Talk:1948 Palestine war/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Name and Structure - a bipartisan proposal to fix this after 12 years of debate

Consensus exists from previous discussions that we have a problem with the structure of this topic: the sub-article on the second phase of the war gets >5x more views than the parent article on the war, due to the ambiguity of the article titles. This ambiguity stems from a twelve-year-long wiki-argument over appropriate titles in which consensus was never achieved, such that today the title of the second phase article is still effectively a synonym of the title of the parent article. Related to this is continuing unhappiness among some editors as to the parent article not having the name Israel in the title (the name of part of the country changed during this conflict).

Summarized here is a history of the articles and the most relevant archived talk page discussions . Between 2001-07 the topic was covered in a single article named 1948 Arab-Israeli war. It was later pointed out that this was inaccurate and inconsistent with scholarly usage (since the pan-Arab part was only the second phase), but editors couldn’t agree on the right name. Many wanted only Palestine in the name, and many others wanted only Israel in the name. Instead, the article was split into two, and a disambiguation article was created, which was later expanded into a full parent article and then unsuccessfully put up for delete/merge. No consensus was found for any of this, and the merge/title issue has bubbled up on the talk pages ever since.

Please could all interested editors share comments here – for anyone new to this 12 year debate, please read the archived discussions on the topic first so we can avoid rehashing old points. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Initial proposal

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

To reach resolution once and for all we need a name for the parent article that both sides can live with. User:Bolter21 and I have agreed what we consider a bipartisan proposal: 1948 war (Palestine-Israel)

If both sides can agree to compromise on this, then we have two options to solve the structural issue:

Merge all three articles under 1948 war (Palestine-Israel)
Keep the three-article structure but rename the parent article 1948 war (Palestine-Israel), rename the two sub articles First phase of the 1948 war (Palestine-Israel) and Second phase of the 1948 war (Palestine-Israel) and redirect 1948 Arab-Israeli war to the parent article.

Discussion

Oppose. Any formulation with "Palestine-Israel" is counterfactual. The war was in Palestine (the region). A Palestinian entity(ies), however, arguably didn't exist at all - and if it did - was of minute significance in relation to the various Arab states and actors (some of which - had independent goals and agenda - Jordan being notable in this respect). This is true also in the "civil war" phase (pre-May 1948) where various foreign organized "volunteer" units were active. I do see the merits of a single 1948 War (which redirects here), 1948 War in Palestine (or whatever inflection thereof), or the rather simpler and very common Israeli war of independence.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: please could you remove your bolded !vote. This is a tricky topic and needs discussion rather than voting. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am discussing - I presented a very clear rationale regarding the problem with suggested title - it is counter-factual. I am not opposed to a common prefix and sub-parts - e.g. (1948 War, 1947-May 1948, 1948 War, May 1948-1949) (as the 3 article setup now, with a parent of 1948 War) - however I am also opposed to your suggestion of "phase one" and "phase two" - as the common breakup into phase numbering here is according to the UN ceasefires - which leads to a different numbering (and would also be a possible way to organize this article - with even more child articles).Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Yes I know you are. I simply ask you to remove the single bolded word at the beginning of your post. It is unhelpful, adds nothing, and encourages partisan behavior from others, when what we need to be encouraging is thoughtfulness. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Also - 1948 Arab-Israeli war works (as a unifying nomenclature for the different parties opposing Israel), and is fairly common. You are welcome to respond to my line of argument here - rather than discuss formatting of my response. I do welcome your move to have a common prefix for all 3 (if they remain 3), with the parent article not having a suffix. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the current structure or names, which I think fit reasonably neatly. I get the impression that only a tiny number of editors actually have an issue with the status quo – perhaps the solution is for them to stop flogging this particular deceased equine? Number 5 7 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I see the problem and I agree that it is a problem. But couldn't it be solved more easily and elegantly by pluralizing this title: 1947–1949 Palestine wars? Srnec (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Many sources treat this is a singular war and not plural (different phases of the same war - as Onceinawhile suggested). Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Our current title is descriptive. Since we clearly title both subpages as wars, the plural title would also be a valid description. Srnec (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC: Should the three articles have a common prefix?

There is a consensus in favour of a common prefix. There is a clear consensus among involved editors that the current article names are problematic, and among those editors who do see a problem there is clear support for having a common prefix. Some of the opposition was against changing the "1948 Arab–Israeli War" title, but as this discussion was explicitly not about choosing a specific title for any article, there is nothing here preventing that or something similar being used as either a prefix or suffix if that is the consensus view of a subsequent discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

It has been suggested that we break this discussion down into pieces. As a first step, please could editors comment on whether the three articles under discussion here should have a common prefix? Examples of this structure could include:

Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (first phase)" and "[xxxxxx] (second phase)"
Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (civil war phase)" and "[xxxxxx] (Arab–Israeli phase)"
Main article: "[xxxxxx]"; Sub articles: "[xxxxxx] (Nov 1947 – May 1948)" and "[xxxxxx] (May 1948 – Jan 1949)"

Views on this overall concept, rather than what the common prefix should be, would be greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Support. While we may disagree on what the XXXX prefix should be and to a lesser degree the suffix (I'm fine with most of the above (I have a quibble with first/second phase in relation to the normal counting of phases per ceasefires), though I would angle to "[xxxxxx] (Nov 1947 – May 1948)" and "[xxxxxx] (May 1948 – ~~Jan~~Mar 1949)" which is simply a descriptive range of dates)) - the current title structure of 1947–1949 Palestine war (parent), 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine (child1), 1948 Arab–Israeli War (child2) is somewhat incoherent and often leads our readers (and searchers from outside) into a child article as opposed to the top level article. I don't think we should change our parent + 2 fork structure at this time (though it may make sense in the future to fork May 1948-Mar 1949 into three phases per ceasefires). A more uniform set of titles, leading the reader to the entire top-level article (Nov 1947 - Mar 1949) as a first target makes sense here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Support as nom. I am supportive of Icewhiz's comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Support a common prefix for all three articles.Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I think the current naming format is fine. Number 5 7 09:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Any proposed change will have to go through an RM. I've proposed what I think is the simplest solution to any possible confusion: 1947–1949 Palestine wars. If Onceinawhile would rather a 'common prefix' solution, he should propose a prefix and go thru an RM. I don't see us getting anywhere 'voting' on a principle like this, since people who agree on principle are liable to disagree about the best concrete solution. Srnec (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I think 1948 (as the title) is preferable to the descriptive 1947-9. While nominally the war started with the UN declaration in November 1947, the civil war phase didn't really start in earnest until January or even March 1948 (no one would call Nov-Dec a war by itself - it's grouped into the same hostilities however). In regards to 1949 - there was a truce in early January, and the March Operation Uvda was an unopposed maneuver - other than that there was mainly (very important) negotiations). Sources outside of Wikipedia predominately refer to 1948 (this even being the "1948 war"). In regards to a RM - this is a multi-part consensus forming RfC/discussion. If we can agree we should have a common prefix (this stage) - then we would formulate what prefix XXXX should be - there isn't a move proposal with a concrete name yet. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I cannot agree that we should have a common prefix – any prefix! – over the status quo. We need a concrete proposal. Abandoning the title 1948 Arab–Israeli War seems like it will be an uphill battle. Srnec (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. And I think it may well be "1948 War", "1948 War (civil war phase)" - which has one month in 1947 and five months, including the main period, April-March, in 1948; and "1948 War (Arab-Israeli phase)", as it has 7 months in 1948, and only 1 month of actual fighting in 1949.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
A latecomer here so haven't really paid that much attention to all this; at the risk of irrelevancy, how I got here was via the page Arab-Israeli conflict (redirected from Arab-Israeli war) which is the predilection of the popular press. It is true that the 47 events tend to get lost in the wash and probably that was the intent. Still, I think determined readers can figure it all out even if casual readers only get as far as the 48 page (I agree with Srnec that getting rid of that would be an "uphill" affair). Anyway, afaics we are down to 2 articles now, aren't we? Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier, there are three articles on the events of 1948. 1947–1949 Palestine war covers everything. 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine is a sub-article covering the period before Israeli independence and 1948 Arab–Israeli War covers the period after. My concern is that a reader cannot tell readily enough if he lands at 1947–1949 Palestine war that he is at a high-level article and not the main article on the more well-known Arab–Israeli War. Srnec (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Srnec: Please could you explain your last sentence further? This article is (or should be) the main article on the more well-known war. As all the archive links above will attest, no serious scholar in the world considers the two parts of this conflict to be separable. The point of this proposal is to bring us back in line. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Not even the Israeli MoFA, lol, who have divided it into 4 (unnamed) phases. https://mfa.gov.il/mfa/aboutisrael/history/pages/israels%20war%20of%20independence%20-%201947%20-%201949.aspx Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That division actually is fairly common (dividing the "civil war phase" into an early period (where British control was still strong, and hostilities were more static) and a late period (where British control was very localized to where they did not pull out)), as is the division by the short ceasefires post May 1948.Icewhiz (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Srnec Ah, I see. Well, is there some difficulty with adding a hatnote? Not that I think casual users are very likely to land on this page, tbh.I see there was an Rfc here but that it has gone now.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Agreeing the final stage

We now have consensus for a common prefix across the three articles. Thanks to all for the progress so far. We now have to decide how to land an agreement here.

I suggest reading this thread to remember the issues raised the last time a free-for-all discussion was tabled.

My read of that discussion, and the other ones throughout the archives, is that we will achieve consensus if we can find a title which continues to include the region’s contemporary name during the period of the war (Palestine). It was the attempted removal of that single word which derailed Bolter’s noble effort in 2018.

Please could editors provide thoughts on the above, and propose suggested titles to be voted on in a subsequent final RfC.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you looking for, a prefix that goes in front of all 3 articles? Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Consensus is that all three articles should have the same base title. This article is the “parent” article. The two “child” articles will have the same name, plus some extra words to distinguish their period of focus. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of engagement here, I am going to go straight to an RM proposal for what the previous threads appear to suggest is the best compromise proposal - "1948 War". In terms of suffixes, I think Bolter21's proposal above (timestamped 10:00, 27 April 2019) is the best one as it allows us to maintain the "Arab-Israeli" wording. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2019

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Having reviewed both the initial RM discussion and the below table, I still cannot see a consensus for any article title at this present time, so for now, I'm closing this requested move to leave the article as is until a consensus is reached. I would recommend further discussion takes place here to try and determine a suitable article title that can be agreed upon as a best compromise, and would recommend perhaps utilising an RFC to get additional input from outside editors to help form a consensus if need be. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

– See detailed discussion in the threads above; this discussion has been ongoing for more than a year. This compromise proposal uses the titles suggested by Bolter21 here which I support as an excellent compromise. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Nominal consensus was established that these article titles should have a common prefix, but the supporters of that principle disagree on what that prefix should be, so it isn't clear that the consensus affects this RM. There might be slow progress towards consensus for options 2a or 2d below. I'm pinging previous participants here Davidbena, Gaia Octavia Agrippa, and In ictu oculi to encourage them to summarize their opinions in the table. For now, this complex and fractured RM continues. --Relisting. KSFT ^(t|c) 08:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - the point of article titles is that they are clear and succinct; the new proposals aren't. Looking at 1948 War with WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability = no, it consists of a year and the word war; Naturalness - no, people are not going not going to search for that article with those terms; Precision - no, its completely ambiguous; Conciseness - its short yes, but doesn't "identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects"; Consistency - ?. I'd do the other two but my reply would be effectively the same. I can only add that parentheses are used for disambiguating: if the the later two articles had clear titles (as they do now), there would be no need for disambiguating. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 13:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
~~Support~~ [!vote moved to table in section below] - "1948 war" is the most neutral term. According to Benny Morris, "First Palestine war" is the name used by the Arab world, "al-Nakba" ("the catastrophe") is the name used by Palestinians, War of Independence, War of Establishment, War of Liberation (Milkhemet Ha-Atzmaut/Komemiyut/Shihrur) is the used by Israelis. 1948 war, is neutral. Many historians use this term. Indeed some more-neutral historians use the Israeli version, maybe because they are writing to a more pro-Israeli-narrative audience, or because they are Israelis and like the term. Others call it "Palestine War", simply because it is a war fought in an area known universally, and especially among English speakers as "Palestine". But it won't change the fact that "1948 war" is the best term for the war in terms of neutrality. It is the name people search for. "1948" is probably one of the most memorable numbers in contemporary Middle Eastern history. Palestine use it as a battle cry, while Israelis use it as a number that represents genesis.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ [!vote moved to table in section below]. "1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine" is a clear and unambiguous descriptive title. "1948 Arab–Israeli War" is or is very close to a common name. "1948 War" is a bad descriptive title. In other words, each one of these fails on its own. Srnec (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ [!vote moved to table in section below] - Not because I disapprove of "1948 war" but because I had thought the idea was to agree on a prefix first before deciding the full titles. There is supposedly a consensus for that approach. Evidently, though, the prefix does need to fit with either the titles as they are now or some variant of them. In my view the most troublesome title is "1948 Arab Israeli War" which for better or worse is a part of the popular rhetoric even if not with scholars. So my way of looking at it is that we need something in front of that without otherwise changing it. The (only?) common denominator for all 3 articles is Palestine so Question of Palestine, Palestine Question or just simply Palestine would be my idea for a prefix (I haven't gone through all the archives, I would be surprised if that idea was new).Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier, as you say (I think), "1948 Arab–Israeli War" is the common name for that subject. Therefore, according to WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using that name and not making one up. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not wedded to this or that guideline, particularly as regards naming, Wikipedia articles frequently deviate in that regard and it doesn't matter that much provided a reader can reasonably reach his or her intended destination. I am just trying to follow the consensus reached in the previous rfc, namely that there should be a common prefix for all three articles. There was such a consensus and equally there is a consensus that there is something not quite right with the current naming of the set. Just saying don't change anything IS a position that can be taken, although (imo) not a particularly useful one in this instance.Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all heading to WP:SNOW close here In ictu oculi (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am still holding out hope that editors will take the time to read the historical discussions above and in the archives here. This has been a carefully constructed debate over more than a year, and it does wikipedia a disservice when editors vote without evidence of having digested the detailed arguments (In ictu oculi) or make incorrect comments about commonname which have already been dealt with in great detail (Gaia Octavia Agrippa). I am sorry to call people out individually, but if these discussions cannot build on the previous ones we are never going to get anywhere. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, my reference to commonname was in reply to an editor saying "1948 Arab Israeli War" which for better or worse is a part of the popular rhetoric even if not with scholars. Of course I didn't bring attention to the possible bias that that phrasing suggests. In my opposition above I simply worked through WP:CRITERIA, as one should when they're looking at non-technical page moves. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi WP:SNOW is not a good idea. It would be more productive to try and find a better title. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ [!vote moved to table in section below] Really poor and ambiguous suggestions; current titles are far better. Having this come up every few months is getting extremely tiresome. Can we put a moratorium on what is effectively a one-editor crusade for a year or two? Number 5 7 09:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This debate has been going for more than a decade (see summary timeline here). Per #RfC:_Should_the_three_articles_have_a_common_prefix?, the effort to find a common prefix has consensus. You were the only naysayer in that discussion; you are entitled to your opinion, but not to misrepresent those of others. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record: @Gaia Octavia Agrippa, Srnec, Selfstudier, In ictu oculi, and Number 57: I should have provided evidence to explain why Bolter and I, and others in previous iterations of this discussion, believe that this is the best option. I suspect it is too late to convince you of any change of heart, and that's fine because I am developing a new route to solve this conundrum. But for the record, those scholars who explain the dispute around the name all seem to land in the same place:

Caplan, Neil (19 September 2011). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories. John Wiley & Sons. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-4443-5786-8. Perhaps the most famous case of differences over the naming of events is the 1948 war (more accurately, the fighting from December 1947 through January 1949). For Israel it is their "War of Liberation" or "War of Independence" (in Hebrew, milhemet ha-atzama'ut) full of the joys and overtones of deliverance and redemption. For Palestinians, it is Al-Nakba, translated as "The Catastrophe" and including in its scope the destruction of their society and the expulsion and flight of some 700,000 refugees.

Firestone, Reuven (2 July 2012). Holy War in Judaism: The Fall and Rise of a Controversial Idea. Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-19-997715-4. In a study such as this, terminology can carry a lot of baggage. A classic case in point is the names that are applied to wars. To Jews, the Jewish-Arab war of 1947–1948 is the War of Independence (milchemet ha`atzma' ut). To Arabs, and especially Palestinians, it is the nakba, or calamity. I therefore refrain from assigning names to wars. I refer to the wars between the State of Israel and its Arab and Palestinian neighbors according to their dates: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982.

Benny Morris, 1948: A History of The First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-12696-9: "The 1948 War – called by the Arab world the First Palestine War and by the Palestinians al-nakba (the disaster), and by the Jews the War of Independence (milhemet ha’atzma’ut), the War of Liberation (milhemet hashihrur) or the War of Establishment (milhemet hakomemiyut) – was to have two distinct stages: a civil war, beginning on 30 November 1947 and ending on 14 May 1948, and a conventional war, beginning when the armies of the surrounding Arab states invaded Palestine on 15 May and ending in 1949"

Ilan Pappe: The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951, p.ix: "Finally, a note on the choice of an adequate name for the first Arab–Israeli war. Arabs and Jews describe the same event in contradictory ways...I have chosen to call the war by its calendar name - the war of 1948"

Shourideh C. Molavi (28 June 2013). Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel. BRILL. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-90-04-25407-7. "Thus, it is for reasons of practicality, that this book will refer to the civil war and military and ethnic cleansing operations that took place between late 1947 to January 1949 by its popular title, the ‘1948 war’"

Naor, Moshe (21 August 2013). Social Mobilization in the Arab/Israeli War of 1948: On the Israeli Home Front. Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-136-77648-9. The changing perspectives on the war and the diverse names by which it is called – the First Israeli-Arab War, the First Palestine War, the Israeli War of Independence, and the Palestinian Nakba – thus illustrate the nature of this war and its essence as a catalyst for change in the history of the Middle East. The 1948 War erupted during a period of local, regional, and global transition

Auron, Yair (4 October 2017). The Holocaust, Rebirth, and the Nakba: Memory and Contemporary Israeli–Arab Relations. Lexington Books. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-4985-5949-2. There are different names for the war that took place in the land of Israel in 1948: the Independence War, the War of Liberation, the War of Independence, the 1948 War when the State of Israel was established—or perhaps, the Nakba

Carter, Judy; Irani, George; Volkan, Vamik D. (2009). Regional and Ethnic Conflicts: Perspectives from the Front Lines. Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-189428-0. For example, we consider the 1948 war as both Israel's Milhemet ha- Atzma'ut (War of Independence) and the Palestinians' Al Nakba.

Bernard-Donals, Michael; Fernheimer, Janice W. (2 December 2014). Jewish Rhetorics: History, Theory, Practice. Brandeis University Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-61168-640-1. The last military operation of the 1948 War —the First Arab-Israeli War, the Israeli War of Liberation and Independence, the Palestinian Nakba or Catastrophe—was concluded merely six months earlier.

So to use Gaia's framework from WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability = yes (and moreso than War of 1812 for example); Naturalness - yes ("1948" is the commonname for these events in day to day parlance); Precision - yes (put it into google, no articles on other topics come up anywhere); Conciseness - yes; Consistency - yes (the current inconsistency is the primary reason for this effort).

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/historiography-1948-wars Bite sized missive is worth a read.Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Arab-Israeli Conflict (2008), Kirsten E. Schulze. Chapter 2 "The 1948 War", page 15: "The debate surrounding the events of 1948, the creation of the state of Israel, the Arab defeat and the Palestinian refugee problem, becomes apparent with the way the war is referred to in Israeli and Arab historiography. For Israelis it was the War of Independence, for the Arab states it was the Palestine War, and for the Palestinians it became known as 'the disaster' - an-Nakba. ... The First Arab-Israeli War: Israel's declaration of independence on 14 May 1948 was immediately followed by the declaration of war by five Arab states, turning - the ongoing Zionist-Palestinian civil war into an Arab-Israeli inter-state conflict." ← ZScarpia 09:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

{for the sake of being awkward, a US Department of State archive webpage which appears, contrary to the norm, to date the start of the The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 to 14 May 1948 (but then again, the author probably wasn't a historian): "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948." ← ZScarpia 09:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)}

Comment - Neutrality means we must chose the title that is the most used by historians from all sides. And for the whole period, it is 1948 Palestine War. The fact the word "Palestine" there is only because all this occured in [Mandatory] Palestine. 85.201.162.174 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
~~Support~~ [!vote moved to table in section below] and speedy close attempt to re-litigate this again by one editor with the "actually please vote again below." This is an obviously awful name that is not going to happen. "Arab–Israeli War" / 1948 Arab–Israeli War is what everybody uses to refer to this conflict, and the current article is just a bit of an artificial tentpole to include the unrest that happened before the war proper. SnowFire (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@SnowFire: your last sentence is mistaken. Please read: Talk:1947–1949_Palestine_war/Name#Background_to_the_war.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New plan to resolve this

I have been mulling over ways to reach a resolution here. I will write it up shortly. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Reflecting on the various discussions over the years on this issue, it's clear that no option has majority support (including status quo). Yet it's been difficult to identify which option has the most support and least opposition. In order to figure it out, I don't think any more RMs (such as the one immediately above) are appropriate, as it will require a lot of repetition and likely attract an inconsistent group of editors. Hence the below table is intended to provide a solution by pulling together, in a consistent and easy to read format, input from all parties on the various possible proposals, over a good period of time. There will be a discussion thread below, and a link to Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name so that uninvolved editors can have access to appropriate background.

User (signature)	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Option 5
	Main article: 1947–1949 Palestine war Subarticles: 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine 1948 Arab–Israeli War Included variants: 1948 instead of 1947-49	Main article: 1948 Palestine war Subarticles: 1948 Palestine war (civil war phase) 1948 Palestine war (Arab–Israeli phase) Included variants: 1947-49 instead of 1948	Main article: 1948 Arab–Israeli war Subarticles: 1948 Arab–Israeli war (civil war phase) 1948 Arab–Israeli war (Arab–Israeli phase) Included variants: "First", or 1947-49, instead of 1948	Main article: 1948 Palestine-Israel War Subarticles: 1948 Palestine-Israel War (civil war phase) 1948 Palestine-Israel War (Arab–Israeli phase) Included variants: 1947-49 instead of 1948	Main article: 1948 War Subarticles: 1948 War (civil war phase) 1948 War (Arab–Israeli phase) Included variants: none
ExampleEditor1 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)	Oppose	Support	Neutral	Support	Oppose
ExampleEditor2 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)	Support	Oppose	Support	Neutral	Support
ExampleEditor3 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)	Neutral	Support	Support	Neutral	Support

Comments on this much appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope your hard work pays off:) If I am asked to choose between the options above (am I?), I cannot go along with options that point only to 1948 for the main event, so in that case, I am left with Option 1 (I am not entirely clear as to what "included variants" means, if it means I can choose another option but with the variant instead, then I could also support Options 2 and 4). Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Selfstudier, yes that’s exactly what included variants was supposed to mean (I need to find a way of making it simpler). So all of them could be “1947-49” except Option 5 (I have just amended option 3 to include this). As to the hard work, fixing the titles is a precursor to spending time fixing the articles – this current inconsistency repels editors from putting in the effort, so these articles haven’t been materially improved in almost a decade. The same was true a few years ago at two overlapping Mandate Palestine articles; it was a huge effort to build consensus on a complicated topic, but we got there in the end and the articles have been much improved since. By the way, what do you think of the sources above? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. Allow/encourage editors to state a reason for opposing. Perhaps it's something minor that can be easily resolved.

2. Perhaps instead of listing many permutations discuss each part of the titles separately:

Base title:

Year - none, 1948 or 1947-1949?
Description - none, "Palestine war", "war in Palestine", "Arab–Israeli", "Arab-Palestine", etc?

First phase:

etc

“WarKosign ” 11:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi WarKosign, these are good suggestions, thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add a basic essay on the meaning and statistics of those names. I had the idea of this essay being editable by everyone, but I guess that might create its own disputes. What do you think? Also I'll try to make it based solely on sources to make it as neutral as I can possibly make. Hopefully this could help other users understand the roots of our debate and the various opinions raised by the participants of this discussions.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bolter21 I think this is a good idea. It could either go here: Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Name, where people can edit it, or (if and when ready) it could go into the article itself as a new "Name" section. As Neil Caplan said, this is “Perhaps the most famous case of differences over the naming of events”, so it deserves to be explained somewhere readers will see it. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bolter21. I have made some edits. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Where it says in the introduction "It began on 30 December 1947[16], a day after the United Nations voted to divide the territory of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab sovereign states, and an international Jerusalem (UN Resolution 181)." it should really say It began on 30 NOVEMBER 1947...

Done Fixed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2019

This edit request to 1947–1949 Palestine war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The number of Israeli casualties in the war was 6,373, and that is the number which should appear in the title box.

See reference for casualties in Arab-Israeli Wars.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualties.html

Casualty figures

This section could use some polishing:

Israel lost 6,373 of its people, about 1% of its population in the war. About 4,000 were soldiers and the rest were civilians. The exact number of Arab losses is unknown but is estimated at between 4,000 for Egypt (2,000), Jordan and Syria (1,000 each)[10] and 15,000.[75]

The Israeli casualty figure is fairly uncontroversial but the ones for the Arabs isn't. 15,000 I assume refers to the number of Palestinian Arab casualties. The source "Chris Cook, World Political Almanac" isn't great. ImTheIP (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

This edit request to 1947–1949 Palestine war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Demographic consequences section, you call Jews native to the lands they were expelled from. That is a biased opinion that is created to invalidate the Jews claim of the Jews indigeneity to the Land of Israel. A more neutral statement would be the land of their sojourn. Yaron Z. Buki (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No dice. Native means the land you were born in. It does not contradict the Zionist claim of Jews having an inherent right to historical Palestine. ImTheIP (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

This edit request to 1947–1949 Palestine war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Tensions between Arabs and Jews led to violent disturbances on several occasions, notably in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936–1939." to "During the British mandate, violent attacks and riots in which Arabs targeted the Jewish settlement and the Jewish immigration occurred in several occasions, notably in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936–1939. These were in addition to many smaller scaled attacks"

current writing suggests:

A. These were mere "disturbances" and not armed violent riots/attacks/massacres in which quite a few people died, and even more were maimed, and property was destroyed.

B. These were not *one sided* attacks completely instigated by the Arab side and targeting the Jewish side[the fact that they were instigated by the Arab side and targeted the Jewish settlement can clearly be seen from the historical record.].

C. These "disturbances" were caused by both sides. or that both sides are equally to blame for them.

call attacks and riots aimed towards the Jewish people by their name. JasonMacGellen (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done please bring reliable sources for your proposed wording. The sources I have read do not position it as you do.

The red flag here is that your edit proposes to place all the blame on one side. In all major conflicts worldwide, both sides have some element of fault. In Mandatory Palestine there were many events on both sides that raised the tension; see for example Pro–Wailing_Wall_Committee#The_outbreak_of_violence. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nakba

Since this subject is not 'the' but 'a part' of the Nakba, I changed the lead from 'known in Arabic as Nakba' to 'known in Arabic as part of the Nakba', but I think the wording/context are poor. Is there a better to reflect that? -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources in the article say they are the same.^[1]^[2]^[3] If they are not the same, Nakba needs to be taken out of the first sentence and the bold removed, but sources.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Reuven Firestone To Jews, the Jewish-Arab war of 1947–1948 is the War of Independence (milchemet ha'atzma'ut). To Arabs, and especially Palestinians, it is the nakba or calamity. I therefore refrain from assigning names to wars. I refer to the wars between the State of Israel and its Arab and Palestinian neighbors according to their dates: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982.' Reuven Firestone, Holy War in Judaism: The Fall and Rise of a Controversial Idea, Oxford University Press, 2012 p.10, cf.p.296
^ Neil Caplan, ‘Perhaps the most famous case of differences over the naming of events is the 1948 war (more accurately, the fighting from December 1947 through January 1949). For Israel it is their “War of Liberation” or “War of Independence” (in Hebrew, milhemet ha-atzama’ut) full of the joys and overtones of deliverance and redemption. For Palestinians, it is Al-Nakba, translated as “The Catastrophe” and including in its scope the destruction of their society and the expulsion and flight of some 700,000 refugees.’ The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories, John Wiley & Sons, Sep 19, 2011 p.17.
^ Neil Caplan Although some historians would cite 14 May 1948 as the start of the war known variously as the Israeli War of Independence, an-Nakba (the (Palestinian) Catastrophe), or the first Palestine war, it would be more accurate to consider that war as beginning on 30 November 1947'. Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the Great Powers, and Middle East Peacemaking 1948–1954, (vol.3) Frank Cass & Co, 1997 p.17

I agree the last changes also are extreme POV and bring Palestinian narrative as if it historical fact --Shrike (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please be specific, which parts of the edit made by Once are "extreme POV" and which "Palestine narrative" is incorrectly being stated as if it were "historical fact". Otherwise this is just assertion without evidence and will be reverted.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"the central component of the fracturing, dispossession and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba" This clearly is Pro-Palestinian POV as we don't write that "that Jews liberated and restored their historic homeland" in wiki voice --Shrike (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, so if it reads as "the central component of the Nakba" instead, then Once's edit is fine, yes?Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not OK. Not only is this Palestinian POV narration, the cited sources: Firestone, Caplan 2011, Caplan 1997 say that the Israeli war of Independence is known to Palestinians as the Nakba. The sources do not say "central component".--Geshem Bracha (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am attempting to be constructive here, language from any number of sources is possible, not just those that suit your position. Since 2005 nakba was (wrongly) a redirect to 48 exodus. Now that has gone by the wayside, you want to redirect it to here instead, equally wrongly. Do we need an RFC about this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nur Masalha, one of the leading contemporary Palestinian historians, writes "1948 was the year of the Palestine Nakba (Catastrophe), the uprooting of the Palestinians and the dismemberment and de-Arabisation of historic Palestine" (The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory, Zed Books 2012). We don't have to adopt his language in order to recognise that this is a more authoritative statement of Palestinian views than the sources cited above. The Nakba is far more than the war, and more even than the exodus of Palestinian refugees. Any article should reflect this, and recognise it as a key - even defining - event in Palestinian history and consciousness. RolandR (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Can you fix the Nakba part in lead? -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been mulling this over, it's not so easy, getting there, give me a bit of time.Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

How about this: "Known in Israel as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות‎, Milkhemet Ha'Atzma'ut), it is seen as a part of the wider Palestinian Nakba (lit. Catastrophe, Arabic: النكبة‎, al-Nakba)." and we move it to the end of the first paragraph or create a new paragraph in lead for it? -- Maudslay II (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

What source(s) will you use? Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The way I am looking at it so far is that the 47/9 events are foundational events, all are in agreement on this although there are some who say go back in time as well. Many commentators treat 47/9 as exodus and done, Nakba over. This way of looking at it the way they teach it in Israel and hardly surprising since all of the materials and archives are of the victor those of the losers being lost. A more recent idea is that dispossession and displacement continued, then the Naksa and after being a continuation of the Nakba to today and still going on, supported by recourse to an oral tradition, the Palestinian view of it all as integral to their identity. So it is true that Nakba is an alternative name, we may say widely/often referred to as. Perhaps by way of a note, we can explain that it is also seen as a precursor to a process that doesn't have a common name but is often described as a continuing/ongoing Nakba.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Then I think that it maybe is not really necessary to alter the text of the lead because even if as Caplan puts it, this and that is within the scope, that does not necessarily exclude other things. Maybe we can add a couple more refs to clarify things and that's all we need to do.Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The map in the 'aftermath' chapter(ch.4)

The map shown is the map after the 1967 war not 1949... You may use this map Israel after the Arab-Israeli War in 1948-1949.2A10:800C:AD91:0:1C12:2E55:FED1:7776 (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fringe, self-contradictory views pushed in historiography section

The historiography section is strange in that it's pushing a fringe view, particularly so because it's doing a bit of a shuffle, the top part links to the article on the "new historians", and then the text is actually a quote from a fringe critic of the primary source based works of the "New Historians"... The section seems to deliberately portraying the view of a fringe critic of the new historian as the view of the new historians. Needless to say, as I understand it, the views generally of the new historians are the exact opposite of those presented in this article in the form of a quote from a fringe critic of their works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.109.100 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It could be much better. Some things are misleading, such as "Unlike Israel and Britain, Arab governments have not released relevant primary sources from their archives." It should be added that in the past decade Israel has actively sought out and reclassified a large number of relevant documents that historians once had access to. Zero^talk 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

But why is a fringe critics criticism of the new historians view being presented, ironically, uncritically, and being presented with the implication that this fringe criticism is both the accepted historical consensus, and, that this fringe criticism of the new historians view is actually implied to be the view of the new historians?

I'm a bit lost. Which fringe critic? What quote? Can you be more specific, please.Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The fringe critic is Avraham Sela. As to what quote, the only quote in the historiography section, "These insights are the result of historical analysis of "the war as contingent on the flow of battle and voluntary/involuntary movements of threatened populations—rather than on any masterplan or evil intentions that would raise questions about Israel's legitimacy."[86]", although I wouldn't rule out that other parts of the section aren't quoting Sela without attribution. I'm not sure what you want me to be more specific about. As far as I understand it the general opinion accepted by historians is that after the war, israeli propaganda was successful pushing a intentional false narrative, the israeli government pushed the false propaganda pushing the false idea that the exodus of the native Palestinians was driven not by the actions of the zionist militias like the irgun and the lehi, and not by the Ramle & Lydda forced exodus, but instead, the israeli government pushed the false narrative that Palestinian movement was driven by Arab leaders telling them to leave temporarily. This, for some hard to determine reason is a considered to be an important distinction the israeli government tried to make with false propaganda, an important false distinction to make for the purposes of false propaganda about the Palestinian exodus with regards to the Right of Return presumably, but also probably domestically to push the virtuous crusaders retaking their holy land but with clean hands for false propaganda directed at the domestic israeli audience. As war archives started being opened by the british and the israeli governments, historians started developing alternative narratives, documentation about Plan Dalet presumably, documentation about internal israeli and british deliberations and so on. You can read about it on the new historians page, there's a bullet pointed list if you're curious. Gradually the New Historians shifted the view of academia on the subject. The now accepted view is that the Palestinian exodus was driven by violence employed by the zionist militias. That the British government was actually helping israel, even while the zionist militias launched terrorist attacks around the world against the british. Again, bringing up uncomfortable moral questions about zionist actions during the period, although the propaganda is still strong and arguably has already done what it needed to do. The New Historians also dispel the david vs goliath imagery that israeli propagandists use for the 1947 war, probably the suez crisis, the six day war, the yom kippur war, and probably wherever else they can use it. And, looking at the bullet point list, finally, the failure of the peace process is placed on the shoulders of the israeli government by the New Historians. Yet, instead, the historiography section of this article seems to be pushing the fringe criticism of a historian at one of israels bastion universities, presenting this fringe criticism, ironically, uncritically. But it's hard for me to understand where the confusion is. If you'd glance at the new historians article and glanced at the historiography section of this article I think that would clear up much of the confusion?

It's not just Sela, it's Caplan as well and I would not class either of them as a fringe critic. I am reading through the epilogue to the book and it could be that it ought to be reworded slightly so as to reflect a quest for legitimacy on the part of both sides, not just Israel. The "confusion" is simple, ordinarily if one wants to make a change to article content then one usually specifies what it is that is to be changed and to what it is to be changed rather than making a speech and relying on someone else to figure out what is desired. Oh, and please sign your posts.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, done.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have almost completely missed the point? So... Now the first sentence is quite strange, it's the first part of a statement by a new historian listing details about historical inaccuracies, but instead of saying "these are historical inaccuracies" as an example, it just lists the inaccuracies as if listing a dinner menu. "events were interpreted differently"... 'Israeli forces were viewed as being weak (what it doesn't say is this was wrong and has been re-examined and determined to be false)' "the roles played by the British and Jordanians"... with no context... Just mentioning things completely out of context... 'The Palestinian exodus has been viewed with more nuance'... Somehow both out of context and creating a false implication. 'It was widely believed that the Palestinians left temporarily because their leaders told them to leave temporarily' again, without the context that this has been re-examined and determined to be misleading or outright false, and that this also, as far as I know, is now viewed as deliberate false propaganda created by the israeli government both for foreign and domestic consumption... but, again, this is presented out of context, just listed like an item on the dinner menu. You seem to have changed the quote replacing it with an out of place quote about both Palestinians and the immigrant zionists trying to find legitimacy... by, for instance, the israeli government waging a false propaganda campaign casting the violent zionist immigrants as righteous underdogs guiltless in all ways, falsely pushing blame on everyone else. Whitewashing the Nakba, etc. Then there's the meaningless "still debated" line. And again heavily quoting defenders of israeli government propaganda, and bringing up irrelevant points to create strawman arguments... literally. I mean, in the end there's some random jab at Palestinian historians creating some false impression about it being a disagreement between Palestinian and israeli historians and creating some false idea that both of these imaginary sides are right in some ways, wrong in other ways. I mean, I can't tell if this section of the article isn't lifted from an example of how not to do climate change denial, but, luckily, I do know, because this section is creating an imaginary other side and then creating this false pretense that neither the israeli propaganda side or the imaginary side it created is right or wrong... Like... have you read this section? You aren't seeing any of these issuses? Some of which you seem to have added to the article?72.66.109.100 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Refer my previous comment, I'm not doing any more speeches. Explain using the proper X to Y format what changes you want made and provide appropriate sources in support.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

This edit request to 1947–1949 Palestine war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The war is also commonly called מלחמת השחרור in Hebrew (war of liberation) and in some official purposes מלחמת הקוממיות (war of sovereignty), these names should be added. Gsueso2 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What WarKosign said, reactivated request.--Gsueso2 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source that shows that this term in English is used for this war. “WarKosign ” 16:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright I'd say this^[1] is quite an authoritative source, though here מלחמת הקוממיות is translated as "war of establishment".--Gsueso2 (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to find sources (such as this) that show that in Hebrew the war is sometimes known as "מלחמת השחרור", which can be translated as war of liberation. I wasn't able to find any official source that uses this name in English, though. “WarKosign ” 20:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We already include War of Independence, if we need to include several other Hebrew names would probably be better off just making a name section. I note the Hebrew Wikipedia article does just that. nableezy - 16:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

War Name in Hebrew

The current name given in Hebrew is "מלחמת העצמאות" (War of independence). This is a very common name also in Israel, however it was also called "מלחמת הקוממיות" (Milkhemet Ha'komemiut) while the 'independence' part referred to the part of war after the declaration of independence (the part before the declaration was called the war of liberation - "מלחמת השיחרור").

see for example the name of the official military history of the book:

http://www.hahagana.org.il/database/books/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/

I don't know if such a nuance is relevant here but maybe it is worth mentioning it.

Rnaveh (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That second one is a redirect to this article, maybe the other one should be as well.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The war is known to more cynical Israelis not as מלחמת העצמאות (Milhemet Ha'Atzmaut), but as מלחמת העצמות (Milkhemet Ha'Atzamut) - the War of Bones. I don't think I will be able to find a reliable source for this, but the term is certainly commonly used in colloquial Hebrew. RolandR (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've lived in Israel all my life, and never heard the phrase מלחמת העצמות / the War of Bones. This is the first time I face this term.

BTW, מלחמת העצמאות & מלחמת השחרור - War of independence & War of Liberation are parallel terms. There is no distinction between the war before the declarations and the war after the declaration. These are just 2 phases of the war. Noavic (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Noavic

Most of the results I got in google for "מלחמת העצמות" were about Bone Wars, a.k.a The Great Dinosaur Rush. Not quite related to this war. “WarKosign ” 14:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if this adds anything, but while I have never heard the term מלחמת העצמות (War of Bones – novel a concept though it may be) I have heard the term מלחמת השחרור (War of Liberation) used in casual conversation as a default in reference to this war. This makes it all the less surprising to me that someone went to the lengths of creating a Hebrew language link on the enwiki (something I had not seen before). Havradim leaf a message 21:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the term is no longer used, but certainly when I was living and politically active in Jerusalem in the 1970s and 80s I often heard it. I certainly didn't invent it myself!RolandR (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Lede too long

The lede of this article is too long. With 793 words, this article almost matches WWII's lead, which stands at 869 words. In the meantime, this article has a readable prose of just under 30% of the WWII article. Let's fix it to summarize the main points. The German article, labelled as an "Excellent article" in German Wikipedia, might be a good reference. This article's lead should summarize the key points in a short manner. It may be helpful to look at this article's German Wikipedia equivalent, which is rated as "Excellent". Tombah (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)```

agree the lead is too long, disagree on the non-neutral edits attempting to skew the content to "denying Israel's right to exist". nableezy - 12:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most scholars do not use the terminology "1947–1949 Palestine war." It's 2 separate wars. I searched for that phrase and got very few results. I think this article should probably be renamed, or re-structured somehow. Andre🚐 21:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

They usually call it the Palestine War, with or without a 1948. But it covers a bit more than just 1948 so for accuracy this article was changed to 1947-1949 here. Wasnt really discussed and never really objected to, but the Palestine War part is the common name for both phases combined, the 1947-1949 part is a bit of a Wikipedian invention. nableezy - 22:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:1947–1949 Palestine war/Archive 4#Requested Move: Please vote below and other places in the archives. Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both, I'll review the prior discussion, but based on the number of results for 1947-1949, I tend to agree with Nableezy that it is an original turn of phrase; therefore, we should move it back to 1948 or to another less original name, to use the WP:COMMONNAME. "Palestine War" refers, I believe, to what we call "1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine," but 1948 Arab-Israeli War is the more common name for the overall war, as far as I can tell. Or maybe just go to "Wars in Palestine 1947-1949," or "Arab-Israeli wars 1947-1949". Andre🚐 22:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No thats slightly off, 1948 Arab-Israeli War is the common name for the international war between the newly declared state of Israel and several Arab states. That name is not used for the first phase of the Palestine War, the civil war between the Yishuv paramilitary forces and the Palestinian Arabs in the final months of the British mandate. The term 1948 Palestine War is used to encompass both. Its just that it includes the last six weeks of 1947, making 1948 problematic for its own reason. nableezy - 22:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, that sounds fine, I stand slightly corrected, but I think we should still move it back to 1948 not 1947-1949, or change it to something else. Andre🚐 22:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. There appears to be an agreement that the current title falls short of WP:COMMONNAME and is Wikipedia's artificial creation (probably because Wikipedia split an event that scholars consider to be a single one into multiple pieces). The usage of "1948 title" is suggested as the common name, and it isn't objected to by most, provided that the lead properly summarises the actual timespans of the various phases. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

1947–1949 Palestine war → ? – See above section. Not the most common name for this. Andre🚐 21:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Shadow007 (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think 1947-1949 should be moved to 1948. Even though the war might have started before 1948 and lasted longer, 1948 is the common name of all of the different wars and names for those wars. 1948 Palestine War or 1948 Arab-Israeli War or 1948 Palestine-Israeli War are all acceptable to me and an improvement over the present name, which seems to have been created by Wikipedia in some original coinage, and is not used by many sources. Andre🚐 22:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Im fine with 1948 Palestine War, with the lead detailing it started a bit before the new year. The others are non-starters imo, there was no Israel for the first phase of the war, making Israeli incorrect, and Arab-Israeli is used for the second internationalized phase after Israel's declaration of independence. nableezy - 14:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
1948 Palestine War works for me. Andre🚐 14:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think 1948 Palestine War suffices - it would be more consistent with and apply the same principles as the naming of the two child articles of this one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 1948 Palestine War, though I don't see a great deal wrong with the current title. Zero^talk 02:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose a move to "1948 Palestine War". Why make the title less accurate? This is an overview article. I previously suggested 1947–1949 Palestine wars. (See archive 5.) Srnec (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Support a move to a 1948 title, per the vast majority of sources – example book titles below:

Rogan, E.L.; Shlaim, A. (2007). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge Middle East Studies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87598-1. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Hazkani, S. (2021). Dear Palestine: A Social History of the 1948 War. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-2766-6. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Reinhart, T. (2011). Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948. Open Media Series. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-60980-122-9. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Karsh, E. (2014). The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948. Guide to... Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4728-1001-4. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Kadish, A. (2019). The British Army in Palestine and the 1948 War: Containment, Withdrawal and Evacuation. Israeli History, Politics and Society. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-84332-7. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Gelber, Y.; Gelber, Y. (2001). Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-902210-67-4. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Morris, B. (2009). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15112-1. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

Rogan, E.L.; Shlaim, A.; Shlaim, P.I.R.U.O.F.A. (2001). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge Middle East Studies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-79476-3. Retrieved 2022-09-20.

See also below, quotations from scholars discussing the name of the war: