This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 30, 2011. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The day after the UN decision of two states, the arabs of the mandate still held by Britain, started the war against Israel
adopted a resolution on 29 November 1949 should be: adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947
The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
– Follows the recent
move of the parent article, and the earlier
discussions confirming scholarly treatment of this topic which resulted in formal RfC consensus that all three articles should have the same prefix.
[1] The RfC closer wrote: There is a consensus in favour of a common prefix. There is a clear consensus among involved editors that the current article names are problematic.
The problems identified included the current set of titles causing confusion for readers because "
1948 Palestine war" and "1948 Arab–Israeli War" are commonly used as synonyms, and also that no sources delineate the 1948 conflict into separate wars as our current titles do, only different phases.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323, Srnec, and Necrothesp: thanks for your comments, some more constructive than others. Please could you proposal alternative solutions to this long-acknowledged problem? Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Onceinawhile: Do you think we ought to have three articles as we currently do? I was going to respond to your question with this question, but the RM was closed first. Srnec ( talk) 18:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Dovidroth, can you please explain how this edit makes the article better? إيان ( talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Tombah إيان and Dovidroth, stop edit warring and changing the infobox image till consensus is reached, just leave it as it is right now. Crainsaw ( Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Which image should we choose? For discussion, go to the section above.
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." (my bolding) - I'm curious as to how else you interpret this. Plenty of pages have no lead image. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
plenty of easy image representations of this articlewhy don't you propose a few since there has been substantial disagreement with the ambiguous Katamon image. إيان ( talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the Infobox image shouldn't be replaced, I'm just saying the Haifa Image isn't illustrative enough, and that we need to find a better alternative.
plenty of easy image representations of this article, please provide some because the arguments presented for clinging to the ambiguous Katamon image are invalid. إيان ( talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Apparently Dovidroth wishes to present this image for consideration, though they abandoned the discussion for consensus and unilaterally added it to the article infobox. No arguments have been presented for what it illustrates about the topic or why it should be in the infobox. It's not an improvement. إيان ( talk) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Dovidroth What is your specific objection to the last image I added?
The main issue is that it was added with disregard for the discussion, in which there was consensus that no image is better until something is agreed upon in discussion.
The issue with the Katamon image, again, was that it was ambiguous and devoid of context and not distinctively illustrative of any particular features of the war. The image you added without discussion of the Jewish militants behind the barricade is better than the Katamon image in that it illustrates irregular soldiers and their weapons, but that's about it. Combat on the Jaffa front in 1947 was not particularly consequential to the outcome of the war (and no reliable sources have been presented to suggest so); the city was not taken until the spring of 1948. The image is also misleading as an illustration of the topic because it shows Jewish forces in a defensive position, when the strategic shift to the offensive was the defining and consequential aspect of the civil war phase.
If there is going to be an illustration, it should be a representative variety, using a template such as
template:Multiple image like we have at
World War I. It should feature all belligerent sides and represent major features of the civil war period of the war—asymmetrical warfare and sabotage, massacres, irregular militants, urban and rural combat, major battles etc. And images and what they represent should be supported by reliable sources and discussed here first.
إيان (
talk)
15:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Transjordan" to "Jordan". as the HyperLink it links to suggests, in : "When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states—Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria—" Gezellig~hewiki ( talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opening paragraph in Background should link to Balfour Declaration, as it provides further historical background and itself is an essential part of the background to pre-1948 conflict. 76.64.190.216 ( talk) 20:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Balfour" is in the section "
Meeting of Golda Meir and King Abdullah I of Jordan (10 May)" and is not present in the section desired. This may be the issue your request is wanting to address, but you'll need to provide the exact prose to add along with reliable sources to support it (if it's already in the article just paste them here). — Sirdog ( talk) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Operation cast thy bread is a an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. The source for these alleged attacks is a former Israeli soldier contacted by the researcher behind this document, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263206.2022.2122448, who was already dead at the time the accusations were published and as such unable to verify the claims. The source of this information is the provided paper currently used as a source for the claim. Please remove this section. 173.215.75.117 ( talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Source needed. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 30, 2011. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The day after the UN decision of two states, the arabs of the mandate still held by Britain, started the war against Israel
adopted a resolution on 29 November 1949 should be: adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947
The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
– Follows the recent
move of the parent article, and the earlier
discussions confirming scholarly treatment of this topic which resulted in formal RfC consensus that all three articles should have the same prefix.
[1] The RfC closer wrote: There is a consensus in favour of a common prefix. There is a clear consensus among involved editors that the current article names are problematic.
The problems identified included the current set of titles causing confusion for readers because "
1948 Palestine war" and "1948 Arab–Israeli War" are commonly used as synonyms, and also that no sources delineate the 1948 conflict into separate wars as our current titles do, only different phases.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
01:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Iskandar323, Srnec, and Necrothesp: thanks for your comments, some more constructive than others. Please could you proposal alternative solutions to this long-acknowledged problem? Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Onceinawhile: Do you think we ought to have three articles as we currently do? I was going to respond to your question with this question, but the RM was closed first. Srnec ( talk) 18:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Dovidroth, can you please explain how this edit makes the article better? إيان ( talk) 03:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Tombah إيان and Dovidroth, stop edit warring and changing the infobox image till consensus is reached, just leave it as it is right now. Crainsaw ( Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Which image should we choose? For discussion, go to the section above.
Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." (my bolding) - I'm curious as to how else you interpret this. Plenty of pages have no lead image. Iskandar323 ( talk) 12:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
plenty of easy image representations of this articlewhy don't you propose a few since there has been substantial disagreement with the ambiguous Katamon image. إيان ( talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the Infobox image shouldn't be replaced, I'm just saying the Haifa Image isn't illustrative enough, and that we need to find a better alternative.
plenty of easy image representations of this article, please provide some because the arguments presented for clinging to the ambiguous Katamon image are invalid. إيان ( talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Apparently Dovidroth wishes to present this image for consideration, though they abandoned the discussion for consensus and unilaterally added it to the article infobox. No arguments have been presented for what it illustrates about the topic or why it should be in the infobox. It's not an improvement. إيان ( talk) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Dovidroth What is your specific objection to the last image I added?
The main issue is that it was added with disregard for the discussion, in which there was consensus that no image is better until something is agreed upon in discussion.
The issue with the Katamon image, again, was that it was ambiguous and devoid of context and not distinctively illustrative of any particular features of the war. The image you added without discussion of the Jewish militants behind the barricade is better than the Katamon image in that it illustrates irregular soldiers and their weapons, but that's about it. Combat on the Jaffa front in 1947 was not particularly consequential to the outcome of the war (and no reliable sources have been presented to suggest so); the city was not taken until the spring of 1948. The image is also misleading as an illustration of the topic because it shows Jewish forces in a defensive position, when the strategic shift to the offensive was the defining and consequential aspect of the civil war phase.
If there is going to be an illustration, it should be a representative variety, using a template such as
template:Multiple image like we have at
World War I. It should feature all belligerent sides and represent major features of the civil war period of the war—asymmetrical warfare and sabotage, massacres, irregular militants, urban and rural combat, major battles etc. And images and what they represent should be supported by reliable sources and discussed here first.
إيان (
talk)
15:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Transjordan" to "Jordan". as the HyperLink it links to suggests, in : "When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states—Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria—" Gezellig~hewiki ( talk) 15:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opening paragraph in Background should link to Balfour Declaration, as it provides further historical background and itself is an essential part of the background to pre-1948 conflict. 76.64.190.216 ( talk) 20:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Balfour" is in the section "
Meeting of Golda Meir and King Abdullah I of Jordan (10 May)" and is not present in the section desired. This may be the issue your request is wanting to address, but you'll need to provide the exact prose to add along with reliable sources to support it (if it's already in the article just paste them here). — Sirdog ( talk) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Operation cast thy bread is a an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. The source for these alleged attacks is a former Israeli soldier contacted by the researcher behind this document, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263206.2022.2122448, who was already dead at the time the accusations were published and as such unable to verify the claims. The source of this information is the provided paper currently used as a source for the claim. Please remove this section. 173.215.75.117 ( talk) 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Source needed. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)