Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:12, 1 February 2014

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: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. International relations: United Nations / Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 29, 2005, November 29, 2006, November 29, 2007, November 29, 2008, and November 29, 2010.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Trahelliven: You continue to delete against Misplaced Pages rules. please restore

Trahelliven: You continue to delete against Misplaced Pages rules. please restore.

You have been told few times that it is against the rules to delete a support for a sentence. You have been advised few times to verify it with the wp:help desk, but apparently you have not consulted with them and continue to ignore the rules. Please restore the deleted sources. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Note wp:vandal :"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. ...

Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block....

any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism"

You can not claim for "good faith" editing, because you are ignoring the warnings and do not bother to verify it. Ykantor (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor

1 As far as I am aware you are the only editor who has accused me of vandalism.

2 You have accused me of a number of acts of vandalism in relation to this article.

3 Perhaps you might indicate which you wish to talk about first. Trahelliven (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible POV issues

Issue 1

I have been reading 'UNSCOP' and 'Background' sections. What struck me is while UNSCOP was created to investigate the cause of the conflict in Palestine among the Jewish and Arab population. The only mentions of any conflict, opposition to the British and resistance in the whole article, focused solely on jews:

• White Paper "led to the formation of Lehi, a small Jewish terrorist organization which opposed the British, and, at one time, sought to make an agreement with the Nazis
• ..in line with the 1939 White Paper. The Jewish community rejected the restriction on immigration and also organized an armed resistance.

Which is peculiar considering the Arab civil unrest was far more significant and effected early partition proposals. Most notably the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine, which led to the Peel Commission and later the White Paper immigration restrictions - None of which is mentioned.

Similarly the "Background of UNSCOP" section go into greater detail about immigration restriction brought by the White Paper and external interest influences in the wake of WW2.(far greater detail then any of the early partition proposals mentioned) Going by an older revision, similar note about British geopolitical consideration leading to the White paper, to shore up Arab support and access to oil for WW2 was removed.--PLNR (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue 2

I have compared the current 'Background' with an old revision. I have noted that previously we note the Jewish/Arab misconception in regard to the British conflicting statements, concerning the future of Palestine partition(which IMO was a good thing, since it place in context the growing dissatisfaction of the Jewish/Arab populations from the partition plans), It also notes Balfour declaration in the context of 1922 mandate legal document.

In the current version the Jewish/Arab views/misconception have been removed, in favor of lengthy memorandum of what the 1917 Balfour Declaration didn't promised and reason against it(no counter), as oppose to what 1922 mandate legal document did say.

--PLNR (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue 3

• PLNR - What is the source for the statement you recently added: "The United Kingdom, occupied the territory in 1918 following the Armistice of Mudros." British occupation of Palestine began in 1917 (see e.g Morris 2001 pg 31: "Jerusalem had fallen to Allenby in December 1917; Beirut, on October 8, 1918—a week after the Arabs entered Damascus. The Ottoman Empire was no more." In any case unsourced material introduced into articles can (and should be) removed on sight. Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because several countries put troops on the ground in Normandy, doesn't mean you were occupying parts of France... occupation is legal term, so while British occupation there might have began in 1917, its officially formalized as part of the Armistice of Mudros.--PLNR (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in your opinions on the topics. If you have a WP:RS to support the statement it can be re-added. If you don't it stays out. Dlv999 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have picked a better example, I assumed it was common knowledge. As for interests nor me nor Wiki policy is particular interested in play on words between "occupied" and "occupation ..began in" or WP:SYN?(concerning when Jerusalem or any other part was occupied). The fact is that the British Palestine campaign officially(occupied) ended with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918(you can read about it here: Sinai and Palestine Campaign) if you still want a source, add a citation needed template and I'll dig several for you.--PLNR (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, every addition you make to the encyclopaedia needs to be verifiable. It is one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages. See WP:VERIFIABILITY: " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." - Any additions you make to the encyclopaedia, not directly supported by an RS, can be removed on sight. Debating your own views on talk without supplying source evidence is not going to change that. By the way, Misplaced Pages articles are not WP:RS - see WP:CIRCULAR.Dlv999 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Simple Yes, would have sufficed. Like I said I have no problem to copy&paste a source from the main article, find one or simply change the wording to accommodate your objection. However, in general I have learned to be vary of well intention people on arbitration articles, who quick to quote big policy, dig info to contradict and removed on sight, while other long time taged info remain untouched, some times it indicate whitewashing of specific inclusion/exclusions. As I implied with Issues 1-2 above, this article isn't exactly NPOV by giving undue weight to various events and exclusion of notable information, although it seems like it was all made gradually with policy based arguments.--PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yankor - With reference to wikipedia policy and source evidence could you please explain on what grounds you have tagged the sourced quote in the article as "neutrality disputed". Dlv999 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed instead. Its nothing but POV pushing veiled in quotes. --PLNR (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless commenting here unless you are able to provide rational evidence/policy based justifications for your assertions. Dlv999 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote is a clear POV against the Balfour declaration. e.g. The Arabs acts a drawers of water to the Jews. Is that correct? It should be balanced with a pro Balfour declaration view. Moreover, it is not supported at all. How do we know that Kurzon really said so? Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is policy and on top of one sided commentary, do you have any policy based rational behind adding this direct quotation and its reverence to the topic: "..as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter" care to explain this in policy based rational?--PLNR (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's quoted in a WP:RS as relevant to the topic . Our WP:NPOV policy tells us to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It is a significant view that has been published by RS on the topic therefore it should be included per WP:NPOV. Dlv999 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with your policy argument IF it was the 'Balfour Declaration' article, but it will be removed unless you can explain why this lone memorandum is notable, when it led to no policy change, on the contrary the ideas in the Balfour declaration was endorsed by France and Italy in 1918, and by the league of nations in 1922 and included as part of the mandate. Thus it receives undue weight and the only purpose of it is to present the Arab POV in quotes.--PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly it is not the "Arab POV" it is that of a British government official who succeeded Balfour as Foreign Secretary. Second saying it is the Arab POV would not be a legitimate reason to exclude a viewpoint from the article. WP:NOV says we should include all significant views and the Arab Palestinian perspective is obviously significant on this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lord Curzon was one member of the Cabinet and despite his opinion, the Cabinet approved Balfour declaration. I am still waiting for you to show why a minority view of one of the Cabinet members concerning the Balfour declaration, declaration which was later endorsed by France and Italy in 1918, and by the league of nations in 1922. Is notable in the context of the Partition Plan and shouldn't be removed.

As for POV. I was very amused to find comment in one of the commissions concerning the partition, noting how through the conflict both Jews and Arabs were crying fiercely: "This land is mine". Of course presenting only one of the views in quotes or otherwise is violation of NPOV.--PLNR (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Concerning your recent revert. Other that noting that it was quoted in WP:RS, you have yet to back up your assertion that it is relevant and WP:DUE in the context of this article on Partition Plan.(not Balfour declaration). As noted above the memorandum was written by Lord Curzon,(not a Foreign Secretary at the time, which additionally a violation of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE) one of many Cabinet members, his minority opinion hasn't effected the Cabinet decision to approve Balfour Declaration and his objection has no historic relevance in the context of the Partition. Since Balfour Declaration was later reaffirmed by the league of nations and made part of the mandate.

2)Further please explain your rational for this re-adding this : "Arab inhabitants of Palestine" to "Arab inhabitants of Palestine who occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years", why the quote is necessary in WP terms(Keep in mind that I recently held off adding similar Jewish POV stated in the Mandate document)--PLNR (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that your own views on the topic (and what is important about the topic) is quite different to what published academic experts have written (and regard as important by including in their published material). There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The problem arises when you try to promote your own views above what has been published by academic experts. you say that Curzon's view was a minority in the Cabinet. True. But Misplaced Pages policy tells us to include all significant viewpoints published in RS (both majority and minority). On a more general note, it seems to me that you are working through the article trying to delete all the well sourced information that might indicate why the Arabs had very sound rational reasons to oppose Zionism and the partition plan. It is right that this information (where well sourced) is included, we are not here to create some one sided propaganda piece where the reader would have no notion at all why the Arabs rejected the plan and the Zionist project in their homeland. Dlv999 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see a lot of accusation and general WP:IDONTLIKEIT, do you have any policy based argument supported by WP:RS :

• "Lord Curzon, who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary," - violation of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE.
• "Arab inhabitants of Palestine that occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years" introduce bias, in violation of NPOV.
• That Curzon's view in context of the Partition Plan(NOT the Balfour declaration article) - WP:UNDUE.

Off topic: As for "Arabs had very sound rational reasons to oppose Zionism", I agree, but this section is about how Partition plan conceptualized and POV Pushing arab(or Jewish) reasons into it is not OK. If you have any concerns about any part I can easily explain my rational for.--PLNR (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As already discussed the material is already sourced to an appropriate WP:RS. WP:NPOV says we include all significant published viewpoints (even minority ones). Your objections seem to be based in a misunderstanding of the core policies of the encyclopaedia, which has also led you into a problematic edit pattern of deleting sourced material while adding unsourced claims to the article. Including the viewpoints of significant parties is not "POV pushing" - we are supposed to include all significant published viewpoints. Dlv999 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Asserting that it is sourced to WP:RS and NPOV, while time and time again failing to support that it is WP:DUE in the context of this article isn't a discussing.

Concerning "who later succeeded Balfour as foreign secretary," I am going to remove it, since it is a clear violation of WP:SYN which gives WP:UNDUE weight to Curzon statement.

Concerning the later two points, before you continue to argue policy, to keep this distinctly minority view, which isn't directly about the subject of the article. So you can push Arab POV. I suggest that you take a minute and read the article again and see if this course will improve it and benefit the reader(notion concerning why the Arabs/Jews rejected/accepted the plan are presented in reactions, while the background covers how the plan was conceptualized) Because honestly I am not going to continue arguing with someone whose idea of discussion is digging his heels, without being able to articulate his rational other than in some vague bumpersticker statements, however, I will redirect the topic by following your assertions and make several big additions/changes to that paragraph through WP:RS. (see also #Lehi and Nazi collaboration section) --PLNR (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are discussing whether on the Partition Plan article, the view of one cabinet member concerning the Balfour Declaration, which was approved and endorsed by the league of nations is DUE here i.e. :

In 1917, Lord Curzon, a British cabinet member, as part of deliberations on what would be knows as Balfour Declaration, wrote a memorandum expressing concern about what would become of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine who had "occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years" and would "not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter." British cabinet approved the Balfour Declaration, which stated the government support for the "establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people nothing shall be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The League of Nations reaffirmed this commitment in 1922 by establishing the Mandate of Palestine with the prerogative to carry out the Balfour Declaration. Neither partition nor statehood was mentioned as the means of accomplishing the National Home.--PLNR (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dlv999, regarding your edits: , i.e.

The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes, but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, except for its fringes.

Sticking to the source is great as long as you don't misrepresent them, but do you have a rational for using different terminology in both parts of the sentence? Whats wrong with 'Jewish public' like 'Arab Public'? or for example use Jewish Agency which was the Jewish representatives in those years(including in UNSCOP) or just say along with the rest of Zionist movement? Because it looks like the purpose is to emphasis the term Zionist. --PLNR (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing Misplaced Pages articles is about accurately representing what has been written in reliable sources (See our core policies WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NPOV). If you are doing anything other than accurately representing what the cited source says, you are not following policy. Your proposal's are not consistent with the source, so there is nothing really more to say here, unless you can find an RS to support your proposals, in which case you are free to make the changes. Dlv999 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

to Dlv999, yet a lead should represent a summary of the article. Which use similar language to the variants I suggested, or the ones currently used in the second half of the sentence. So basing the lead wording on one source as opposed to summary of all the sources in the article is not Ok. --PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

to PLNR: Concerning this sentence, in my opinion it should be concised to :The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes, but rejected by the Arabs except for its fringes.. However, user:Trahelliven resisted and claimed that it is impossible to prove that all Arabs opposed it. The result was this rather cumbersome sentence.(BTW I am an Israeli) Ykantor (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I still resist it. Some of the Arabs did not oppose it because they had their own agendas. Some may have not opposed it simply because they were uneducated and had no idea what it was all about. Perhaps some did not even direct their minds to it because they did not live in Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The same argument can be said of Jews, so why change\expand the wording on one side of the sentence and not the other. After all its 'Arab state' and 'Jewish state', then 'Arab public\leaders\international interest' and 'Zionist'. --PLNR (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• The right word "Zionist". Talking about "Jewish" is misleading given that it is the the Zionist project that had the nationilist ambition of building a Jewish State in Palestine, not the Jews (who didn't constitute a political entity).
• The situation is more complex on the Arab side than on the Zionist side. If nearly Arab leaders were opposed to the Partition, and even any partition (sic), that is not the case for all Arabs. 1. King of Transjordan was favorable to the Partition (with the mind of annexing the Arab side) and most of the Palestinian Arab population didn't really care. As reported by historians, most of the Palestinian Arab village passed agreement with the Zionist. Both these are reported by historians and therefore we should take this into account in the wordings.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012, The complexity of the Arab situation as it pertains to our case is irrelevant, Bottom line is that except for some fringes, they rejected it. Choosing to naming all Arab factions doesn't change that. Just the same naming 'Jewish public and Jewish Agency, along with the rest of the Zionist movement, except for its fringes' doesn't change the bottom line. So go either one way or the other in both parts.--PLNR (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you: the complexity is relevant. Abdallah was a key actor of the war and the strategy of partition, being the man of the British.

And a disctinction must be made between, Arab and Arab leaders and between Palestinian Arabs and Arabs given their behaviour and goals were different.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Distinction is made, only not in the context the lead. Since except for its fringes Arabs agreed to disagree, so the statement "rejected by Arabs except for some fringes" is just as valid. Your choice to provide distinction server no purpose in the context of the lead other than to provide exposition on who the key Arab players are, I have no problem with that, as long as you provide similar exposition concerning Jewish key players as well i.e. 'Jewish public and Jewish Agency, along with the rest of the Zionist movement, except for its fringes'.

p.s. to make sure we don't railroad, I am speaking about the current lead as outlined above. It has nothing todo with your discussion with AnonMoos concerning Abdullah. If and when that discussion bear fruit\changes, then it would be relevant to me --PLNR (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

They didn't act as a whole. On the contrary, the Yishuv was united.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012 -- There weren't too many non-Zionist Jews in mandatory Palestine in 1947, and they had very little impact on events. In any case, the official representative body was the "Jewish Agency", the partition plan spoke of a "Jewish state" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless the cited source clearly states Zionists, and our job is to accurately reflect RS, not to make OR arguments. If you want to put something different, you are going to have to find RS to support it. Dlv999 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Jews of Palestine didn't support the Partition because they were Jews. They supported it because they were Zionists. And there is nothing pejorative in the term "Zionist". The Jewish Agency depended on World Zionist Organisation.

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Trahelliven -- As has been gone over several times before, the only Arabs who were publicly in favor of partition were the Moscow-line Communists, who followed every twist and turn of comrade Stalin's policies unquestioningly. Abdullah of Transjordan was in favor of the plan in private negotiations IF the Arab state in the plan would be annexed to Transjordan BUT was not willing to come out publicly in support of the plan. Any other Arabs who might possibly have been in favor of some form of partition had already been pretty much intimidated into silence by 1947. All Arab states, as well as the Arab League and the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, were unanimously against any form of partition. As far as the British and the United Nations were concerned, all relevant official or quasi-official sources of information indicated that the Arabs rejected the plan. For us at this late date to attempt to conduct some kind of hypothetical retroactive opinion poll would be blatant original research of the worst kind... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Except Abdallah who was in favor of a Partition and a significative part of the Palestinian Arab population who didn't care. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As has been gone over multiple times here, Abdullah of Transjordan was in favor of the plan in private negotiations IF AND ONLY IF the Arab state in the plan would be annexed to Transjordan BUT was not willing to come out publicly in support of the plan. He was an opponent as far as public diplomacy went. And a significant part of the Arabs in mandatory Palestine thought that whichever Arab state played a leading role in strangling Israel at birth and "throwing the Jews into the sea" would naturally annex most or all of Palestine, which would then be a step towards Arab unification... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So he was in favor of the partition (and he is not fringe).

And should we refer to the fact Ben Gurion was in favor "if and only if" this was the basis for the conquest of the remaining ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You know very well that the Ben Gurion comment referred to the 1937 Peel Plan, which was very different from the 1947 U.N. plan. And none of your tendentiousness does anything to change the fact that from the British and United Nations perspective, all relevant official or quasi-official sources of information indicated that the Arabs rejected the plan, while the Jewish community accepted. AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

to AnonMoos: You are definitely right. The Arabs rejected the partition with few fringes, like the Egyptian newspaper that I have added recently. Nashashibi family and Abdula partially accepted the partition. i.e They agreed to the Jewish state but have not agreed to an Arab state.

However, Misplaced Pages is not about accuracy but it is an anarchist framework, where rules are ignored, and whoever win the "consensus" is dictating the article content. Ykantor (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Nashashibi family consistently came out on the losing side of a long series internal Arab power struggles during the whole British mandate period, and really didn't count for much in 1947... AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion, if any, stops here. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

to PLNR

That sentence is critical because it was the subject of a DRN and that will be hard to modify this:

"The Plan was accepted by the Zionist movement, except for its fringes, but rejected by the Arab public and the ruling elites of the Palestinian Arabs, along with the rest of the Arab world, except for its fringes."

My personal mind is that we should avoid sentences that use words that are unclear and we should stick to facts. Instead of "fringes", I think we should just say "who".

That being said, if I had to write I would say something such as:

"The plan was welcomed by the Yishuv and accepted by the leaders of the Zionist movement because it gave them a State. Revisionnists nevertheless rejected any limitation to the territory of Eretz Yisrael where a Jewish State could be established. On the Arab side, the plan was rejected by the huge majority of Arab leaders who considered the partition unfair and a spoliation of Arab's property. Only Abdallah of Transjordan who expected to annex the Arab side at minimum to his Kingdom welcomed the plan. The reaction of the Arabs of Palestine was mitigated: some preparing for war but most resigning to the outcome. British were upset by the vote, expecting its rejection, that would have given them idle-hands to handle the question of Palestine at their best interest."

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for providing me with background relating to this issue(Any chance for the DRN link?). Personally, I have no objection with large part of your variant(until the reactions), though I am likely not qualified to comment on an issue which required a DRN. Still I would like to press the issue of noting the "Jewish Agency" at some capacity. Which was the official Jewish representative at several British committees, UNSCOP, accepted the UN resolution(later declared the state) and noted heavily through out this article. (e.g. see this UN publication from the article http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf ).--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that "Jewish Agency" is better than "Zionist movement" for the same reason as "fringe" is not a good choice. It is better to stick precisely to facts.

here is the link.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Lehi and Nazi collaboration

The article on Lehi has this source: proposed forming an alliance in World War II with Nazi Germany. ( Sasson Sofer. Zionism and the Foundations of Israeli Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press, 2007 Pp. 254"). Can someone verify the material is sourcable there? Google Books doesn't have these pages. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are following up on this edit Then as I noted in my comment, on this article its completely undue. But if you want to make your case please do. Though keep in mind that inline with NPOV, this article Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world#Mandatory Palestine offers far bigger volume and due info compared to it.--PLNR (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sofer's book has it at the page indicated. But I think it is too peripheral for this article. Zero 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think too that the the attempts of collaboration between Lehi and the Nazis are not relevant for this article, whereas they are proven. Indeed, this collaboration (dating back the beginning of WWI) had no impact on the Partition Plan and the vote of 1947. I don't have any mind any article or scholar book where this collaboration would be mentionned in the context of the Partition Plan.

So, policy WP:Undue would apply here.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1918 population

The text says "A British census of 1918 estimated 700,000 Arabs and 56,000 Jews." and cites Peter Mansfield, "The Arabs", 1992, pp. 172–175. I can't access that source at the moment, but regardless of what it says there was no British census in 1918. The only censuses conducted under British control were in 1922 and 1931. There are tons of good sources verifying that, including the reports of those censuses. On the other hand, the British were forever estimating the population and may well have done so in 1918. The 1922 census report mentions a 1920 estimate: 521,400 Muslims, 66,600 Christians and 66,600 Jews. That suggests 700,000 Arabs in 1918 is unlikely, but the whole issue is complicated by the fact that the French occupied much of northern Palestine at the time. I propose to replace the sentence by the 1922 census findings, anyone object? Zero 23:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are definitely right. Ykantor (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1937 Peel Commission reaction

We have "The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and Ben Gurion had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation." It is sourced to good sources but it is quite misleading. Read the actual text of the Zionist Congress resolution. Do you see any approval, equivocal or not, in there? Is there anything unclear about "The Congress declares that the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable."? Zero 00:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• I can't comment on the text you reference, since I don't know if its the document discussed in the source, but I have recently read about this. It is my understanding that both 'Zionist Organization' and 'Jewish Agency' adopted resolutions in favor of Partition but rejecting the details of the Peel plan(which iirc wasn't a full plan but more of a collection of principle). --PLNR (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

They adopted resolutions in favor of establishment of a Jewish state. More than that needs a pretty good reference. They knew that they wouldn't get more than a small part of Palestine in a partition, since they were only a small part of the population. Some, like Ben-Gurion, would have accepted partition as a starting point with the long term aim of taking more (as he made very clear). Zero 13:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• "the Congress decided to reject the specific borders recommended by the Peel Commission but empowered its executive to negotiate a more favorable plan for a Jewish State in Palestine."jewish virtual library
• ref name="Cesarani1996p231"> cite book|author=David Cesarani|title=The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1LeGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA231%7Cdate=19 September 1996|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-74421-3|pages=231–|quote="The struggle at Zurich was long and bitter. Weizmann’s argument won some support among American Zionists, resulting in a serious split in the ZOA and Hadassah delegations. Silver, Wise, Szold and their supporters (including Louis Brandeis back in the United States) opposed Weizmann and the division of the Holy Land, while those delegates, including Louis Lipsky, who had supported Wcizmann in the past continued to do so. Finally, the Zionist Congress passed a resolution authorizing the Zionist Executive to negotiate with the British in the hope of winning better boundaries for the proposed Jewish state. The resolution, however, prohibited the Executive from agreeing to any particular proposal without first getting the approval of another World Zionist Congress" Ykantor (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

1937 Peel Commission transfer

• Also concerning your recent edit in this section . The report text says(third paragraph):

I see the numbers that you quoted, but I am little bit confused concerning the bold part, and lack of final numbers if such decision would be made. Do you have any Secondary source to confirm your wording? Also in all the sources I read, the Peel Commission is noted for concluding the Mandate is unworkable and recommending the Partition for the first time(its also notable in the context of 1936-1939 revolt, Peel/Woodhead/39White Paper and ww1) I don't recall seeing anyone noting the population exchange clause, certainly not in such details, for a report whose details was rejected by all. So why do you think it is notable here?--PLNR (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The part with Jerusalem and Tel Aviv was proposed for continuing as a mandated territory whose disposition would be left to the future. No short-term transfer of its population is proposed. If you'd prefer a secondary source, there are many. Morris, Righteous Victims, p139 says it in almost identical terms: "Peel made a second recommendation as a corollary to partition: an "exchange of population" between the prospective states—the transfer of some 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 Jews." (and he keeps writing "exchange" with scare quotes). Or we could use a statement without actual numbers like "..which for the most part would involve the resettlement of Arabs living within territory proposed for the Jewish state" (p242 of Tessler, History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict). Quite a lot of authors don't even mention that a tiny fraction (0.55%) of the transferred persons would be Jews and describe it just as a transfer of Arabs. The previous text encouraged the reader to assume there was some sort of balanced exchange proposed, which is far from the truth. Zero 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Question of Balance should be addressed in the context of the full Peel Commission report, not implied through a specific clause of one of the chapters without proper context, otherwise you introduce POV. Which is why the previous wording was preferable as it was neutral and informative, providing a solution and point of reference to the frontier/friction problem.--PLNR (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Balance requirements apply to every article. There is nothing balanced or neutral about writing "population exchange" without the context that 199 in every 200 persons would be Arab. Zero 09:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on my previous post, there was nothing "balanced" in the Greeko\Turkish population exchange figures as well. Balance implies compensation, financing of large scale development projects and other considerations. You are more then welcome to address this issue in length on the peel commission article. However, here its undue and replace neutral and informative entry, and point of reference concerning a considered Partition principle, with unnecessary details that lack context and adds nothing to the Partition Plan (no wonder that quite a lot of authors don't even mention them). Serving only your misguided notion that proposed exchange of population implies equal numbers?! It is like saying that exchange of land implies implies equal square footage.--PLNR (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the previous language was unsourced. So what has happened is an unverifiable entry has been replaced by an entry that is sourced and accurately reflects how the topic is covered by expert secondary sources. If you are interested in learning, this is a good example of how to improve the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering what has happened to improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to POV pushing on the laurels of policy you see around(i.e. game the system). Jumping in the middle to argue policy, you missed the fact that added source isn't secondary, but primary source, which fully covers both variant. Also I am certain that beside accuracy your are also familiar with concept such as representing in fair, proportionate and notable way in the context of a specific topic. So this sidetracking aside, I am still waiting for someone to provide WP based rational for that inclusion, addressing what I said in the previous two posts.--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now it has a secondary source as well. The content is not disputed by historians. The rationale is telling readers about the facts. You should stop flogging this dead horse. Zero 09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

e/c: Zero already cited Benny Morris in his comment timestamped 13:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC). The WP based argument is that it is sourced to a gold standard academic secondary source. Including the sourced material will mean our article will be more consistent with how the topic is covered by academic experts. You bandy around "POV pushing" charge, but your pattern of editing reveals you adding unsourced content while at the same time deleting and arguing for the deletion of well sourced material. You will not find that kind of edit pattern if you look at my edit history. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, it is not that hard, just because something is quoted in WP:RS doesn't mean it is relevant and notable here. In your quote Morris speaks about the 'Peal commission', not about 'Partition Plan'. All you have to do is show why it is notable in the context of the Partition Plan.(i.e. Peel Commission is notable, due to being the first to say Mandate is unworkable and suggest partition, and the plan details were). Otherwise I can quote a book dealing with international treats, which discuss the peel commission and spam the paragraph with details about 'Civil Services' and 'Industrial Concessions' using your arguments to support it word for word.

I didn't mind to entertain the previous wording because it was somewhat informative and meaningful addition. in the sense that the reader could better understand the suggested principle by reading about the Greeko\Turkish case. I am saying principle, because there are no operative articles or any specifics concerning implementation, which is why the commission referenced the Greeko\Turkish case in the first place. Meanwhile, your version is pointless, those numbers doesn't add to the reader understanding how the Partition plan conceptualize, not what an exchange would entail(lacking context) nor used later on, their whole purpose is to introduce POV, to implying that it was unfair deal.--PLNR (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Morris is directly discussing the partition plan as it was envisaged by the Peel report. "their whole purpose is to introduce POV, to implying that it was unfair deal" - bullshit, the idea is to introduce the facts as they are laid out in expert scholarly sources - readers can make up their own minds based on the facts. Your pattern of edits seems to be about suppressing the well sourced facts that are not conducive to your preferred narrative. Dlv999 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how the details of the Peel Plan are very relevant to this article anyway, since the Peel Plan was a very different plan proposed under very different circumstances, and does not seem to have formed the basis for the U.N. plan. Unfortunately, some people's main interest in the Peel Plan with respect to this article seems to be to try to imply that Ben Gurion's reaction to the 1937 Peel Plan is somehow relevant to the 1947 U.N. plan... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree more, its just selective POV Pushing. I made an edit in an attempt to address all of aspect of exchange in proportionate mater.--PLNR (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

to PLNR: I agree with you that the transfer does not belong to this article. My intention was to highlight that for them the transfer is not a POV but a (supposedly) historic deduction.

* However, in my opinion, the Balfour declaration, the Peel report, and the white paper should be mentioned in the background section. Ykantor (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor, if they have WP:RS to support their view, they are wellcomed to it, however, as I noted several times before, this article is about the "Partition Plan", not about some transfer, not about the peel report and neither about Balfour declaration vote. Most of the things I oppose here, if they were added on those article I'd support their inclusion there, but here its nothing but POV pushing.--PLNR (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Planned expulsion?

to AnonMoos, PLNR : When I discovered that the pro Arab editors really believe that the Zionists planned the transfer a lot of years in advance, I was shocked, because it is clear (for me) that this is just a propaganda. They do not think it is a POV, and they have pro Arab RS who support it (and more accusations against Israel.) e.g. Finkelshtein, Pape, Flapan, Khalidi etc. Anyway, the article does not say what was the rational behind the transfer proposal. PLNR edit is a step in the right direction. The transfer idea was suppoerted by Arab politicians too, since it is clear (in my opinion) that Arabs and Jews can not live together, unless one of the groups is very small. Ykantor (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"The transfer idea did not originate with the Peel Commission. It goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and, while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception. The transfer idea did not originate with the Peel Commission. It was always clear to the Zionists that a Jewish state would be impossible without a Jewish majority....For many Zionists, beginning with Herzl, the only realistic solution lay in transfer." (Morris, Righteous Victims, 2001 pp139)

According to RS the idea transfer goes back to Herzl and the "fathers of Zionism". According to RS the rationale was that they wanted to create a Jewish state in a land that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish and they saw transfer as the "only realistic solution". Perhaps you could consider the possibility that editors you label as "pro Arab" only want to accurately reflect what has been written in RS on the topic and that perhaps your own views are not entirely consistent with what has been published in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

to Dlv999: Morris is an excellent RS and usually he has no mistakes. Israel had its' share of wrong doing, but the problem, as I understand it, is that the 1948 Arab refugees disaster was not a result of the supposed long term planing of this disaster. According to Morris, Refugee revisited:

p. 6, the evidence for pre-1948 Zionist support for ‘Transfer’ really is unambiguous; but the connection between that support and what actually happened during the war is far more tenuous than Arab propagandists will allow ... The exodus of the rich from Jaffa and Haifa over December 1947 to March 1948 was vastly different from the mass urban flight of April and early May; indeed, the multi-layered flight from Jaffa was markedly different from that from Haifa; and both had little in common with the expulsion and flight from Lydda and Ramle in July or from ‘Eilabun, Dawayima and Kafr Bir‘im in October–November1948

p.7, the intention of the Palestinian leadership and irregulars and,later, of most of the Arab states’ leaders and armies in launching the hostilities in November–December 1947 and in invading Palestine in May 1948 to destroy the Jewish state and, possibly, the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) itself; the fears of the Yishuv that the Palestinians and the Arab states, if given the chance, intended to reenact a Middle Eastern version of the Holocaust…from late July 1948, it was clear to the Yishuv’s leaders (and probably to most Arab leaders) that Israel had won its war for survival, at least in the short term, and that the subsequent IDF offensives were geared to securing the political military future of the Jewish state in what continued to be a highly hostile and uncomfortable geopolitical environment and to rounding out its borders.

p. 588,The first Arab–Israeli war, of 1948,was launched by the Palestinian Arabs, who rejected the UN partition resolution and embarked on hostilities aimed at preventing the birth of Israel. That war and not design,Jewish or Arab, gave birth to the Palestinian refugee problem.But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist Ideology…But there was no pre-war Zionist plan to expel ‘the Arabs’ from Palestine or the areas of the emergent Jewish State; and the Yishuv did not enter the war with a plan or policy of expulsion…. Hence, in the war’s first four months, between the end of November 1947 and the end of March 1948, there were no preparations for mass expulsion and there were almost no cases of expulsion or the leveling of villages; hence, during the following ten months, Haganah and IDF units acted inconsistently, most units driving out Arab communities as a matter of course while others left (Muslim as well as Christian and Druse) villages and townspeople in place; and hence, at war’s end, Israel emerged with a substantial Arab minority" Ykantor (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"in the words of one of the Israeli soldiers, as quoted by Benny Morris, whose thesis about the birth of the refugee problem being not by design but by the natural logic and evolution of the war is not always sustained by the very evidence he himself provides, ‘cultured officers . . . had turned into base murderers and this not in the heat of battle . . . but out of a system of expulsion and destruction; the less Arabs remained, the better; this principle is the political motor for the expulsions and the atrocities’." (Shlomo Ben Ami, 2006, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace]]) Dlv999 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ben Ami claim, that the refugees have been expelled by design, is not supported by this Morris quote, (Morris, refugees revisited, p. 470). It describes the horrible massacre in Dawayima, and probably based on Kaplan (the quoted soldier) previous experience. Ben Ami does not refer to Morris claims that:

* if that was a general policy, how come that at the "war’s end, Israel emerged with a substantial Arab minority"

* The expulsion was inconsistent. "Most units driving out Arab communities as a matter of course while others left (Muslim as well as Christian and Druse) villages and townspeople in place" Ykantor (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Guys, this is not a form, please refrain from discussions unrelated to article topic or its improvement.

1947-1948

Hi, Trahelliven concerning your recent revert. You stated that:

"In view of what was to happen in 1947-1948, this proposed disproportionate proposed dispossession of Arabs is significant."

I don't know what "proposed disproportionate proposed dispossession" means, but what was to happen is certainly the UN Partition Plan. So kindly specify what exactly your variant adds to the UN Partition Plan, which wasn't already there? Because if its just the numbers to imply that the plan is unfair or disproportionate, unless you quote from WP:RS that explicit state that conclusion, this a violation of WP:SYN. More over it is a violation of WP:NPOV because you selectively choose parts of the plan that advance your position, while intentionally ignoring other parts of it i.e. the missing the compensation and development clauses.--PLNR (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I repeated a word. In 1947-48, about 700,000 Arabs left, fled from or were expelled from, what was to become Israel. The reverse applied to about 10,000 Jews. The Plan of Partition of 29 November 1947 was, I suspect, designed to prevent the necessity of an exchange. The proposal of 1937 is, therefore, worth mentioning. 225,000 Arabs living in the Jewish state and 1,250 Jews living in the Arab state: The disproporn is so great that the numbers need mentioning. If you want to mention compensation, financing of large scale development projects and other considerations feel free to do so, I agree that the full picture needs to be told. Trahelliven (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Partition Plan, not about the events of 1947/48 that followed. You haven't specified what the numbers adds other than your unsourced suspicion. Confirming that it would serve to imply a conclusion not explicit state in source about "disproportionate" and or introduce bias that would require us to to cover the "disproportionate" amount of compensation Jews/British will have to pay and development projects for Ara that the plan covers. As noted before such detail is undue in the context of the Partition plan. (also on side note, I have hard time to follow your reasoning, the UN partition plan had different census data, different points of reference(no link to trans Jordan), two revolts in its belt, two mature uncompromising nationalist movements, pressure concerning Jewish immigration as result of WW2, British decide they are had enough etc, the parallels your are trying to make are superficial )--PLNR (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

UNSCOP affair

Hi, Ykantor concerning your recent addition. Thanks for providing a source, however, as I noted in my edit summary there are still several issues with it.

1. It is by far the single most covered\details event in this whole article by that point. (What does it matter where the passengers refused to disembark or where they did?!)
2. The language is very vague/strong, without any context as to what it has "Without doubt..heavily influenced"? i.e. the committee attitude toward British enforcement of White Paper of 1939? the details of the land\population partitions? or simply reinforced their working assumption that both groups has intense nationalist aspirations and unlikely to compromise, which led to the conclusion that Partition is the only solution?
3. Considering the above, the location of the paragraph(singled out in the UNSCOP section) reinforce bias that this was the single most major influence on UNSCOP. While it seem to have some contributing factor, we will need far more sources to establish that some "bad press" is was a larger factor then precedent built by several decades of failed committees unrest and violence which are covered in background. -- otherwise it should be moved to background.
4. Lastly the original part is still unsourced.(very minor concern)--PLNR (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that these sentences may be concised. However, it is important according to Morris "without doubt UNSCOP members were heavily influenced by the SS Exodus" as committee members watched it in Haifa harbor, and followed the affair later.

*What does it matter where the passengers refused to disembark or where they did? because it underlines their desire to immigrate to Palestine.

*The language is very vague/strong? this specific sentence is quoting Morris. If Morris view is opposed by other RS, would you mind to provide one? Ykantor (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I try to link it with the section that covers the Jewish attempt to undermined the British immigration policy. I also had similar objections to the above concerning the three paragraphs(and bullet points?!) concerning the Anglo-American committee. In my recent two edits I tried to summarize the section I am familiar with.--PLNR (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Palestine has existed since 800 Years Before the times of Jesus, Maps project it as far back as 400 CE

Palestine legal & religious papers 200 years before Jesus, in Palestinian Aramaic, U.N. Maps show its borders as far back as 400 CE

• Palestine 200BCE-200CE http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts
• http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=5.4635&centerX=0.2820&centerY=0.5588 DigDeep4Truth (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • But back then, "Palestinian" meant Jewish. It was not until the 1900s that the Arabs usurped the word Palestinian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.143.3.67 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That is hearsay, not correct. Please read it directly. Visit the following 400 CE Map link http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=6.5562&centerX=0.2848&centerY=0.5562 ~~ And consult the 1947 Jewish Land Distribution Map ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Jewish_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg ~~ Hebrew Jews were located in "Phoenice", and a few in "Phoe.Libam" who came from Russia and managed to break the Ottoman land purchase laws https://en.wikipedia.org/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine#cite_note-Ocak2002-7 and Still next to no one claiming to be a Jew owned lands in "Palaeftina" as the classic map depicting 400 CE indicates modern Jews were in "Phoenice" and may be why Hebrew speakers claim Phoenician Language descent, even though the Phoneticians invaded the Aramaic and then converted to Aramaic Religion, even adopting their Writing systems, which 21st Century Jews now falsely called things like "Proto-Hebrew" or "Paleo-Hebrew" or "Biblical-Hebrew" when they are plainly "Aramaic Dialects". -- User:DigDeep4Truth
• Judaism in Phonecian then var. Aramaic Scripts -- http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/History/history.html

DigDeep4Truth -- the name "Philistia" and slight variants probably goes back before 1000 B.C., but it was not too commonly used to refer to areas beyond the southern coastal plain until ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province of "IVDAEA" (Judea) to "PALAESTINA" (Palestine) for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the Second Jewish Revolt. Since Jesus did not come from the southern coastal plain area (and never even travelled there, as far as can be determined from the New Testament), therefore during his lifetime he would not have referred to himself or been referred to by others as "Palestinian"...
122.143.3.67 -- From 1917 to 1948 the word "Palestinian" was used to refer to all the inhabitants of the British-administered territory, including both Arabs and Jews. Before that time, the word "Palestine" was rather vague in meaning, and was used much more often by Europeans than actual inhabitants of the area. Not sure when "Palestinian" would have meant "Jew"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at the Map -> http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=6.5562&centerX=0.2848&centerY=0.5562

Jerusalem is clearly in Palaeftina and Jesus did travel there. Where did you get a different idea from? -- 04:28, 29 January 2014‎ DigDeep4Truth;

Unfortunately for you, you don't seem to have bothered to read my message with any degree of attention. Jesus certainly lived in Palestine according to the post-135-A.D. definition of Palestine, but this is somewhat anachronistic, since during Jesus' lifetime, Palaestina basically meant Philistia, or the southern coastal plain area. By the way, that's not an "f"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos, "Unfortunately for you"...

1. The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia & Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains & Jordan Rift Valley.
2. Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea. ` DigDeep4Truth (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's nice -- as has been discussed previously elsewhere, Herodotus seems to have been quite ignorant of areas beyond the coast in that part of the world, and knew absolutely nothing about Jews other than that they were circumcised like Egyptians. Those who were more knowledgeable generally used Παλαιστινη to refer mainly to the coastal plain area (i.e. Philistia). For example, Pausanias referred to Judea as being "above" Palestine (i.e. in the hills inland from the coast), and not "in" Palestine. The Greek words huper tês Palaistinês υπερ της Παλαιστινης "above Palaistine" can be seen at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0159%3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D9 . -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos, we've discussed this before. It defies credibility that you continue to push this WP:OR about Pausanias and other points. To refute your points:

• As you know, scholarly sources translate the Pausanias quote as "in Palestine" (see Timeline of the name "Palestine"
• Contemporary with that, c.130 BC: Agatharchides wrote "Near (Tiran) island is a promontory, which stretches towards the Rock of the Nabataeans and Palestine". The logic of this geographical description holds only if Palestine bordered Nabatea.
• Philistia in Biblical Greek was Φυλιστιειμ - a very different spelling
• The only reference is all written history or literature to Philistia being the southern coastal plane is in the bible, and even then only during the time of the books of judges and samuel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Guys, this is not a forum, please refrain from discussions unrelated to article improvement. -- 19:25, 31 January 2014‎ PLNR

Oncenawhile -- I really don't know any such thing. You apparently dredged up something from somewhere, but I really have no idea who these people are or what they're referring to. Meanwhile, the translation of the well-known green-backed books (as well as the basic literal meaning of the ancient Greek words) is "above Palestine". Since you have no real knowledge of the ancient Greek language, I really don't know how you're in any position to evaluate or correct anything in this area. And your comment on Φυλιστιειμ reveals that you don't have any knowledge of the ancient Hebrew language either, since that's an obvious Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word פלשתים plishtim "Philistines" (plural noun). The Hebrew word for "Philistia" was פלשת peleshet (where the last vowel would not have been present in older pronunciation). "Philistia" is a standard term meaning land of the Philistines, including the main Philistine cities or Pentapolis -- Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza -- all located in the southern coastal plain... AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

AnonMoos above, is lying to the reader. He knew. Proof. He posted to the Talk page of Timeline_of the name "Palestine" . This Palestine article gives a clear academic History-of-the-name OR Etymology of Palestine. AnonMoos has read it, blocked the name change in 2013 and is now willfully damaging this discussion and derailing my attempt to contribute with False Discussion on his behalf, hoping to keep the Admin from Recognizing and Adding some Contextual History to the Article. He is trying to Derail this wiki from possibly improving & block new Discussion for the sake of a 1948 Israel.

-- Until recently, even after Reading this Article I was under the Impression the United Nations(League of Nations) had invented a Mandatory Palestine (As if it were a construct). When it turns out the Country of Palestine has been Mapped since 500-400BCE by the Greeks. It is older than most European Countries! And still not allowed a Speaking Chair at the United Nations. A Holy Crusade Mocking move decided to let Palestine have a UN chair on Christmas 2012. On December 25 2012 they were recognized by the UN with a chair, but they are still not allowed to speak during UN meetings.

PLNR place make it clear that Palestine existed and the Greeks Gave it Boundaries 500-300BCE, it was on Roman Maps represented it 43CE, and it is on United Nations maps, some representing 400CE, long before the Mandatory Palestine took place. / United Nations Library, 400CE Palestine --http://www.wdl.org/en/item/11745/zoom/#group=1&page=1&zoom=5.4635&centerX=0.2820&centerY=0.5588

"Without doubts" - 1RR violation

Ykantor,

Even if Morris says so, stating that something is "without doubts" sounds very pov. More it doesn't bring anything to the article and the topic. If this was an important information we would write "According to Benny Morris, there is no doubt that..." but that is not important. This should therefore be removed because the style is not good and because the information is without interest.

PLNR already posted on the talk page a message for you about this issue (and others) yesterday. Would you mind answering him too ?

Nb: by the way, you reverted two times to your version and therefore do not comply with 1RR whereas you are fully aware of that rule now.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1. International Boundary Study: Jordan – Syria Boundary (PDF), United States Department of State, 30 December 1969, p. 8, retrieved 28 November 2011
2. Balfour Declaration. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 12 August 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
3. New Statesman Interview – Jack Straw
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mansfield1992 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Top-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• Unassessed United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• Unassessed International law articles
• Unknown-importance International law articles
• WikiProject International law articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Selected anniversaries (November 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2010)