I'm very tempted to close this as "resolved against inclusion of the disputed material," but will instead merely say that the requesting party has chosen to move on to an RFC after having two involved editors and two neutral editors clearly take the position that the material is inappropriate as being insufficiently sourced and, as such, original research (see the discussion). — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
We are stating that the governor can enact, amend, or repeal laws that are emblematic to his party since his party controls the executive and legislative branch. These statements are referenced, reliable, and verifiable. However, another editor keeps removing the information.
We are also providing statistics about the Governor's performance which are also referenced, reliable, and verifiable but the same editor keeps removing the information.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing it on the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Warn the user to stop reverting such information as it adheres to WP:NPOV and to WP:VERIFIABLE.
Summary of dispute by Jmundo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't see a personal dispute here. Severals editors have commented on the issue. More watchful eyes are always welcomed as it involve the addition of negative and poor source material to a BLP article. Jmundo (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Alejandro García Padilla discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
24-hour closing notice: Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary. Since this has been listed for several days and Jmundo has not chosen to weigh in here, despite being properly notified and otherwise editing during that time, this will be closed as futile after 15:20 UTC on November 14 unless Jmundo chooses to join in before that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I take it that the material reverted back into the article here and here is the material in dispute here.
In the first edit, I cannot find anywhere in the source that says that the material in the chart "evidences a significant decline in economic activity since García Padilla came into power". If it does not clearly say that, then combining the dates of Padilla's time in office and the economic data would constitute prohibited synthesis to make a point about Padilla that is not made in the sources. That is a form of prohibited original research. Including the charts, on the other hand, without that conclusion to imply a conclusion about Padilla is also prohibited synthesis. That policy says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." (Emphasis added.)
By sentence in the second edit:
"As governor, García Padilla shares his legislative powers with the 25th Senate and 29th House of Representatives; both controlled by his party." The source for this sentence is the election results. I see nothing on this page about legislative powers or about Padilla sharing them. Again, this appears to be prohibited original research and a source which does not support the cited text.
"This effectively allows García Padilla to enact, amend, and repeal laws that are emblematic to his party without political opposition save for constitutional amendments." The source for this sentence is the constitution of Puerto Rico. Again, I find nothing about Padilla mentioned in the constitution, much less about the effect that having the same party in control of the executive and both houses of the legislature may have. This is, once again, prohibited synthesis, unless Ahnoneemoos can point out where that source expressly says these things.
In both these cases, it appears that sources are being analyzed and synthesized to draw conclusions about Padilla which are not expressly set out in the referenced texts. That kind of analysis is not proper for Wikipedia and the assertions in these edits should not be in the article unless they can be supported by a secondary reliable source. Moreover, both of these edits are, as they are used, making direct statements about Padilla, a living person, via primary sources which are government-issued public documents. BLPPRIMARY says, unequivocally, "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person." BLPREMOVE says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." In light of what is said in BLPPRIMARY, this material is both poorly sourced and a conjectural interpretation. It should be immediately removed from the article and if there is any dispute about whether or not it is appropriate, it should not be restored until that dispute is resolved at BLPN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC) PS: DRN volunteers AndyTheGrump and Keithbob both frequently work at BLPN and I would invite their comments on the analysis which I made above. — TM 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Since I've been asked to comment, I will. Ahnoneemoos's statement that "We are... providing statistics about the Governor's performance" is unsupported by the source cited. The statistics relate to the performance of the Puerto Rican economy. It is POV/synthesis to assert that the statistics relate to anything else. As for the material about the constitution, it seems to be original research/synthesis, intended to make some POV point or another, though exactly what the point is I'm not entirely sure. It tells us that the Governor has the powers that an elected Governor has, and that he has the support of House and Senate majorities. So he can "enact, amend, and repeal laws". Isn't that what elected representatives are elected to do? I don't think that WP:BLP policy is even particularly significant here - regardless of article topics, we don't engage in synthesis and original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis. Neither statement is original research. I will reply to both TransporterMan and Andy below.
All these statements are stated repeatedly in Puerto Rican news and radio but I'm having a hard time finding a source on the Internet that says that explicitly verbatim in those very same words because the election happened over a year ago. Let me explain to you what "sharing legislative powers means": the Governor does have legislative powers: he signs laws. He shares legislative powers with the Senate and the House: the Senate and House propose laws, passes them, and then the governor signs them into law. In this case, García Padilla shares these powers with the 25th Senate and the 29th House. Both are controlled by his party. How can you not derive that from the sources provided I really do not know. The Constitution was cited where this is explained. So were the election results which show these facts. WP:BLP states explicitly that biographies of living persons must be verifiable, neutral, and avoid original research. This statement is verifiable, neutral, and is not original research. It can be verified by looking at the election results and the Constitution. This statement cannot be removed.
The second statement, about García Padilla's power, is about bills that are emblematic to his party. Andy missed that word, so did everybody else. There is a difference between trying to "enact, amend, or repeal" a law, and trying to pass one that is emblematic to your party when your party controls both the legislative and executive branch. This is an obvious fact in this case, but once again, I'm having a hard time finding a source ONLINE for this, even though this is repeated pretty much every week. If the problem is that the references provided do not EXPLICITLY say THAT VERY SAME TEXT then feel free to remove this sentence. I will re-add it once I find a reference somewhere else. However, you need to understand that it is of utmost importance that this is mentioned in the article as Puerto Rico has suffered from shared legislative powers in the past that have created issues in its history (see Aníbal Acevedo Vilá and 2006 Puerto Rico budget crisis. Similarly to what is happening to Obama right now with the Republican House.
Now, about the graphs. Nobody is implying anything. These, once again, are FACTS, not observations. The statement says, "this is how the economy has behaved since García Padilla came into power", it does not say, "García Padilla CAUSED this". There is a BIG difference. You are the ones interpreting it as causation when such thing is never mentioned in the caption. For example, I just updated the second chart from the newly published data and guess what? Employment went up during his last month! The article now reflects this. Are we going to remove this as well? These are facts. I don't care if they are negative or positive. They are facts. Period.
Here's how you can form that graph:
Month
EIA
Deviation (cumulative; when compared to base)
December (previous governor; serves as base of comparison)
If the problem is the caption, then put something like "EAI since García Padilla has been in power" and "Payroll since García Padilla has been in power". Once again, these are facts, which are REFERENCED, verifiable, neutral, and do not constitute original research.
We create graphs from statistics published by reliable sources all the time.
If the wording is problematic then change the wording, but leave the facts in place.
Indeed, we do sometimes create graphs from statistics provided by reliable sources. We do not however present statistics about a subject other than that of an article in a way clearly intended to imply that the subject of the article is responsible for them, regardless of what caption we use. That is synthesis, and a violation of WP:NPOV policy. If reliable sources exist which assert that there is a connection between the state of the Puerto Rican economy and Governor García Padilla's actions, we can of course consider adding material derived from such sources to the article - subject to the usual WP:WEIGHT issues etc. As for "bills that are emblematic" to the Governor's party, unless you can provide sources that make this point, it doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is based on what published sources say - not on what contributors can cobble together from different sources to make a point not made by any single source. This is elementary Wikipedia policy, and isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the emblematic stuff, here's a reference for ya: [4] I will translate what the news anchor is saying for you, "The Jobs Now Act is a campaign promise from Governor García Padilla to create 50,000 jobs." Wanna see how this is "emblematic to his party"? Check out the party platform here: [5] at page 61, "Aprobar la Ley de Empleos Ahora para facilitar e incentivar el establecimiento de nuevas empresas y expandir las existentes." translation: "Approve the Jobs Act Now to facilitate and encourage the establishment of new businesses and expand existing ones." Here's another source: [6]
I'm quite baffled that I have to explain something that is pretty much common sense. As WP:BLP states, all this information is verifiable, neutral, and does not constitute original research.
I'm not interested in a long-winded and repetitive debate. I was asked for my opinion, and have given it. So far, everyone who has commented on this issue except you seems to have much the same opinion as me. If you want to ask for yet more opinions, that is your choice - but I very much doubt you will win people over. You are clearly engaging in original research and synthesis, and your proposed content is against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't make statements and please don't accuse me of engaging in original research and synthesis. You need to understand what verifiability means. It does not mean that everything must be referenced, it means that it must be verifiable, SOMEHOW. For your convenience, per WP:OR itself:
By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
Just because I have been unable to find an ONLINE source that has that very same wording does not mean that this is original research or synthesis. This is said pretty much every week on political analysis shows on TV and radio but I'm not gonna sit down here and look over hundreds of hours of footage to satisfy a requirement that some random person on the Internet is asking about. I'm a volunteer, I'm not paid for my time and effort here. This is common sense and you should be aware that WP:IAR and WP:PILLARS triumphs over every policy that we may have, per WP:PILLARS:
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception.
If you want to be a bureaucrat and restrictive then by all means go ahead, but do NOT accuse me of stuff and do not make statements about my behavior. State your opinion instead. Be careful with your own wording.
I have also reverted these edits a couple of times before, and I've just done so again for the material about the legislature and "emblematic laws" (the graphs have not been re-inserted this time). I completely agree with what Transporterman and Andy have said. Not surprisingly, the Constitution does not make any reference to Garcia Padilla or indeed to "emblematic laws". Even if the graphs are not intended to suggest that Garcia Padilla is responsible for the poor economic performance, readers will draw that inference. After all, if he is not responsible for it, why is it included in this article? It would not seem to be directly relevant to the article if he isn't responsible for it. In any case, the graphs are sourced from primary sources, and BLPPRIMARY advises that we should "exercise extreme caution" in using them on BLPs. Finally, these statements may be true and even "common sense", but that does not override the requirement for proper sourcing and the prohibitions on original research and synthesis. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
His very first law was about job creation, Act 1 of 2013. His 40th law was about increasing taxes, Act 40 of 2013. How is he NOT considered responsible for the economy? I find it quite odd that you are against including the images which are (1) referenced, (2) verifiable, (3) neutral, (4) do not constitute original research, and (5) come from reliable sources, yet when we mention the very same laws about job creation and taxes in his Domestic policies and Foreign policies you don't complain. Evenmoreso, that you only complain because the outcome is negative even though the new data shows that his measures are actually helping the economy since his last month injected new jobs into the economy and the island is experiencing a recovery. Our job is to present the data, whatever the outcome is, positive or negative, but it seems that you only want it removed because it is negative. Who is being neutral here? I could care less about what the outcome is. I just show the facts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
By the way, regarding the graphs, we do the very same thing with other heads of government. Here's a screenshot of Barack Obama's article on Wikipedia and his unemployment rate during his tenure: http://i.imgur.com/BzgXZ6p.png Why is it OK to do it for Obama but not for García Padilla? Both graphs come from government sources. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
What much of what you've said above is represented by this sentence, "Just because I have been unable to find an ONLINE source that has that very same wording does not mean that this is original research or synthesis." The problem with that is this: BURDEN, part of the verifiability policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." The sources that you are using do not support the text, and it is your burden to either find sources which do support the material or to not add or restore the material to the article, especially since you were the one who first added this material. The material which you quote from the no original research policy is not a shield against BURDEN, but only says that sources must exist; BURDEN then goes on and says that if challenged the editor inserting or restoring the material must actually produce the sources which show that the material is both sourced and not original research. An IAR exception can be made, as you suggest, but IAR does not create a personal right to insert material and have it prevail over the objections of other editors without consensus. IAR local exceptions are, like everything else here, decided by consensus once someone objects to the material. As for your long explanation of why this is not original research, the very fact that you have to explain it proves that it is original research. When you have to add sources together or interpret what they say, that defines original research and we do not do that here. Finally, the argument that the "statement says, 'this is how the economy has behaved since García Padilla came into power', it does not say, 'García Padilla CAUSED this'" is simply specious. Why not include graphs of the amount of rainfall in Puerto Rico during that same period? If the intent is not to infer a relationship between Padilla's administration and the economy, positive or negative, what is the point of having the graphs in the article? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)PS: We had an edit conflict so let me say a word about your last post above. What happens in any one article has nothing to do with what happens in any other article. Every article stands on its own unless there is a policy or guideline requiring uniformity. It may well be that the graphs in that article should be removed as well. — TM 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I have provided you the laws themselves. I have provided you the Constitution. I have provided you the party platform itself. I have provided you with news capsules, newspapers, and election results. What the hell else is required? Wikipedia is not a verbatim copy of stuff. The only time when verbatim copy is required is when we use quotes. Everything else must be supported by the references. All my contributions are supported by reliable sources. Why the hell do you still consider them as lacking as such I don't know. I mean, I even provided you an article on Wikipedia which is one of the most fiercely guarded articles on all of Wikipedia where this very same thing is done and yet you still somehow believe the graphs should not be included. Where do we draw the line? Every single reference provided proves, beyond reasonably doubt, that the Governor and the economy are correlated. Wether such data is negative or positive is IRRELEVANT for Wikipedia. We just show facts. In this case it happens to be negative, UP UNTIL NOW. In August it started to turn around and the island is experiencing a recovery. When the GDB publishes the data from September, October, and November I will update the graphs once again. I don't care about the outcome, I only care about showing facts. This all mambo jambo is happening because SOMEBODY ELSE DOES NOT WANT THIS INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN on the article because the outcome is negative. Would he have disputed it if the outcome would have been positive? I updated the graph itself with the new information where a POSITIVE outcome is shown. Who is being neutral and who is not? Do you understand what is going on now? By the way, just because someone disputes something does not automatically mean it is original research. For example, Jmundo disputed the veracity of the charts and I showed him where the data came from. If you are so concerned about Wikipedia's truthfulness I dare you to remove the graph from Obama's article. Let me know how that goes. Wanna be neutral? Go ahead, do it. I dare you. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:PERTINENCE, Barack Obama (unemployment graph), and George W. Bush (deficit graph). Alejandro García Padilla is the Governor of Puerto Rico and is the person that sets forth the economic public policy for the territory. A graph about how the economy has performed under his governorship is pertinent to the article and is a common practice on Wikipedia. You have been explained this on this discussion, given several reliable sources, and shown you examples where this is done already in Wikipedia. Please, once again, read WP:OR, these graphs are not original research, they have been obtained from reliable sources as mentioned many times before. Considering that the people at DRN are unwilling to listen to the facts presented in this discussion I have no option but to further discuss this community wide as an RFC. Thank you for your volunteerism and for taking time from your life to participate in this discussion. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No extensive discussion on the talk page as required by this noticeboard. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions which I make here. For general help, you might want to consider asking a question at the Teahouse. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Firstly, I recognize that this is not a highly trafficked page and hardly very important.
The page is about a Spanish political party, UPyD. The dispute stems from the Ideology section of the Infobox and began in 2009. The dispute is over the terms 'Nationalism', 'Spanish nationalism' and 'Anti-nationalism'. Basically, I feel that there is evidence to support labeling UPyD as a Spanish Nationalist party, and have provided a recent editorial by that party's leader to justify this.
I should point out that it was me who made the change to the page that triggered this dispute, and that I only did so when I felt that the referenced evidence was overwhelmingly in support of such an edit.
2 anonymous users are continually undoing this edit and I don't want to get into a war with them but I do think that for the integrity of the article, we reflect the true position of a political party, and not just its stated position. I believe that the anon users' opposition to this term is based on their reading of it as inherently pejorative whereas I feel that I'm including it for neutral, factual reasons.
I have proposed removing or altering 'Anti-nationalist' to 'Opposed to Catalan and Basque nationalism' but didn't get any response. Instead, a new anon user started editing.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried to engage anon users in order to resolve this, but received no response.
How do you think we can help?
We need a clear policy on how to complete the ideology section of the Infobox. Is it right to put verifiable items in that section - Spanish Nationalism in the case of UPyD - or should we stick to the party's self description (which to me runs the risk of turning Wikipedia into a propaganda tool)? Thank you for your help.
Summary of dispute by 213.254.88.62
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Union, Progress_and_Democracy discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have helped this user from IRC, told her what to do what not, and called her pretty/super pretty cracked a joke, Emails on the talk page, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard
I accept full responsibility about my actions, however this about the article, and she is planning to sue.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Article merger proposal agreed by everyone, I have told her to make a sandbox, a draft etc.... then edit the article, she can't even sign the article told her how to do it, doesn't want to listen.
How do you think we can help?
This is about the article not about me, if my actions are to be blamed for , I accept full responsibility, and if the Admins want me to blocked for sometime because of my actions I accept, and I have made formal public apology to her.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Colon cleansing discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In the article West Bank, I tagged the term "international community" as needing clarification (full quotation: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law"). I was reverted twice and so I started a discussion on its talk page. The reason I believe this term requires clarification is it is a vague term and it is not clear who in particular it refers to and I also feel that it implies a consensus which does not exist. The people opposing me seem to be ignoring my arguments as to why I think a little clarification should be added, and are maintaining that because "the phrase is sourced to 4 academic sources" it is not necessary to clarify it. Keep in mind that all I want is for the term to be clarified and I am not disputing the neutrality of the claim. My opposers don't seem to understand that sources are for facts, not for language, and so we do not have to copy them word for word.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried adding a "clarification needed" tag and have tried discussing the issue on the talk page of the article.
How do you think we can help?
I think it would help to get some more opinions on whether the term "international community" requires further clarification, preferably from people who are not involved with the topics of Israel/Palestine or the Middle East in general.
Summary of dispute by Sean.hoyland
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dailycare
I think this can be resolved quite easily. The sources use the term without difficulty, so we can as well. One way to meet Wikitiki89 halfway would be to provide a wikilink to the international community article in the first instance of the term in this article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Frederico1234
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
West Bank discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. With two involved editors not choosing — as is their right — to participate here, this listing is probably futile. It will be closed after 15:00 UTC on 20 Nov unless those editors choose to join in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing note: I'm going to close this as futile due to a couple of involved editors choosing not to participate here, as is their right, but I do want to comment about the dispute. Those opposed are doing so on the basis that the sources cited to support the usage of "international community" are clearly reliable and do, in fact, say exactly what is stated in the article. That's fine and I agree that they clearly appear to satisfy the requirement of verifiability. But it must be kept in mind that verifiability is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. I am not asserting that Wikitiki89 is necessarily right in his concern about this issue, but I am saying that there may be more to talk about here than mere verifiability. I do not have access to Pertile, Barak-Erez, or Drew, but the quoted snippets from each of them do not go on, as does Roberts', to make clear just what they mean by international community and there is at least the possibility that they are using this, as does Roberts, as an idiosyncratically-defined term. If that is the case, and again I'm not saying that it is but only if, to use them all as sources for a term with a portmanteau meaning is a form of prohibited synthesis. Second, there is the possibility that these sources should be regarded as opinions requiring qualification and in-text attribution under the first two bullet points of YESPOV. Again, let me say that I do not know any of that to be the case, and no facts or evidence has so far been offered to sustain such a position, but I do support Wikitiki89's concern that the term seems suspiciously pat and would note that Wikitiki89 is not alone in this concern since this issue was raised at the end of the prior discussion which resulted in the current text and edits. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The article stated he was 17 at the time he got his first entertainment job, joining a circus in Budapest. In a recent magazine, Armitage stated, in a direct quote, that he was 19 at the time of joining the circus. Many earlier sources had said 17 in noting that event in his background, but had not quoted him. (I suspect my of those sources pulled their information from Wikipdea).
I corrected the age, including a citation of the author, title, magazine and issue in question because the article was not hosted on the magazine's website. I also stated in my edit that earlier sources had stated he was 17, but this was a recent quote from him.
Drmargi reversed the edit, claiming that it was "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." I pointed out it was not, that I had properly cited the source in question, and showed her a scan of the physical magazine article and put the edit back. She reversed it again, insisting on the Talk page that the edit was not verifiable. When I requested a Third Opinion, Span stepped in, siding with article and citation. Dramgi rejected that as well, and then said "KiplingKat wants to be the sole arbiter of which is more reliable and which is accurate, but I find a TV interview and the London Sunday Times more reliable than a minor magazine's quote. KiplingKat needs to entertain the idea that the newer magazine contains the error. Related, WP:SYNTH was applied to her calculation of when he got the card based on when she believed he would have left school, not on the quote in the magazine..." She also accused me of not posting the citation. I had.
I finally said we could post the both ages as conflicting with citations to both sources. She still wanted to dismiss the new information and she wanted to hear more people weigh in to get a "consensus.". Well, I am requesting help. This has been bizarre.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Third Opinion. When given, Dramgi rejected it out of hand.
How do you think we can help?
Please step in and make a decision that Dramgi will accept even if she does not like it. This should not have been a dispute at all. At most a request to include both citations showing different ages. But Dramgi did not actually read the edit, or the citation, before rejecting it and sticking with that rejection, even after Third opinion. I would also like it reiterated to her that making personal attacks/discussing the editor and not the article is against Wikipedia's rules.
(Note: comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) have been stricken. The participants are encouraged to rewrite their statements so as to only discuss article content and sourcing without talking about other editors) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Drmargi
What on earth? By KiplingKat's own assessment, there was consensus on an edit this morning, she made the edit, and now this? It doesn't pass the laugh test. From what I can tell, KiplingKat want someone to tell me what to do, that is, to agree with what she wants.
We discussed the various options for editing and agreed on a course of action with two possibilities for wording (omit age/add both ages with explanation). At that point, Span and I asked KK to wait a couple days before making any changes to both finalize the language and to allow other editors to weigh in, as well as to allow her cool off -- and I'm sure any reader who cares to peruse the talk page history can see that the frenzied tone and equally frenzied revising and re-revising of her posts all day are indicative of the dire need for a cooling off period. But no, she wanted it done because of some earth shattering Hobbit PR thing that had nothing to do with the article (the best interest of the article being the last thing on her mind). Off she went in search of someone, anyone who would say something, anything she could interpret as permission to go ahead, and by morning she'd made the edit she wanted. WP:OWN strikes again.
So why on earth we're here eludes me. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be party to any more of her chaos. She's got the edit she agreed to, and made herself, and now she needs to live with it. --Drmargi (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
(Note: comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) have been stricken. The participants are encouraged to rewrite their statements so as to only discuss article content and sourcing without talking about other editors) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Spanglej
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
No dispute from me. The four editors involved pretty much reached consensus about content. Each person's contribution is important. Patience and good collaborative working is key to WP editing. Span (talk)22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Richard Armitage (actor) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks!
There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and dealing with one issue at a time. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.
Resolved
Finally, As I look at the comments above and the talk page I see a comment about "The four editors involved", yet only two editors are named above, and the user who filed the case is not listed as one of the users involved. Do we have all the parties in the dispute listed? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Bit of my bad, a bit of timing. This is the first time I have filed through this system and I was not properly signed in when I did it. At the time I filed there were three participants, including myself whom I assumed I would be automatically counted. Sorry. Livit came along after I filed on this board and contributed a second Third Opinion, which apparently I was wrong to have taken his contribution (and Spanj agreement) into account when I made my edit. He really is not involved in the dispute as he only gave his opinion and left, but I wonder what the point of the Third Opinion is if editors are just going to chose to ignore it. I'm just sorry this has gone as far as it has over such a small and simple bit of information.
I value any assistance in resolving the disagreement about the article. Despite claim made above, my making the edit suggested by three out of four editors was censured (as were my assumed motives), so I have no idea if a consensus has been reached or not. Also, if this is not the place editor conduct can be addressed, where can I go to get that aspect of this kerfluffle dealt with? This would have never been a problem if all the editors had conducted themselves according to Wikipedia guidelines. KiplingKat (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am now opening this up for discussion. I have stricken various comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) The participants are encouraged to rewrite their statements so as to only discuss article content and sourcing without talking about other editors.
I would like to start by asking each of you to posting without any extra comments the exact wording you would use if nobody else was editing the article. I would then ask each of you to reply with "acceptable" or "not acceptable", again without any extra comments. You will have plenty of opportunities to explain why you like or don't like various wordings after I get a count of who wants what. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
"After completing the program at Pattinson College, he joined a circus in Budapest for six weeks to gain his Equity Card. (Armitage has given alternate ages of 17 and 19 in different interviews.)" with proper citation. KiplingKat (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The user Mojo-chan seems to feel that he did not get a full chance to express himself in a recent discussion concerning a proposed name change for this article. He did have a chance to voice his opinion and did so, however, but although the discussion closed after 10 days (scheduled to close at 7) he felt that it warranted further discussion and opened it again, it was speedily closed. Following this, Mojo-chan has made several statements on the talk page indicating that he has further evidence he wishes to present, but has not presented it, claiming that he wishes to wait until later. People seemed happy to comply with this, but in the last few days Mojo-chan has again posted on the talk page criticising the tone of the previous discussion and requesting that others apologise to him. The consensus on the page is that everyone has been suitably correct and that Mojo-chan needs to either present his evidence or move on. Following this, Mojo-chan has begun to accuse others of showing bad faith and making personal attacks on him, which I feel is rather unconstructive and disruptive.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to discuss this with Mojo-chan rationally and calmly, explaining that people will react better to him if he presents his case rather than simply promise 'more later'. I have, since he began accusing others of bad faith, pointed out how he can help move the discussion in a more positive manner, but he has responded by saying that he feels that I am patronising him. I have now taken myself out of the discussion entirely and wish to seek outside resolution for those still involved.
How do you think we can help?
I think perhaps a friendly word from someone on the outside advising Mojo-chan to back away and relax a little might be helpful. I'm sure he doesn't intend harm, but his action is not helping his intention and I'm starting to feel rather unsympathetic to him. He doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour is the instigating factor in this dispute.
Summary of dispute by 24.149.119.20
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DragonZero
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mojo-chan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Case Closed discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dear volunteer, the dispute is simple and could be decided on the spot, without digging in the article.
Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?
There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement and deleted it . I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).
He does not agree (I suspect that he does not have a RS). He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.
This dispute is a restarting of the previous session which expired and the volunteer could not continue.
I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
Summary of dispute by Pluto2012
When I see Ykantor writing "I suspect he has no WP:RS" and knowing the existence of this section several months old and that was endorsed by all the contributors who commented it, I have no idea what to do. This is maybe the 4 or 5th time and/or place where Ykantor wants to re-discuss the issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
1948 Palestine war discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is getting to be a rather exhausting, attritional and pointless exercise, though I have no doubts as to Ykantor's sincerity. He just can't see what policy entails, or why other editors, of different backgrounds, should contest his approach.
'Each side should accept his wrong doings. Wikipedia should be correct. The Arabs has attacked the Jews at 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-1939 and at 1948 too. Ykantor (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Each side did wrong, but the 'Arabs' attacked the 'Jews' throughout the modern period, and that is how we should rewrite wiki articles, blaming 'them'. Persisting in this kind of editing will probably lead to sanctions, because he is pepossessed by a conviction he has the truth on 'his side'. (Most people, Arabs and Jews, just happened to find themselves caught up in complex conflicts of which they had little understanding other than their dreams and lives might be at risk. Strategy from the top is one thing, how populations experience the realities another, and each side is quite entitled to think its existence was at risk). Wars are started or triggered by decisions, anticipated, preemptive actions made by directive elites, not by 'Arabs' or 'Jews'.
Ykantor thinks (has often stated) there is one only truthful version of history, that this truth coincides with an Israeli or rather 'Zionist' narrative, and that, as here, he, as someone trying to comprehensively rewrite this and other pages, need only give the 'true' Israeli version on key events, since the versions of the other parties (Palestinians/Arabs) are mistaken. WP:NPOV counsels editors to ensure that descriptions of conflict over which sources disagree are neutral to both sides. Above Ykantor says any other editing point of view than the one he adds is a mistake. He therefore has absolutely no grasp on WP:NPOV. His repeated recourse to these forums is to try and argue past policy. The result is endless talk, and no improvement to the articles. Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
He engaged in WP:FORUM, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:Forum shopping and now he is engaging in WP:HARASSMENT in re-starting this DRN the day of my comeback after a wiki-break. He also openly refuses to comply with WP:NPOV in providing all the points of view on issue given he thinks he knows the truth. His process is to claim as biaised all the sources that do not comply with the point of view he considers to be the good one. That is not manageable and this has lasted for 6 months now. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment by Trahelliven
I have currently a DRN with Ykantor on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine opened on 16 October 2013. The discussion on this page and the talk page on the article has been one of the most exasperating experiences of my my life. He seems incapable of understanding even the simplest argument that you put to him. I will not bore you with the details. Res ipsa loquitorTrahelliven (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
After being closed for several days, and after some requests on my talk page, I have reopened this to make some comments. Here's how I see this. Every editor has a general good faith obligation to write from a neutral point of view and, indeed, the NPOV policy says, in so many words (in the "Writing for the opponent" bullet point here), that one frequent, but unacceptable objection to the obligations of that policy is:
I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?
So, the first point is that, yes, Wikipedia editors are expected to write from a balanced point of view and when there is no one clearly-correct (that is, reliably-sourcable) position are expected to include all positions in their writing, supported by reliable sources, including those to which they are personally opposed. The problem then arises that an editor may say, "But there is only one point of view, or only one which can be supported by reliable sources." What then? First, we must assume good faith and refrain from inquiring into the editor's honesty or motives. (It is a well-established principle here, however, that an editor can over the course of time and editing demonstrate that he or she, either generally or in particular topic areas or circumstances, is so dishonest or one-sighted that they no longer deserve that assumption. In those cases, the proper remedy is to seek blocks or bans through ANI or ARBCOM, frequently preceded by a RFC/U. Since we do not deal with conduct matters here at DRN, I will wholly refrain from commenting or implying whether or not such action is called for in this instance, and express no opinion about it.) Since we must act in good faith and since the model of Wikipedia is collaboration, not competition, the good faith response to an objection that there is only one position is to demonstrate through the citation of reliable sources that there is a second position which must be reflected in the article. There may, of course, then be a dispute over the reliability and weight of those sources, but once that has been resolved, then it ought to be clear whether or not there are one, two, or more positions which must be reflected in the article to achieve NPOV. Where we may be in reference to this dispute is that Pluto is asserting that he has, in fact, done that, that is, has provided reliable sources to demonstrate a second point of view, but that Ykantor has failed or refused to address those sources, or possibly that Ykantor is asserting that those sources are not reliable. Is that, in fact, where we are? Or are we at the point that Pluto and others are no longer willing to assume good faith about Ykantor's honesty or ability to be neutral? If the latter is the case, then let me remind everyone that no one is required to participate in content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. If you do choose to participate, then it is incumbent upon everyone to do so without reservation and to assume good faith, not to do so half-heartedly. Pluto, if you feel that you can no longer assume Ykantor's good faith then I would suggest that you say you do not want to participate here and consider RFC/U and/or ANI. If you do not wish to Participate here, Ykantor may then consider a regular content RFC to try to get his desired edit into the article. If you do wish to participate, Pluto, then do so with the understanding that discussion of Ykantor's good faith, bias, etc., cannot play a part in this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)(As a personal matter, after hitting "save" on this edit, I will probably be offline until at least sometime next Monday, so another volunteer may choose to take this up if they care to do so.) — TM
to TransporterMan: I am sorry to hear your negative view concerning my attitude. I do think that the other view is incorrect, but as I write here I have to obey the rules. Since I was not sure ,I have asked and received 2 replies (help desk, village pump) that are not in agreement with your view. I hoped that Pluto will write his opinion too, and then both views' sources will be checked. At least some of the experienced advisers were supporting this path. Ykantor (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"I have asked and received 2 replies (help desk, village pump) that are not in agreement with your view" : you misunderstood the advices given there. Everybody has to comply with NPoV.
"I hoped that Pluto will write his opinion too, and then both views" : my opinion has been written in the talk page of the article for more than 2 months and reported several times at other places (the link is just provided here above). This analysis was endorsed by 2 others contributors whereas nobody supported your point. In summary : there are different historian PoV's (all WP:RS) on the question of "who initiated the '48 war' but per WP:Undue this controversy doesn't belong to the article.
yours:"you misunderstood the advices given there. Everybody has to comply with NPoV.". Sorry but it is your misunderstanding. You misrepresent the problem, although it is clearly written. The problems are:
your deletion of my well supported contribution (against a Wikipedia rule)
Your refusal to add your mistaken view (in my opinion) to the article (and not to the talk page)
I'm afraid that you have misunderstood me, Ykantor: I was only asking about what others have said about you and what their positions were, going forward, which might affect the viability of this case, and was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with their views. Since, however, you have questioned my neutrality, I fear I must recuse myself from being involved further with this dispute, except perhaps for some purely administrative tasks, and must leave it for another volunteer to take up if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After extensive discussion, some issues resulted in compromise while others were referred back to the article talk page or to WP:RSN. For a detailed summary see the Final summary and comments at the bottom of this collapsed section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute overview
Dear volunteer, please have a look at this issue.I have simplified the dispute to quotations deletion only, in order to attract a volunteer here. My Past DRNs has expired without solution, so I am eager to have a at least this one solved. The other disputant may reply with other problems as well, but I prefer one solved limited issue rather than a big issue with no solution. Ykantor (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
He deleted "Lapidot1994p52" since this RS is based on one of the sides only. Well, this is not true, and even if hypothetically it was correct, the RS is allow to use such a document.
He deleted quotes because they partially support the article, and does not support it fully. Even if this is correct, he could ask for better quotes but it is not a reason to delete quotes.
He delays the discussion by avoiding replying to some points, give partial explanation, try to retard the discussion by "We need to take this one step at a time.". I feel like being in a war of attrition.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to explain myself and replied to his bizarre notes, but during each round he comes with a fresh story.
How do you think we can help?
by convincing either of us, that he is wrong.
Summary of dispute by Trahelliven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ytantor has made several edits to Reports of pressure against the Plan in the last few days. I shall therefore comment on the article as it now stands.
1 Similar to what in the opening sentence?
2 The phrase, The Arab states threatened that creates appalling grammar, syntax and structure.
3 When there is no indication of where or when, or the circumstances in which the various statements were made, it is impossible for anyone even to look for evidence to discredit them. If Muhammad Hussein Heykal made his remark when addressing the General Assembly, in his case, a reference to the transcript or to another UN document would help. According to xx or yy should be added.
I shall now go through the other quotations.
4 and 6 The reference to Muhammad Hussein Heykal and the 1,000,000 Jews is duplicated.
5 Can Jack Brian Bloom be regarded as a Reliable Source. (Also see 3 above.)
7 The opening sentence by Malka Hillel Shulewitz? is just speculation.
At least one quotation (8 -Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). has not been reinstated. Can I take it that its deletion has been conceded? Trahelliven (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
On reflection, I shall explain the reason for the deletion of the four (4) quotes.
ref group=qt name="morris2008p67"/>
The quote does not support the part referenced.
ref group=qt name="unispal.un.org"/>
The quotation refers to the rejection of a specific plan of partition: the article generalises to mean the rejection of any plan of partition. The quote talks about certain Arab leaders: the part referenced generalizes it to The Arabs.
ref group=qt name="Morris2008p50"/>
This quote does not give details of where or when, or the circumstances in which the remark was made. It is impossible to investigate whether the comment was or was not made. At the very least, it should be prefaced with According to Benny Morris,
ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>
The quotation comes from a document described on page 49 of the Selected Documents as Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. The Memorandum is hardly a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello User:Ykantor and User:Trahelliven. I have read the case above and examined the relevant sections of the article talk page. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:
It appears that English is not Ykantor's first language. Therefore his English grammar is sometimes imperfect. I don't see a problem with this as long as he is willing to clarify what he means if his/her communication is not clear on any talk page. Same for his/her contributions to the article. Those that have English as a first language etc. may make grammar and spelling corrections to his/her article text just as they would with any other editor. If this becomes a problem then it can be discussed and a solution found, but right now that is a separate issue. What we are concerned with in this case is a series of sources that Trahelliven has removed from the article and which Ykantor has questioned on the talk page. What I see mainly is that the past talk page discussion is jumbled and confusing and there has been no resolution. So let's begin here:
In this edit Trahelliven removed a citation and part of a sentence. The source is a book and appears to meet the criteria of WP:RS. Ykantor can you provide a quote from the book (page 67 I presume) that supports and verifies the sentence: The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community, but rejected by Arab governments and the Arab community as a whole?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have already apologized few times for my English. Sorry.
Concerning the deleted phrase, it is a somehow funny that Trahelliven removed it's own words. It is not his first time to delete in stages. When a pro Arab guy want to avoid some embarrassing facts, it is convenient for him to delete / modify it in stages.
He does not like the factual phrase "Any form of partition was rejected by the Arabs" (my contribution), so he moved it from the header (where he should be) and minimized the surrounding words by writing "community as a whole.". [7]
His second stage is removing his own words "[and the Arab] community as a whole" [8], thus changing the sentence meaning. The Palestinian Arab rejection is not mentioned any more.
Concerning the asked quotation of mine ( -ref name="morris2008p67"- ), it was deleted by Trahelliven too at line 418. Anyway, I repeat it here as well:"p. 67, "The League’s Political Committee met in Sofar, Lebanon, on 16–19 September, and urged the Palestine Arabs to fight partition, which it called “aggression,” “without mercy"'; p. 70, '"On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state". Note that this quote was initially added to other references (not mine) that were moved later by Trahelliven.
Thank you for dealing with this dispute. I realized that an Arab- Israeli disputes are not popular among volunteers. Ykantor (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, please avoid making statements such as 'When a pro Arab guy want to avoid some embarrassing facts, it is convenient for him to delete / modify it in stages' - such statements are considered incompatable with the cility policy. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, as I mentioned earlier we are not hear to discuss any editor's past actions, edits or behavior. This is a content only discussion. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob, PhilKnight, I am sorry,. I could not resist it, looking at an absurd theater, where Trahelliven deletes his own words , because they are supposedly incorrect. Ykantor (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, in this discussion with Zero0000 he told you that "any form of partition" was not appropriate and it seemed that you agreed with it. On my side, I explained to you on that page that the Arab community could not be seen as one entity, ie "as a whole". Abdallah was happy of the Partition Plan and the Nashashibis were not totally opposed to it. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not disrupt again the DRN, as I will not respond to it. However, I reply here once only. "any form of partition" is correct (as you said ) and it is explained in your link. However, I tried to compromise and proposed less accurate alternative sentences, but Zero have not accepted them. Concerning "as a whole", it is a pity that you do not read before writing. Those are Trahelliven words. Ykantor (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on the quotes provided by Ykantor I agree with Trahelliven's removal of the words "and the Arab community as a whole" as the source does not say that. However, the source appears to be relevant to the sentence and I'm wondering why Trahellivens' removed the citation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
response by Ykantor
yours:"I agree with Trahelliven's removal of the words "and the Arab community as a whole" as the source does not say that".
The initial version of 14.6.2013( deleted by Trahelliven) was correct and well supported. Later I have added more support , but Trahelliven deleted it as well. In my opinion, Trahelliven's words "and the Arab community as a whole" are vague and nearly impossible to justify. I wonder if it is possible to re-use the initial words "Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League" of 14 June version? Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
more sources for the 14 June initial version:
book|author1=Edward Alexander|author2=Paul Bogdanor|title=The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=oEGEBjk-6CkC&pg=PA107%7Caccessdate=13 August 2013|date=31 December 2011|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-0933-7|pages=82, 107 | quote="p. 82 .when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors
book|author=Yoav Gelber|title=Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC%7Caccessdate=13 July 2013|date=1 January 2006|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-84519-075-0|pages=3| quote="the Palestinians and the Arab League — not the Yishuv — promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians’ campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be.
A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897-2008, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami, books.google.com/books?isbn=9004175342, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami - 2009 - p. 24 ; "The first Arab-Israeli war started in November 1947, as an immediate response of the local Palestinians to the Partition Plan decided by the General Assembly (Resolution 181), which the violently opposed.
Coffins on Our Shoulders: The Experience of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel, books.google.com/books?isbn=0520245571, Dan Rabinowitz, Khawla Abu Baker - 2005, p. 31, "The palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute...The resolution by the U.N in favour of partition on November 29, 1947, triggered an immediate wave of Palestinian guerilla warfare against Jews, with hits and skirmishes in various parts of the country." Ykantor (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, this wall of text (above) is not appropriate and is disruptive to this dispute resolution process. At the present time we are discussing one sentence and one source. Please stay within the parameters of this limited discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Part II
I agree that my edit of 16 June 2013 was not satisfactory. Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] . This phrase, however, is too wide. It implies that every possible proposal was made, and then rejected.
I do not like the use of the phrase, the Arabs opposed, when they really mean Arab leaders opposed or Arab governments opposed (regardless of what the sources say). The Arab community, as against their leaders and governments, was not consulted. Trahelliven (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Trahelliven, thanks for your honest assessment of your edit. What I suggest is the we reinsert[ion of] the citation and adjust[ment of] the text to accurately reflect what the source says. Would that be agreeable to you? If so, what text would you suggest? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
People are welcome to follow your suggestion. But in the last weeks, several editors have been hauled by Ykantor to DRN regarding these articles. The problem is, what is the function? If there is a resolution between Trahelliven or any other single editor taken here by Ykantor on one or two words, in several of these issues, that dispute is not resolved, technically. It only translates as resolving a dispute between 2 of several editors. If Trahelliven can agree with Ykantor on how to phrase this, it, yes, will have a certain binding value between them, but is not binding for the others, and you risk creating a merry-go-round. In my own dispute, I declined to use this page, and said to Ykantor and the mediator, that the whole issue or any issue Ykantor raises there should be left to the talk page. So should this, surely. If not, then to avoid endless one-on-one negotiations that skip WP:Consensus on the talk page, the efficient method is to ask Ykantor to iron out his disagreements with all editors, at the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nishidani and thanks for your comments. I understand your frustration. What I am doing here is responding to a case which outlines a dispute between two Ykantor and Trahelliven. Its a narrow scope, two people and four diffs. If those parties are interested we can go through those four diffs and attempt to resolve those 4 edits. And you are correct it will only create and understanding between the two of them and the result is not binding for the article. Just as any noticeboard discussion is not binding. The final word is the talk page consensus. Also the purpose of this noticeboard is to attempt resolution over issues of content. It is not a place to discuss editor behavior. So if you, or others, feel that an editor is being disruptive and has violated some of WP's behavioral policies than there are other venues for that such as WP:ANI. Meantime, if Ykantor and Trahellivan wish to end this resolution attempt and prefer to move discussion back to the talk page, I would certainly support that. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If possible, I prefer to continue here, since the talk page consensus is always against me, as I am the only regular Israeli guy there. Nishidani knows it, and naturally prefer the article talk page. (Interestingly, he previously gave other reason for his avoidance of the DRN / Mediation, which was a lack of spare time.)
As you, Keithbob said, "Its a narrow scope, two people and four diffs". It is preferable to solve it now, rather than trying to adapt the solution to other editors taste. I do not see any advantage in a talk page endless discussion, with a war of attrition tactics e.g. not replying to my points, replying to what I have not said, attacking me personally, breaking WP "Petit" rules etc. I am able to provide examples for those applied tactics against me.
I have proposed to return the 14 June version,(before Traheliven started his successive deletions). Is this proposal accepted? Ykantor (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani's personal reply, collapsed per Coordinator's request
Not lack of spare time, if I recall. But desire not to waste time. I do wish you would not use the 'regular Israeli guy' thing (you come over as indeed a 'regular guy'). Consensus-building looks at source quality and WP:NPOV. Zero is his own man; Pluto and I have disagreed in the past. I haven't edited with Trahellivan. The ethnicity or nationality of a person is irrelevant. Just to clarify on the methodological objection. If you see a consensus against you, it is not sensible to choose one editor of several, time and again, and refer to this page, because, as I stated above, the end result will not be binding on others, whatever it is. It functions when only two people are on that page. Secondly, part of the reason you have problems on the talk pages is that your passion for the subject leads to WP:TLDR length-comebacks. Most editors strive for reasonably to the point brief arguments (I in the past have erred in this sense too), because life is short. IF you were more succinct,you'd probably get better feedback. As it is, the style of intensive bullet-point screeds begging for equally lengthy rebuttals, just turns editors off. It looks, to use a word you employ below, 'attritional'. There is no 'tactic' involved, that I can see, adopted against you from other editors. It is sheer fatigue with trying to cope (WP:AGF) with the prolixity of your passionate pleading for a version of history as the truth, which most editors learn to realize is not what wikipedians do. I for one have no intention of taking you to court over this. You are undoubtedly passionate and sincere and hardworking: it's just it is totally incompartible with WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we return to the 14 June version, but only as the basis for discussion. We should include the first two sentences in the discussion:-
The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency on behalf of the Jewish community. Any form of partition[4]was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Arab Higher Committee,[5][6] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.
I have three problems with these two sentences:-
1 The absolute statement was accepted by the Jewish Agency doe not reflect the reservations in the first sentence in the section - Reactions: Jewish reaction.
2 Regardless of what the sources say, how do we know any acceptance was sincere?
OK, it appears Yanktor and Trahelliven have agreed to "return to the 14 June version". We also note that Trahelliven has specified that this agreement does not preclude further discussion on the article talk page about ways to further refine or amend the sentence(s) so that it most accurately reflects available reliable sources. Is this agreeable to both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob: I am sorry that I continue to bother you but it seems that Trahelliven want to continue his war of attrition tactics with bizarre claims, restarting claims that have been already discussed etc. I would prefer having a solution here, if possible.
Concerning Trahelliven last comments:
"was accepted by the Jewish Agency ". This is the stable version (i.e. before our argument) and justifiably so. The overwhelming majority of the Yishuv (the Jews in Palestine) rejoiced the partition decision. . Trahelliven claim is bizarre since most of the agreements between nations / ethnic groups are supported by a majority and not by 100% of the population. According to Trahelliven claim, Wikipedia should specify small opposition groups whenever an international major agreements is mentioned !
"Regardless of what the sources say, how do we know any acceptance was sincere?".
Trahelliven claim is bizarre since it is relevant for every agreement between nations / ethnic groups. So should Wikipedia discuss it every time?
"Regardless of what the sources say" . It seems that Trahelliven prefer a wp:or ??
"the Arab leaders rejected this Plan, how do we know that they would reject every other possible plan.". Restarting claims that have been already discussed? The Arabs said openly that they would accept a unitary state only. It means opposing any alternative like a partition of the country (The partition size does not matter ). I have quoted a lot of wp:rs (in this discussion as well). Ykantor (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: This is not a big deal, but could everyone be careful to avoid putting an edit or post in the midst of another editor's edit or post? It makes the discussion very difficult to follow by the volunteer (and everyone else) and makes his work harder by forcing him to have to go to the history page to make sure he understands what's right. It's fine, of course, to insert a response between two prior complete posts, so long as the new post is properly indented and signed, but it's not okay to do so in the middle of someone else's single posting. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ykantor, You mentioned at the start of this case that some of your prior case requests had been ignored. I'm beginning to see why:
You have been asked, more than once in this discussion to avoid name calling and personal attacks, yet you continue again and again without provocation: ("it seems that Trahelliven want to continue his war of attrition tactics with bizarre claims"). We are here to discuss content only. If you make one more mention of any editor during the remainder of this discussion I will immediately withdraw from this case and leave it to other editors to take over if they chose to do so.
Nothing that is negotiated here is binding to the article or talk page and all WP content is subject to discussion and change at any time. With that in mind you said: "I have proposed to return the 14 June version". Trahelliven has agreed to your request, so I consider the matter of edit #1 to be closed. Would you like to proceed to a discussion of the next edit? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I apologize, and I will not repeat it. I am very much interested to continue and to solve the dispute.
yours "I consider the matter of edit #1 to be closed". I will appreciate it if you re consider the decision to close edit #1. The problem is his claims.
He wants that every time that the leadership and the majority of the people are accepting an agreement, we should specify some small minorities who oppose the agreement. If we accept his claim, we have to modify a lot of Wikipedia article accordingly. I do not think it make sense.
his "how do we know any acceptance was sincere?". it is impossible to prove that the acceptance was sincere for any international agreement. If we apply this question to other Wikipedia articles, they will be stuck as well.
what can be done in order to avoid such obstacles?
Summary--OK, within the context of this DR, I am considering the discussion of "edit #1" to be resolved with the agreement it will be returned to the July 14th version (pending consensus of other editors at the talk page) and further changes will be discussed on the talk page amongst all the editors who are active there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Part III
OK, moving along in our discussion of this edit to the second part, which we will call edit #2.
The Arabs opposed any form of partition and continued to demand independence in all of Palestine. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000).
Rather than remove valid sources I'd generally think its better to amend the text to more accurately reflect what the sources say. Can we get quotes from these two sources that support the text under discussion here?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
My contribution is "The Arabs rejected any form of partition" (it was "rejected" and not "opposed" only). The rest of the sentence (edit #2) is not mine, and in my opinion it is accepted by all sides. Concerning RS, there are 4 more RS in the hidden section "response by Ykantor", just before part II starting. Those RS say:
Edward Alexander: " the arab world unanimously rejected it."
gelber "the Palestinians and the Arab League ... promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition"
Bassiouni: "The first Arab-Israeli war started in November 1947, as an immediate response of the local Palestinians to the Partition Plan ... which the violently opposed.
rabinowitch: "The palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute"
Morris 2008 p. 66: "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state"
Morris 2004 p.60: "Palestine’s Arabs (and the Arab states) had rejected the UN partition resolution"; p. 65: "The AHC, which flatly rejected the resolution and any thought of partition" (The AHC was the Arab Palestinians leadership.)
United Nations, section 116: on 1947 "The leaders of the Arab delegations "re-emphasized that no proposal which involved any form of partition or Jewish immigration would be acceptable as a basis for the solution of the problem" ; section 165 "The Arabs consider that all of the territory - of Palestine is by Tight Arab patrimony...., they would regard as a violation of their "natural" right any effort, such as partition, to reduce the territory of Palestine." Ykantor (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
It would seem that the sentence: The Arabs rejected any form of partition is adequately supported by the sources Ykantor has provided above. Do you agree? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The issues is that "any form" is only "supported" by 2 of these quotes (not necessarely RS) and that the final sentence extrapolates what the WP:RS sources say as can be checked by the full context from which the are excerpted.
Note that this sentence is also expected to be added in the section dealing with the Arab reaction to the Partition Plan...
Sources 1, 2, 3, 6 do not talk about "any" partition. They just state the Arab rejected the Resolution or the vote.
Source 5 doesn't refer to claim after the resolution but sooner in '47 even if they are interesting. Source 7 is a primary source (and should be contextualised by historians in a context of negociations before a vote)
Source 4 is the only one that is so categorical. It is a WP:RS source but it is not a book dedicated to the topic of the Partition or the war directly (see here) at the contrary of numerous books published by WP:RS sources.
These sources state in fact that the : "Arab leaders rejected the UN Resolution".
We can go deeper in the analysis, in taking one of the most respectful of these scholars : Benny Morris (2008) (Ykantor agrees on that even more this scholar is rather pro-Israeli).
Not at p.66 but at the bottom of p.63, he describes the Jewish and Arab delegations [sic ; not just Arab...] reactions. He writes
"The Arab delegations walked out of the plenum after declaring the resolution invalid". We are far from the image given by the sentence "rejected any form of Partition" (I point out that Ykantor here above claims "rejected" is the right term and not not just "opposed"). P.64 is a map and page 65 Benny Morris reports the reasons :
"As one Palestinian historian later pu it, they could not fathom why 37 percent of the population [the Jews] had been given 55 percent of the land (of they owned only 7 percent)"
"Moreover, th eJEws had been given the best agricultural lands" while the Arabs had received the "bae and hilly" parts, as one Palestinian politician, Awni Abd al§Hadi, told a Zionist agent".
The sentence "the Arab rejected any form of Partition" pictures Arab [as a whole] as uncompromising fanatics. It is a little bit more complex.
But that is even more complex given one leader in the Arab side was in favor of the Partition. Benny Morris (eg), The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, 2003, chapter 4 explains why Abdullah I of Jordan, who was maybe the most important Arab leader, was very satisfied of the Partition Plan even if he was sometimes ambigous on the question given he expected to annex the Arab part to his Kingdom. So picturing the Arabs as 1 entity is not appropriate either.
So, a possible sentence would be : "Arab leaders publicly rejected the UN Resolution" and we could develop the reasons.
p.11 : "the Arabs were serious in their determination to prevent a solution that would not grant full independence to a unitary state in Palestine". That means, the Arabs would not accept any other solution e.g. any form of partition, cantons, federation etc. This is not wp:or since it is similar to simple arithmetic WP:CALC, in the sense that demanding unitary state only is sufficient to prove that they rejected any form of partition.
P 18 "The most important decision of the Arab League regarding Palestine was … to establish a military committee …The most significant power raised by the military committee was of no avail to the Palestinians. The ALA had been intended to be a force that would fight against any political solution that would not lead to the establishment of a unitary state in Palestine"
Pluto2012 should remember that he already said that the sentence "The arabs rejected any form of partition" is correct. If it is important, I can find his quote.
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
I suggest that those who oppose the sentence, will provide a RS that confirm their view. i.e that the Arabs agreed at least to one form of partition. Ykantor (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pluto2012, and thanks for your detailed analysis of the sources. Is there a way we can amend the sentence so that it more accurately reflects what the most reliable sources say?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
David Tal (2004). War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and Diplomacy. Routledge. p. 16. ISBN978-0-7146-5275-7. "The Arab heads of state discussed partition at a meeting in Cairo on 8–17 December 1947...because of public reaction in Lebanon to the Partition Resolution, he found it difficult to show moderation.Samir Pasha of Jordan and Yusuf Yasin of Saudi Arabia warned that the climate in the Arab world was such that inaction by any Arab government would endanger the life of its leader". The Arab people rejected it as well (not the leaders only) Ykantor (talk)
Morris 2008
p. 66 :"All the regimes, none of them elected, suffered from a sense of illegitimacy and, hence, vulnerability. All the leaders, or almost all (Jordan’s Abdullah was the sole exception), lived in perpetual fear of the “street,” which could be aroused against them ... claiming that they were “selling out” Palestine."
p. 67: "The fear of the Arab “street” would figure prominently in the decision-making of most of the Arab regimes as they inched toward the invasion of May 1948."
p. 73: "in order not to appear weak-kneed and hesitant, moderate rulers—such as Abdullah—allowed themselves to be pressed into extremist policies (or at least utterances), lest they be seen as insufficiently zealous. "
Concerning rejection of any form of partition:
Morris 2004 , p. 88, The AHC, which flatly rejected the resolution and any thought of partition, declared a three-day general strike . Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Gelber 2006, p. 138,. "the Palestinians and the Arab League — not the Yishuv — promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. A... The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. Ykantor (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Michael J. Devine, Harry S. Truman, "the State of Israel, and the Quest for Peace in the Middle East". p. 47. (on 1946 end): "unequivocally rejected any form of partition of Palestine or recognition of any collective rights for the existing Jewish community in that country". (on 1947") "insisting that Palestine should remain a unitary Arab state". p. 55 (on 1947 end) "claiming that Palestine should be a unitary independent state". Ykantor (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
So, Gelber writes "rejected the UN resolution."
And p.16 (which is the introduction paragraph of the chapter describing the events that followed the resolution), he writes: "The yishuv rejoiced while the Palestinians condemned the UN decision"
And p.vii, he writes: "The Palestinians leaders, supported by public opinion, decided that the UN resolution was wholly unacceptable, hence the sporadic attacks (...)"
And p.17, he writes: "The strike on 2 December gave Palestinians across the country an opportunity to demonstrate in protest against the UN resolution"
And p.46, he writes: "In the wake of the UN resolution a wave of agitated protests swept the Arab world."
And Yoav Gelber is a pro-Israeli scholar, who strongly disagrees with the New Historians not to talk about Palestinian ones.
The topic is much more complex than what could emerge from picking some words from different quotes to make say to a final sentence what we want it to say...
It seems there were "condemnations, protests and rejections" for what was considered as an "unacceptable" "UN resolution".
Did anyone ask the Arab traders in every Moroccan bazaar their views on giving the Jews in Palestine a small section of Tel Aviv beach? If anyone can produce evidence on that, I shall concede that the Arabs opposed any form of partition. Trahelliven (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Part III continued (arbitrary break)
OK, so we have two suggested sentences:
The Arabs rejected any form of partition--supported by Ykantor
Arab leaders rejected the UN resolution--proposed by Pluto2012 and supported by Trahelliven
Would it be a fair compromise to say?:
Arab leaders rejected the UN resolution's proposed partition
I think it has to be 'Arab leaders' for grounds other than RS. In general, we are all heirs to ethnic stereotypes. In my private discourse I never say 'the Arabs', 'the Jews', the 'Americans', the 'Russians' etc., on principle, because as scholarship shows, collective identity never imbricates over, let me say, coincides with, the complexities of sub-group opinions or individuals within any ethnic group. Scholars often fall into the trap: we have Zeldin on 'The French'; Hedrick Smith on 'The Russians' but the books themselves invariably tell you that such collective languague is shorthand, and is belied by the internal diversity of each nation. The typical antisemite reacts to, say an act of violence or fraud or whatever by someone of Jewish background, by saying 'the Jews', or we are told invariably when a jihad fanatic murders someone that 'Arabs' did it. Wikipedia is especially wary of any use of terminology which tilts the text towards prejudice. It's narrativce voice is neutral, and this commonplace (even in good sources) use of identitarian collective terms for historical incidents is inappropriate on those grounds alone.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Since Pluto2012,Trahelliven, Nishidani oppose the term "rejected any form of partition", I expect them to provide a RS who say that they accepted at least one form of partition. As Jimbo Wales said, '"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Where's the beef?
I prefer "Arab leaders" to "The Arabs" for the reason given by Nishidani (which I had already explained to Ykantor) and also because of the absence of the defined article "The", which means that some may have not rejected the partition. This fits better the different quotes that Ykantor and I provided.
As already mentionned to Ykantor, Abdullah and Nashashibis supported Partition. It is written and sourced in the article that: "Few Palestinian Arabs joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. According to Ian Bickerton, for that reason many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state.[50] He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.[51] (...)"
There is something wrong in the English of The Arabs rejected any form of partition. Is the sentence meant to imply that every possible form of partition was put to the Arabs? In that case the sentence should read The Arabs rejected every form of partition. On the other hand the use of any is hypothetical and does not necessarily mean that there were any canvassing of opinions at all. It is just that, if there were, all would be rejected. In that case the sentence should read The Arabs would reject any form of partition. The sentence, as suggested by Ykantor, somehow tries to fit between the two. He should make up his mind which he wants to say. Trahelliven (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
to:Pluto2012, Trahelliven,Nishidani:
If you can not cite a RS for the Arabs support of at least one form of partition, than, in my opinion, we should converge and agree to "rejected any form of partition"
The term "Arabs" carry here in Israel the connotation of danger, but as one is meeting frequently Arab persons (e.g a pharmacist, in the supermarket), he is accepting them as any other individual. The term "Jews" or "Zionist" has bad connotation for a lot of people. However, in my opinion there should be no problem to use those terms as a short for most of the people of the relevant group. BTW "Zionist" and "Israeli" are not identical terms. Zionist= people who support the ideology that Jews should immigrate to Israel. (e.g. It could be an American person, not necessarily a Jew). Ykantor (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgetting Abdullah of Jordan, you cannot even say:-
Any Arab who was was asked his or her opinion on this particular form of partition rejected it.
It may be that on 26 November 1947 two Arab friends living in Telaviv were chatting over a cup of coffee and one said to the other, "I like the idea of living in Jewish state.". It would have been logistically impossible to have asked every Arab living in Telaviv on 26 Movember 1947, "Did you meet a friend over coffee and admit that you would like living in a Jewish state?" Trahelliven (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor is confusing the difference between a contradictory proposition and a contrary proposition. He assumes that accept and reject are contradictories ;i.e a particular form of partition was either accepted or rejected; in fact they are contraries, i.e there is a middle ground; neither accepted nor rejected because nobody was ever asked. For example no-one ever asked, "the Arabs" whether they would agree to the Jews being given a small section of Telaviv Beach. [9]
Ykantor is also confusing the burden of providing RS. He has to provide RS to show a proposition is true. I do not have to provide RS to show that it is not true. Trahelliven (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says that in the case of challenged content that is unsourced, the burden of proof lies with the editor who inserted it. And since multiple editors have challenged the phrase: "rejected any form of partition", I think the burden of proof lies with those that want to re-insert it in the article. So far I don't believe I've seen a source that says exactly that and WP:OR cautions us against drawing our own conclusions based on multiple sources. So getting back to our proposed text. Who supports the text: Arab leaders rejected the UN resolution's proposed partition ? Do we have a consensus on that text along with appropriate sources selected from those cited above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Lapidot 1994 p.52 (a quote of an U.N document) "The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem".
rabinowitch(2005), p. 31: "The Palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute" (limited to the Palestinians)
Morris 2008 p. 11 "the Arabs were serious in their determination to prevent a solution that would not grant full independence to a unitary state in Palestine". Morris 2008 p. 50 "Azzam, the Arab League secretary general, reacted...Up to the very last moment, and beyond, they [the Arabs] will fight to prevent you from establishing your State. In no circumstances will they agree to it”. p. 66 "The League demanded independence for Palestine as a “unitary” state,".Ykantor (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Gelber 2006, p. 138 "The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be".
Michael J. Devine, Harry S. Truman, "the State of Israel, and the Quest for Peace in the Middle East". p. 47. (on 1946 end): "unequivocally rejected any form of partition of Palestine or recognition of any collective rights for the existing Jewish community in that country". (on 1947") "insisting that Palestine should remain a unitary Arab state". p. 55 (on 1947 end) "claiming that Palestine should be a unitary independent state". Ykantor (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I have pointed out above that, regardless of what "RS" say, it is logistically impossible for anyone to adduce evidence in support of Ykantor's proposition.
As regards Lapidot, I repeat what I have said twice already:-
ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/>
The quotation comes from a document described on page 49 of the Selected Documents as Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. The Memorandum is hardly a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
to Trahelliven: You repeat the same mistakes again and again. It is very frustrating.
yours: "regardless of what "RS" say". I have already told you that you are not authorized to ignore Wikipedia rules, and advised you to ask the Help Desk, where neutral editors may help you to follow the rules.
yours:"The quotation comes from a document described on page...". I have already told you that you have a mistake. The text is a direct quote of an official U.N document of 16 Feb 1948. Will you please explain how come that a 1948 document is quoting a 1949 document (as you claim)? Ykantor (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, I think you have cited policy correctly and made a good case for sources that support the statement "rejected any form of partition" however, the statement is contentious and general while the sources vary in that they were made at various times in various formats and with varying amounts of specificity and terminology. So I think in such a contentious area one may want to avoid summarizing several sources into one compact phrase that is made in WP's voice and without any specificity as to the circumstances or time period or perspective from which the various sources made their statements. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that we have achieved support for the sentence: Arab leaders rejected the UN resolution's proposed partition and I think that may be as a good a compromise as we will be able to achieve in this forum.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry but this sentence is not a compromise. This is the view of the pro Arab side, that could not support their view (although they were not obliged to). I supported my view and I can not understand how come that an unsupported view is chosen and not the supported one.
I am really thankful and appreciate your hard work here, especially so since my wp:drn experience is frustrating- my disputes were not treated. I would like to advance here, and to compromise to some extent, although I have proven the text, while the other side have not cited even one RS that support their view.
How can we advance? An alternative text is not so compact.
what was rejected? Any plan that is not one unitary state in all of palestine, in which only 1/6 of the jews are eligible for a citizenship. (I have a quote for that in the talk pages). What are those rejected alternative: A partition (i.e A jewish state in a part (small or big) of palestine), A federation, and Cantons. An international region is not accepted as well.
Who has rejected: An overwhelming majority of the Arab leaders, Arab media and the Arab people.
The proposal of Keithbob is not pro-Arab : there is not a single Arab historian source that was provided here. All the excerpts that I provided are from the book of Yoav Gelber, an Israeli scholar who is even not New Historian. I chose this precisely to prove that Ykantor's proposal is a selection of quotes that push a point and that doesn't fairly report all of the pov's on the quesiton. This proposal doesn't comply with WP:NPoV
Keithbob is very "compromising" to state that the quotes provided by Ykantor support that "any form of Partition" was rejected. It is only in Rabinowich (that I already commented) and the other one is Harry Truman... It is a joke ?
What was contested/rejected/opposed is the UN resolution [of Partition]. There is nothing to add.
It was sourced also that Abdullah of Jordan expected the Partition and it is already in the article that the Nashashibis, ie the second most influencial clan among Palestinian Arabs, were not opposed to the Partition. So using the term "The Arabs" is pure pov-pushing and must be replaced by "Arab leaders".
Keithbob, would you mind asking Ykantor to answer these specific points ?
I thrust Keithbob neutrality. please do not falsely claim that I have said it. I have not!
You claim that Gelber does not support the text ("rejected any form of partition") ? Is it a joke? Gelber said: "The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be". Gelber statement supports "any form of partition" and more. Read it slowly again and think about this equivalence.
Concerning Abdullah and Nashashibi, you misrepresent the question. The question is whether the Arab big majority rejected any form of partition. It is common for an ethnic quarrel that a minority (e.g Abdullah and Nashashibi) have other opinion. You failed to present even one RS whose claims support your view i.e. that an Arab majority accepted at least one form of partition.( although you were not obliged to, but As Jimbo Wales said, '"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". May we conclude that you can not find a supporting RS?).
If I am wrong, I would like to know what is wrong. At the moment it seems that the supported view is not accepted, while the unsupported view is accepted. Ykantor (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It means that you can not present even one RS whose claims support your view i.e. that an Arab majority accepted at least one form of partition. Ykantor (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The contray of "Arab rejected any partition" is not an "Arab [majority] accepted at least one form of partition". And whatever, both approaches are WP:OR
I already told you that you have to summarize what all WP:RS report and you already said you refused, as proven by this case and others.
I cannot speak for Pluto2012. I for myself do not hold the view that an Arab majority accepted at least one form of partition. I do hold the view, however, that if the Jews had been offered nothing more than a square centimetre of Telaviv Beach, the Arab leadership would possibly have accepted such a partition. Trahelliven (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Part III continued (second arbitrary break)
OK, so the proposals on the table are:
The Arabs rejected any form of partition--supported by Ykantor
Arab leaders rejected the UN resolution--supported by Pluto2012 and Trahelliven
Does someone want to propose a third version that they feel would be a compromise between the two that all three parties could agree on? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Trahelliven just said:"I for myself do not hold the view that an Arab majority accepted at least one form of partition." (except of a very small region). This sentence is identical to "rejected any form of partition".
Anyway, I have to answer to the edit that he provides :
1. "Palestinian Arab Representatives" and "Arab League" is not "The Arabs" as pointed out and already discussed here above.
2. There is a difference between wanting to add a sentence at the beginning of a section, out of any context, as Ykantor wants here AND the global sentence as provided in that edit at that place and starting by "Arguing that the partition plan was unfair to the Arabs with regard to the population balance at that time (...)"
I am not sure where this leaves me; I have nothing more to add on this topic. that just leaves the question of my deletion of the quotations. Trahelliven (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
How about?
Apart from a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.Trahelliven (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence is about the same as "The Arabs rejected any form of partition" and I accept it. But It is rather long and I wish it would be shorter. Ykantor (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not the same: there is a real distinction between the past simple tense and the subjunctive tense. Here it is slightly shortened:-
With a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.Trahelliven (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If the "would have" is important in your opinion, it may be concised to: "the Arab leaders (With a few exceptions) said they would reject any plan of partition". BTW I have no intention to change the meaning of the previous sentence, but if it happened, it is because of my limited English. Ykantor (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two distinct concepts here:-
1 what was done in the past, i.e the rejection of the plan of 29 November 1947; and
the Arab leaders (With a few exceptions) rejected the U.N partition plan
the Arab leaders (With a few exceptions) said they would reject any other plan of partition.
Hence we may use either the combined sentence or any of the splits, as appropriate.(and each of the splits is rather concised). Ykantor (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
To summarize........ the sentence below has been agreed upon by both Ykantor and Trahelliven:
Apart from a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.
I think (and hope) that a slightly shorted sentence is acceptable:"the Arab leaders (With a few exceptions) rejected the U.N partition plan and said that they would reject any other plan of partition. Ykantor (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
It is more than the leaders; it is the governments as well. They may have written their rejection as well as said it: indicated covers both. With a few exceptions at the beginning is more elegant. It should stand as I drafted it. Trahelliven (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
yours "It should stand as I drafted it". On what ground you are able to dictate? Although I have proven my initial sentence, I have compromised a lot, because I am grateful that Keithbob volunteered to deal with this burden. But now you try to dictate every detail, although you have not supported your view at all. It seems that it is important for you to separate the "rejected the U.N partition plan" from the "would reject any other plan of partition" and I accept it, although it make the sentence long and cumbersome, for no real reason. If you want to dictate other details, please find a wp:rs and support your view. Ykantor (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on the content and sources at this time but purely from the standpoint of the Manual of Style, I would caution against the use of parentheses to qualify a statement per WP:WEASEL. Also in my limited observations, I feel there has been some compromise from all parties in this case and hope that it will continue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
yours: " against the use of parentheses to qualify a statement per WP:WEASEL". I did not know that there is something wrong with parentheses. I tend to frequently use parentheses. Will it be possible for you to elaborate?
Trahelliven has indeed compromised a lot as well, but his starting point is not supported, while I have quoted plenty of supports. Hence the resulted compromise is not accurate, but as I said, I accept it.
As said, in my opinion, the compromised sentence is long and cumbersome. I would like to use a split version as well, although I do not have any specific plans at the moment. Ykantor (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to Keithbob. My final word is that the new sentence sums up the section. Every aspect of the sentence is covered by references later on. Repeating those references would be repetitive. Trahelliven (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
So it seems we've agreed on this sentence, yes?
Apart from a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.
I agree. As said, The sentence is OK, but since it is cumbersome, I keep the right to use a portion only, where and if it suits the situation, without changing the meaning.
Thanks Ykantor for your patience and willingness to compromise. As you know the purpose of this forum is to facilitate communication and collaboration using a moderator whose aim is to keep the discussion focused and moving forward. However, there is always room for further discussion and further refinement of the article text as time moves forward. As you well know, WP is always being expanded and refined. So nothing is written in stone. As for parentheses, they have valid usage on WP. I was only pointing out that I felt their usage, in this instance, was not appropriate because it created ambiguity and undermined the agreed upon sentence. OK now let's move on to the next thread. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for sticking my oar in late on in the day, but ... I suspect that a number of things may be being confused: what a specific group of Arab leaders said specifically in response to the outcome of the vote on the Partition resolution, what the public position of Arab leaders on the solution to the Palestine problem was in general, what the private position of various leaders was. In response to the vote, a group of Arab leaders rejected the Partition Plan. In the lead up to the vote, the public position of Arab leaders and representatives was that Palestine shouldn't be partitioned; it's unnecessary to say that "any form" of partition, which presumably refers to the infinite number of ways that a line could be drawn on a map of Palestine, was rejected, it was just partition that was rejected - the Arab position was that, in line with the 1939 White Paper proposals, Palestine should become independent as a unitary state. In private, King Abdullah was in favour of partition (and colluded with the Zionists) and a number of Arab politicians were willing to negotiate. ← ZScarpia21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
to ZScarpia: By saying:"Palestine should become independent as a unitary state", You yourself say indirectly that the Arabs rejected any form of partition. It says (among some more rejected alternatives) that "the infinite number of ways that a line could be drawn on a map of Palestine, was rejected". Anyway, we can continue the discussion in your or mine talk page. Ykantor (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What were the different forms of partition and when were they rejected? Or was it the principle of partition that was rejected? Or the Partition Plan specifically?
What do you see as the difference between saying that Arab leaders supported a unitary state and that Arab leaders opposed partition? What do you see as the difference between saying that the Arab leaders opposed partition and that the Arab leaders opposed all forms of partition?
As far as continuing elsewhere is concerned, if Keithbob tells me that my comments are unwelcome here, I'll clear off to the article talkpage.
Summary: The core of the dispute that we are trying to resolve is a single edit by Trahellivan which removed four citations from the article. During this proceeding several editors have come at various times and offered their comments and insight. As with any WP noticeboard community involvement is welcomed.
Moving along..... the sentence agreed upon by Ykantor and Trahelliven is:
Apart from a few exceptions, the Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated that they would reject any other plan of partition.
It does not include the words "any form of partition" but instead speaks specifically of rejecting the UN resolution and giving an "indication" that future partition plans would also be rejected. I think this is a very good compromise. With that in mind I am going to "hat" this discussion but ZScarpia and others are welcome to participate in the final discussion located at the bottom of this thread. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Part IV
The next item up for discussion is from the same edit by Trahelliven which we have been discussing here in which they removed the citation (ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/) that supported the text:
The Arabs were against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem too.
Ykantor can you quote from the cited source (the UN document that appears inside the book by Lapidot on page 52) as to which part supports the text above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think wise to start another point before the first one is closed. It will be a never ending discussion. There are a dozen of equivalent sentences and each time a discussion didn't go to the direction he wanted, Ykantor left the discussion to come back to it several weeks later.
I am eager to advance in both part 3 and part 4. It is very important for me to know what is wrong in my view concerning part 3. In my opinion each of the 5 supports is sufficient by itself to prove the text "rejected any form of partition". Why I am wrong? please.
Concerning the Lapidot quote, I have added the full quote at the 31 Aug 2013 version. To your question: as to which part supports the text above?": "The Arab onslaught described by a United Nations Commission in these terms began in the City of Jerusalem itself. The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem"Ykantor (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
In his edit of 09:34, 1 October 2013 in the Talk file on the Article, in relation to the Lapidot quote, Ykantor referred to the First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine of the UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION dated 16 February 1948.[10] I think he is referring to that. The report does not contain the words, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem"Trahelliven (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob: I agree that the book does contain those quotations, but if you go to page 49, you will find that the quotes come from a document Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949. The Memorandum is hardly a Reliable Source.
Ykantor:Perhaps you might go to page 49 of Rut Lapidot's book and read the description of the document of which page 52 is part; then tell me why the Memorandum from the Israeli delegation is a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
to Trahelliven: Please read it again. As I told you, a 1948 document can not cite a 1949 document. Even the Zionist satanic forces can not do that. Ykantor (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see now that that quote is part of a document submitted to the United Nations by the "Delegation of Israel". It would appear to be a primary source that has been republished in a secondary source. If there is continued disagreement about proper usage of this source, I recommend that the issue be taken to WP:RSN where you will find neutral editors who are very experienced and willing to evaluate and discuss potential sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The Memorandum is certainly a primary document. It is published in the Selected Documents, purely as a collection of primary source documents on the topic. To my mind being so published does not alter its status or value. Its contents is quoted, however, as if they were in a book written by Rut Lapidot and Moshe Hirsch and they are their considered opinion on the reasons for the failure to solve the Jerusalem question. It is nothing of the sort. It is a document prepared on behalf of the Israeli government, no doubt attempting to persuade the UNGA to take certain actions. At best its evidentiary value is limited to showing that the Jews blamed the Arabs for the failure to solve the Jerusalem question. I am sure that better sources can be found to show that. At the very least, the insertion of the quotation should have made it clear that it was an extract from an Israeli government document. The quotation should not be included in the article. Trahelliven (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Trahelliven you are correct in saying that quote from Lupidot source is part of a primary, self published document that has been republished by two "authors" who are listed, in the book, as "editors". At the same time WP:PRIMARY sources have their value and can be used on WP, but with limitations. For example, the may need to attribute themselves in the text instead of speaking in WP's voice and so on. The acceptability of a source, whether it is primary or secondary, often depends on the context in which it is being used. Whether or not this source could/shoud be used in this particular way would be cleared up very quickly at WP:RSN which specializes in these types of questions and disputes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Final Discussion of Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013
I should add that I attempted to delete four (4) quotes at 19:36, 22 October 2013. However I did not do it properly. They were rescued on 19:53, 22 October 2013 AnomieBOT, and 20:04, 22 October 2013 AnomieBOT, but as footnotes. I was not aware of this until today. They should be added to the disputed quotes. Trahelliven (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
as edited by Trahelliven at 19:34, 31 August 2013 [12]-
1 Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 67
Where is the evidence that the Arab community as a whole rejected anything, let alone the plan of partition?. Page 70 is irrelevant.
4 Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 61
5 Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 50
6 UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE: The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition: (Working paper prepared by the Secretariat): 39 July 1949 [13]
The quote says, rejected the United Nations Partition Plan : the Article generalises to, opposed any form of partition.
7 Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. pp. 50, 66, 67, 72
8 Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). The Jerusalem Question and Its Resolution: Selected Documents. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 52
Currently being discussed.
as edited by 162.206.34.218 at 00:49, 18 October 2013 [14]-
5 Jack Brian Bloom (2005). Out of Step: Life-story of a Politician : Politics and Religion in a World at War. Jack Bloom. p. 99
Now that I'm looking at this a bit closer I see that the edits being discussed above, were made on Oct 22 and seem to be outside the scope of this case which was filed on Oct. 16, 2013. Unless these are the same quotes that Ykantor described in the Dispute Overview when he/she said: deleted quotes because they partially support the article, and does not support it fully.User:Ykantor, can you clarify please?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This diff page of 29 Sep 2013, is the one that started the dispute, where Trahelliven has unjustifiably deleted the 4 quotes.
What could be Trahelliven reason to insist with the same mistake, although I have told him few times he should read those Lapidot couple of pages, and see for himself and stop talking about the irrelevant 1949 memo?
I am not sure about yours:"ZScarpia and others are welcome to participate in the final discussion located at the bottom of this thread.". Should I open a subsection and continue to discuss with him the "any form of partition"? I guess he is holding for my reply. Ykantor (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation is that the the discussion in the section I commented in is closed, so that any continuation of it involving me would happen back at the talkpage. ← ZScarpia18:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the final thread for this case (though I will likely create subsections for each quote to be discussed) and the community members, including ZScarpia, are welcome to participate. However, the discussion in Part IV has been closed with a successful consensus between the two listed parties in this case (Ykantor and Trahelliven). So just as ZScarpia has stated, discussion about items related to that closed discussion and consensus, should take place on the article talk page rather than here. We have to maintain our focus in this case, so that we can continue to make progress. Thank you for your understanding.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, thank you for clarifying that the current discussion concerns the sameSept 29, 2013 edit by Trahelliven that we have been discussing previously. We have already discussed the four sources that were removed. What I see left in that edit for discussion is:
1) Removal of this content and corresponding citations:
Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".ref group=qt name="morris2008p50", ref group=qt name="morris2008p61", ref>Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, 2008</ref
2) Removal of this citation which contained an extensive quote taken from the source:
ref name="Lapidot1994p52">Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). The Jerusalem Question and Its Resolution: Selected Documents. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 52. ISBN978-0-7923-2893-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The [Partition Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly .... In April, 1948, the United Nations Palestine Commission, reporting its inability to carry out any part of the Plan, including the Jerusalem Statute, without large international forces, wrote: Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab States..., together with local Arab forces, are defeating the purposes of the Resolution by acts of violence." The Arab onslaught described by a United Nations Commission in these terms began in the City of Jerusalem itself. The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem. In the Trusteeship Council the Representative of Iraq said: It is my duty to show that the Plan for the City of Jerusalem is illegal... the people of Jerusalem who are not sacred should not incur political punishment because their City is holy. Neither the Iraqi Government nor other Arab States arc prepared to enter into the details or to participate in the discussion of the Plan.</ref
Keithbob: I am lost on which matters you intend to continue in the discussion. (Lapidot is going to another place.) The others listed above,1, 4, 5, 6, 7,: 5, 7 - are they all now to be discussed? Trahelliven (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
to Keithbob: That's right. Morris 2008 p.67 was removed as well.--unsigned comment
Hi Trahelliven, Sorry for the confusion. When Ykantor filed this case they said:
Dispute overview:Dear volunteer, please have a look at this issue.I have simplified the dispute to quotations deletion only, in order to attract a volunteer here. My Past DRNs has expired without solution, so I am eager to have a at least this one solved. The other disputant may reply with other problems as well, but I prefer one solved limited issue rather than a big issue with no solution. Ykantor (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The embedded link they provided goes to a talk page thread that objects to this edit. So what we are doing is going through all of the changes contained in that edit. The last two items to be discussed in that edit are the two items I've listed above. Let's discuss and resolve those and then we can make a decision about the other quotes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 1
Trahelliven, your edit removed this content and corresponding citations which you have specified in your list in the prior section as #4 and #5:
Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".ref group=qt name="morris2008p50", ref group=qt name="morris2008p61", ref>Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, 2008</ref
To Keithbob: some background-The deleted statement is quoted from Morris 2008 p. 396. The source text is:"The Arab war aim, in both stages of the hostilities, was, at a minimum, to abort the emergence of a Jewish state or to destroy it at inception. The Arab states hoped to accomplish this by conquering all or large parts of the territory allotted to the Jews by the United Nations.And some Arab leaders spoke of driving the Jews into the sea(19) and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist plague.”(20)"
1 What the origin of the words, The Arab reaction was just as predictable? In any event, it is incomplete, As predictable as what?. Further, it seems to assume that all Arab leaders were of the one mind.
2 What Arab leaders?
3 Jamal Husseini has been generalised to They.
4 Blood flowing in the Middle East could have been caused by lots of things.
5 I could not find a reference for the statement about the Zionist Plague.
6 driving the Jews into does not have a reference.
7 Quote 5 had no relevance to the paragraph, Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".[qt 5][qt 4][50].
8 A general comment: linking the three references to the one paragraph causes confusion.
9 You should note the talk page on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War under the heading The Arab League as a whole[15]. It deals with the question of wild statements by various Arab leaders.Trahelliven (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
You might note that a debate has started on the Talk page of the Article about pressure being put on delegates voting on the Resolution[16]. Is Morris a Reliable Source? Trahelliven (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Morris is an academic and the book is published by a noted academic press. So from what I know of the book, it appears to be a valid secondary source. Now just to review... the deleted text was:
Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".
and the citations were:
ref group=qt name="morris2008p50",
ref group=qt name="morris2008p61",
ref>Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, 2008</ref
I could not find the quotes "driving the Jews into the sea" or ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague" on pages 50 or 61 as the citations specified, but now Ykantor is saying that on page 396 (which can be seen here) it says: And some Arab leaders spoke of driving the Jews into the sea and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist plague.”
One more source: cite book|author1=Jacob Neusner|author2=Bruce D. Chilton|author3=R. E. Tully|title=Just War in Religion and Politics|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iAy5jsBAF0oC&pg=PA309%7Cdate=18 April 2013|publisher=University Press of America|isbn=978-0-7618-6094-5|pages=309|quote=" ”Arab leaders threatened ...They spoke of driving the Jews into the sea and ridding Palestine “of the Zionist plague.”.
The relevant chapter (14) in Just War in Religion and Politics was written by three persons from the Genocide Prevention Program from the Hebrew University- Haddasah School of Public Health and Community Medicine.
1 The very title of their institution suggests lack of impartiality.
2 They mention Arab atrocities, but not Jewish atrocities during the 1948 War.
3 They were not mathematicians. 1% is one in a hundred, not one in one thousand. What were there expertise?
5 Like many of these remarks, there is lack of detail as to the circumstances in which they were said, a point I have previously made,[17], If you enter coffee in the Find function, relevant discussion can be found in the Talk page of the Article. Trahelliven (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The writer of the letter dated 19 April 2009 from the Head of the Genocide Prevention Program at Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine and Associate Director, Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem and Head of World Genocide Situation Room, Elihu D. Richter, MD MPH may be an expert on his subject but he is certainly neither a lawyer nor an historian. In the letter he uses the following words to describe the establishment of Israel:-
Since its establishment in 1948 BY THE UN, Israel, though always reluctant to use force, has always.... The UN established nothing. All it did in resolution 181(II) was to make a series of ineffective recommendations. Israel was established by the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in the afternoon of 14 May 1948 and the subsequent 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I put in a link to the letter but, when I tried to save the edit, I got the following message:-
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist..
to Trahelliven: As I have told you few times, you (and all editors) have to obey Wikipedia rules. According to the rules, you can not demand that an RS should justify its content. If you do not like an RS sentence, you either find another RS to your taste and add it to the article, or prove that the RS has a mistake. You can verify it at the help desk. BTW we already discussed in the talk page "Morris 2008, p. 187 ." Azzam told Kirkbride:...we will sweep them[the Jews] into the sea" . Ykantor (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, you may look at this reply: just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".
Ykantor:thank you for the reference to the relevant rule.
1 As a preliminary point, referring to the rules is not always helpful. If you know that there is a particular rule covering the situation, it would helpful to indicate where the rule can be found. Apart from anything else, this would relieve the Help Desk of unnecessary work.
2 The key phrase is reliably sourced. I would submit that a statement by an otherwise Reliable Source may be queried, if on it face, it is vague, questionable and/or does not itself give a source. The phrase used is not a Reliable Source, but reliably sourced. Take Edward Alexander who apparently wrote, "the arab world unanimously rejected it.",(presumably meaning the plan of partition). Even if Edward Alexamder is otherwise a Reliable Source, that statement is clearly an exaggeration and unverifiable: its inclusion in an article, even if if written by Morris, would be inappropriate. Trahelliven (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
to Trahelliven: I suggested the help desk since it is an objective place to ask for the rules. I am not so knowledgeable about the rules, and it is better to ask the best advisers there. To your claim: You want to apply common sense whether to accept a wp:rs, but , to my knowledge this application of common sense is called wp:or and it is forbidden. Again, it is better to ask the help desk, in case I am mistaken. You can also find a wp:rs with whom you agree, and cite him, as an opposed view to Morris view. Ykantor (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It is quite clear that Ykantor and I differ on how Wikipedia works or should work. Until someone, at the very least, gives me the identity of these leaders so that we can start by saying, X and Y threatened, I will not agree to the inclusion of the quotation. Trahelliven (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do not you verify the rules with the help desk ? You may receive a reply within the same day
Morris 2008 p. 396 references:
ref. 19. The phrase—“to drive the Jews in Palestine into the sea”—was reportedly used, for example, by gIzzedin Shawa, a representative of the AHC in London, in a conversation with an American diplomat (see Gallman, London, to secretary of state, 21 January 1948, USNA, box 5, Jerusalem Consulate General, Classified Records 1948, 800–Palestine). In his memoirs, Kirkbride quoted Arab League secretarygeneral gAzzam saying to him, just before the invasion: “We will sweep them into the sea” (Kirkbride, From the Wings, 24).
ref. 20. Sam Souki, UP, quoting al-Qawuqji speaking to his troops, undated but from February or March 1948, CZA S25-8996.
Concerning the leaders, you are already familiar with the article and the talk page:
p. 187 Shukri al-Quwatli [ the Syrian president] told his people:"We shall eradicate Zionism".
p. 409 Haj Amin al-Husseini said in March 1948 to an interviewer in a Jaffa daily "Al Sarih" that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but "would continue fighting until the Zionists were Annihilated"
p. 70, '"On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General # Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state"
p. 61,"mid-August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji—soon to be named the head of the Arab League’s volunteer army in Palestine, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA)—threatened that, should the vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish.”
p. 50 Jamal Husseini promised, “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”.
p. 412 Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not “satisfactory”, “severe measures should [would?] be taken against all Jews in Arab countries".
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, said: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in". (You deleted the source. I have yet to re find it)
Shulewitz p.86 "Iraq formally and overtly identified Itself with the 1947 threats of Heykal Pasha a mere four days later. Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, made the following statement: The masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab—Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside Palestine than there are in Palestine. …any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq: It will breed Interreliglous prejudice and hatred." (one more source: url = http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2%7C accessdate = 2013-10-15|title=U.N General Assembly ,A/PV.126,28 November 1947,discussion on the Palestinian question)
Shulewitz p.84 "on 24 November 1947 Heykal Pasha…[said in the U.N] :"The proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Muslim countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an Antisemitism even more difficult to root out than the antisemitism which the Allies tried to eradicate in Germany...it might be responsible for very grave disorders and for the massacre of a large number of Jews"
U.N Ad Hoc comitee on Palestine ,press release GS/PAL/83, 24 November 1947,debate on alternative plan for partition of Palestine, p. 3, retrieved 2013-10-15, Heykal Pasha…[said in the U.N] "if the U.N decide to amputate a part of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could prevent blood from flowing there…Moreover…no force on earth can confine it to the borders of Palestine itself…Jewish blood will necessarily be shed elsewhere in the Arab world… to place in certain and serious danger a million Jews…Mahmud Bey Fawzi (Egypt) …imposed partition was sure to result in bloodshed in Palestine and in the rest of the Arab world"
I hope you read the whole article on that quotation. It can be read two ways: one way is that it says a martyrdom of enormous proportions, equal to the martyrdom of Arabs under the Crusaders and Mongols, another that, as 13,000 web sites try to make out (like you) it was a genocidal threat against Jews. The record of Azzam's life shows that he had absolutely no genocidal mentality: to the contrary. The second point is that you can argue for sticking as much hot air from the 'Arab' hot balloon as long as you agree that such inflammatory and, in this context, POV-pushing hysterics, is rounded off with the impeccably sourced comment that, after November, the Jews were silent, and prepared for war: the 'Arabs' shot off their mouths with apocalyptic rhetoric, and did almost anothing in terms of military preparation. That averts the reader to the problem with these quotes - i.e., no one ever acted on them. They brandished them as hollow threats they themselves did not believe, perhaps in the hope that striking fear of possible consequences would avert the catastrophe (WP:OR. but it is well known). One writes military articles in terms of logistics, planning, events that happened, strategies, not in terms of vapid and outrageous declarations (though they had a publicitarian function in manoeuvering the masses, and should be noted). As you are framing the line-up of horror quotes, the Yishuv was under a genocidal threat. It is still part and parcel for 60 years to explain everything in terms of 'existential threats'. The tradition endures. The Yishuv was motivated by the memory of the Holocaust, which was a European achievement, not an Arab intention, for which there is no concrete evidence. Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob is naturally unhappy with us discussing it here. May we continue in Azzam's quotation talk page? . Anyway, just 2 points:
Nowadays it is clear that the threats were indeed hollow, but at the time it was taken seriously. BTW it happened again just before the 1967 war.
Summary: This appears to be a complicated issue involving many sources and it does not appear likely that it will be resolved in the near term. Trahelliven has indicated that he/she cannot find any ground for compromise on this point so I do not see the purpose for any further discussion here at DRN. I am therefore referring the issue back to the article talk page where it can be discussed at length amongst all the editors who are active on the article. Participants may feel free to cut and paste things they have quoted or referenced here, in this discussion, and forward them to the new talk page discussion as needed rather than reassembling the same information. Now we will move on to the final thread of this case after which I will close this case, which has been open for more than three weeks already and comprises more than 10,000 words of discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that this deleted sentence case is left aside. The sentence is well supported, it is not mine, and was in the article for about 2 years ( or more) and Trahelliven deleted it with no support at all. What else could be done to rectify the situation? Ykantor (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 2
This is the final thread and issue in this DRN. It concerns the last change that Trahelliven made in this edit, which is the subject of this case. Trahelliven removed this citation which contained an extensive quote taken from the source (see below):
ref name="Lapidot1994p52">Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). The Jerusalem Question and Its Resolution: Selected Documents. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 52. ISBN978-0-7923-2893-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The [Partition Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly .... In April, 1948, the United Nations Palestine Commission, reporting its inability to carry out any part of the Plan, including the Jerusalem Statute, without large international forces, wrote: Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab States..., together with local Arab forces, are defeating the purposes of the Resolution by acts of violence." The Arab onslaught described by a United Nations Commission in these terms began in the City of Jerusalem itself. The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem. In the Trusteeship Council the Representative of Iraq said: It is my duty to show that the Plan for the City of Jerusalem is illegal... the people of Jerusalem who are not sacred should not incur political punishment because their City is holy. Neither the Iraqi Government nor other Arab States arc prepared to enter into the details or to participate in the discussion of the Plan.</ref
Without necessarily agreeing to its inclusion, I shall redraft the quotation as perhaps it should have been originally drafted:-
Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949: pages 51 and 52, paragraph 10:-
"10...The (Partition) Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council. In April 1948 (in fact 16 February 1948), the United Nations Palestine Commission, reporting its inability to carry out any part of the Plan, including the Jerusalem Statute, without large international forces, wrote:
"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.[18].... Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab States..., together with local Arab forces, are defeating the purposes of the Resolution by acts of violence.”
The Arab onslaught described by a United Nations Commission in these terms began in the City of Jerusalem itself. The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem. In the Trusteeship Council the Representative of Iraq said:
"It is my duty to show that the Plan for the City of Jerusalem is illegal... the people of Jerusalem who are not sacred should not incur political punishment because their City is holy. Neither the Iraqi Government nor other Arab States arc prepared to enter into the details or to participate in the discussion of the Plan.".
I attempted to find a reference for the report of the April 1948 of the United Nations Palestine Commission and for the address in the Trusteeship Council by the Representative of Iraq, but without success.
Trahelliven can you please tell us what is/was your objection to this source and its embedded quote?
The source itself was written by Israeli government officials and is therefore hardly RS. The two embedded quotes stand or fall with the source. The source falls; therefore the two embedded quotes fall with it. Trahelliven (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
to Trahelliven: How many times can you repeat the same error, although I told you few times that it is a mistake?
your talk about the Nov 1949 report, while the one of article references was the 16 February 1948 report:"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein".[1]
Please stop saying that this sentence source is an Israeli document, if you can not prove it. We know that he sentence's source is the the 16 February 1948 U.N report.
UNITED NATIONS General Assembly A/544 5 May 1948 :"The representative of the Arab Higher Committee declared that his people were opposed to the introduction of any foreign police or troops into Jerusalem or the placing of Jerusalem under Trusteeship....The representatives of Australia and of the Jewish Agency considered that the proper course was to adopt the draft Statute for Jerusalem and as an emergency measure bring into force such portions of it as were applicable in the circumstances. This wasnot acceptable to the Arab Higher Committee for the reason that this would amount to a total or partial implementation of the partition scheme...the representative of the Arab Higher Committee objected on political grounds to any suggestion that the Special Municipal Commissioner should be entrusted with the function of maintaining law and order
"Mahmoud Bey FAWZI (Egypt) ...The idea of establishing a trusteeship system for Jerusalem was contrary to the right of self-determination to which the inhabitants of the Holy City were as much entitled"..."Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria) said...would the trusteeship agreement submitted to the General Assembly be concluded, in accordance with Article 79, by the States directly concerned, including the Mandatory Power? The answer was in the negative, since the United Kingdom andthe States directly concerned were opposed to that regime"
"Mr. EL-ERIAN (Yemen) reminded the Assembly that as Palestine remained under British Mandate for a few minutes longer, Article 79 of the Charter was the one that applied. As the Iraqi representative had already pointed out, the draft before the General Assembly was not in conformity with the provisions of that Article; it was difficult to understand how the United States representative, who supported the draft, could also have stated, as he had at the 140th meeting of the First Committee, that "any proposal must be based upon the authority of the Charter..."
The representative of Yemen associated himself with the Egyptian representative's remarks concerning the right of self-determination of the people of Jerusalem, a right which was provided for in the Charter. His delegation would vote against the draft resolution.
U N I T E D N A T I O N S General Assembly Distr. UNRESTRICTED A/532 10 April 1948 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION :"ARAB RESISTANCE: The Arab Higher Committee has continued to oppose the resolution of the Assembly and has refused to co-operate with the Commission. Opposition to the resolution of 29 November 1947 has taken the form of armed resistance. The extensiveness of the frontiers of Palestine with the neighboring Arab States and the apparent ease with which they may be crossed, even when British troops are still in the country, have facilitated such resistance by making available increasing numbers of arms and men. This factor has greatly added to the difficulty of implementing the resolution of the Assembly. It is not only the Arab State, envisaged in the resolution, which cannot now be constituted according to the Plan, but the establishment of the Jewish State and of the International Regime for the City of Jerusalem are also obstructed by the Arab resistance. Arab opposition to the Plan of the Assembly has taken the form of organized efforts by strong Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, to prevent its implementation and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including repeated armed incursions into Palestinian territory. The Commission had had to report to the Security Council that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”."Ykantor (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Summary-- Trahelliven has said that the reason they removed the source, in the edit that has been the focus of this case, is because "The source itself was written by Israeli government officials and is therefore hardly RS". This comment refers to the fact that the source in question, a book edited by Lipidot and Hirsch, reprints and quotes various primary documents written by individual groups or organizations. This is the crux of the dispute regarding the removal of the citation with its embedded quote. Obviously there are other issues that are of concern here and which are the subject of disagreement (as seen above) but they are secondary to the issue of: Is this source considered by the WP community to be reliable? As I've mentioned before the best forum in which to get feedback and clarity from the community on RS's is at WP:RSN. So again I am referring this issue to that venue which specializes in sources, their validity and appropriate usage. With that, I am now closing this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment
This discussion belongs on the article talk page
Edit summary introducing the RS above ('Gelber; The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be')
Ykantor's background principle
'This article (together with other Arab- Israel conflict articles), has a lot of built in anti Israeli propaganda. It looks like in some aspects , it is re-writing the history .(e.g. trying to thwart Arab leaders public declarations concerning driving the Jews to the sea, promising a bloodshed etc.). It is very frustrating.'
The specific textual issue must be understood in the light of the larger background, both of what Ykantor is pursuing in his edits, and his selective use of documents to write into the narrative a non-neutral partisan 'truth' which he thinks must override the 'mistakes' in the other POV, the Arab version.(By the way Paul Bogdanor above is not RS for any serious historical discussions.)
Take one example, one of the several variations of the theme he cites above:-
the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it.
He backs that up with gruesome quotes "On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state". See also the Azzam Pasha quotation (and compare the point made re Arab rhetoric vs absolute lack of any intention of acting on it in Eliezer's comment below).
Well, yes true. All your sources say that, using Arabs and Jews, which is of course wholly inappropriate (the Palestinians were never consulted, for one thing, in any formal sense). But it cannot be introduced into the text as a narrative truth. It must be contextualized neutrally to show that it is a POV, even if a fact. Many sources will also tell you that there are many ways to read that 'fact' in the light of another fact:'For copious evidence that, even in the absence of Arab aggression, the Zionist leadership never intended to respect the 1947 Partition Resolution borders, cf. Ben-Eliezer Making pp.144, 150-1.(Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso 2003 p.201 n.21)
Uri-Ben Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism, Bloomington 1998 pp.150-1 reads:
Even if the Jewish leadership accepted ostensibly the partition resolution, in truth it did not think for a minute of leaving the establishment of the state and the demarcation of its borders in the hands of the United States and the Great Powers. .. The true intention was disclosed in various forums. Thus Ben-Gurion promised the Histadrut Actions Committee in early December 1947:"There are no final arrangements in history, there are no eternal borders, and there are no ultimate political claiums. Changes and transformations will still occur in the world." A week later, at a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat, Ben-Gurion said he agreed with the complains being voice in his party that the partition plan was a setback to the aspirations of the Zionist movement and that the proposed borders were unsound politically and militarily. He also assured his listeners that the boundaries of Jewish independence were not final. The importance of these statements is that they anticipated any substantial confrontation with the Palestinians. They were intended to prepare the ground for the possible use of military force as a means to obtain control over the whole Land of Israel and to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in any part of that territory.
Perhaps the major characteristic of the period is that its reality was determined by the military modes of operation which had been forged through the decade. It was not policy that determined the military operations but the opposite: those modes gradually became the policy.A first hint of this was apparent at the beginning of the war. The Arabs objected vociferously to the partition plan and threatened to take military action to block its implementation. In practice, however, they made hardly any preparations, and certainly took no actions to realize their threat. The Jews, in contrast, made no declarations about war and even said that they were willing to accept partition, but in practice they began to prepare, energetically and comprehensively, to prevent the resolution's application.'
Anyone neutral party measuring your several sources against this will immediately appreciate that Ben-Eliezer's ostensibly makes the meme about 'overwhelming' Jewish endorsement and 'unanimous Arab rejection' somewhat simplistic. The good guys are for the UN Plan, or a compromise, the bad guys are 'unanimous' in their rejection. In Ben-Eliezer's contextualization, the Jewish approval of the plan was tactical, and there was no intention of honouring the borders established there; to the contrary, military preparations foresaw a conflict, and the aim was to invade areas beyond those borders, and to deny the Arabs, who in the plan were accorded territory, any land.The Arab leadership's rejection was unanimous, threats were made, but no serious plans were made to follow them up.
This is the problem with the edits he is making successively. The only way out is to get him to understand that POVs have to be cancelled out in the narrative, by showing, (and it is extremely difficult), how RS treat the various positions. Simplistic memes consisting of (a) the Jews accepted the UN Plan, the Arabs opposed it and (b) when the State of Israel was declared, 5 Arab armies invaded Israel is radical POV pushing (that meme is not consonant with a strict topological reading of the conflict's outbreak). Sources do say that, but they are repeating an Isrelocentric perspective. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani's thesis is supported by the demographics of the Partition. I cannot see how you could have a Jewish state where 45% of the population was Arab. Of course that would be fixed when the Holocaust survivors and those living in the neighbouring Arab countries started to arrive.
Where would they all go? Easy! Into homes and land vacated by departing Arabs [19] - THE ETHNIC CLEANSING
Well, not so much mythesis, but the kind of perspective missing when one simply adopts a phrase 'rejection'/'acceptance' with an undertone of one side's compliance with the UN deliberation and the other's stubborn defiance. The point also it, 'Israel' was not invaded, and the Arab armies basically took up positions in the land assigned the Palestinians. You can tilt anything anyway with selective use of sources. Pappe is not acceptable (personal sympathy for him and his work apart) on this page, as Karsh from the other side isn't. We need mainstream historical accounts and specialists.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to reply, but not here at the DRN space. Will it be possible for you to continue at your (or mine) talk page? BTW Once we look at facts (and not talk or even RS interpretation) you will see for yourself. Ykantor (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to make notes here. It is true that Jewish leaders thoroughly approved the UN resolution and their Arab counterparts rejected it, for the simple reason that the PP assigned 56% of a land that had been overwhelmingly 'Arab' to a recent 30-33% immigrant minority, while giving the indigenous people who were about 66% 44% of the land. So a sentence that makes the unanimous yes by Jews, and unanimous no by Arab formulation (a cogged rhetorical meme using one of many facts) requires contextualization to avoid the subtextual implication that one of the two sides was ultramontane or irrationa. It was absolutely rational for the Arab leadership to reject the plan - no plebiscite had taken place, no consideration of local feelings taken into account, the best agricultural land, overwhelmingly registered under Arab title, fell, by imperial decree, into immigrant hands. That complexity is one reason why singling out edit conflicts one at a time with now me, now Trahellivan, now Pluto, now Zero ignores the issue of narrative NPOV. It is paragraphs that have to be crafted, with scrupulous balance to the perspectives of both sides, and your procedure systematically ignores this by its patchy, sentence by sentence drift where you successively push for an Israelocentric narrative slant. When you speak of 'facts' (as in the hasbara 'fact sheets', you should remind yourself of the 12th proposition of ch.1. of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:'For the totality of facts determines what is the case, (and also whatever is not the case).'
Since you come to DRN every other week with someone, it is best to iron out this problem once and for all here, rather than exhausting everyone piecemeal. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Menahem Begin who was an important Jewish Leader, rejected the Partition Plan (see Menachem Begin, The Revolt',, 1978, p. 412.)
Abdullah I of Jordan, who was maybe the most important Arab leader, was very satisfied of the Partition Plan even if he was sometimes ambigous on the question (see Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, 2003, chapter 4.)
The first opposed to it. The second one didn't oppose to it, on the contrary. So, per WP:NPOV, etc. But Ykantor is perfectly aware of all this. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion belongs on the article talk page not here at DRN. Please continue it there (you may cut and past this portion of the discussion there if you wish) Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Final summary and closing comments
This was a long case with active discussion occurring since October 29th. I believe that all parties participated in good faith and that significant progress was made. The two named parties in the case, Ykantor and Trahelliven, found common ground on some issues and other issues were referred to what I felt were, more appropriate forums.
At the end of the section labeled Part II, the named parties agreed that they would return to the "June 14 version" of the disputed section (pending approval of other editors active on the article) and continue discussion regarding further changes and refinements on the article talk page.
At the end of the section labeled Part III the named parties agreed to a compromise regarding the wording of a specific sentence.
In the section labeled Part IV the named parties did not agree on the validity of a source and its usage in the article and the issue was referred to WP:RSN
In Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 1 there was discussion by multiple parties regarding several sources and how they should be applied to the article with no common ground emerging, so the issue was referred back to the article talk page.
In Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 2 there was a dispute over the validity and application of a specific source and that issue was referred to WP:RSN.
As in any dispute it is often the case some or all parties may not be completely satisfied with the outcome. Please keep in mind that DRN "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues" and that its participants are volunteers attempting to find common ground and compromise in content disputes in a dedicated setting. I felt that all editors participated in good faith and I commend them for their willingness to discuss and find compromise wherever possible. There were some initial problems with editors making derogatory comments about other editors however, after some reminders this became less. I recommend that in future dispute resolution processes, whether here or at other venues, that all parties behave civilly and avoid filing cases simultaneously in other venues, whether the are related to content or behavior, as this can poison good faith discussions and create an unsettled and unproductive atmosphere. I also recommend that, moving forward, the parties take advantage of other dispute resolution forums such as WP:RSN, WP:RfC and WP:Mediation. Thank you and good luck! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
to Keithbob: I am grateful that you took over this dispute, and continued till the end. As you said, I would like to have slightly better results (in my opinion) , but it is always much better to solve the dispute rather than wining in all fronts. I feel that I have to apologize because I predicted a short and straight forward process, but eventually it was not short at all. I am sorry. Thank you. Ykantor (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.