Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reverts

As far as I can see the series of edits all involve both removal and addition of material so DovidRoth claim that this is " Undiscussed removal of properly sourced and balanced content" is misleading because their edit both restores removed material AND removes "properly sourced and balanced content" at the same time, notably this material (added by Meteoritekid):

Arab and modern Western sources, however, suggest that the Israeli army had approximate numerical parity with the intervening Arab forces, had been well-trained in modern military practice by the occupying the British, and had significant logistical advantages over the poorly-coordinated Arab coalition.

Tombah merely continues this misrepresentation with their revert of a revert. The removed material may need tidying up ("by the occupying the British") but that's not an excuse for removing the whole thing.

Please discuss this here.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Please note that Davidroth was recently caught canvassing Tombah here and they did it again here. إيان (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

For starters, while I haven't read Collins & Lapierre in a few years, I've read it two or three times in the past and I am pretty sure that A) they didn't make the claim that is attributed to them, and B) if there was a citation somewhere in their text supporting Meteoritekid's claim then it is using the source out of context, because C & L were definitely making the opposite point in O Jerusalem! -- to wit, the whole book is full of examples of how the Jews / Israelis were outnumbered and did not have "numerical parity", nor were they "well-trained ... by the occupying the[sic] British". In fact the book includes several anecdotes about Jews having to steal supplies from the British. Also C) that citation just references the book and doesn't try to pinpoint a passage in support of Meteoritekid's claims. On top of that Wikipedia's own O Jerusalem! page refs this NYT review which states the opposite of what Meteoritekid claims that the book says.

Contrast that with the fact that a distinguished British officer, John Bagot Glubb, commanded the Arab Legion with several British officers as adjutants, while there was not a single ranking British person in the Israeli command, and this tale of equivalence and "parity" is not very plausible. Further the tale of how the Tilhas Tizig Gesheften pretended to be a British military unit while it was actually a rogue (pre-)Israeli operation is well known; the claim that the British "trained" Israeli troops when in fact self-trained Israeli troops masqueraded as British is yet another strike against Meteoritekid's claims.

When I see a dubious claim with I am sure at least one misuse of a citation, and another claim in that same edit that I know for a fact to be historically incorrect, as several other WP pages all testify, then my hackles go up and my bull stink-o-meter gauge starts quivering in the red.

Then when I see that this edit is also removing long-standing consensus materials and replacing that with {{dubious}} claims to the opposite then I want to see some real serious WP:BURDEN citations to overturn that article.

And I don't.

I am opposed to Meteoritekid's edit both because his new additions are probably complete BS, and also because he arbitrarily removed the paragraph beginning Palestinian and Arab historians have also provided context.... which was properly sourced and also well wikilinked to integrate the page with other content.

-- Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: The Hughes paper is available on the web here. Please point me to the parts of it that support:

Arab and modern Western sources, however, suggest that the Israeli army had approximate numerical parity with the intervening Arab forces, had been well-trained in modern military practice by the occupying the British, and had significant logistical advantages over the poorly-coordinated Arab coalition.

Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: With the latest revert, the same sin I referred to above is being committed, of course you may dispute material and remove it but at the same time you are adding material which is currently being disputed. Please self revert and reply here, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The prior text for the historiography section did not agree with the content of the article. It did not make sense to claim that, for example, Israeli forces were vastly outnumbered, when the article itself included cited figures that proved otherwise. From the summary in the sidebar:

Israel: c. 10,000 initially, rising to 115,000 by March 1949

Arabs: c. 2,000 initially, rising to 70,000

So, Israeli soldiers outnumbered Arabs. Yet the Historiography section said:

"In Western historiography, the majority view was that the vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fended off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies..."

That's objectively wrong. Thankfully, many of the more obvious errors have since been resolved. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Eliyahu S: this tale of equivalence and "parity" is not very plausible. This particular set of of sources may not support the claim but there are many sources on the subject, notably but not only Shlaim. Or https://pij.org/articles/107/the-myth-of-the-few-against-the-many-in-1948. Dowty is another.

It is of course a subject of dispute like everything else but since the historiography specifically mentions the DavidGoliath thing at the outset, then it might be as well to spell out the later counterarguments to this rather than just having a vague reference to new "insights" as to "the balance of force" Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

O Jerusalem! contains troop figures referenced in this article and this one: 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The figures in each article state that the Israeli army outnumbered Arab forces intially by 5:1, shifting to just 1.6:1 by the end of the conflict. Those are the figures taken from that source and others, in this Wikipedia article.

If what I'm saying is "complete BS," then this article is "complete BS." Meteoritekid (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Three comments:

• WP:ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." It doesn't say that consensus is required to remove content.
• Collins&Lapierre and Kurzman are dated and should be replaced by more modern sources.
• During WWII, many Palestinian Jews were trained by the British army. Thousands served in the regular army and others in specialised units in preparation for a predicted Nazi overrun of the Levant. So that statement is entirely true and nothing to do with Israeli soldiers pretending to be British. In contrast, the suppression of the 1936–1939 revolt caused the almost total collapse of Palestinian Arab military capability. Of course that wasn't true of the armies of the Arab states. All of this needs a good source, of course.

Zero^talk 09:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The British pursued the Jewish forces, imprisoned them and even executed them. Among the well-known violent confrontations between the Jews and the British, we can mention the explosion of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel, the Sergeants affair and the Night of the Beatings as well as Olei Hagardom affair. If anything, the British militarily trained the Transjordanian Arab Legion. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion atm is only about the balance of forces during the war and the effect on the outcome. Then how did those events mentioned (plus all the others not mentioned) affect the balance of forces, that's the question? Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Nothing ℬ𝒜ℛ wrote disproves what I wrote. Zero^talk 01:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral Historiography

I can see that prior discussions about the "Historiography" section have been archived. Other users have pointed out that it appears to be biased. Right now, it states that Palestinian historians are "apologists," while suggesting that Israeli historians' assessments are accurate and align with prevailing Western historians' views. That assessment clearly suggests that historians of one nationality have more credibility than another. Several similar statements made in this section clearly violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

It is also problematic to say that Palestinian leaders willingly ordered citizens to leave their homes, as many did so under the threat of death. Per the parent article, 1948 Palestine War, 5,000-15,000 Arab civilians were killed in the conflict. Also, see Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war. The statement as it is written is a political one: suggesting that Palestinian Arabs left the region willingly gives Israel a "more legitimate" claim to the land. It is at best controversial, and is not a neutral statement.

In general, the suggestion that the conflict relates to Israel's "legitimacy" is problematic. This is an article detailing an armed conflict. I.e. in an article about a WW2 battle or Civil War battle, it makes sense to include strategic implications of the battle, but the topic of the political "legitimacy" of the Third Reich or of the Confederate States of America would not be applicable. If anything, it belongs here: Legitimacy of the State of Israel.

Finally, a statement like the following one does not make sense given the cited figures in the parent article: "In Western historiography, the majority view was that the vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fended off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies." However, the parent article notes that the combined Arab forces totaled 2,000, which then increased to 70,000 through the course of the conflict. Per the article, Israeli forces initially numbered 10,000, which grew to 115,000. The cited figures show that Israel had numerical superiority: it is confusing to present a historical misconception as a fact without explaining that it is wrong.

The section either needs significant revision or removal. I would propose its removal, as it does not add any novel information pertaining to the conflict and contains many statements that violate Wikipedia's policy relating to neutrality. Meteoritekid (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Very good, it may even be all true but you do know that sources are necessary, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I cited my edits to the page - which you reverted. Citing obviously biased statements does not mean that they conform with Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality. You do not address my comments above. Meteoritekid (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't revert you, someone else did, I asked you to self revert and I also asked a question (up above) about one of the sources you provided (Hughes) and you didn't answer me. I may agree with you, doesn't matter, we still need sources. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the current Historiography section at 1948 Arab–Israeli War:

See also: New Historians

After the war, Israeli and Palestinian historiographies differed on the interpretation of the events of 1948: in the West the majority view was of a tiny group of vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped Jews fighting off the massed strength of the invading Arab armies; it was also widely believed that the Palestinian Arabs left their homes on the instruction of their leaders.

From 1980, with the opening of the Israeli and British archives, some Israeli historians have developed a different account of the period. In particular, the role played by Abdullah I of Jordan, the British government, the Arab aims during the war, the balance of force and the events related to the Palestinian exodus have been nuanced or given new interpretations. Some of them are still hotly debated among historians and commentators of the conflict today.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

When I saw this wiki text, citing ostensibly Shlaim, I knew instinctively he could not have written anything like the paraphrase we have on the two pages. Shlaim mentions that the Zionists were more succesffuly in propagatingf their narrative of a David and Goliath struggle between an undermanned and underarmed Israel and the '5' Arab army hordes, and Arab leaders telling Paleastinians to flee (that died on its feet with Childers' analysis in 1961) 20 years before the New Historians. Look, lads and lasses, it is not hard to paraphrase accurately, and I hope this old rewrite workdog can trust that this happens here.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Working on it, it's not a very good historiography, pretty sure we can do better than this once we round up some sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinians in the 1948 War and recent historiography in Israel Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence in the section of both articles presents a dichotomy that isn't properly introduced. The first paragraph should give a quick intro to each narrative.

For Palestinian historiography, Lisa Anderson describes Rashid Khalidi's The Hundred Years' War on Palestine as "the most cogent, comprehensive, and compelling account yet of this struggle from the Palestinian vantage point." The relevant chapter of that book for 1948 is "The Second Declaration of War, 1947–1948". إيان (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are many good sources for the narratives of both sides, for the historiography, what we want is sources that critically discuss, contrast and compare those narratives. History of the histories if you like. Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Example (from the Nakba dyk)

Motti Golani; Adel Manna (2011). Two Sides of the Coin: Independence and Nakba 1948. Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation. p. 14. ISBN 9789089790811. The Palestinians regard the Nakba and its repercussions as a formative trauma defining their identity and their national, moral, and political aspirations. As a result of the 1948 war, the Palestinian people, which to a large degree lost their country to the establishment of a Jewish state for the survivors of the Holocaust, developed a victimized national identity. From their perspective, the Palestinians have been forced to pay for the Jewish Holocaust with their bodies, their property, and their freedom instead of those who were truly responsible. Jewish Israelis, in contrast, see the war and its outcome not merely as an act of historical justice that changed the historical course of the Jewish people, which until that point had been filled with suffering and hardship, but also as a birth – the birth of Israel as an independent Jewish state after two thousand years of exile. As such, it must be pure and untainted, because if a person, a nation, or a state is born in sin, its entire essence is tainted. In this sense, discourse on the war is not at all historical but rather current and extremely sensitive. Its power and intensity is directly influenced by present day events. In the Israeli and the Palestinian cases, therefore, the 1948 war plays a pivotal role in two simple, clear, unequivocal, and harmonious narratives, with both peoples continuing to see the war as a formative event in their respective histories. Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, all sources agree that the Arab side had the advantage at the beginning of the war regarding number of troops and military equipment. It was only from July onwards that the tide gradually turned in the Israelis' favor as more immigrants and heavy weapons came in. I just wanted to clarify that. Dovidroth (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

all sources agree Please provide the list of sources that you checked in order to make this statement. Selfstudier (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier: Yes, pretty much any serious work of history is going to situate itself within the conversation with regard to previous sources, narratives, and arguments and provide at least something in the way of historiography in the literature review in the introduction. It's not necessary to try to find sources that endeavor or pretend to just present a balanced account of historiographies without making some sort of claim; we should be synthesizing what the most current peer-reviewed and supported scholarship—from all over—is saying with regard to the history of knowledge about the topic because they all do that.

We also desperately need to get beyond this "two sides" paradigm of speaking of a monolithic "Israeli side" and a monolithic "Palestinian side" as if it were that simple. There are multiple pertinent stakeholders and perspectives to consider and discuss—not just Palestinian and Israeli but also Western, Soviet, Arab, Diaspora, Christian, popular, official etc. إيان (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War appears to be afflicted by the same tired text. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We should distinguish between sources used to develop the article and sources concerned with the historiography. I am not saying that historiographical sources are not biased as well, they likely are but at least they help to narrow down the most relevant sources and the direction being taken by scholars in current research. Selfstudier (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Another example Selfstudier (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Sela/Kadish book says that its scope is "studies of Israeli representations, both Jewish and Palestinian, of memory and historical narratives of the 1948 War. The chapters map and explain the ongoing evolution of Israeli-Jewish and Israeli-Palestinian perspectives of the 1948 War as represented in literature, museums, art, visual and landscape, as well as in competing official and societal narratives" so there's a bit of a problem there, the PCoI views only ie excluding the Palestinians anywhere else. It's not a terrible book (the epilogue with Caplan is better than the rest of it) but since atm it and a 1995 Shlaim source is all we have for historiography, either we need more or we might as well do away with a historiography section altogether and just select major POV's like Shlaim, Morris, Khalidi and so on. Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The historiography section is essential and should not be dispensed with. Sela & Kadish seems like a good source for bringing complexity and nuance to coverage of Israeli narratives. It can have a place in our synthesis, which will also cover narratives outside that source's scope.

I still don't understand the view that it's necessary to "distinguish between sources used to develop the article and sources concerned with the historiography." Where consequential sources discuss historiography, even if just in the literature review, they can be used for this section with careful attribution where appropriate. إيان (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the glaring issues with the section as it stands is that it does not address the difference in narratives with regard to the Nakba, which is generally inextricable from 1948 in Palestinian narratives and "forgotten" in Israeli narratives. إيان (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems that it is quite difficult to locate proper historiography (the same problem for history articles) so yes, I think we will have to pick out well known sources that mention other sources within them and rely on those. That this is also Nakba and 1948 Palestinian exodus is a valid point. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I've put up a new draft of the section. Iskandar323, if there is consensus for it, a modified version of it can replace the tired text at 1948 Arab–Israeli War. إيان (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@إيان: Thanks for your work, and finding fresh sourcing for this content. A few pointers for the future would be to avoid an abundance of red links to works with no articles (as we now have here), and consider using shorter quotes or paraphrased prose in place of the likes of, for example, that rather long Avi Shlaim quote that you've added. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Iskandar323; those are some sound suggestions. I find redlinking useful for mapping out knowledge gaps, but I've removed the red links that aren't interlanguage links. If you have an idea about how to pare down that Shlaim quotation and have the time for it, feel free to do so. إيان (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

UNGAR 181

The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was passed and recommended a partition of Palestine. The Israelis accepted this, the Arabs rejected this and shortly attacked Israel. 76.71.246.149 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

I wish to change the map showing Israel after 1949 Armistice Agreements to this one:

Israel after 1949 Armistice Agreements

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Projectwaw.org_Israel_in_1949.png LUKA1283 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Although this map is a little easier to digest than the one currently in use, it omits some important information: The CIA map shows the exact locations of key cities with dots, whereas this one only gives general locations with text. This is particularly relevant in the case of Jerusalem, since the new map is not clear on its position relative to the border. I personally really like the look of this new design, but this information needs to be communicated clearly. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

I would like to suggest the removal of the word "indigenous". in the line from the article

"focusing on Palestinians' indigenous rights to Palestine"

based on the UN definition, https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf, Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel/palestine. If anyone is, it is the Jews that fit the criteria. Perhaps the phrase should be "focusing on Palestinians' desire for Palestine"

Thank you. 79.181.178.150 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Hi , pleae edit the title as this war official name is Israel independance war. Also there are few other corrections to be made. Ab box (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. "Official name" is not the only factor in deciding article names on Wikipedia, see WP:COMMONNAME Cannolis (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

section "The Arab states"

"Following World War II, the surrounding Arab states" is at least a typo. Wiki works better when users can edit it. 2003:C2:8F45:7C01:74FD:A8EC:F2BD:2086 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the typo? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Biological warfare

This section seems to me to be only deceptively referenced. It offers no footnote and only links out to two wiki articles on scholars who are alleged to have substantiated biological warfare, but the linked articles make no obvious mention of such research or finding. 75.164.18.126 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed a footnote, leading to an article in a major peer-reviewed journal, by one of the pre-eminent historians of this war. More could be added, but this alone is pretty solid. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Distinction from 1948 Arab-Israeli War

There is another article called the 1948 Palestine War which appears to be about the exact same conflict, with the same belligerents and containing more or less the same information. It appears as though there are two articles on the same topic, what is the distinction? Shaked13 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There are articles on the phases before and after the involvement of the regular Arab armies, as well as an article on both combined. The partition (pardon the pun) is not perfect but this is what was decided after a long discussion. Zero^talk 01:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

---

1948 Palestine war → 1948 Palestine War – Like 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Korean War, Iraq War Lucjim (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - doesn't meet the "consistently capitalized in a significant majority of sources" bar of MOS:CAPS - see ngram.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Amakuru. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Henry Laurens (2005)

Does anyone know what book is being referenced in citations 51 and 58? Just says "Henry Laurens (2005)", I can't find what actual work it is referring to. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this, which I don't have: Henry Laurens, Paix et guerre au Moyen-Orient, Armand Colin, Paris, 2005, ISBN 2-200-26977-3. Nishidani can probably confirm. Zero^talk 11:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Did I do that edit? If so I must have been as pissed as a newt because I haven't a copy of that particular book by Laurens, and can't remember reading it, as opposed to the first three works he wrote on La Question de Palestine. A mystery. I always cite in the bibliography whatever work I utilize though this is screwed up when anybody transfers a datum from one page with the source note, while forgetting to add the reference to the notes. If I'm responsible, notes 51,58 should had the references erased and replaced with citation needed.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, must have been someone else. The problem with the Harvard citation style is that the cite gets separated from the source if bits are moved between articles. That's what apparently happened here; I found that source in another article and just assumed it was you. Maybe it was Pluto. Zero^talk 12:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And could I ask what the policy is regarding citing non-English sources? Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it - WP:NONENG. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Images and NPOV

Is it just me, or are the images in this article rather one-sided? Here is a list of the images in the article right now, from top to bottom:

1. Lead image: Arab fighters in front of burning Israeli vehicle
2. Arab soldiers
3. Map
4. Attack on Israeli civilians (car bombing)
5. Arab roadblock
6. Map
7. Palestinian irregulars
8. Israeli wounded
9. Israeli air-drop
10. Israeli troops
11. Israeli troops
12. Israeli troops
13. Israeli navy
14. Israeli troops
15. Israeli troops
16. Arab armored car captured by Israelis
17. Map

There are significantly more pictures of Israeli stuff than Arab or non-Israeli stuff. No pictures illustrating massacres or expulsions and flight. I may someday come back and switch out pictures but thought I'd mention it in the meantime. (I left a similar message at Talk: 1948 Arab–Israeli War, where the problem is significantly worse.) Levivich (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well noted, both here and on the other page. Nishidani (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich and Nishidani. For the infobox, the best solution is probably to have a number of images, which seems to be the common choice in major war articles. إيان (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Lev, if you manage to get the time (no hurry), perhaps you're the best hand here to undertake a balancing cull. I noted this kind of imbalance in pics on several pages yonks ago but given my dubious profile, this only lent itself to edit wars and endless discussions. No one, I would imagine, would challenge your commitment to neutrality in matters like this. Nishidani (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I may do that at the other article or at the gallery in this article. This article doesn't really have too many pictures IMO, just not a good mix or balance of pictures, so I'm reluctant to remove rather than replace or just add.

I was hoping I could quickly find some good photos by looking at featured pictures, but the discrepancy is pretty noticable on Commons (c:Category:Featured pictures of Israel, c:Category:Featured pictures of Palestine) and even worse on enwiki (Category:Featured pictures of Israel, Category:Featured pictures of Palestine). Sadly, those categories have no pictures of Palestinians during the 1948 war, as apparently the only two Wikipedia featured pictures of Palestinians are a photo of two people grinding coffee in 1905, and a 1915 photo of camels.

But at least we have a good lead image for whenever Palestinian camels gets written, which may be a notable topic: The last camel in Jerusalem, stationed at the Mount of Olives and available for tourist rides and photos with the Dome of the Rock in the background, met a very Palestinian fate in 2011 when he was detained by the Israeli police for not having the 'proper paperwork.' [1]. (The myth that "there was no such thing as a Palestinian camel"-- that they're actually Egyptian or Jordanian camels or they wandered in from Saudi Arabia -- has long since been debunked.) Levivich (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

- what a fascinating and oddly compelling niche topic. Maybe one day. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

the sources are there [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Levivich (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Israeli usage of biological warfare

It seems undue for there to be an entire section dedicated to "Israeli usage of biological warfare". It's also only one paragraph. This information should probably be merged into the "Course of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" section where appropriate.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, referencing only Morris 2023, I agree. But I'm working on an expansion for the Nakba article with more sources (will probably post today), which could be used to further expand the section here (and in the Israel and WMD article). So could be merged now but then potentially could be expanded out again. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if expanded I don't see why this small aspect of the war should have its own section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Division of British Mandate

British Mandate was split and Transjordan (77% of the Mandate) was assigned to the arabs and Palestinians.

The text says contrary to obvious discrepancies in view of maps that the part assigned to Israeli was 78%. Wkaisa (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"After the war, the former territory of the mandate was divided among the State of Israel, which captured about 78% of it [...]". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

The word "Palestine" in: "The following day, the surrounding Arab armies and expeditionary forces invaded Palestine, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War." should be changed from Israel, as the invading Arab armies attacked the newly declared state of Israel, and not Palestine. Discover (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed recently here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A1948_Arab–Israeli_War&diff=1192656620&oldid=1192654865

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Arab armies entered/invaded the territory of the former British mandate for Palestine, of which the newborn State of Israel was only a portion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

6 March 2024

IOHANNVSVERVS, could you please explain your revert? The declaration only technically preceded the termination of the mandate. Your argument here isn't clear to me.

'Zionist leadership' is better phrasing than 'Jewish leadership' in this instance because the people in question were not rabbinical figures or religious leaders; they were statesmen and leaders of Zionist organizations such as the Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. إيان (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for creating a discussion about this.

Regarding my statement that "the declaration only technically preceded the termination of the mandate": I mean that even though the formal/official declaration was made the day before the the official end of the mandate, the termination of the mandate and the establishment of the State of Israel occurred practically at the same time and in fact it was only because the mandate was ending that the State of Israel was able to be declared/established. The one began when the other ended. So only technically (de jure) did the declaration happen before the termination of the mandate; but in reality (de facto) the end of the mandate and withdrawal of the British preceded the establishment of the State of Israel.

I understand your logic regarding "Zionist leadership' is better phrasing than 'Jewish leadership" and in this specific sentence you may be right, but in the lead generally, reliable sources do not only speak of 'Zionists' but often refer simply to '(the) Jews', 'the Yishuv', 'Jewish forces' etc as well, and so we should not only use the word Zionist(s) in the lead evey time.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

How about this wording? [7] - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've made significant changes to the lead, primarily to shorten its excessive length but also adding details about the Palestinian expulsions.

I think I've improved it a lot but that it can still be further improved, especially the opening paragraph. I considered taking out the mention of the Nakba and the expulsions from the opening paragraph but I wasn't sure about that.

Any feedback or suggestions are welcome. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a brief mention of the exodus of Jews from the Arab countries which is linked to the conflict by many sources. Alaexis_¿question? 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Not linked as a major sub-topic of this war however, so I have removed it from the lead. nableezy - 15:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree, clearly not due for the lead.

@Alaexis, you brought this same concern up recently at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a user replying that "Mentioning depopulation of Jewish villages in the lead would be a big WP:BALASP violation IMO. The sources do not give that anywhere near as much weight as the depopulation of Arab villages."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an entirely different matter. The exodus of Jews from the Muslim countries is directly linked to the war and was quite significant, impacting hundreds of thousands of individuals. In the words of Morris the war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Not mentioning it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Why would we include an indirect result in the lead? Including it is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, which is NPOV. You are trying to pretend like emigration over a decade is comparable to the expulsions over a year, and that is not NPOV because the sources dont do that. One is a direct result, one of the primary results, of the war, one is as you quote is an "indirect" result. Why would those be treated the same? nableezy - 21:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Not mentioning it is a clear violation of WP:NPOV."

It's discussed in the article (in the Aftermath section) but is not due for the lead. Also note that including undue material can also be a violation of NPOV.

False balance is also a concern here in my opinion.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What do editors here think about the final paragraph of the lead (which has been changing a lot recently) as implemented here [8] and which reads:

During the war, massacres and acts of terror were conducted by and against both sides. A campaign of massacres and violence against the Arab population, such as occurred at Lydda and Ramle and the Battle of Haifa, led to the expulsion and flight of over 700,000 Palestinians, with most of their urban areas being depopulated and destroyed. This violence and dispossession of the Palestinians is known today as the Nakba (Arabic for "the disaster") and resulted in the beginning of the Palestinian refugee problem.

@BanyanClimber, @Alaexis, @Levivich

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

LGTM Levivich (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn that meant let’s get this money but you learn something new everyday on the internet nableezy - 04:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Erasing the exodus of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim countries is counter to WP:NPOV. It wasn't "emigration over a decade." 37% of all Jews in these countries left between 1948 and 1951, that is, during and right after the war. Multiple sources describe this as one of the effects of the war, I'll be adding them to the list below. Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You know where your source includes that bit on 37%? In the chapter on Jewish emigration to Palestine. Not as part of its coverage of the war. The paragraph is

In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation. In December 1947, a pogrom and the destruction of synagogues in Aleppo persuaded half the city’s Jewish population to leave. In Egypt, arrests, killings and confiscations catalyzed the flight of nearly 40 per cent of the Jewis hcommunity by 1950. In Kuwait, the minuscule number of Jews were expelled. In Iraq, the Criminal Code was amended in July 1948 such that Zionists were lumped together with Anarchists and Communists. The death penalty could be meted out to adherents or they could be sentenced to many years’ imprisonment. Enforced emigration to Israel became the officially permitted route out of Iraq for an increasingly oppressed Jewish community. Israel ironically became the unlikely destination for many Jewish Communists despite their opposition to Zionism. In Libya, Algeria and Morocco, there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration.

That is not treating that emigration as a major topic of the war, not in any way. nableezy - 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"Erasing the exodus of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim countries is counter to WP:NPOV."

Nobody is erasing this history, it's simply not due for the lead. The war involves many, many aspects, not all which can or should be in the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As I've shown below, multiple sources clearly say that this was one of the effects of the war. Since no consensus seems likely to emerge here, I guess we'll need an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering that it might be worth including in the lead. What would be your proposed wording? This edit seems to present a false equivalence with the Palestinian expulsion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

They say it was an indirect effect or partially related. You have not shown that any sources treat it as a major subtopic to this topic. nableezy - 22:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the original wording that I removed of

In the three years following the war, about 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel from Europe and Arab lands, with one third of them having left or been expelled from their countries of residence in the Middle East. These refugees were absorbed into Israel in the One Million Plan.

can probably be restored, and then modified or improved if need be. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That's my opinion anyway. I don't think an RfC is necessary at this point but the the opinions of other editors would definitely be helpful. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t belong in the lead at all, it is not treated as major aspect of this subject by basically any source. nableezy - 20:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to read more about it to be honest, but for now I'm indifferent either way. BTW, it's inclusion in the infobox results should be reconsidered as well as part of this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead is already quite long (5 paragraphs) and only recently had a tag removed which read "lead too long", so maybe that should be the deciding factor in not adding/including this content (which would likely require it's own paragraph). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I would make it shorter (thus taking care of the false balance concerns) and more to the point, to make it clear how this is related to the war. Something like

“ The war was one of the reasons for the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, with 37% of local Jews leaving Muslim countries in 1948-1951 ”

Alaexis_¿question? 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources discussing the effect on Jewish communities

1. Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. The exodus of the Jewish population is discussed at length (pp. 412-416) in the chapter Some conclusions.

“ The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities. ”

2. Shlaim & Rogan, The War for Palestine. Rewriting the History of 1948. Edward Said (!) who wrote the Afterword mentions it as one of the effects of the war on the Arab world, and there is a chapter about the Jews in Egypt (pp. 140-142). Alaexis_¿question? 22:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

As opposed to length of Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem and Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited? No source treats this is a major subtopic of the war, at most they treat it as an indirect result. And as such it does not have weight to be in the lead of the article, especially in a way that appears to try to give the argument of population transfers in both direction cancel each other out, a common pro-Israel trope. nableezy - 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should have an equal weight. Anyway, I'm going to add more sources which will hopefully demonstrate the notability of this aspect. Alaexis_¿question? 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that the emigration from Arab and wider Muslim countries is not a notable topic. Nobody is nominating Jewish exodus from the Muslim world for deletion. The argument is that it is not a major subtopic of this war, and as such it should not be included in the lead. And you may not saying it should be given equal weight, but thats how you edited, and in fact you made that the final word on the topic of population movements in the lead. nableezy - 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

3. Colin Schindler. A history of modern Israel, pp. 63-64. The exodus is explicitly linked to the war:

“ In Arab countries, the defeat of the Arab armies and the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs exacerbated an already difficult situation [pogroms, arrests, killings, confiscations]. Over 37 percent of Jews in Islamic countries ... left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952 ”

Alaexis_¿question? 14:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I posted the entire paragraph this is taken from above, it does not support in any way that this was a major aspect of this conflict. nableezy - 16:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

4.The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, p. 150

“ The Arab-Israeli War greatly accelerated the process whereby the Jewish minorities in the Arab countries were being alienated and isolated ”

p. 177

“ The Arab-Israeli war may have been the catalyst for the mass exodus of Jews from most of the Arab countries ”

It also has a chapter The mass exodus begins about the flight/emigration of Jews from Arab countries between 1948 and the mid-1950s as a result of the war.

5. Anita Shapira also links the exodus and the war in Israel. A History. When discussing the immigration of Jews from the Arab countries she says (p. 223)

“ throughout the Middle East and North Africa relations between Jews and Arabs had been strained, especially since the establishment of the Jewish State and the War of Independence ”

Alaexis_¿question? 15:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

6. Ahron Bregman considers the defeat one of three main drivers of the exodus (A History of Israel, p. 71)

“ growing numbers of Jews also arrived from Arab lands where their

position had become perilous and nearly untenable as a result of growing nationalism reinforced by religion, the humiliating Arab defeat and the creation of Israel on the land of Palestine in 1948

”

Alaexis_¿question? 21:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

7. Avi Bekker, The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

“ In a few years, Jewish communities that had existed in the Middle East for more than 2,500 years were brutally expelled or had to run

for their lives... Following the Partition Resolution of November 1947... Middle Eastern Jews were the targets of official and popular incitement, state-legislated discrimination, and pogroms

”

That does not at all support the contention this is a major aspect of this conflict to merit inclusion in the lead. It doesnt even support that it should be in the body. nableezy - 16:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

None of these sources add any new strength to your argument. In fact the one source you cited says that the 1948 Palestine war "exacerbated an already difficult situation" and that the Jewish exodus occurred "between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952". So it's clear that this exodus is related to the war, but that it was still an indirect effect (Morris as you cited says "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem.")

Of course this history is worth mentioning/including in the article (which it is) but I still don't see any reason it belongs in the lead. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There's more analysis of this issue/comparison in the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight:

The 1948 Palestinian exodus has also drawn comparisons with the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, which involved the departure, flight, migration, and expulsion of 800000–1000000 Jews from Arab and Muslim countries between 1948 and the 1970s. In three resolutions between 2007 and 2012 (H.Res. 185, S.Res. 85, H.R. 6242), the US Congress called on the Barack Obama administration to "pair any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees with a similar reference to Jewish or other refugee populations".

Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are totally different and that any similarity is superficial. Porath says that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was from a Jewish-Zionist perspective the fulfilment of "a national dream" and of Israeli national policy in the form of the One Million Plan. He notes the efforts of Israeli agents working in Arab countries, including those of the Jewish Agency in various Arab countries since the 1930s, to assist a Jewish "aliyah". Porath contrasts this with what he calls the "national calamity" and "unending personal tragedies" suffered by the Palestinians that resulted in "the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic".

Israeli academic Yehouda Shenhav has written in an article entitled "Hitching A Ride on the Magic Carpet" published in the Israeli daily Haaretz regarding this issue. "Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists." In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee." He added: "I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote some of the section about the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world [9]. I post this here for review. Especially @Alaexis I would like to make sure these changes seem accurate to you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks alright, thanks! Obviously there were push and pull factors. Instead of the numbers for the 1948-1971 period, I would include the numbers for the 1948-1951 as the later migrations were caused by subsequent conflicts. Alaexis_¿question? 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this again after some time I find that the sentence "The results of the war also led to the beginning of the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries." doesn't belong in the lead, and that it especially doesn't belong at the end of the paragraph about the Nakba. Although I was previously indifferent to its inclusion, I'll be removing it. Specifically the reasons for this removal are that it is undue for the lead and that the lead is already very long so there are certain things like this which will simply have to be omitted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have shown before, there are many sources which discuss this as one of the results of the conflict, so it should be reflected in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you showed that at most they considered it an indirect result, which does not merit inclusion in the overarching summary of the article. nableezy - 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Reverts

@IOHANNVSVERVS, I believe that you have made 2 reverts within the last 24 hours. Please kindly self-revert your last edit. Alaexis_¿question? 22:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I always thought one revert rule meant you can't revert the same content twice. Does it apply to simply making more than one revert on the same page even if regarding different content? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I should've known. Reverted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If they hadn’t removed your undue POV injection I would have. إيان (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Plan Dalet

Regarding this edit, I'm fine with leaving the details of Plan Dalet outside of the lede. If we do include the description ("an offensive operation conquering territory for the planned establishment of a Jewish state") then we should also provide a context for the plan, that it was implemented in anticipation of the intervention by the Arab states. Alaexis_¿question? 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

In what way is that relevant or due context? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I question whether that is the context or whether it was the other way around: the Arab states intervened in response to Plan Dalet. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is what Morris writes in 1948

“ Plan D, formulated in early March and signed and dispatched to the Haganah brigade commanders on 10 March, was Yadin’s blueprint for concerted operations on the eve of the final British departure and the pan-Arab invasion that was expected to follow hard on its heels ”

Are there RS that contradict it? Alaexis_¿question? 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

See Pappe, W. Khalidi, et al. Alaexis’s POV injection pushes the perennial myth of somehow acting in ‘self-defense’ even as Zionist forces were on the offensive conquering territory. إيان (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not just contradicted but I think it's one of the most hotly-debated aspects of Morris's work, and a central part of the Morris-Pappe divide. Examples:

Tessler 2009, p. 295: "some accordingly describe it as a blueprint for preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state and expelling the Palestinian population" (he goes on for pages describing the debate)

Shlaim 2009, p. 60: "Morris regards Plan D, the Haganah plan of early March 1948, as a military plan for coping with the anticipated Arab invasion. Pappé agrees with Khalidi that Plan D was also, in many ways, a master plan for the expulsion of as many Palestinians as could be expelled."

Masalha 2012, p. 182: "For instance, from the outset Morris and Pappé offered two completely contradictory interpretations of the political objectives of Plan Dalet, adopted by the Haganah militia in early March and implemented in early April 1948." Levivich (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

For an example of the view of the "other side" of Morris, here is Pappe from his 2017 Ten Myths book:

p. 56: "I claimed that the war was initiated by Israel in order to secure the historical opportunity to expel the Palestinians ... Moreover, these [Arab] troops were sent into Palestine not as a reaction to the declaration of the founding of the state of Israel, but in response to Zionist operations that had already begun in February 1948, and in particular in the wake of the well-publicized massacre in the village of Der Yassin near Jerusalem in April 1948."

p. 62 "The process began in February 1948 with a few villages, and culminated in April with the cleansing of Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, Beisan, Acre, and Western Jerusalem. These last stages had already been systematically planned under the master plan, Plan D, prepared alongside the high command of the Haganah, the main military wing of the Jewish community."

For more quotes see Ref #52 in the current version of the Nakba article, which includes more quotes from Morris's 1948, including this from p. 180: "As the months passed and the Palestinian Arabs, beefed up by contingents of foreign volunteers, proved incapable of defeating the Yishuv, the Arab leaders began more seriously to contemplate sending in their armies. The events of April 1948—Deir Yassin, Tiberias, Haifa, Jaffa—rattled and focused their minds, and the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees drove home the urgency of direct intervention. By the end of April, they decided to invade." Levivich (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot to digest. I'll review the sources and respond later. Alaexis_¿question? 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Photos

I'd like to start making changes and especially additions to the photos in this article.

Not sure how to deal with copyright concerns and attirbution requirements etc however. I believe all images from this time and place are now in the public domain due to how long ago this all was. But what requirements are there for attribution with such images? Do I have to attribute photographer as well as the specific source (Haaretz for example) I got the photo from? Not sure how this all works.

If someone could advise me or point me to where I can learn more about the relevant policies I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They are not necessarily in the public domain in the US since the copyright can extend for 95 years after the publication for the works published at that time. Alaexis_¿question? 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Photo selection has been discussed above at Talk:1948 Palestine war#Images and NPOV and there is consensus that improvements would be welcome. IOHANNVSVERVS, you might like to familiarize yourself with the FAQ on Commons. On another note, one of the issues is that the vast majority of archival material out there is curated and provided by a belligerent military. إيان (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

9 March 2024

Alaexis, in your edit you argue that per the main article, only the second phase was peasant-led. Please understand that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please also see the cited reliable source:

Nadan, Amos (2017-07-26). "Economic Aspects of the Peasant-Led National Palestinian Revolt, 1936-39". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 60 (5): 647–682. doi:10.1163/15685209-12341436. ISSN 1568-5209.

The title alone should be sufficient. إيان (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reviewed the source and it seems like you're right and the uprising, unlike the general strike that had taken place before, was indeed peasant-led. Alaexis_¿question? 20:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Rephrase and reorder footnote

IOHANNVSVERVS, why? إيان (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not? But really, I do think War of Independence should be the first alternate name mentioned as it is the more direct alternate name for the 1948 Palestine war, with the Hebrew Wikipedia titled as War of Independence while the Arabic Wikipedia is titled 1947-1948 Palestine war, with Nakba or War of the Nakba not being given as alternate names (from what I can see, though I don't speak Arabic - no bolded alternate name anyway)

Also Nakba should wikilink to Nakba rather than 'the catastrophe' doing so.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Because Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceǃ Come on, this is elementary stuff. إيان (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles were just an example.

The order of the alternate names doesn't really matter anyway. Feel free to edit it to your preferred version, I don't feel strongly about it.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis, given IOHANNVSVERVS's concession Feel free to edit it to your preferred version, I don't feel strongly about it, above, please explain. إيان (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, please explain your inappropriate removal of the reliable source. إيان (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This statement isn't controversial, so I don't think that the inline reference is necessary per WP:LEADCITE but I don't have strong feelings about that and have no problems with restoring it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, @Alaexis, please stop making reversions based simply on "there is no consensus for this change". That is disruptive editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you'd restore it. The citation is useful and doesn't go against WP:LEADCITE. It doesn't clutter the lead as it's placed within the note. It also offers a high quality academic source that is clear and informative and dispels any potential misconceptions like the impression that 'War of Independence' is somehow more of a direct alternative name than 'Nakba,' as we see at the beginning of this discussion topic. إيان (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "misconceptions like the impression that 'War of Independence' is somehow more of a direct alternative name than 'Nakba", maybe I was hasty in my previous opinion and maybe you're right that they are equally valid alternate names - thanks for your feedback.

Are you asking me personally to restore the source removed by @Alaexis? You may be better asking them to do so as I'm indifferent to whether it's included or not.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note IOHANNVSVERVS. No, I was asking Alaexis but I should have tagged them because the reply got stacked ambiguously. Apologies. Alaexis, would you reinstate the footnote the way I had it? إيان (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the reference. Alaexis_¿question? 09:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)