Talk:Israel/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

UN and Israel views on borders

I have unilaterally changed the section title to the above from "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" on the view that it is best not to highlight editors names in section titles but to address content. I believe that there is guidelines support for this change but this change does not reflect my position on the issue concerned. GregKaye 10:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of the guidelines on this issue. I will not make the mistake again. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign has twice reverted the article to his version removing all reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in regard to Israel's borders. The version WarKosign is pushing states "The borders of the new state were not specified." The version that states "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." would be a more NPOV. Pro-Jewish/Anti-Arab groups in generally push a point of view the borders defined in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine should not be considered a part of the history of Israel. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: Consensus on the article before GregKaye added the {cn} tag was "The borders of the new state were not specified". I supplied the missing reference for the fact that it was decided intentionally not to mention the the partition plan in Israel's declaration of independence and removed the irrelevant wikilink. You did not provide any support for calling my edit NPOV, merely reverted it for no particular reason. Now you opened this section which assumes bad faith. If you disagree with the edit please state your reasons, do not attack the person making it. “WarKosign” 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits. Your first revert was to change "The borders of the new state were not [United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|specified]." to "The borders of the new state were not specified.", removing the hyperlink to United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Your second revert today was to change "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." back to your first revert. Both times you reverted the article to a less-NPOV, that removed the reference to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My first edit was to replace {cn} with a citation saying that the declaration intentionally did not specify the borders of Israel, those of the partition plan or other. I also removed the wikilink to the partition plan that became irrelevant with this citation. The second edit was a revert of your factually incorrect claim the partition plan actually defined the borders of the State of Israel (rather than being just a proposal that was never implemented). If you have a source that supports your claim, kindly point to it. “WarKosign” 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

When Israel was founded, it stated that it was "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly". Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: how does this statement prove that "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN" ? “WarKosign” 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It proves that Israel was prepared to cooperate with agencies ... that presented borders for the proposed Jewish State. WarKosign I am perplexed that, when you saw Gouncbeatduke edit on this you did not edit so as to give a representative picture of what I would regard as a more complete story but simply reverted to, what seems to me, to be a one sided presentation. I do not see this action as being conducive to building a NPOV encyclopaedia. GregKaye 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: "That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." These two sentences together imply the incorrect notion that the borders of the newly declared State of Israel were "specified" by the partition plan, while the source clearly says "The initial draft stated that the boundaries of the state would be those established by the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947. The inclusion of this was rejected by the larger committee charged with approving the draft by a vote of 5-4.", meaning that the borders of the state were not "specified" by the plan.

The partition plan is already mentioned two sentences earlier, and we could add that it was initially accepted by the Zionist movement but rejected by the Arab leaders, therefore never implemented. I think it's redundant to add these details in this article since there is already a wikilink to the partition plan which has these details. “WarKosign” 06:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh Look. Its a specification.

Here another presentation.

WarKosign Borders have clearly been presented. There are even maps that give the details.
The text previously contained the erroneous or otherwise misleading statement "The borders of the new state were not specified." Who added this?

• I added "citation needed" here
• You added your citation here which also removed the very relevant wikilink which, amongst other things, indicated a version of a specification providing map.
• Gouncbeatduke then amended text to "The borders of the new state were specified by the UN, but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" here with explanation "replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited
• You made your objection based revert here stating "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared."
• I then reverted so as to present the text, <nowiki>"Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|UN]] but not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries."</nowiki>

If you wanted to present encyclopaedic information why couldn't you have edited to something like this final version? Borders have been very clearly and obviously proposed. GregKaye 08:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: What you wrote isn't quite wrong, but it is redundant and out of chronological order. This is the chronological order, correct me if I'm wrong:

1. UN suggested the partition plan (which you could call "a specification" of the borders, although the article never uses the term).

2. The plan was not accepted (initially accepted by the Zionists but rejected by the Arab leaders)

3. Israel's independence was declared, intentionally not specifying any borders, those suggested by the plan or any other borders.

4. 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out and the eventual armistice line became the de-facto border.

You added a tag for the article not having a reference for #3 - I fixed it. #2 did not appear in the article and I don't mind adding it (although I do think it's UNDUE in the lead), but it's chronological order is before the declaration of independence, not after it. We could go with something like this:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan for Mandatory Palestine. The Plan was accepted by the Jewish public, except for its fringes, and by the Jewish Agency despite its perceived limitations. Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. The end of the British Mandate for Palestine was set for midnight on 14 May 1948. That day, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the Zionist Organization and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," which would start to function from the termination of the mandate. The borders of the new state were not specified in the declaration. Neighboring Arab armies invaded the former Palestinian mandate on the next day and fought the Israeli forces.

“WarKosign” 08:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You have done a good job of regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative. Wikipedia should not use the anti-Jewish or anti-Arab narrative, but a NPOV. The current version of the article is a much more NPOV than what you are suggesting. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

“WarKosign” 08:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• WarKosign There are more straight forward ways for you to admit, "you are right" than for you to say to me, "What you wrote isn't quite wrong". I continue to view your earlier edits as sticking to your POV rather then editing to improve a neutral encyclopaedia.

1. UN suggested the partition plan (which anyone could call "a specification" of the borders and I think the article should use some similarly descriptive term to describe its intergovernmental action).

2. The plan was initially accepted by the Zionists and this is an important point. It was accepted while it was expedient. I am certainly a Zionist to these limits but international law should be followed. The UN plan was rejected by the Arab leaders and this was their problem.

3. Israel's independence was declared and within the context that Zionists had agreed to the plan and to its provisions.

4. 1948 Arab–Israeli War broke out. Israel advanced to the [[Green Line|armistice line]]. It it chose not to withdraw to its internationally planned limits. GregKaye 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye and Gouncbeatduke: factual correctness comes before promoting your favorite POV.

1. The plan was initially accepted by one side but not another, there was never an official binding document based on the plan's borders. Eventually the plan was rejected by both sides and not implemented. I added a reference for this point.

2. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify any borders, it is evident from reading the declaration itself as well as the secondary source I added.

I tried a compromise edit to incorporate these facts while otherwise keeping the wording that you prefer, please give it a read. “WarKosign” 04:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I support WarKosign proposal. The partition plan was accepted by the Yishuv, but rejected by the Arabs. During the last weeks before the Mandate end, there was a discussion concerning the Independence declaration text. Sharet initial text specified the partition plan borders but Ben Gurion said that if the Arabs will invade, than Israel won't be limited by the partition borders anymore. Hence, Israel's borders were not mentioned in the text. Ykantor (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign "factual correctness comes before promoting your favorite POV." Please remember this when editing to flagrantly misleading text such as "The borders of the new state were not specified." The plan was initially accepted by the advocates of the forming Jewish State. This was the context of its formation and this should be rightly, factually and encyclopaedically said. Please also see WP:INDCRIT. If you have an example of where you think an editor is promoting POV beyond neutrality then state it clearly. Otherwise don't slander editors. GregKaye 08:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What is misleading in: "The borders of the new state were not specified."? Ykantor (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

They were specified by the UN partition plan (which was not implemented), but not by the declaration of independence. I assumed it was obvious that this sentence that appeared immediately after the declaration obviously referred to it, but apparently it wasn't obvious to everybody. “WarKosign” 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On the day of founding of the new state, Israel stated its intentions to implement the borders specified by the UN. This is recorded in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, per my quote above. We cannot state that the borders were "not specified" without noting Israel's stated intention to implement the UNGA 181 borders. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your quote: "prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly". In my opinion, it is not the same like implementing the borders specified by the UN. Would you like to ask for RFC or a dispute resolution for the meaning of this quote? Ykantor (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile that stating that the borders were "not specified" is too confusing without covering the Jewish Agency's stated intention to implement the UNGA 181 borders. I think the right place for all this detail is in the "Independence and first years" section, the lead is becoming way too detailed. The UNGA 181 borders were ultimately (post 15 May 1948) not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries. All the additional detail of the May 14 & 15 status should be covered in the "Independence and first years" section. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yours: " the Jewish Agency's stated intention to implement the UNGA 181 borders". Are you sure? Ykantor (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor I would be interested to see the actual wording which, of course, should best be cited but I cannot see that it could have happened in any greatly variant way. The British and the UN have both been known for talking and checking understandings. The UN decision was made regarding a plan of partition and, within this context, sanction was given for migration to Palestine. You can also provide information on Jewish Agency responses. GregKaye 10:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the UN in http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/palestine/ch2.pdf "The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State." Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

At the moment I see two problems in the lead regarding the borders definition:

1. "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries" quotes Harris, which does support this statement. I did provide a proper source for this claim which Gouncbeatduke removed for reasons I cannot understand.

2. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify its borders. Harris specifically says so. This statement was repeatedly removed, and I would like to understand your reasoning. We could say that the declaration did mention the partition plan but intentionally did not mention the borders. “WarKosign” 07:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose to return the sentence: "Israel's declaration of independence did not specify its borders.", and here is a source : [Yaacov Bar Siman Tov (19 September 2014). Justice and Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Routledge. pp. 61–. ISBN 978-1-317-68755-9.] . Ykantor (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is way too much detail for the lead. Has any country's declaration of independence every specified borders? I know the USA's does not. The lead keeps getting bogged down in the minutia of anti-Arab narratives. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Before GregKaye's and your edits, there was a single sentence: "The borders of the new state were not specified". We can add "by the declaration" to make it unambigous. UN division plan was already mentioned and linked to a few sentences before, I do not think it's DUE to discuss the borders of a rejected plan in this article's lead. What exactly is anti-Arab in stating a plain and well-documented fact ? “WarKosign” 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign I find the presentation of a single negative statement regarding borders to be unbalanced, unencyclopaedic, utterly on one partisan side of POV and disruptive. Normally information is presented in the form of what legislation does and in regard to its significance. No map has been added. No comment on the intentions on the division or the like and yet a negative is still added. The description should show, with encyclopaedically presented limitation, what the partition plan did do. GregKaye 08:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: this discussion began when you tagged with {{cn}} the claim that the borders of the state were not specified. Now there are references, and it is clarified that the sentence refers to the declaration of independence and not to the borders suggested by the UN partition plan. The plan is mentioned earlier in the same paragraph. I do not object to adding "The UN plan specified borders that were eventually not recognized by either side", but I don't see the point. I still do not understand what is this alleged partisan POV vs NPOV. There are different POVs when there is a dispute over the facts - are there any disputed facts in this matter ? “WarKosign” 09:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would use the phrase "The UN plan specified borders that were eventually not recognized by either side" because it is more direct and definitely neutral. There is a difference between borders not specified and borders being suggested but not recognized. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PointsofNoReturn has suggested another NPOV way of stating the facts. Like all NPOV statements, it is unlikely to make it into the article as the Israel article is an non-NPOV Anti-Arabism narrative designed to hide the fact that UN set borders in 1947 (and most Wikipedia editors want to keep it that way). Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1. UN plan suggested/specified borders but was not implemented.

2. Israel's declaration of independence did not specify the borders.

Both facts are well-documented. #2 is far more relevant to this article, #1 is arguably UNDUE here. What is POV in presenting fact #2 ? “WarKosign” 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The UN Plan that conceived Israel is not Undue. Honestly, it should be in the article. Your second point is also valid. That should be in the article. However, just mentioning Israel's declaration without mention the surrounding nations' take would be placing all of the burden on Israel for the current crisis in the Middle East. That is not NPOV. If you are going to mention Israel's declaration of independence, you have to mention the surrounding countries' view of the UN Plan too. That is why I think the above statement is the best sentence for the lead because it mentions both sides of the debate. Would you want to put this to a vote (and possibly an RfC), or do you want to discuss this further? Honestly, this debate could have an entire paragraph in the history section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

At last some explanation of the elusive POV issue. I do not think the definition (or lack thereof) of the borders in Israel's declaration of independence has any bearing for responsibility for the conflict. Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division. If Israel was declared within the plan borders, they would still invade it. I do think that the actual border (or lack thereof) that Israel had after its declaration of independence is of more interest in an article on Israel than a planned border that was not eventually implemented. Of course it's the other way around for the article on the division plan. “WarKosign” 22:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A recent attempt to present a historical context to Israel's original territorial area was made by the humbly named, yet irregular editor, SpeckInTheUniverse. S/he changed: The borders of the new state were not specified to The borders of the new state were "within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations", as stated in the letter from the authorised agent of The Jewish Agency in Palestine, Eliahu Epstein, to President Truman dated 14 May 1948 [{{cite web |url=http://trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/3-5.pdf |title= Letter of Proclamation to President Truman |date=14 May 1948 |publisher=Truman Library}}] here. The letter concerned began, "I have the honour to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as and independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, ..." This seems to be an extremely notable text regarding the early frontier boundaries of the newly formed state of Israel. Israel had accepted these boundaries. Circumstances then changed but, to be encyclopaedic, the article should clearly state the original conditions of Israel's national setup. GregKaye 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like something that's important to add to Israeli Declaration of Independence.“WarKosign” 22:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This book quotes this letter but also says "the declaration did not specify any borders for Israel". “WarKosign” 04:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a more relevant content to add to the article on Israel than a scholars interpretation that "The borders of the new state were not specified". That quote continues: "But in a message to President Truman urging him to recognize Israel, the Agency said it was proclaiming statehood "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nation in its Resolution of November 29, 1947." Use of the designation "Eretz Israel" suggested, however, that broader claims might be intended. (add: this last statement is again interpretation and is presented in relation to lands which were not legally designated to the Jewish State). Truman immediately extended de facto recognition of Israel. That recognition led---according to Dean Rusk, director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs---to "pandemonium" on the floor of the UN General Assembly, since delegates (including U.S. delegates) felt that the United Nations should establish a temporary trusteeship." Basically the agency established Israel "within the frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations". This was commented on in political correspondence and yet, in time of war, Israel still took further lands. I would be interested to see how the specified interpretation/reference is substantiated. A "partition plan" was clearly presented with maps provided as reference. GregKaye 10:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We have conflicting hints for the intentions of the committee that wrote the declaration. On one hand they mention the partition plan and later send this letter, indicating that the borders are "within the frontiers", which could mean exact adherence to the plan borders or a subset of the territory. On the other they mention "Eretz Israel", which could mean all of Mandatory Palestine or even more. We should avoid speculations and stick to the facts. “WarKosign” 12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What GregKaye is proposing is a NPOV representation of the facts. What WarKosign is pushing is an anti-Arab cherry-picked version of the facts. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I urge you to take this statement back. "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously". You are welcome to state your arguments for the changes that GregKaye and you would like to introduce into the article. Neither you nor GregKaye bothered to explain what exactly was non-neutral in the way article was before your factually incorrect edits.“WarKosign” 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with you other than you editing behavior, as far as I know you are a good person. I think we both recognize that most of your edits to date push a pro-Jewish POV, and I don't see how we can make progress towards a NPOV article without being honest about that. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pro-Jewish or a pro-Arab POV, just that NPOV Wikipedia article is not the place to express it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a policy-based reason NOT to restore the statement that Israel's declaration of independence did not specify the borders ? “WarKosign” 21:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, I think it gives undue weight to borders being specified in a declaration of independence. I am not aware of any country's declaration of independence specifying borders. The United States' declaration of independence does not, and the fact is does not is never mentioned in the United States article. I think this statement was a relic of someone's original research that had incorrectly presumed borders being specified in a declaration of independence was important. Gouncbeatduke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• The text in the lead currently states, "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries." I personally think that this is already displaying a pro-Israeli bias as reference to Israel's acknowledgement of Israel's boundaries, frontiers gets no mentioned. If the article does not display information that is presented in original documentation I see no reason to add reference to an absence of a content in a specific document. WarKosign, it looks to me that your advocacy of this statement of a negative is symptomatic of one sided POV pushing in the article. GregKaye 08:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is inherently POV and pro-Israel in saying that the declaration did not specify the borders. The independence section in the article says in similar length that Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan and that it did not mention the borders in the declaration. Yet, you are insisting to have only one of them in the lead and calling it NPOV. Also, while initially Jewish Agency accepted the partition and it was not implemented because of objections of the Arab leaders, you insist not to have it in the lead and call this well-documented fact "pro-Israeli narrative". Why are you cherry-picking facts related to the borders ? What makes the UN plan that was eventually not implemented (because of its rejection by the Arab leaders) more WP:DUE than the declaration that did happen ? “WarKosign” 20:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing all the editor inputs here, I looks to me like most think the UN view on the borders should be included and is not WP:UNDUE as you claimed. Do you want the UN reference removed, or is there some other reason you want this? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I do not object to including the partition plan in the lead although I do think it is unnecessary clutter. The borders specified by an unimplemented plan are far less important than the fact that the state was declared without specific borders. You haven't answered my question: what reason is there to remove the declaration not specifying borders, and instead mention borders of a plan that was never officially accepted ? As for "most", it seems there is no consensus for the change that you are pushing therefore the default is to go back to the stable version. “WarKosign” 22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Most editors have spoken in favor of including the UN POV as well as the Israel Government POV. Is there any wording that includes the UN POV that you would find acceptable? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this version ?

Why do you see it as UN POV vs Israel government POV ? Each of the two statements (UN plan specified borders, Israel's declaration of independence did not specify the borders) are well documented and undisputed facts, not some opinion that should be balanced by an opposing opinion.“WarKosign” 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I started this thread was because I think mentioning the Israel government POV without the UN POV is not NPOV. If you are okay with both views being included now, I think we should move on to a new section for any discussion of other issues. If you think the fact the borders were not in the declaration should be in the lead, I suggest you open a new section on that. I think it is a unimportant detail that does not belong in the lead, but I have no objection to it from a NPOV standpoint, and do care much if other editors want it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you please describe in simple words what you believe to be the two conflicting POVs ?

I do not object to the version which I suggested. You reverted, so apparently you had some objection. Is it still relevant ?“WarKosign” 12:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the edits you are proposing still have a number of problems, but they do not have to do with the editing out of the UN information, which is why this discussion was open. One problem is the agreement above about the last sentence of the first paragraph on military occupation. I don’t think that location of this sentence should be changed unless the editors involved in that discussion agree. Another is the idea that the UN “suggested” borders, which is a dishonest misrepresentation. The borders were specified by the UN, not suggested. Yet another is trying to rescue the false claim that “borders were not specified” by adding an “in the declaration” clause. This turns a false statement into a true statement, but not a statement that is important enough to belong in the article lead. If you want these changes, open new sections to discuss them, but don’t use this discussion on the editing out the UN information to discuss them. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"The borders were not specified" followed in the article the declaration of independence, so obviously this true statement referred to the declaration. I added the clarification to make it clear beyond any possible doubt. These are the borders that were (not) specified when the state was declared.

"United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal developed by the United Nations, which recommended a partition ...". Calling a plan that was not implemented a specification is a stretch, but I can live with it. I do not want any changes to the stable version of the article, you are the one who wants them. You accepted that most of the editors want to keep the statement about the borders not being specified in the declartion. You asked for my version, I provided it. I cannot understand what your current objection is. Feel free to suggest an alternative, anything that doesn't contradict the sources and keeps the important fact (lack of borders in the declaration) in. “WarKosign” 20:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: Please suggest your own version. If you do not, I will go with the one I showed above, changing "suggested" to "specified". “WarKosign” 11:32, 11 February 2015

I went ahead and applied the change. “WarKosign” 21:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke: You did not bother to suggest any alternative to my version in 4 days. You do not WP:OWN the article, I do not need your permission to make a change. Now you reverted text that "doesn't look all that bad" on a flimsy excuse instead of fixing the contraction. Please avoid unnecessary reverts in the future. “WarKosign” 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Some users in this discussion seem to indicate that the UN has a current view on the Israeli borders. Perhaps it does, in which case it should be discussed. Arguing that the UN's partition plan almost 70 years ago constitute the current UN view would appear to be WP:OR. To the best of my knowledge, the UN has not once argued that the proposed borders that the Arab states rejected and which never materialized are the actual borders.Jeppiz (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said before regarding "trying to rescue the false claim that “borders were not specified” by adding an “in the declaration” clause. This turns a false statement into a true statement, but not a statement that is important enough to belong in the article lead." I suggest you start a new section to discuss this. You want it in, I don't think it has much value. It would be good to get other editors to comment on this. As this section was started to discuss your reverts of the UN information, and not this topic, it may be hard to get editors to comment on it here. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Official languages

I came upon this source which claims that Arabic is not an official language in Israel. How should this organization be rated as a source ? “WarKosign” 16:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the source, but see the recent discussion at Talk:Languages of Israel#English as an official language, which cites multiple sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable resource. This Israeli government page (Ministry of Tourism) states that Arabic is an official language of Israel. CIA World Factbook also lists Arabic as an official language. Having been to Israel, almost all signage, such as street signs, were in Hebrew and Arabic (many also in English). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see a reliable source to say that Arabic is an Official Language in Israel. I am all for Palestinian etc. rights and representation ect. but I think that, to be encyclopaedic, something like this is best authoritatively cited. In the UK many government publications are produced in many languages but not many are official. When Welsh was made an official language references like this were raised. We also have the Welsh Language Act 1993 ... but this may just be because we do things properly . I honestly don't find the reference from www.goisrael.com or the potential interpretation from the CIA World Factbook to be definitively authoritative on this and yet, because of their presence, I would not like the article to cite "Official language" without mention of Arabic. Much is made of Israeli road signs. If the road name is a Hebrew name then both the Arabic and the English may either be transliterations or translations. Curiously the goisrael reference did not picture a road sign where "rehov" (street) was not translated so I'm not sure what point they were really trying to make. I'd be interested in comments from any trilingual person here on, for instance, the results on this image search on: israeli street signs ... but I think that this kind of thing would only supply background info rather than conclusion. Perhaps notably the article on the Hebrew language gives inconclusive reference to Hebrew being an official language and it has crossed my mind that perhaps nothing has been made official here. However, Hebrew is the language that is used in official documents. GregKaye 18:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg, look at the discussion I linked to above. It has sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz true they give acknowledgements to usage. I have boldly changed "Official languages" to "National languages" until this is sorted. GregKaye 18:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the Hebrew documents mentioned (with reference here) provided the English translation:

• 82. All Ordinances, official notices and official forms of the Government and all official notices of local authorities and municipalities in areas to be prescribed by order of the High Commissioner, shall be published in English, Arabic and Hebrew. The three languages may be used subject to any regulations to be made by the High Commissioner, in the Government offices and the Law Courts.

In the case of any discrepancy between the English text of any Ordinance, official notice or official form and the Arabic or Hebrew text thereof, the English text shall prevail.

Curiously the document itself only provides internal translation in English and not in Arabic which I think is another indication that English is more of an official language in Israel than Arabic. I think it may be unencyclopaedic to cite Arabic as an official language and not English. GregKaye 19:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't an English translation. It is the original English text of the Palestine Order in Council as it stood 1948. The Palestine government also published it in Arabic and Hebrew, but the rules were that the English text had priority for interpretation. That's why the text appears in English in the court ruling (with a Hebrew translation following). Then the court ruling continues that English was removed and concludes (para. 12) that עברית וערבית הן שפות רשמיות (Arabic and Hebrew are the official languages). In para. 13 it again says הערבית היא שפה רשמית (Arabic is an official language). The document you found is an opinion published by an activist group. It may be citable (as an attributed minority opinion) at Languages of Israel, but here we should follow the great majority of reliable sources. Zero^talk 20:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, the fact the Arabic is an official language does not mean it has the same status as Hebrew. There are many examples where Israeli law gives precedence to Hebrew, such as the law stating that the Hebrew version of legislation has priority if there is any discrepancy. There is also a gradual erosion of government support of Arabic for budgetary and ideological reasons. Zero^talk 20:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Zero thank-you for the clarification. GregKaye 12:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state.

WarKosign added a sentence to the lead stating "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state.". He had discussed it above in the section about his reverts of the UN information, and I had objected to it. As no other editor commented on it, I thought it would be good to have a section on this issue separate from the discussion of WarKosign's reverts of the UN information.

I do not believe the statement is important enough to be in the lead. I know of no country whose borders are specified in their declaration of independence, it doesn't seem like a very important fact. If it is going to be discussed in the lead, I think it should also be discussed that the Jewish Agency agreed to the borders specified by United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. I find the emphasis on what was specified in the declaration without covering this fact to be unbalance and non-NPOV. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

UN Map, "Palestine plan of partition with economic union"

For fucks sake WarKosign, this has been extensively discussed at Talk:Israel#UN and Israel views on borders with the title of that thread having been unilaterally changed by me from Talk:Israel#Edit Warring by User:WarKosign. I don't want to regret having been bothered with having made this change. The added text is clearly gratuitous POV in the context of existing text in the lead and with a lack of immediate reference in the lead to the image that I have again placed here to the right. Please stop edit warring or first bring your thoughts here for discussion.

Gouncbeatduke, I personally think that if you want to talk about someone on a talk page you are best to ping them. GregKaye 12:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: It has been discussed, and there was at no point consensus to remove the statement. You removed it originally for no apparent reason, and now you removed it again. If you want to make a change to the article, you need to reach a consensus.

The statement about UN partition plan borders and the image bare little relevance to the subject of the article - these borders were never accepted (by both sides) and never affected the state of Israel. You insisted to add irrelevant information to the lead, there was an agreement to keep both the irrelevant statement that you like and the relevant statement that I like. Now you go back and undo everything that we agreed upon. The subject of this discussion should be Gouncbeatduke's and your tag-team edit warring. “WarKosign” 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign, You have now made a series of unjustified accusations. The negative statement that you are defending is "The declaration did not specify the borders of the new state." You then criticise inclusion of the map which presents definite content of what the partition plan did present. You call information added as being irrelevant. How? We are meant to be providing a straightforward history of events. What statement are of mine are you referring to as "the irrelevant statement that you like". How, in the context of a text that already states, "Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries", how is your statement relevant or in any way needed. You even accuse that I "go back and undo everything that we agreed upon". When/ How? You present a scurrilous slur regarding "tag-team" activity. I edit when I can in reaction to the content that I see before me at the time. I have given unbiased thoughts to various editors and including two editors who have shared similar positions here as myself. I even challenged Gouncbeatduke regarding pinging in my immediately preceding comment to your last edit. Where is the tag teaming that you allude to. The fact is that editors have made similar comments as we have made. You should strike your defamatory texts. If you have a case in regard to edit warring then make it plainly. If there is anything that you can justify then you can present any relevant thread content that you like. Any points that you make need to be substantiated. GregKaye 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: The partition plan presented borders that were not accepted and never were implemented. Israel's declaration of independence was accepted and it was implemented. Therefore, the borders specified by the plan are less relevant than the declaration's lack of borders.

I stroke the tag-team claim above, I should not make this accusation without proof and I have no proof of you coordinating your reverts, it could be a coincidence that you both reverted my edits without proper discussion in a very tight succession on at least two occasions.

The previous thread regarding the borders came to agreement to include both statements, after which I applied the edit and you both reverted it. Gouncbeatduke gave a flimsy excuse, you didn't even bother with that. If you feel that there was an agreement not to include the statement about the declaration, please show it. In either case, please comment on the RfC below - I believe it includes the option you favor. “WarKosign” 15:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen, can we please dial things down a notch here? May I suggest the two of you please grab a drink, watch a funny movie or two and then return and have a civil discussion over this? There's no reason for your posts to be peppered with barbs at each other, as they detract from otherwise well-thought out arguments and surely you wouldn't act like this in a face-to-face discussion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Shevat 5775 15:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I support User:WarKosign. The partition plan borders are relatively a minor detail. The important point is that the declaration did not include mentioning of borders. Ykantor (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. What the declaration said or not said is of relatively low interest. History is filled with not-yet established states making declarations of indenpendence and claiming territory. Sometimes they are fulfilled but quite often they are not (for instance, both Armenia and Kurdistan declared independent and borders back in 1918 as has many states done since). What is relevant is that all members of UN at the time voted on a plan to establish an Israeli state within defined borders. That is something relatively unique, the declaration is not unique by any point of view.Jeppiz (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an article on Declaration of independence with a list of these documentations. I would be interested to hear if it is a common thing for these documents, particularly in relation to those of time of the State of Israel document, to "specify borders". Is this inclusion giving indication of anything unusual? GregKaye 13:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very relevant point. As far as I know, very few declarations of independence actually detail borders. Generally speaking, it would take a very strong argument for why we should include that a document does not say something.Jeppiz (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think more than a few African declarations of independence specify borders, typically in relation to rivers and such. I was going to look through some of the documents to give specific examples and then found another article on that list in dire need of attention (sorry). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Shevat 5775 15:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Change of "Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq" to "Egypt. Jordan, Syria and Iraq"

Yesterday, for example, “On 5 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Jordan, Syria and Iraq” was changed to “On 5 June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Jordan, Syria and Iraq responded and attacked Israel.” With a one revert rule I don’t see any way to stop it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You probably meant this edit. You misquoted it (by putting a stop after Egypt instead of a comma). I see how this edit changed the meaning which may be factually correct or not, but what is wrong with the new sentence structure ?“WarKosign” 15:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. The editor changed a "," to a ".". I need better glasses or larger type settings. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made this edit and I apologize for my bad English. Will you please tell me what is wrong with the sentence structure? I'll modify it once you show me what is the correct structure. Besides, in my opinion the accuracy is indeed improved. Ykantor (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is with me. When WarKosign pointed out the misquote I realized I didn't see the "," was changed to a ".". Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Jersualem in Template:Largest cities of Israel

The discussion here didn't come to a conclusion and there is some edit warring at Template:Largest cities of Israel, so I created an RfC on how Jerusalem should be represented. Please comment. “WarKosign” 09:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is NOT here, it is over there. Please make the comments there so they will be considered while closing the RfC.“WarKosign” 21:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Removed per request above. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Actually, West Jerusalem isn't recognized as Israeli either. There exists a sort of consensus that as a part of an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel is likely to get West Jerusalem, but as it is no country (AFAIK) has recognized West Jerusalem as Israeli, and certainly the majority hasn't. --Dailycare (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)