No More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs) |
→Multiple and ongoing issues littering the Lede.: Rpl NMMNG re tendentiousness of retaining a breech of NPOV by consensus |
||
Line 147:
:::The Provisional Israeli Government acknowledged the delineation of Israel from Palestine in it's statements to the [http://books.google.ca/books?id=DWhgIe3Hq98C&pg=PA284&dq=%22In+addition,+the+Provisional+Government+exercises+control+over+the+city+of+Jaffa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G8_tT4zSIK69iAfdzan6DA&ved=0CDcQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20addition%2C%20the%20Provisional%20Government%20exercises%20control%20over%20the%20city%20of%20Jaffa&f=false UNSC May 22nd 1848]. The continual use of "the territory of" "Mandatory Palestine"/"British Mandate"/"British Mandate of/for Palestine" is fog, requiring readers to go elsewhere to try to ascertain what it means, only to find more fog [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
::I disagree with all the suggestions above, most of which were discussed at length before talknic got topic banned, and failed to gain consensus. Coming back over and over with the same stuff is just tendentious. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
:::No More Mr Nice Guy - Leaving material contravening NPOV by consensus is tendentious. Attempting to resolve NPOV issues in the proper manner is in line with editorial policies. My ban was for not for raising these issues BTW. Address the points raised please. [[User:Talknic|talknic]] ([[User talk:Talknic|talk]]) 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 05:53, 1 July 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Intervention by Arab League countries
Because of various edits, this section contains material elsewhere in the article.
- Paragraph 1 is in the next section (though not verbatim).
- Paragraph 2, 4 and 5 are in the section The Arab League as a whole (though 2 not verbatim).
- Paragraph 3 is nowhere else but needs to go into the section, The Arab League as a whole.
I shall move paragraph 3 into the section The Arab League as a whole. I shall then delete the section, Intervention by Arab League countries. Trahelliven (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Foreign volunteers
This war was mainly between :
- 4 armies of the Arab League (Egypt, Transjordan, Irak, Syria)
and
- Israel
No other official army participated to this war. (For what concerns Lebanon, it was recently established by historian Yoav Gelber). The distinction has to be made between there armies and volunteers. Else, we should add Britain for both side and the USA and France for the Israeli side. That would be a biased pov. Exactly as it is a biased pov to state to list all the Arab states in the list of combattants 81.247.71.163 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
:Not true. For example, Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[1]–1,200[2][3] men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)''(sock of indef-blocked user)
- Nor Gelber p.55 or Morris p.205 writes that these were sent by the Saudi governement.
- More Gelber points out that they were "tribesmen" and Morris points out that these forces joined Arabs armies (and so were not part of the main 4 ones he refer to in the same page) : "The invading forces consisted, on 15 May, of about 20,000 combat troops : some 5500 Egyptians [...], 4500 to 6500 Arab Legionnaires, 2750 from Syria [...], and 2700 from Iraq [...]. He reminds also that Lebanese forces never enter or try to invade Palestine, which is used by Morris and Gelber.
- Instead of foreign volunteers, we can also write irregulars.
- 81.247.71.163 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Lebanon
Lebanon didn't participate to the war. See eg : Benny Morris, '1948. A History of the First Arab-Israeli War', p.258 :
- "But at the last moment, Lebanon (...) opted out of the invasion. On 14 May President (...) and his army chief of staff, (...), decided against Lebanese participation; (...) [The] commander of the army's First Regiment (battalion), designated to cross into Israel, apparently refused to march. The Lebanese parliament, after bitter debate, ratified the decision the same day."
That should be taken into account in the caption. 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- They attack and occupied al-Malikiya in June (Morris p. 257). So they did enter Palestine, although in a very limited way and not on May 15. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I checked on googlebook Morris 2004 p.257 and it is not mentionned (?). I doublecheck later today.
- Anyway, I am sure Gelber mentions somewhere these attacks but they were not the fact of official Lebanese soldiers. ALA was redeployed before 15 May north of Galilee to replace Lebanese army that had defected in order to protect Syrian flank. They attacked from North. Lebanese goverment and high rank officeers had declined the attack (see above). It is true that Christian officeers localy didn't prevent some of their Muslim soldiers to 'leave' their unit to join the ALA in these attacks but Lebanese forces didn't participate (as pointed out just here above) and the exact number is not known. What is sure is that the ALA counted several thousands soldiers. I think Gelber explains that given uniforms were all the same, Palmach soldiers concluded wrongly these were Lebanese soldiers given the attack came from Lebanon but they were from the Arab Liberation Army. I will check and provide the source if we agree that we will not epilogate weeks on this and just comply with what latest and more reliable 2nd sources state : "4 Arab States invaded Palestine". I think we should solve that caption issues once for all. What happens with all these reverts is a childish attitude. 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. The Morris book I referred to was the "1948" book, not the "Birth of..." book. Sorry for the confusion. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Frederico,
- Thank you for the information. I was not aware (or I had forgotten) this event on June 5.
- Here is what I referred to (Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, p.139) : "Confuding the ALA remnants in Galilee with Syrian and Lebanese regular troops, the 'Haganah' referred to all of them as "regular Arab army". On May 15, Yiftah brigade reported a fierce battle with invading Lebanese troops at Malkiya. These were, however, local combatants and remains of Shishakli's Yarmuk battalion. (...) The military's Christian commanders refused to involve the army in the battle, but allowed Muslim soldiers to join the ALA and the Syrian army. Only 300 troopers chose to take advantage of this opportunity."
- I hope that this convinces everybody and that we can come back to the former caption.
- 81.247.87.96 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. The Morris book I referred to was the "1948" book, not the "Birth of..." book. Sorry for the confusion. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
David Markus and Glubb Pacha were Foreign volunteers of US and British nationality. If we don't use US and British flags for them because, as an editor pointed this out, they didn't represent USA and British, they we should remove the flags of Lebanon, Saudi-Arabi, Pakistan etc because these volunteers didn't represent these countries either. What do you think about this ? 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- i agree we should also remove those flags.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
:False. A token force of 1,000 was committed by Lebanon to the invasion. It crossed into the northern Galilee and was repulsed by Israeli forces. Israel then invaded and occupied southern Lebanon until the end of the war.[4] Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[5]–1,200[6][7] men, therefore they were not "volunteers".--8HGasma (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (sock of indef-blocked user)
- That is exactly what the sock of Jabotito48 wrote here above : ":Not true. For example, Saudi Arabia sent a contingent of 800[1]–1,200[2][3] men. If the Saudi government sent them, they weren't "volunteers".--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)(sock of indef-blocked user)" and I explained to him why he was wrong here above too. 81.247.176.216 (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Personnaly, I would prefer that we keep all the flags and that we precise what was the nationality of Markus and Glubb Pacha. Without the agreement of their respective governments, all these people could not have participated. It is not a detail that David Markus had the highest rank in the IDF at the time whereas he had not the Israeli nationality and it is the same for Glubb Pacha. This information is provided by the historians when they refer to the events.
- @ 8HGasma : You just copied/pasted what is in the article without reading. Nor Lebanon or Saudi Arabia sent forces. These were volunteers from Beduin tribes. I will provide the source but this becomes childish : historian refer to the 4 armies that invaded Palestine (some of the 5 but Morris and Gelber recently indicated it was a mistake and that Lebanon didn't participate to the war - see above). 91.180.65.140 (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Referring here above to the fact that the Lebanese troops who fought in the war were volunteers and were not sent by their government and that they didn't represent this, we have to :
- whether put the flag of Lebanon but also the flag of the US next to Markus and Britain next to Glubb
- remove all flags.
- It is a relevant information that can be found in all history books on the '48 war that Markus was US citizen, Glubb British and Lebanese volunteers, Lebanese.
- 81.247.87.96 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Referring here above to the fact that the Lebanese troops who fought in the war were volunteers and were not sent by their government and that they didn't represent this, we have to :
Conclusion
Unless other minds are given, I will modify the caption as follows :
- indicate there were 4 Arab armies (without Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and even less Yemen)
- add the US flag and the UK flag for Markus and Glubb.
91.180.64.65 (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any comment ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between Glubb and Marcus. Glubb was working for the British as well as the Jordanians. As far as I can remember, Marcus wasn't working for the US government. They knew he was there, but he wasn't working for them, IIRC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Glubb was not working for the British. He was on the pay roll of the Jordanian army and was fidel to Abdallah. This is pointed out by Benny Morris in his book about him : The Road to Jerusalem.
- And even if Glubb was collaborating with the British, it is relevant to state that they were foreigners. The participation of volunteers is well known (as well British in Jordanian army as Mahal for Israeli).
- More, if we focus on Marcus : his status is exactly the same as the one of the other volunteers of the Yemen, Lebanon, Soudan etc.
- If we put a flag for Yemen (which is anecdotical) we should put a flag for Marcus and Glubb who were key actors of the war.
- By the way, I don't see a problem with these flags. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think putting a flag next to individuals who were not representing the governments of the countries those flags belong to is ridiculous. The flags belong to countries and should be used if the country itself was somehow involved, not if people from those countries acting as individuals were. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with NMMNG. Marcus acted in a private capacity and did not represent the United States. The United States was not a combatant. By contrast, There are reliable sources that attest to Lebanese, Saudi and Yemen participation and not in an insubstantial way. Also, these governments expressed views (at least openly) that were consistent with the general militarist Arab position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the choice, it has to be consistent.
- If Marcus and Glubb are not referred by their nationality but by the side for which they fought, we have to remove the flags referring to Lebanon and all other countries and put a Palestinian flag or the ALA flag. There are as many reliable sources on the topic that remind that Marcus was US citizen, Glubb British citizen and that Arab volunteers came from the whole Arab world.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the criterion for including a flag should be involvement of a government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with NMMNG. Marcus acted in a private capacity and did not represent the United States. The United States was not a combatant. By contrast, There are reliable sources that attest to Lebanese, Saudi and Yemen participation and not in an insubstantial way. Also, these governments expressed views (at least openly) that were consistent with the general militarist Arab position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think putting a flag next to individuals who were not representing the governments of the countries those flags belong to is ridiculous. The flags belong to countries and should be used if the country itself was somehow involved, not if people from those countries acting as individuals were. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's a difference between Glubb and Marcus. Glubb was working for the British as well as the Jordanians. As far as I can remember, Marcus wasn't working for the US government. They knew he was there, but he wasn't working for them, IIRC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any comment ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the cases of Glubb and Marcus are quite different from that of Lebanon. WRT Lebanon, we have reliable sources, historians, that state that Lebanon sent a force of several hundred or perhaps a thousand troops. Lebanon was also a member of the Arab league that rejected the partition plan and declared its intention to use force to prevent its implementation. In such a scenario, even if it later chose to create plausible deniability by "only" arming Lebanese "volunteers", and allowing them to use Lebanese soil as traning and staging areas for an invasion, this qualifies as Lebanese actions - as historians note. It is similar to the undeniable involvement of the US in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Eat memory (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC) In further support of what I wrote above, it is instructive to look at what another academic source says: "the Arab League's Arab Liberation Army (ALA)... operated from or near Lebanese territory with the official or tacit support of the Lebanese government" [1] Eat memory (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Spyflight
The spyflight source, which is the primary one with regards to the Anglo-Israeli dogfights, notes that there have been rumors, though unconfirmed, that RAF pilots from the squadron that lost 5 planes and 2 pilots to the IAF privately took their revenge by shooting down any Israeli planes they encountered, including transports. I put it in twice, and each time I later found it gone. I would like to know why it isn't suitable to put it in there, as it's too late for me to dig up an explanation (if there ever was one) in the history.--RM (Be my friend) 03:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- http://spyflight.co.uk seems to be the personal project of one person who is not named there. I don't see how it satisfies WP:RS, in fact it seems to me rather clear that it doesn't. Can you offer an argument why we should accept it as a source? Zerotalk 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Multiple and ongoing issues littering the Lede.
- The opening paragraph:
- The 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut or Milkhemet Hakomemmiyut or Hebrew: מלחמת השחרור, Milkhemet Hashikhrur literally "war of liberation")13—was fought between the State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states and Palestinian Arab forces. It was the first in a series of wars in the continuing Arab–Israeli conflict.
Contains only numerous Israeli/Hebrew names for the war, in contravention of NPOV. Suggest this be addressed, there are at least six other parties.
- Second paragraph 1)
- The war was preceded by a period of civil war in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine between Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces in response to the UN Partition Plan.
A) The correct and only English title for the mandate was the ["Mandate for Palestine"]. "for" being the operative word.
B) It clouds the issue to say "the territory of the British Mandate" or the "the territory of the Mandate for Palestine". It could be taken to include TransJordan. The civil war did not extent to TransJordan nor was it a part of '47 partition. The civil war took place in Palestine
Suggestion: //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British controlled Palestine, where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.//
- Second paragraph 2)
- An alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side, turning the civil war into a war between sovereign states.14
As is, it infers the Arab States "turned the civil war". The source does not say 'who' turned the war into a war between sovereign states. It says this : "A war between Israel and the Arab States broke out immediately, and the Arab armies invaded Palestine. This clash continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies." To reflect the source more accurately:
Suggestion: //An alliance of Arab States intervened on the Palestinian side and the preceding civil war turned into a war between sovereign states.[2] //
- Second paragraph 3)
- 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.15
Not supported by the source and it is quite misleading. "the former territory of the British Mandate" could include Jordanian territory and what became Israeli territory. The UNSC resolutions and Armistice Agreements of the time call for peace in "Palestine", not Israel, not Jordan, not "the former territory of the British Mandate".
Secondary sources citing the Armistice Agreements, cease fires, Peace treaties should accurately reflect those documents. to be RS
Two entities existed after Israel was declared May 15th 1948. Palestine and Israel, delineated from Israel by Israel in statements to the UNSC by the Provisional Govt of Israel May 22nd 1848 and; called "Palestine" by the UNSC.
Suggestion: //The fighting took place mostly in Palestine [3] and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon. //
- Second paragraph 4)
- The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli and Arab military forces, commonly known as the Green Line.
The Green line is actually from the ceasefire agreement Nov 30 1948 prior to the Armistice Agreements of 1949. The Armistice's and cease fire specifically did not change any borders, futhermore they were all between existing states. Palestine has never had an Armistice Agreement or Peace Treaty with Israel.
Suggestion: //The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements, which established Armistice Demarcation Lines between Israeli and Arab military forces. A cease fire line of 30th Nov 1948 became commonly known as the Green Line. [4]//
- Articles should accurately reflect their sources. The sources must accurately reflect the documents they cite to be RS.
Suggest these points be addressed with RS Secondary Sources talknic (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- On first look, none of these changes seem particularly controversial. I think you need a hyphen in British-controlled Palestine (I'm not completely sure if controlled in this case is an adjective, in which case you'd use a hyphen or the past form of a verb, in which case you wouldn't). I don't agree with your wording in paragraph 2 - it is clear that the Arab states' decision to intervene was the immediate cause of the war entering a new phase. I would insert the word Mandatory before Palestine in your suggestion in 3 to disambiguate the multiple uses of the term Palestine.GabrielF (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- GabrielF - OK hypenated British-controlled Second Paragraph 1 //The war was preceded by a period of civil war from November 1947 till May 14th 1948 in British-controlled Palestine, where Jewish Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arabs clashed in response to the UN Partition Plan.// Done!.
- Second Paragraph 2 - A new phase began the moment the Israeli Declaration became effective "at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time" [5]. With Jewish forces already outside of Israel, by default the civil war immediately became a war between the State of Israel and the non-self-governing territory of Palestine.
- Another new phase when the Arab states invaded "Palestine". (The Independent State of Israel was no longer in or a part of Palestine [6]). The current source says "continued the civil war that started after the UN resolution on partition, but differed from its predecessor in being a confrontation between sovereign states employing regular armies" The "war" differed from the "civil war".
- Second Paragraph 3 "insert the word Mandatory before Palestine in your suggestion in 3 to disambiguate the multiple uses of the term Palestine"
- Why? There was no Mandatory as of May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired.
- The Provisional Israeli Government acknowledged the delineation of Israel from Palestine in it's statements to the UNSC May 22nd 1848. The continual use of "the territory of" "Mandatory Palestine"/"British Mandate"/"British Mandate of/for Palestine" is fog, requiring readers to go elsewhere to try to ascertain what it means, only to find more fog talknic (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with all the suggestions above, most of which were discussed at length before talknic got topic banned, and failed to gain consensus. Coming back over and over with the same stuff is just tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Gelber, p.55
- ^ Uthman Hasan Salih, DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948 (The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948), Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine [Tunisia] 1986 13(43–44): 201–221. ISSN: 0330-8987.
- ^ Morris, 2008, p. 205. Morris cites British diplomatic communications.
- ^ Rogan & Shlaim, 2001, p. 8.
- ^ Gelber, p.55
- ^ Uthman Hasan Salih, DAWR AL-MAMLAKA AL-`ARABIYYA AL-SA`UDIYYA FI HARB FILASIN 1367H/1948 (The role of Saudi Arabia in the Palestine war of 1948), Revue d'Histoire Maghrébine [Tunisia] 1986 13(43–44): 201–221. ISSN: 0330-8987.
- ^ Morris, 2008, p. 205. Morris cites British diplomatic communications.