If another editor supports your change we can discuss it. That's unlikely to happen because the change you're proposing is nonsensical and a-historical.
I'm done here. Do not take my not replying to you further as agreement for your proposed change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - There has been no discussion whatsoever on the change as currently suggested, wherein all your previous objections have been met.
"the change you're proposing is nonsensical and a-historical" Please present your argument based on the current suggestion.
You've made a blatantly false allegation of "several others" in the previous unfinished discussion where I attempted to address you stated objection/s, comply with and compromise in keeping with the guidelines.
Some of your objections can only be described as a bizarre ("the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?")&("The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people.") Neither of which can be considered valid. Both territory and people are under the military control of a foreign government (aka occupation) and to say the Palestinian Arabs do not neighbour Israel is quite ludicrous.
Furthermore, I've made an alternative suggestion which you have not addressed at all. Change the lead to read "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet HA'sikhror) or War of Liberation (Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור‎, Milkhemet Hashikhrur) – was the first in a series of wars fought between the State of Israel and its neighbouring Arab States in the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict." talknic (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic -- Your rhetorical strategies and method of operating on Wikipedia article talk pages the last time around conspicuously failed to "win friends and influence people", did not result in any significant lasting changes to Wikipedia articles, and ended up getting you a 6-month topic ban. So it's somewhat mystifying why you seem to be enthusiastically resuming most of your old bad habits. Do you expect doing the same thing to lead to a different result this time around? And don't tell me that I'm going "off topic" if I'm not discussing your proposed change to the article wording -- unfortunately, by your behavior you have made yourself a topic of discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not once addressed the actual topic talknic (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you devoted as much energy to other things as you do to coming up with insulting edit summaries, then you might have much more impact on the contents of Wikipedia articles... AnonMoos (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the actual topic talknic (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic -- I hardly know how to make much sense of your proposal, because you've chosen to use the word "Palestinian" in a way which is completely anachronistic for 1948 -- and so would be highly confusing and inappropriate if added to the article -- and because the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" is quite meaningless as applied to the results of the 1948-1949 war (unless you choose to regard Tel Aviv as "occupied Palestinian territory"!). There was no territory whatsoever that was initially assigned to either Arabs or Jews at the beginning of the war (since the Arabs had turned down the November 29th 1947 partition plan), so either ALL the land seized by BOTH sides was "occupied" (including Tel Aviv by the Jews and Nablus by the Arabs) or none of it was... AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos: Before we continue, ( WP:PRIMARY 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)...
Not differentiating between Israel and Palestine is "highly confusing and inappropriate". The area that became Israel was renamed. The area of Palestine that remained "outside of the territories of the State of Israel", is still called Palestine in UNSC Resolutions pertaining to the matter. It's surely better that people are informed. Israel is not in Palestine.
May 22nd 1948 After Israel was declared and recognized - Israeli Government statement to the UNSC (S/766)[5] differentiates between the territories of the State of Israel and those of Palestine. "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."
International regulations in that regard were the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [6]
22 May 1948 United Nations Security Council Resolution 49 and all following UNSC resolutions calling for an end to hostilities or peace or a truce or a ceasefire say "in Palestine".
Do you have any valid objections? talknic (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources to back up your original research? Again, we've been over this repeatedly so it's not like you don't understand you can't make changes to an article based on your interpretation of primary sources, so why are you trying to waste everyone's time again? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy
A) The changes I have suggested to the lead of the article do not use primary sources. Valid objections?
B) My conversation with AnonMoos is not a part of the suggested change to the 'lead of the article', but in answer to his rather silly discussion on the 'Talk header' .. "because the phrase "occupied Palestinian territories" is quite meaningless .. etc" I didn't suggest using the phrase in the 'lead of the article'. Never the less, two points 1) In Talk a primary source can be used to prove the validity or not of a secondary source. 2) In an Article, a primary source can be used "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"
"why are you trying to waste everyone's time again" Attempting to improve articles is one of the basic notions of Wikipedia, attempting to prevent valid improvements is wasting everyone's time talknic (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that unfortunately your little vacation did not improve your understanding of wikipedia policy and guidelines. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain them to you for the nth time, nor am I going to rehash the same discussion we had a few months ago, at least not without the participation of at least one more editor supporting your position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - A) Please keep the discussion to the topic. B) The issue was not resolved 'a few months ago' C) There is no necessity for another editor to support the suggested change to the Lead of the Article. Consensus to prevent a valid addition of relevant information must also be based on valid reasons, otherwise it would be a mis-use of policy. D) Thus far you have even attempted a valid objection to the suggested addition.
Israel's "Arab neighbours" include/d/s the Arab neighbours in what remained of Palestine after Israel was Declared. At present the "Palestinian Arabs" appears 16 times in the article. Either add the suggestion in order to reconcile the first part of the Lead with the last AND bring it into line with the other 16 instances of "Palestinian Arabs"
OR we could address changing the first part to read "between the State of Israel and its neighbouring Arab States"..... However changing the first part to "neighbouring Arab States" will negate the inclusion of or necessitate changes to some, if not all, of the 16 references to "Palestinian Arabs" already in the Article. talknic (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal was indeed defeated by consensus. You were the only editor who supported it while several others objected. I'm done discussing this. If another editor joins in and supports your position, we can reopen the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy - See reply in first section above the delineation lines. thx talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Talknic -- Unfortunately your use of the "State of Palestine" in that context is an example of your sometimes somewhat disingenuous approach. In fact, the phrase "State of Palestine" does NOT actually occur in the document http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 (but is merely your added personal interpretation) -- and in 1948 BOTH Arabs AND Jews were commonly called "Palestinians", and the leading Jewish newspaper was called the "Palestine Post". It's OK sometimes to loosely use contemporary terminology in place of the strictly historically correct terminology actually used during the 1947-1948 period -- but NOT where this would result in glaring flagrant anachronisms, or create muddled confusion. Furthermore, while http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 is an interesting document, it's really a preliminary military situation update written in the "fog of war", and not something which bound or binds the Jews or Israelis to anything in particular... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A) You're discussing the header for Talk, which is NOT the suggested change to the article lead. B) I didn't write "the State of Palestine" anywhere (another example of your somewhat disingenuous approach) C) UNSC S/766 is an official Israeli Government statement to the UNSC. Your opinion is appreciated but rather irrelevant to the 'lead of the Article'
Do you have any valid objections to the suggested change to the 'lead of the Article' talknic (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic -- Unfortunately, the phrase "Palestinian territories" is terminologically anachronistic and almost meaningless in the context of May 14-15 1948 -- and in fact does NOT appear in http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 . If there had been an occasion to refer to the concept you have in mind, the phrase used would have been along the lines of "territory that would have been in the Arab state according to the November 29th plan" or similar -- NOT "Palestinian territories". In any case, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/B4085A930E0529C98025649D00410973 is pretty much a provisional battlefield communiqué (as I already stated), and will not really bear any elevated diplomatic significance that you might try to project on it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A) Why on earth are you talking about the 'header of the comments section' again, instead of the suggested changes to the 'LEAD OF THE ARTICLE' B) UNSC S/766 is an official Israeli Government statement to the UNSC (also irrelevant to the changes being suggested for the LEAD OF THE ARTICLE) Never the less, thanks for your unsubstantiated opinion
B) Could you please address the suggested changes to the LEAD OF THE ARTICLE thx talknic (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever -- you were the one who choose to give great prominence to that phrase. However, "leaving the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs under the occupation of Israel" is not much different and not much better -- if it's not mentioned that there were plenty of other Arabs, formerly of the British mandate, who were left under the occupation of Egypt or the occupation of Transjordan. (Of course, there were no Jews under Arab occupation, because they had well-founded fears of what would happen to them in such an eventuality...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - "you were the one who choose to give great prominence to that phrase" I didn't suggest "that phrase" for the Lead of the Article. You might also consider the 16 references to "Palestinian Arabs" already in the Article talknic (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - "if it's not mentioned that there were plenty of other Arabs ... left under the occupation of Egypt or the occupation of Transjordan." That is PRECISELY what I have suggested for the Lead in the Article. Please read the suggestion BEFORE making disruptive comments.... talknic (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the tag you added is almost complete gibberish, since Transjordan was in the British part of the Sykes-Picot division, and also part of the original British League of Nations mandate. It did not "achieve independence from Palestine"[sic] -- rather it was unilaterally administratively separated from Palestine in the early 1920s by the British. I'm going to wait a day and replace it by a simple bare unadorned "fact" tag, because your annotations are hardly helpful... AnonMoos (talk)

My error - re the French (we all make mistakes). However it is arguable that Jordan achieved independence 'from' Britain. A) It was not British, so it didn't secede. It was formerly a part of the Provisional State of Palestine B) Independence was recognized 'by' Britain not specifically 'from' Britain. C) Independence is from all other entities, including Palestine.talknic (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I greatly prefer my original wording -- neither Palestine nor Transjordan was independent in the 1920s or 1930s (Palestine was a directly administered colony, while Transjordan was a closely-supervised British protectorate), so it's very hard to say what "Transjordan achieved its independence from Palestine" really means... AnonMoos (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather irrelevant here now as I have agreed I was mistaken, removed your 'fact' as it is not currently disputed. Perhaps it could be addressed on a page about Jordan. In that respect Trans-Jordan was a part of Palestine, not Britain. It became an Independent Sovereignty 'recognized' by Britain. talknic (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically Transjordan was a colony (a.k.a mandate) before being handed off to the hashemites from Arabia. The high-profile nature of this conflict unfortunately makes it difficult to add comprehensive changes without a serious, serious consensus. This discussion is probably more relevant at Palestinian people or Israeli–Palestinian conflict. WikifanBe nice 05:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifan12345 - "a colony (a.k.a mandate)" A Mandate is an set of conditions/agreement. A colony is not talknic (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A colony can include a set of conditions/agreement. British/French referred to the land they conquered as mandates, but really they were colonies. WikifanBe nice 08:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the LoN Mandate for Palestine very carefully. "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations" Then Read the LoN Covenant Art 22 Para 5
I will no longer be a party to this part of the discussion. It is irrelevant to the suggested change to the Lead of the Article talknic (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who attacked first in 1948?

The first two paragraphs are overly neutral. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia on the same day it declared its independence.

http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html

What would be the motivation of Israel to attack any of the surrounding countries at a time of celebration?

108.49.25.235 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel was not the first to attack across the British mandate borders (to do so would have been to create unnecessary trouble for itself and alienate world opinion), but violence within the British mandate territory was already ongoing and chronic as of May 14-15 1948... AnonMoos (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On declaration, Israel didn't withdraw Jewish forces from territories outside of the State of Israel. It could be said that on May 15th 1948 the civil war pre declaration, became a war waged by the state of Israel on the non-self Governing territories that remained of Palestine. As UN Member States (except Jordan, who used Iraqi troops), the Regional Arab Powers had a right to intervene in order to protect non-self Governing territories (see Chpt XI UN Charter) after lodging their intent, the Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine (not Israel) with the UNSC (see Chapt VII) talknic (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, all that your verbiage amounts to here is that since the Arabs refused to recognize the any binding force of the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines (and in fact loudly denounced the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines as being legally utterly null and void, with vehement vitriolic virulence), therefore the Jews also didn't treat the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines as having any binding force. If the Jews had stayed within the theoretical 1947 partition plan lines while the Arabs were crossing and recrossing them at will, then Jews might as well have slit their throats in advance and saved the Arabs the trouble -- as everybody at the time was well aware. The rest of your comments are merely applications of the "Talknic's ladder" method of very loose deduction (see talk page archives)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - "the binding force of the theoretical 1947 partition plan" What binding force? UNGA resolutions are non-binding, though the Laws, UN Charter, relevant conventions they might refer to are binding. Furthermore no entity can be forced to declare independence. Look up the meaning of the word.
The Israeli Government Declared (enshrining UNGA res 181 in the Declaration [7]), sought recognition [8], was recognized as such and confirmed it's defined territories in an official Statement to the UNSC May 22nd 1948(S/766)[9] "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 Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel"
International regulations in that regard were the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III [10] talknic (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed "the binding force" to "any binding force", since the previous wording might potentially be misleading. However, the rest of your comments are classic "Talknic's ladder", which I don't feel like going all through again... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? WP:REDACT Your post 21:59, 7 September 2011 is riddled with unnecessary verbiage and nonsense as the Israeli Government statement to the UNSC of the 22nd May 1948 shows. "Talknic's ladder" was and still is a completely irrelevant affront WP:TPNO. Please stick to the point being discussed talknic (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather unfortunate that you seem to be reverting to your old bad habits of including inflammatory comments in your edit summaries. Maybe you should reconsider some of the things which led to your previous topic ban if you don't want to suffer further similar consequences in the future. As for "Talknic's ladder", it's NOT a mere meaningless insult, but refers in a highly-specific and relevant way to a particular rhetorical strategy and mode of reasoning which was ultimately not found to be too impressive by those who participate in Middle East Wikipedia article talk-page discussions, and which conspicuously failed to result in any significant article improvement. We went all through the problems with "laddering" before, and I have no interest in repeating those discussions... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the topic, sans all un-necessary verbiage talknic (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel it necessary to include personal insults in your edit summaries? It certainly didn't advance the cause of substantive meaningful discussions leading to article improvement in the past, and it certainly won't do so this time around either... AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the topic. I am not interested in your personal vendetta talknic (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again... Do you deliberately put insults in your edit summaries to try to annoy people? Unfortunately, the name for that would be "trolling"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - Please address the topic. thx talknic (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of The Catastrophe / al-Nakba - Due weight in formatting

As it stands: "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence ... or War of Liberation .... Much of what Arabs refer to as The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) occurred amidst this war.

What is " known to Israelis as " has been bolded.

What the "Arabs refer to as " is not afforded the same emphasis.

NMMNG stated "nakba is not an alternative name for the war" The equal emphasis I gave to what "Arabs refer to as " by bolding it, did not alter the previously existing meaning talknic (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is described as the "Nakba" occurred during the war, but it is not the war. We don't describe the Iraq War or World War II with modifiers noting the exodus of millions of people during the conflict. It isn't a matter of weight, but facts. WikifanBe nice 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bolding of The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba) (giving equal weight in formatting), did not change the facts. It reads exactly the same! If it is not a matter of weight then you won't mind if I un-bold "The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence .... or War of Liberation ? talknic (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is described as the "catastrophe" occurred during the conflict, it is not the conflict. The first Arab-Israeli War is not predicated on the displacement of people - this is not unique to the Arab-Israeli war and is an element in virtually all wars fought in the past century. WikifanBe nice 21:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you seem to be equating one part or aspect with the whole. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bold is used for synonyms. "Nakba" is not synonymous with 1948 Arab–Israeli War. See WP:LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st objection was NMMNG "nakba is not an alternative name for the war" Bolding did not change the meaning. There was no objection to what stood before. No words have been added, subtracted or changed. Nor has the order or punctuation.
The 2nd objection Wikifan12345 "What is described as the "Nakba" occurred during the war, but it is not the war" Again, the meaning was not changed from what stood before, to which there was no prior objection.
The 3rd objection Wikifan12345 "We don't describe the Iraq War or World War II with modifiers" But the War of Independence ... or War of Liberation have modifiers!!!!
The 4th objection Wikifan12345 "It isn't a matter of weight, but facts." The facts have not changed.
The 5th objection Hertz1888 "Yes, you seem to be equating one part or aspect with the whole" The wording and meaning have not been changed.
The 6th objection NMMNG - Synonym "Synonyms are different words with almost identical or similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous" Synonymous with each other. e.g., :::::: What was "known to Israelis" and what the "Arabs refer to". 'refer to' and 'known to' are synonymous.
Further more - It is not the only use of bolding. WP:LEAD e.g., Las Meninas (Spanish for The Maids of Honour) is a 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez" another example The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba)
WP:LEAD Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable. How is it different from The Catastrophe (Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba)? talknic (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe you do not understand that "Nakba" does not mean the same thing as "1948 Arab-Israeli war". It's explained right there in the lead which you selectively quoted above. I pointed you to the relevant guideline about bolding in the lead. It's not very hard to understand either. Why do you insist on wasting everyone's time with this nonsense? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG. A) I find it hard to believe you think the meaning is somehow changed by bolding the first appearance of Proper nouns in the first sentence. The wording is exactly the same. I can find no previous objection to the wording.
B) You gave one use of bolding (That being - 'words' synonymous with each other). There are other uses of bolding. Proper names when they first appear in the first sentence and synonymous words. The Catastrophe / al Nakba are Proper names in the first sentence. al Nakba is synonymous with the Catastrophe talknic (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- "Nakba does not in fact redirect to this article... " Why would it? The wording has not changed, the meaning has not changed and the redirection has not changed. I can find no prior objection to it redirecting to the Catastrophe / al Nakba. talknic (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with the wording. There is a problem with your bolding in violation of WP:MOS. I'm done here. As usual, don't take my not responding to your attempts to suck up my time as support for your proposed change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG -- "There is no problem with the wording" That was your first objection "nakba is not an alternative name for the war". After I pointed out that the wording hadn't changed you moved the goalpost to;
"Bold is used for synonyms. "Nakba" is not synonymous with 1948 Arab–Israeli War. See WP:LEAD." But in WP:LEAD it descrbes 'words' being synonyms of each other. Not of bolded content being being synonymous with the title. I gave instances of the permissible use of bolding for the first appearance of proper nouns from WP:LEAD. Now the goalposts have moved again to;
"There is a problem with your bolding in violation of WP:MOS" Care to point out exactly under which guideline in WP:MOS Because as I've shown, it is permissible to bold both the first appearance of proper nouns and their synonyms or translations according to WP:LEAD & WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"nakba is not an alternative name for the war" therefore it should not be bolded in the lead. Now you're just trolling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NMMNG - You've moved the goalpost back to a your first position. Thus far I haven't as yet suggested it as an alternative name for the war. al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead, see WP:LEAD. BTW I note you don't even bother upper case it.
As I said, thus far I haven't suggested al Nakba as an alternative name for the war. However it seems rather odd that only Israelis have a name for the war and Israel's neighbouring Arab States and neighbouring Palestinian Arabs didn't. To that end, I've had a closer look.
1)1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Prof. Benny Morris "The 1948 War-called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster)"
2) Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East - By Neil Caplan - Routledge, 1997- Page 17 "...the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence,an-Nakba(the(Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war"
3)Israel or Palestine? Is the two-state solution already dead? - Hasan Afif El-Hasan - Algora Publishing, 2010 - Page 33 "The Jews called this war “The War of Independence” and in Palestinian historiography it is called al-Nakba (the Catastrophe)"
4)Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature - By David Cook - - Page 15 "in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (often called al-Nakba, the disaster)"
5)Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home and migration - Sara Ahmed -Berg, 2003 - Page 87 "The 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, war and their aftermath (named The War of Independence by Israelis), is called al-Nakba - the catastrophe - by the Palestinians."
6)The contemporary Middle East - Karl Yambert, Arthur Goldschmidt - Westview Press, 2006 - Page 51 "The Palestinian community was shattered by the fighting and flight in 1948-1949, which they called al-nakba (the disaster)"
7)Israel/Palestine: how to end the war of 1948 - Tanya Reinhart - Allen & Unwin, 2003- Page 7 "following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba — the catastrophe"
8)Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Selections from CQ Researcher- CQ Researcher - SAGE, 2010 - Page 216 "in what the Israelis call the war of Independence and the Palestinians call the Nakba"
9)The Israel/Palestine question - Ilan Pappé - Routledge, 1999 - Page 172 "the first Arab Israeli war, which they call al Nakba or the Disaster"
10)Israel in the Middle East: documents and readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present - Itamar Rabinovich - UPNE, 2008 - Page 47 "what Israelis call the War of Independence, or what the Palestinians call al naqba or the Catastrophe, or what historians call, more neutrally, the 1948 war"
11)Who are the Christians in the Middle East? - Betty Jane Bailey, J. Martin Bailey - Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003 - Page 155 "As a result of what the Israelis call the War of Independence and Palestinians call Al-Naqba, the Catastrophe"
12)The Arab world: an illustrated history - Kirk H. Sowell - Hippocrene Books, 2004 - Page 202 "What Israelis call the War of Independence, Arabs call al Nakba, or the catastrophe"
"Now you're just trolling." Would you please just address the topic talknic (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talknic -- In addition to the points raised above, Nakba does not in fact redirect to this article... AnonMoos (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos -- Then surely it belongs with the points raised above, rather than intentionally messing up the flow of yet another discussion. To that end I have answered it with 'the points raised above' and will not respond here to anything you might add here talknic (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everyone relax. Talknic, 1948 Palestinian exodus (referred to as the "Nakba" by some) was part of the 1948 war, but it wasn't the war. I'm trying to make this sound as simple as it can. WikifanBe nice 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Catastrophe and al Nakba are proper nouns. It is permissible to bold both the first appearance of proper nouns and their synonyms or translations according to WP:LEAD & WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, dude -- When I'm raising a somewhat new issue or going off on a semi-tangent, then I often peremptorily de-indent, and I don't particularly care whether it meets with your approval or not. And it matters because the main purpose of "wikibolding" is to signal what is the main topic of this one particular article (i.e. which this article focuses on more than any other article does). Therefore "wikibolding" of Nakba (which has its own separate article) would not be very useful... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have at last actually addressed the issue, al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one who chose to raise the "off-topic" issue of discussion thread formatting! Anyway, wikibolding is for what each article covers more than all the other articles, not for mere proper names in the lead section... AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos wikibolding doesn't exist. Please be specific. al Nakba is a proper noun, first appearing in the article in the lead, see WP:LEAD talknic (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikibolding" is an informal term for bolding the ACTUAL TITLE of an article, and sometimes also ALTERNATIVE TITLES of the article (but a word or phrase can't really be an alternative title of one article if it's also the main title of a completely separate article). As for the rest, look at Angelina Jolie: Jon Voight, Jonny Lee Miller, and Billy Bob Thornton, and Brad Pitt are all mentioned in the lead section yet none of their names are bolded... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply