Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Search for original documents: reject/accept the plan

Resolved

Hello

I don't want to start a flame war whether or not the plan was accepted or rejected. I simply ask for original documents. Indeed the link [1] refers to the rejection of the plan by the Palestine Arab Higher Committee. So far so good. But as far as the acceptance of the plan by the Jewish Agency is concerned there are only two links to books by historian, namely Best, Antony (2004) and Best, Antony (2004). I presume this is in accordance with the rules of wikipedia, however I think it would be better also have a link to an orginal document, comparable to the one of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee. Anybody know about such a link? Oub (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

surely the priority is to use secondary sources? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oub - the Jewish People's Council's final, official acceptance, of UNGA Res 181 was The Declaration for the Establishment of the state of Israel ... talknic (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The acceptance that mattered would have been conveyed by the Jewish Agency in November/December 1947. The Israeli declaration of independence refers back to the November 29th, 1947 UN partition plan (as being almost the only somewhat "official" document then in existence which could be used as a foundation for sovereign Jewish statehood), but it by no means bound the Jews irrevocably for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, while the Arabs were not bound to obey any of the provisions of UNGA resolution 181 (as you imagine in your abstract hypothetical metaphysical original research speculations). AnonMoos (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Only the final acceptance matters. A State is bound to it's declaration, as are those who recognize it

Again - Please stop your stupid personal comments ... talknic (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I resume: nobody knows where and how to find the original response of the Jewish Agency to the UN proposal? Oub (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a clear-cut document matching what you request. However the SC debate of March 29 includes statements of the JA representative confirming acceptance, see here. Zero^talk 11:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be sufficient. Thanks. Why not add that link to the current wikipedia article. BTW your link is broken, because there are 2 http calls. Oub (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

UNGA Res 181 only required acceptance by Declaration, sometime from the moment the Mandate ended and 1st October 1948. I doubt there is any single pre Declaration document confirming full acceptance of the plan by the Jewish Agency ... talknic (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Since according to your peculiar personal view of the matter, a "full" acceptance would mean that the Jews are irrevocably bound for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, while the Arabs are not bound to obey any of the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, therefore a "full" acceptance in your meaning of the word has never existed. AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- Your pure original research hypothetical metaphysical abstract speculations are notably unproductive and unconstructive for the purpose of improving Wikipedia articles (which is what this talk page is supposed to be for), and is the kind of thing that got you topic-banned the last time around. AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonmoos -- Zero has brought numerous primary sources to Talk without being hounded or having to suffer your tiresome remarks

Please stop. Address the topic ... talknic (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You can talk of being "hounded" when and if you cease to gratuitously insult other users in your edit summaries. Meanwhile, if one thing is clearer than another, it's that any claim that the Jews are supposedly somehow irrevocably bound for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, while the Arabs are not bound to obey any of the provisions of UNGA resolution 181, is plain and simple nonsense -- and your "tiresome remarks" to the contrary are beginning to get extremely tedious monotonous and boring (not to mention being notably unproductive and unconstructive for the purpose of Wikipedia article improvement). AnonMoos (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "the Jews" ? Quote me.

"...claim that the Jews are supposedly somehow irrevocably bound for all time to obey all the provisions of UNGA resolution 181" Quote me

Israel exists by it's Declaration and subsequent recognition as it asked to be recognized [2] .. [3] .. [4]. Israel was admitted to the UN as declared and recognized. All UN Member States are bound to adhere to the UN Charter IN FULL [5]. Including Chapters VI & XI . That's what Israel is bound by, through accepting UNGA Res 181.

Please stop your continual harassment ... talknic (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the topic is Search for original documents: reject/accept the plan. Perhaps you know of a reliable secondary source citing such a document, showing full acceptance, before Declaration? ... talknic (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oub made a request, Zero sorted it. Please do not use the talk page as a forum or to pursue user conduct issues. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

---

NOTE: On being Resolved - Itsmejudith - "surely the priority is to use secondary sources?" Zero has provided a primary source containing a statement by Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) not a statement by the Jewish Agency. Although Oub is satisfied, it does not satisfy your own criteria or that of AnonMoos.

"Please do not use the talk page as a forum or to pursue user conduct issues" 1st comment pursuing user conduct was by AnonMoos - 16:24, 13 October 2011 ... talknic (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Rabbi Silver (Representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine): ... the Jewish Agency for Palestine ... has loyally accepted the decision of the United Nations." I would still prefer a formal statement of acceptance, if it exists, but this is clear enough to go on with. Zero^talk 10:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Zero - OK. I missed that in Silver's statement ... talknic (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, talknic, and that's an example for you of how to drop an issue if it isn't important. Oud and Zero weren't trying to add primary-sourced material to the article, so why pursue it? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith - Nor was I trying to add any Primary Sources and; 'Please do not use the talk page as a forum or to pursue user conduct issues'.

Zero "I would still prefer a formal statement of acceptance" a Primary Source is "clear enough to go on with" ... talknic (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[108]

Did Liberia really complain of this? The source is quoted as:

Quigley, John B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press. pp. 37. ISBN 0822310236.:

This is correctly quoted verbatim from Quigley, who notes it as: Bell supra note 43, p.62

Note 43 in Quigley says (in relation to Bell) J. Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestinian Underground 1929-1949 (1977)

I propose changing the quoted reference to, as this is from where Quigley attributes the source.:

J. Boyer Bell (1977), Terror out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and the Palestinian Underground 1929-1949 p.62 ISBN 1560008709

There does remain the question of where Bell got the original quote from. One reviewer from Amazon said of the book "Unfortunately, Bell uses almost nothing but memoirs and interviews of the key players in this drama to make this book. There are no, or little, primary documents, and very little secondary sources."

How do we resolve a situation like this? I recently made an edit based on the contents of the same Quigley book. Unlike you, I did not have access to its notes section, only the actually quoted portion (which was available from Google books). I retained the contents of the Quigley book, but it set off red flags for me. If I had access to the notes section, I am not sure what I would have done.

Under what circumstances would a secondary or tertiary source be removed from an article based on a lack of connection between the quoted passages and a primary source? Do you keep the content in the article, but change the language to saying that these things have merely been "claimed"? Is there a Wikipedia policy that addresses this? It is a potentially complicated issue, essentially amounting to evaluating a source based on its citations and references. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cutting out before and after

I think we should cut down the background so it starts with the end of WW2 and establishment of the UN. And we should have a good section on the aftermath, but tightly written and following the best sources. We don't have to take the story up to today. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think some background about the Mandate is in order, and how the idea of partition came about (Peel commission, etc). I agree there's quite a bit of stuff there that can be removed though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the background (and not just an explanation of the mandate) is integral to understanding the partition plan and its repercussions. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

But an endemic problem, not just here, is that editors want to decide how readers approach each topic. If a reader wants more background, s/he can click on one link and then another. The encyclopedia includes everything, just not in every article. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess my bottom line is that the article has to be self contained. You can't describe a partition plan without explaining what is being partitioned and why. Details can be elided, but somebody approaching the subject for the first time needs to have enough information to supply that essential context. I reckon the Background section of the article to be about 6% of the total content. That seems quite minimal for a subject as weighted with context as this one is.Jsolinsky (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I suddenly realize that your objection is probably less about the small Background section, and more about the vast discussion of the mandate itself. I am torn over this. For a legal scholar who wants to understand the partition in the context of the league of nations mandate, that would be essential. For everybody else (myself included) it does seem unnecessary. I'm not sure how to balance that. It might be nice to separate out the legal questions (which are of limited audience and which are addressed throughout the article) from the simple matter of describing what actually happened.Jsolinsky (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that section is the problematic one. I agree that we have to describe what is being partitioned. Why as well, I suppose, but that is always going to be difficult. Like you, I tend to see this as a history article, but you also make a good point that some readers are interested mainly in the legal aspects. Have a look through the series of related articles. History of Israel and History of Palestine are the top level articles. We have to have both, I think, and they have to overlap. And each has to be an overview and refer to sub-articles on particular periods and events. But when we get down the sub-articles we get a mess of POV, inconsistency and poor sourcing. Perhaps the fog is clearing a bit. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in the section about the Mandate is really just tangential to the topic of this article, as is the issue of Transjordan and some of the material in the legal issues section. The real problem is that there is no policy regarding how relevant properly sourced material has to be in order to be included. Anyway, a lot of this stuff can be moved to the main article about the Mandate I think, so it won't be lost and anyone who wants to pursue more background can just click the link. I'm a firm believer in short background sections. I think a lot of people don't read the rest of the article when there's a long background section that tries to cram a lot of semi-relevant information into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I may take a stab at reducing the size of the Mandate section. It is good to clearly explain the legal arguments. It is good to clearly explain the history. But it can be argued that the current form attempts to do both while achieving neither. It would be better to briefly explain the history, and then provide a link to another article describing legal issues if there is somebody qualified to write that. The same goes for the section about the continuing relevance of the resolution (which I recently cleaned up and renamed to "The Resolution as a Legal Basis for Palestinian Statehood"). If there is a need for an article clearly elucidating the legal arguments, then we should have one, but what we had before was (IMNSHO) less than optimal for both legal and lay audiences. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion from intro; Planning to greatly shorten discussion of Mandate

I have deleted the entire third paragraph of the intro. It was out of chronological order; too detailed for the intro; and covered by the linked articles.

As I noted elsewhere on this page, I intend to direct a similar effort at condensation at the section about the league of nations mandate (at some point in the next week) and am interested in any suggestions anyone has. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think that discussion of events subsequent to the break out of the war belong in the intro. The last sentence of in intro states "The passing of the UN resolution marked the start of the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine". I think we should end it there and remove any material that happened afterwards. Even if we were to keep it, war plainly did not break out after the declaration of an Israeli state, it broke out immediately. Also, if we were to keep this paragraph, it is not at all clear that the appointment of a Mediator is as important an event for inclusion in the introduction as, for example, the armistice and continued existence of an Israeli state (and lack of a Palestinian one). But my first reaction is that the entire paragraph should still go, even if chronological issues are completely resolved. I'll probably wait until tomorrow to consider implementing this. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think that Talknic's condensation of the Arab reaction to the plan is a big improvement. But as far as the change to the first paragraph, I think that clearly identifying the purpose of the partition in the first sentence is an improvement, but attributing motives is a bad idea. I'll try to take a stab at this now. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

'motives' ?

UNGA res 181 "Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364)(1) including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations; "

... talknic (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Immediately following this is

"Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 August 1948;"

Is the Partition plan intended to address the British pull out, or the statehood aspirations of the local populations? Clearly both. But looking at the resolution (and the UNSCOP report) from nearly 65 years later, one is struck by how much attention is placed on the British pull out, and how secondary the national aspirations are. I don't actually believe that this fairly characterizes the situation at the time. Nonetheless, it should not be NECESSARY for us to weigh in on the primary motivating factor in this article (especially to the extent that the resolution does not provide us with language to do so). Both the national aspirations and Mandate should be discussed in the article (and are), and that is sufficient. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I further note that the article currently contains the following in its second paragraph: "The resolution sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims to the Mandate territory of two competing movements, Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and Arab nationalism." Jsolinsky (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the intro now, have at it. I don't think we should mention the appointment of the mediator to replace the United Nations Palestine Commission in their responsibilities, because through that point we haven't really discussed the United Nations Palestine Commission's responsibilities (something I don't believe I have changed), and it feels confusing. It is also addressed elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolinsky (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for removing "British controlled" UNGA Res 181 does not say "to divide United Kingdom controlled Palestine".

UNGA Res 181 text says :"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948"

British control had to end before the State of Israel could "come into existence". The name of the region to be divided was Palestine ... talknic (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think British controlled is clearly appropriate:

1. At the time the plan was created, this area was plainly British controlled.

2. In context it is not at all ambiguous. Obviously you can not have independent states in an area that is simultaneously British controlled. The label clearly refers to the status of the lands BEFORE partition.

3. Using the phrase British controlled avoids the potentially vexatious issue of people arguing about whether Palestine refers to all of the mandate or just the portion of the Mandate that did not become Jordan. I believe that this problem has raised its head on several occasions here and elsewhere Jsolinsky (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the aforementioned points addressing the appropriateness of the UK-controlled label, I think the change makes the nature of the Partition Plan significantly less clear [EDIT: I previously typed Mandate instead of Partition Plan], especially for people focusing their attention on the first paragraph (most readers). Procedural details do not belong in the intro (never mind the first paragraph) which should be focused on explaining what the thing is. I am going to do a revert. (I am also going to fix some of my own wording from earlier today which I feel was suboptimal).Jsolinsky (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - 1) According the the actual wording of the Partition plan the intention was to partition A) (naturally) after the plan was created B) the Resolution itself clearly states the intention that it would occur AFTER British Control ended. Weasel words might belong on the Israeli Govt website [6], but they have in place in an encyclopedia.

2) "The label clearly refers to the status of the lands BEFORE partition" It says only - United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. To immediately refer to 'British controlled Palestine' something NOT IN the text of the plan, introduces an ambiguity.

3) "Using the phrase British controlled avoids..." It introduces words to the reader, that have no place in the Lede

"...the potentially vexatious issue of people arguing about whether Palestine refers to all of the mandate or just the portion of the Mandate that did not become Jordan" The Mandate was a set of conditions. The words in your argument here "the portion of the Mandate that did not become Jordan" are weird. The portion of Palestine that did not become Jordan, was not renamed, it was called Palestine. Jordan is not in Palestine. Likewise after Israel was declared, the portion that did not become Israel was and still is called Palestine. Israel has never been a part of Palestine. What was to have been partitioned was Palestine that is what the resolution says ... talknic (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also this cherry picking "The resolution called for the establishment of the new independent states by 1 October 1948" The resolution said "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948" 55 equally important words before the cherry picked, 9 word, end date. An end without a start.

I suggest : "The resolution called for the new independent states to come into existence two months after the Mandate for Palestine ended, but no later than 1 October 1948" ... talknic (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

First, let me say that this sentence is just fine coming somewhere in the document. I think, however, that in the first paragraph it is too detailed. "British controlled Palestine" conveys two essential bits of information which must be in the lede: 1. What is the area being partitioned? 2. Who controlled it before this plan was to take effect?, and it does it in three words that flow well with the other essential information. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the proposed delay (between evacuation and independence) as an essential fact of the plan. Who is going to be reading this article, and regret not being able to find that information in the first paragraph? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - First let me say. Weasel words have no place in WikiPedia -- ""British controlled Palestine" conveys two essential bits of information which must be in the lede: 1. What is the area being partitioned?" The Partition Plan says "Palestine". In order to accurately reflect the Partition Plan, the Lede should simply say "Palestine". You or any Secondary Source saying otherwise is not an accurate representation of the Partition Plan.

"Who controlled it before this plan was to take effect" BEFORE it was to come into effect. In order for it to come into effect, British control had to end. It is also in the Resolution. Weasel words that do not accurately reflect the Partition plan, DO NOT belong in the Lede

"in the first paragraph it is too detailed. " The current cherry picked entry DOES NOT accurately represent the Partition Plan. After my having pointed out what the Plan did actually call for, you have reverted to what is in essence, a lie. ... talknic (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Further rationale - The opening line is fine "The resolution called for the establishment of the new independent states". It tells us what they are to be.

The resolution then tells us when they : "shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed..." followed only then by the deadline.

As it is, it's a gross mis-representation of what "The resolution called for.." ... talknic (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand you to be saying that because the plan called for British withdrawal BEFORE the independent states come into existence, that my failure to mention this in the first paragraph of the introduction falsely implies that no such intermediate step existed. If I understand you, then I must disagree. Let me illustrate by example.

Suppose I have a procedure "J's sugar division plan" to divide a container containing half a cup of sugar into two separate containers with one fourth of a cup each. It says the following:

1. Pour the sugar into a measuring cup until it contains exactly one fourth of a cup

2. Empty the measuring cup into a new container

3. Pour the remaining sugar into the measuring cup

4. Confirm that it contains exactly one fourth of a cup of sugar

5. Pour the contents of the measuring cup into a second new container

If I wrote a sentence summarizing this procedure, it would be: "J's sugar division plan is a procedure for dividing a container containing a half cup of sugar into two containers each containing one fourth of a cup of sugar."

Although the sugar does not go directly into the final containers, my failure to mention the measuring cup would not be a "lie", or a "gross mis-representation", or a "Weasel word". It would instead be an example of good summarization. The purpose of a summary is to give somebody a quick understanding of the item being summarized. The absence of details from a summary does not imply that these details do not exist. I would maintain, that omitting intermediate steps from a summary is: 1. An extremely common practice, 2. Expected and anticipated by the vast majority of readers (because of #1), and 3. Highly beneficial because the purpose of a summary is to quickly convey the essence of what is being described at the cost of details.

I am going to make a slight change to the intro referencing the existence of a transition period. I believe that it makes the article very slightly worse, but there is also the possibility that it will address your objection at very slight cost to brevity and clarity. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

After further consideration, I realize that my change will hurt clarity more than I anticipated, so I am leaving it as is until, at least, I confirm that I have correctly understood the nature of your concern. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Very funny. A) Your analogy a says sugar (there is nothing to say otherwise), however: B) you're opting for wording in an article about the Partition Plan, which is conveyed in the resolution. The resolution clearly says ONLY Palestine, it does not say "British controlled Palestine". Your preferred wording does not accurately describe Palestine at the time the two states were to come into existence, which was, according to the resolution "two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed"

Your determination to constantly omit crucial information, thereby conveying a false impression, does not belong in WIkipedia ... talknic (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What false impression is being conveyed? The article in its present form clearly mentions the British evacuation by August 1st in the SECOND paragraph. I'd support clarifying that the October 1st date (also in the second paragraph) is actually two months after evacuation with October 1st being the latest date (but rather wait since I just began a personal fork to make edits to the background and mandate section). This information is in the article, and near the top. It simply does not appear in the first paragraph.

Is it your contention that the area in question was not then controlled by the British? Is it your contention that the resolution does not clearly identify the United Kingdom as the Mandatory power and then repeatedly acknowledge the mandatory power within its contents? Is it your contention that we should only use words if we can quote them directly from the resolution? (If this were true, there would be little need for this article. We could simply cut paste in the resolution.) I have done nothing to omit crucial information, and I don't appreciate it when you suggest that I have done so. I am arguing (I think) about the placement of information, largely with the goal of maximizing the average understanding achieved by somebody unfamiliar with the Mandate who reads the first paragraph for the first time. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - It's the Resolution's contention that division by the existence of two states, would happen after the Mandatory Power had ceased being the Mandatory Power. The weasel words have been removed accordingly ... talknic (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I say "the partition plan divided UK controlled Palestine". You claim that this falsely implies that the division happened immediately after the end of UK control. I reject this for several reasons:

1. There is not such implication (if any other editors think there is, I would reconsider this. At the moment, however, it is hard for me to imagine somebody new to the article reaching this conclusion).

2. The article explicitly lays out the time table in the NEXT paragraph.

3. Removal of UK controlled removes an absolutely essential bit of information from the first paragraph, namely that the territories being partitioned were in British control at the time of the plans creation. Any quick answer to "What is the mandate?" must include that.

Accordingly, I am inclined to revert Jsolinsky (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reinserted the language in question. I would strongly weigh the opinion of any editors who agree with talknic on this. If it is only him, however, and the only reasons are the ones he has given, I am inclined to push for this language. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - You have reverted to an un-sourced opinion. I have given the rationale for removing it. You give only your un-supported opinion.

"1. There is not such implication" The resolution says quite clearly "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948"

"2. The article explicitly lays out the time table in the NEXT paragraph" It doesn't correct your preference for an unsupported claim in the first paragraph.

"3. Removal of UK controlled removes an absolutely essential bit of information " It is false. It cannot be supported by any source that accurately reflects the Resolution.

"the opinion of any editors " All editors must support their claims with verifiable Secondary Sources which accurately reflect, in this instance, the Resolution. You have not. Furthermore you have been shown the exact wording of the resolution ... talknic (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have migrated the only changes I had planed (at the moment) for the introductory section. It makes the two month period between evacuation and existence crystal clear, and in several instances replaces our phraseology with the plan's phraseology while simultaneously (I hope improving clarity). Jsolinsky (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal basis

According to the legal basis section, the International Criminal Court upheld the authority of the Partition Plan in 2004. Yet, as we are all aware, Palestine is not currently recognized by the UN. How is this possible? Does the ICJ lack jurisdiction? (I'm interested in facts, not flames.) –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 17:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The UN will recognize Palestine if and only if the UN says it does. If that sounds tautologically silly, it kind of is.

In general, International "Law" is highly fungible. There are few circumstances in which International Law has created a material result which runs contrary to that desired by a preponderance of the political interests. There are even fewer such cases in which the adverse result is enforced. You shouldn't expect International Law to behave like domestic law. (That said, domestic law [to varying degrees in various places] has the same limitation, especially when studied closely.)

Pay attention, also, to the language of the quote ICJ ruling. It doesn't say that the Palestinians are entitled to a state because of the UN resolution. It says that such a right already exists and is grounded in the right to self-determination which is expressed in the UN charter. Who else is entitled to such a determination? The only realistic answer (IMNSHO) is that the right to self-determination is limited to groups sufficient political backing to make their claim a reality.

Obviously I am not opposed to the study of International Law. I have argued for preserving its influence in this article. But the significance of IL needs to be interpreted in the context of the entire body of IL (which is to say it is of very limited consequence) Jsolinsky (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - The UN does not recognize. States are recognized by the International Community of Nations, there is no vote. It is outside of the UN Mandate. The UNSC votes on already recognized States for admittance into the UN. UNGA then votes on ADMISSION to UN Membership, not recognition. Israel is a very good example of the process at work. There was no vote to recognize. Of the majority of the International Community of Nations who did recognize Israel before it was recommended by the UNSC, some were not UN Members at the time.

"the right to self-determination is limited to groups sufficient political backing to make their claim a reality" The right to self determination belongs to every one. 'effective self determination' is determined by sufficient political backing to make their claim a reality or; a lack of control by others rendering effective determination impossible. For example: Palestine has had some or all of it's territories under the control of one entity or another since the Roman era. They have never been entirely free of the control of another entity, the last being Israel making it impossible to declare effective Independent Sovereignty. Palestine has never had an opportunity to miss ... talknic (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I find myself not really disagreeing with what you wrote, which is a little odd since you seem to be disagreeing with me :). Our disagreement may not be factual, but rather one of causality.

Would you say that Palestine is recognized by the community of nations? International recognition of the State of Palestine Jsolinsky (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Recognition of states is not under the UN. There is no vote in the UN on recognition of States. Only after states have been given recognition by the International Community of Nations, are they recommended by the UNSC. Only then is there a vote in the UN for acceptance as UN Member States. Palestine has already been recognized as a State by a majority of the International Community of Nations/States ... talknic (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal basis POV

According to the legal basis section, "A number of scholars have written in support of this view." Although I have no facts to back it up, I suspect a number of scholars have also written in opposition. Is this correct? If so, would it be appropriate to list some of those, as well? –Blue Hoopy Frood ^(talk) 17:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a good reference which is relevant and not an outlier, feel free to add it.

My own view is that NOT being a state is a default state of being. It isn't very interesting when somebody declares Palestine NOT to be a state. It is more interesting when somebody declares that it IS a state. Any claim that it is NOT a state is only meaningful in the context of rebutting a claim that it is one. Accordingly, the most likely use of a reference that Palestine is not a state would be to directly attack one of our existing references to the contrary.

I remain of the opinion that any such debate is best banished to another article. It would be a challenge to write it up well and simultaneously not bog down the current article. Listing references (as I have done) seems harmless. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Massive Changes

I have made massive changes aimed at shortening the article, removing redundancy and improving clarity. I think there is more work to be done. I found the mandate section to be composed primarily of background info, so I have combined it and the old background section. I have deleted many items, not because they were necessarily wrong, but because (as many editors have noted) too much of the article was focused on background. Ideally, no background should appear unless it contributes meaningfully to understanding the partition plan itself. I'm sure that I have failed to achieve this, but it is certainly a step in that direction.

I found the legal arguments to be disorganized. It has been deleted. I would suggest that:

1. Legal arguments should be in a separate article. 2. That article should have a clear sense of WHAT it is trying to communicate. What are the legal arguments about? In fact, there are many different points of potential legal disagreement each with different, and often unrelated, legal arguments. Combining them muddles things. It is better to address them issue by issue.Jsolinsky (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted more legal things. Again, I am not saying that they are unimportant. But if the discussion of legal issues is muddled, its primary purpose will not be achieved, and the non-legal aspects of the article will suffer as well. I'd suggest "The Resolution as a legal basis for Palestinian Statehood" as an example of how legal issues might be used in this article. The section clearly identifies what dispute the legal arguments it cites are relevant to (Is Palestine a state as a consequence of Resolution 181). It is short, with most of the actual legal analysis occurring in the cited references. And its relevance to the partition plan is direct.

In the case of the vast majority of legal items that I removed today, I could only speculate as to what controversy they were purported to address. It feels like at some point on the past one (or more likely several) people interwove complicated legal arguments with the text to make a point. Unfortunately, the point did not remain, only the arguments.Jsolinsky (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now also made major changes to the proposed division section. I definitely think that the narrative is more coherent (and chronological) now. I also worry that some of the items which were removed could have been saved with more effort. This being the heart of the article, details ought to be welcome. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed some of the stuff on the ad hoc committee meetings because it was inadequately referenced and had errors which I couldn't correct without sources. I'm not sure it will be missed. Do we care about the committee meeting, or about the final product. I'd lean towards only including the final product unless the process is of some lasting relevance. But I left in the Bedouin changes because it was well written (and frankly I'd already deleted more than I was strictly comfortable with). Jsolinsky (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag: Request for comments

Talknic and I are having a disagreement which has resulted in Talknic placing the NPOV dispute tag on the article. I would like to hear from other editors. The beginning of the article presently reads: (Previously it read UK controlled instead of UK governed, but I doubt this will make a difference.)

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to divide United Kingdom governed Palestine into "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 29 November 1947 as Resolution 181.

The plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements, Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and Arab nationalism. Under the plan, the British Mandate for Palestine would be terminated as soon as possible, and the United Kingdom would evacuate Palestine no later than the previously announced date of 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the evacuation.

Talknic says this is POV because the resolution says "Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948"

Talknic (as I understand him) maintains that the current text is POV because it implies that the resolution called for Palestine to be divided before the British left.

All I can say in response is: It doesn't come even remotely close to such an implication. In fact, the current text very explicitly says that independence was to occur two months after the evacuation.

We have gone back and forth enough times that further direct communication is likely to be fruitless. I therefore solicit additional opinions. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The division was to occur by the establishment of States and a corpus separatum. The states weren't to come into existence until two months after the British relinquished control ... talknic (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is clearly and unambiguously what the article currently says.Jsolinsky (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - The article has a contradictory statement about dividing "British controlled Palestine" in the first paragraph ... talknic (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph (and some of the second) is quoted in the first post in this section of talk. Where is the "contradiction"? Jsolinsky (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - "British controlled Palestine" in the first paragraph. Doesn't accurately reflect the Resolution, which says "Palestine" and that; the states weren't to come into existence until two months after the British relinquished control. Your link is not to a peer reviewed Journal or Book and; it doesn't support your claim ... talknic (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made yet another attempt at rephrasing. But just to be clear, there is no requirement that we only use the language of the resolution. If the resolution described itself and its historical context in plain English, then there would be no need for this article. As to your insistence that the British did NOT control Palestine in 1947, I don't know where to begin. Jsolinsky (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It should say "was created... in 1947 to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into...". That's what it was at the time the plan was made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - The plan does not say to divide the "British Mandate of Palestine" ... It says quite clearly "Palestine". Secondary Sources should accurately reflect the Resolution ... talknic (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - This is under discussion. You have previously claimed items under discussion cannot be edited whilst under discussion by editors involved in the discussion. I see you have not taken Jsolinsky to task ... talknic (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: I think there is a misunderstanding here, I don't read the present text as contradictory. Palestine was administered by the British when the plan was discussed and designed, that's all. The text in the end explicitly says when the new states and Corpus Separatum are to take effect. I can see talknic's point too, but my opinion is that when read by a fresh mind seeking to understand the meaning of the paragraph, the meaning becomes clear. And even if not, I'm not sure if this would be an NPOV issue and not just overall clarity. --Dailycare (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was corrected @ 10:00, 5 November 2011 since the discussion began. It now says this "The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was created by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine in 1947 to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States" and a "Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" administered by the United Nations."

Resolved

 – talknic (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

British debate over Mandate

We should probably include a word or two about the British debate over the mandate, including the Islington Motion and its subsequent rebuff by the House of Commons. http://books.google.com/books?id=RLYqAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA1008&ots=YCmhyVyiY5&dq=islington%20motion%20palestine&pg=PA1008#v=onepage&q=islington%20motion%20palestine&f=false I suspect that a more detailed article "British debate over the Mandate for Palestine" would also be appropriate, probably as a subsection of the Mandate for Palestine article. I'll probably put it there first. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Switched votes

The text of the article appears to indicate that the three votes which are labeled as "switched" were in fact not switched during the debate, but were merely different that the countries previously disclosed intentions.

If the countries did not actually switch during the vote, then they should not be indicated as having switched. (discussions of purported pressure would still remain).

On the other hand, if they DID switch during the vote, then the text needs to be clearer that this occurred.

If this is not addressed (I seem to have raised the issue in discussion ten months ago and forgotten about it), I intend to make a change myself. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing the pro-Palestinian literature, it seems clear that no switches occurred during the vote. Moreover, the set of countries claimed to have been pressured successfully to change their vote is considerably larger than the three identified in the article. Frankly, it looks like the selection of exactly three countries is the result of that being the magic number of switches needed to make the vote fail. If there is a source that suggests otherwise, please bring it to my attention. Otherwise, I am going to try to make the change now. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that the notion of switching votes came from the Quigley book. I have retained the substance of his claim without unnecessarily expanding it. There are at lest 16 countries (including France!) who have been asserted to have changed their votes in various publications that can be Googled in just a few minutes of research. Highlighting those three as was done previously is just going to make people incorrectly believe that countries decided to switch their vote during the proceedings (this happened to me and resulted in my interest). As modified, the article clearly expresses the reality that there was intense and rather unprecedented lobbying leading up to the vote. As to the appropriateness of using the Quigley book as our main reference in this respect, I leave that to future editors (who hopefully have a copy of the notes section of that book and can see what he cited). Jsolinsky (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this google books search - the reference to these three countries is very common [7] Oncenawhile (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Added detail to debates over the Mandate

I've added a fair bit of detail to the debates over the mandate. Its a challenge deciding what to include, and what to leave out.

I'm kind of wondering if the bit about the change of language in the Mandate is important, or if we can simply list the final text.

It is actually quite an involved debate, and a great many pages have been written about it. But because it was an internal British debate, it seems to be of little consequence to the partition plan.

I have also neglected to include any details of Jewish reactions, not because there were not, but because they were relatively inconsequential. I think the result, despite (or perhaps because of) the uneven number of mentions, actually manages to maintain a neutral tone for the entire period.

There are two presently non-existent links. I think that both of these ought to be created and filled in by somebody with the requisite knowledge. I'm not saying that I won't do it, but I have no immediately plans to do so, and would be happy if somebody else took that on. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am, in fact, going to greatly reduce the debate over the language (to what I think it should be). If you feel that the extra detail is important, feel free (of course) to revert me. Jsolinsky (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with what may be my last significant edit for a while. Have at it. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this article tries to do too much. There are other articles like British Mandate for Palestine that should cover stuff like debate over the wording of the mandate. This article is only supposed to be about something that occurred in the late 1940s. We should rely on other articles for everything except essential background. Zero^talk 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I plan to migrate some of the background into the Mandate article. Whether or not we should then delete some of the background from this article is a harder question that, I suppose, must be addressed on a case by case basis. I think that the threads of Jewish and Palestinian claims and promises to the land are of direct relevance to the resulting partition and should be preserved. Certainly though, the overall effect of the recent changes has been to significantly reduce the amount of material on the Mandate in the article. (by more than 20k bytes) Jsolinsky (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I just took all the detail out again per Zero's reasoning. A background section should only be a few paragraphs. You can find it in the page history, and please do take it into the Mandate article, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting some of it back in in a Jewish and Arab claims section, but I'm going to wait at least a couple of few days before doing that Jsolinsky (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing what you propose. Could well be appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever put my content back, while I obviously felt that it was a reasonable level of detail for this article (especially in comparison to what we had a month ago), it would be better to discuss it here. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I put back some of the content. The background section has been broken down into a section on the competing Jewish and Arab claims, and a section on the prewar attempts at Partition. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation not needed? for claim that UN Security council never implemented partition plan

I previously deleted a citation needed note. It has been re-added. In its current form, the CN says: "The UNSC does not implement UNGA resolutions"

In the general case, this is true. But in this specific case, it is not. Resolution 181 says that the GA "Requests that The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;".

Absent further comment, I intend to delete this CN request.Jsolinsky (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - You're inaccurately conveying what is written. Those "necessary measures" being for the UNSC to implement the plan? Or as it says, "as provided for in the plan for its implementation"?

When we read further for the "necessary measures", it isn't for the UNSC to implement the plan: The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution ... talknic (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The language of the resolution would seem to indicate that the resolution requests ALL of those things. (i.e., they "Requests that The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;" AND they request "The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;" and son on and so forth). The subsequent sentences do NOT appear to be modifying or limiting the preceding requests. Many countries use legislative language which is quite analogous to this.

RATHER than get into a debate with you over the meaning of a UN Resolution, I would simply ask the following: What specifically do you believe needs a citation? (which concept, claim and/or words). It might be substantially easier to find a reference for whatever you need than to carry out a debate on Wikipedia over the intent of a resolution. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for the words "by the Security Council". The fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. (Its not like some other body came along and implemented it.) Removing this phrase should also (I imagine) end this dispute. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now entirely removed the paragraph, as discussed below. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky -- LOL... Deleting nonsense is appropriate. BTW do you always eat the pizza while discussing how it should be apportioned? ...talknic (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I generally talk out loud as I work. If I knew in advance that I would wind up deleting the paragraph, I wouldn't have bothered asking the questions. It was only after reading it many times that I realized that the entire section was detrimental. Jsolinsky (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

... talknic (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quigley

It seems clear to me that we can't use the Quigley book to demonstrate the degree of pressure exerted on countries to vote for Israel. The citations just don't match up.

Still, I don't doubt that there was enormous pressure of this type exerted, the carelessness of one author notwithstanding.

Can anyone suggest an alternative reference to use for this part of the article? Jsolinsky (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of additional references, as requested. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a great improvement, thanks.

The Pakistan quote seems longish, and importantly does not actually say that Pakistan was pressured to change its vote, but I'm not inclined to change it at this time.

I _am_ inclined to delete the Quigley reference and the sentence it supports. The new precedent of using specific detailed claims for each country is clearly superior, and Quigley's references do not appear to line up with the text in our article they are supposed to support. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi JsolInsky, glad to help. I left a post on this topic above - it linked to this [8] Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I just checked this link again - not working as I planned, but if you press 'books' at the top you'll see what I mean. A few sources I can see suggest that in addition to those three, China, Ethiopia and Greece were also subject to special pressure. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Before things start moving very much, I suggest another ref that seems quite relevant, V'able, and so-far unused. Ritchie Ovendale's The English-speaking Alliance: Britain, the United States, the Dominions and the Cold War 1945-1951 should be of assistance in this on-going endeavor. Page 109 seems a good starting point for these specifics, but good also for pre- and post-partition context and times. I'll just make some other helpful edits and see how things unfold. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Google won't let me see this specific page (or any pages or search it) at the moment. Is there an alternative way of doing this? Jsolinsky (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I still haven't taken a proper look at this. I _HAVE_ just clarified Stokes's representation as to what the vote would have been on the 26th. He may well have been generous. Elsewhere in the same source there are different would-have-been counts given. I don't think we should be presenting estimates of vote counts (especially second hand) in the article. I think we should reference the vote delay, and inform readers that multiple sources claim that it changed the outcome of the vote, but leave estimates as to what that vote might have been out of the article entirely. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I added Haiti using a less than ideal source. Ideally, someone should acquire that source and find out what it cites so we can confirm the reference, and maybe use a more direct source. I think I am done with my edits to the vote section for now. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Are mandates provisional states?

Text has been adding describing San Remo thusly:

"It confirmed Palestine's status as a Provisional State under the LoN Covenant[10]."

The reference goes to: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/The%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine

I can find nothing in the source document suggesting that the parties at San Remo declared or acknowledged Palestine to be a provisional state. On what is this based? (Same goes for the earlier assertion that mandates under the league system were provisional states. Both history and the covenant suggest otherwise.) Jsolinsky (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Try reading carefully. Do not replace, add or omit any words...

League of Nations Convenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph) "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

League of Nations Mandate for Palestine "Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;"

Further : League of Nations 30 November 1937 C.495.M.336.1937.VI. Geneva, November 30th, 1937 - Chapter X. – Conclusion "It means that the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them."

Treaty Contracts with Iraq, Syria, TransJordan, Turkey and Palestine:

Article II. The Office shall operate under the authority and control of a Committee composed of delegates of the Contracting States.

Article III. The expenses of setting up the office and the annual expenses of running it shall be supported by the Contracting States according to the conditions laid down by the Organic Statute mentioned in Article II.

Article IV. The contributions of each of the Contracting States shall be paid in through the intermediary of the High Commissariat of the French Republic in the States of Syria to the Bank of Syria and Lebanon at Damascus, whence the money shall be withdrawn, as need arises, on the order of the Director of the Office. Each of the Contracting States shall make its first annual payment within three months from the date when this Agreement is approved by their respective Governments." ... talknic (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that the articles contain no original research Wikipedia:No original research

Pay particular attention to the third sentence: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

What you've got above is an (erroneous) synthesis of parts of documents to support a position (Mandatory Palestine was a provisional state) that none of them support.

The history of the mandates and of Palestine specifically has been studied to death. Find one source that says that San Remo confirmed Palestine's status as a provisional state. Don't quote a hodgepodge of documents to support something that none of them individually do.

I suspect I now understand how all the legal gobbledygook that I just cleared out got in the article in the first place. Various individuals wanted to support their own pet legal theories which weren't directly supported by legal scholars. They advanced these theories by incorporating parts of the argument from different sources, few of which had any positive impact on the article other than (perhaps) supporting a particular legal theory. This went on for several years. Voila! We got an article of legal arguments that appear to be unrelated to the surrounding text. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Finally, here is the actual text of the San Remo Resolution: http://www.cfr.org/israel/san-remo-resolution/p15248

Note that Syria and Mesopotamia are explicitly acknowledged as provisional states whereas Palestine is explicitly entrusted to a Mandatory.Jsolinsky (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - They were all Class A Mandates and; all entrusted to a Mandatory ...talknic (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky --- This is Talk. One can present any information from any source in Talk as long as it is verifiable and relevant to the topic. Offering Primary Sources in Talk, enables folk to find Secondary Sources which CAN be included in articles. Knowing the actual content of Primary sources, allows one to find Secondary sources that ACCURATELY reflect the documents. It also enable editors to find out which sources DO NOT accurately reflect the documents they cite. In this case the Partition Plan (UNGA Res 181).

It is Wikipedia policy that all statements which might be contested, be sourced. Your statement is completely un-sourced.

The rest of your post is un-sourced, self opinionated & quite meaningless). Meanwhile you've been shown the wording of the Covenant and the Mandate, VERBATIM. Any Secondary Sources must accurately convey the meaning of the Primary Sources they refer to. You've provided exactly....none. Un-supported denial is not evidence to the contrary.

Your link BTW is not the FINAL draft. "It was agreed" is false. The final Mandate draft was passed in 1922. Only then was it "agreed to" ... talknic (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also interesting to note how Jsolinsky creates a strawman at the outset. "Text has been adding describing San Remo thusly:" changing the Mandate to San Remo ... talknic (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text of the paragraph at the time I wrote that:

"At the San Remo Conference in April 1920, the Allied Supreme Council met to confirm the allocation of Ottoman lands under the mandate system. It was decided that Palestine would become a British mandate. It confirmed Palestine's status as a Provisional State under the LoN Covenant[11]."

To almost any reader, and certainly a first time reader, the second "It" refers to the San Remo Conference. If you intended "It" to refer to the British Mandate, it was a suboptimal editing decision. (It was also the wrong place to put this, since there is a subsequent discussion about what went into the British Mandate.)

I will continue to assume on discussion pages that any pronouns you add to the main article have the meaning normally implied by their context. Accusing me of building a strawman for using the plain meaning of your pronouns is unacceptable. I have also previously been accused by talknic of lying, and misrepresentation, and several other acts of bad faith.

I will no longer respond to talknic unless active editing activity requires it. To do otherwise would be a waste of my time. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - In Talk, you changed where I said 'Mandate' to 'San Remo'. Never the less "The former Turkish territories, however, were divided at the Conference of San Remo on 25 April 1920, while a legal state of war with Turkey still existed, three years before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. The administration of Syria and Lebanon was awarded to France, and that of Palestine and Transjordan and of Mesopotamia (Iraq) to Great Britain" [9]

It goes on

"The working of the Mandates System : All the mandates over Arab countries, including Palestine, were treated as class 'A' Mandates, applicable to territories whose independence had been provisionally recognized in the Covenant of the League of Nations" ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In the article there is a paragraph (inside of background) which explains San Remo. Rather than back this up by reference to the San Remo resolution, you provided a link to a different document (which didn't even exist at the time of San Remo). You then added text that implied incorrectly that San Remo said something that neither your link NOR the actual San Remo resolution supported. I struggle to understand why you thought that would improve the article. Paragraphs about X, should use references that address X, and avoid talking about Y (Especially when Y is explicitly discussed in a subsequent paragraph). Jsolinsky (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"You then added text that implied incorrectly that San Remo said something that neither your link NOR the actual San Remo resolution supported." I supplied what the LoN Covenant said and; showed it was reiterated in the Mandate "which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire". Perhaps I should have added the third [10] ... talknic (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky -- "neither your link .. supported" Odd both said "formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire" and all the territories "formerly 'belonging' to the Turkish Empire" were under Class A Mandates. All territories under a Class A Mandate were granted provisional status.

"Find one source that says that San Remo confirmed Palestine's status as a provisional state" Some Secondary Sources -- [11] ... [12] ... [13] ... [14] Any valid reasons why the legal status of Palestine should NOT be mentioned in an article about United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine? ... talknic (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

One reason is that this article contains only the most cursory discussion of the mandate (and even then focusing on the Jewish and Arab claims), and that any such discussion is out of place.

Another reason is that your claims are wrong, a flawed synthesis that conflates the entire mandatory territory with the area which was actually partitioned. To quote your own source: "Yet although the British and the French established indiginous governments in the other Class A Mandates in the region, THE BRITISH RULED PALESTINE DIRECTLY". Any suggestion to the contrary is counter-factual and without any reputable (or even quasi-reputable) support. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - " any such discussion is out of place" Odd. The Article is about the partition of a Palestine. The partition plan was put forward during the Mandate period. The status of Palestine and it's citizens Arab, Jewish et al during the Mandate period was the basis of the Arab States' legal argument, but the status of Palestine and it's citizens is out of place? Perhaps you mean too revealing?

in the other Class A Mandates in the region" Yes. One class A Mandate and the other Class A Mandates. Observe the construct of the English language, wherein punctuation plays an important role. Were it to have meant: 'the other class A Mandates in the region' were somehow different, it would have been written thus "in the other, Class A, Mandates in the region" thereby differentiating Palestine from 'the other, Class A, Mandates in the region'. But it doesn't say that.

"THE BRITISH RULED PALESTINE DIRECTLY". Any suggestion to the contrary" as I have not suggested otherwise, nor have the sources, what is your point? Honestly?

"One reason is that this article contains only the most cursory discussion ..." It would appear the reason is: any status afforded Palestine or Palestinians, even Palestinian citizenship granted Palestinian Jews during the Mandate period, is far too informative ... talknic (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - I've given what you asked for, provided Secondary Sources that counter your claims. You've provided only your opinion. The British administered Palestine under a Class A Mandate. All territories under a Class A Mandate were afforded provisional status. That Palestinian citizenship and the status of Palestine should not be included in an article about PALESTINE is bizarre ... talknic (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

War of extermination quote

I'm glad that the mystery of the original source of the "war of extermination" quote has finally been solved, and I agree with removing the Benny Morris citation questioning this. HOWEVER, the original source clearly demonstrates that this threat was NOT made on the eve of invasion, but rather many months prior. The article needs to be revised accordingly. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - "the original source clearly demonstrates " Uh? Of the sources cited to promote the notion

1) [15] Doesn't tell readers what they're supposed to be looking for in the Morris book, no page number, nothing. I suggest it be removed.

2) [16] leads to [17] "Yet this New York Times edition contains no such item, whereas the original al-Ahram report has yet to surface. Others cite a BBC broadcast as their source,[2] yet a comprehensive examination, completed by Efraim Karsh, of the corporation's archives in Reading, England, has found no evidence of this broadcast. Others, like the renowned American journalist, I. F. Stone, who covered the saga of Israel's birth as it unfolded, simply noted the threat without proper attribution" I suggest removing the source as it DOES NOT support the notion.

3)[18] shows readers NOTHING

4)[19] Cites information that cannot, according to [20] be confirmed at all.

5) [21] leads is to [22]

In all a desperate attempt to prove something which cannot be proven ... talknic (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, your worldview seems to be blinding you to such a degree that you no longer seem to be able to read anything about the Arab-Israeli conflict without substituting in your own views. For an example, I recommend that you reread [23]. The article precisely identifies the source of the quote, and contains an image of the paper in which it appears. Yet you claim to have read the article, and report that it contains no support for the quote. I don't doubt that you went to the article, and attempted to read it. But the result was an understanding of the article which is unsupportable except by the most extraordinarily selective reading of its text. Frankly, if your personal views are so strong that they result in this sort of misunderstanding, you should not be editing this part of Wikipedia. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky -- a BIG ooops on my part ... Interesting though, an editor makes an error in haste, based on the rather confusing beginning of the article, so they shouldn't be editing this part of Wikipedia. You of course, have never made any errors? How AMAZING! ... talknic (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first incident that has led me to question whether or not your temperament is well suited to be editing this corner of wikipedia. I think you have a particular legalistic view of what is "right" in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli situation and that your wikipedia activities have been almost exclusively focused on pushing this view, generally without the support of any other editors. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Having taken your advice and re-read. The newspaper article has ellipses at the end of every sentence. Which could lead one to believe more was said than was reported and perhaps the journalist was being less than ....

That the translation is by Karsh and unsubstantiated, i.e., only one opinion, amplified by the notion that the one statement was the attitude or expression of Arab 'leaders', raises the possibility it is simply propaganda

In respect to you post: On error, I've always retracted and apologized. I believe it is in good faith to do so and; despite my having been blocked, despite the moving goal posts of a few editors resulting in lengthy, often circular and sometimes bizarre arguments and; despite consensus by those same few editors to keep or prevent information, even going as far as to break with and mis-use WP:Policy, keeping contradictory statements, sources which are not WP:RS, there have been a number of changes to articles brought about by my being here. Thus far I have resisted the temptation to report anyone for what is now a very long list of indiscretions. Please, just address the topic. thx ... talknic (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore: It's worth considering that : if numerous references are given but they all lead back to the one source, then they don't substantiate the original viewpoint. They're merely repetition ... talknic (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

My general feeling is that the reactions section can, and should be better, but I will leave that to others. This may be an example of a topic which can not be accurately communicated simply by combining strongly pro-Palestinian views with strongly pro-Israeli views. The reality requires a certain measure of nuance. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just jumping in here, the source mentioned above has a few problems IMO, firstly it relies on a translation by Karsh (who was IIRC an Israeli propagandist), and it doesn't really clarify the meaning in the sense of who would be doing the exterminating and who (Zionists or Arabs) would be "exterminated". --Dailycare (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh, who as far as I know is still alive, is head of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King's College London. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with him. He does appear to have a definite point of view: Efraim Karsh

Fortunately he has provided us with a copy of the original newspaper. If he has made some sort of translating error, it is on public display. Jsolinsky (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There are still issues. See Azzam Pasha quotation for an independent translation and references. We shouldn't cite any sources that give the false version (unless we want to say that their version is wrong). We should also quote Azzam's whole sentence and mention the context in which he was reported as saying it. If you want to see a more complete analysis, visit here. I'll make edits shortly. About Karsh, unfortunately he is a "reliable source" by Wikipedia rules. He didn't solve this problem, though, you can see the real source here. Zero^talk 08:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So I made the change but there are a number of problems. That whole section of the article is about reactions to the UN partition resolution, but Azzam was interviewed about 6 weeks before the resolution. That means it simply doesn't fit, and would be sufficient reason to remove it. Another wikipedia-ish problem is that it all assumes the reliability of an Egyptian newspaper in 1947. Azzam didn't write the words there, it is just a report from a journalist who was famous for spicing up his articles to make them sexier. Zero^talk 08:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero, are you saying (in your original citation comments) that the original text is referring not to the Crusades and Mongol Invasions (which largely displaced and destroyed existing civilian populations), but to the subsequent Arab defeats of those invasions? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I worked on this question quite hard, with three independent translations by native speakers of which one is an Egyptian who consulted a professional translator. It isn't possible to tell whether "Mongol massacres" means "massacres by the Mongols" or "massacres of the Mongols", but it doesn't matter because it definitely does not say that the Arabs will behave like the Mongols did. What it says is that the Jews will be defeated like the Mongols were defeated. In Arab popular history, two key events of which Arabs are most proud are the defeats of two foreign invaders, the Crusaders and the Mongols. Azzam is referring to the Zionists as another example of a foreign invader whose defeat will be similarly remembered. I'm assured that every Arab of the time would have understood it that way without hesitation (and you'll notice that the 1961 Egyptian writer I quote at Azzam Pasha quotation took it that way too). Also the phrase "war of elimination" means a fight to the finish (until the enemy is utterly defeated); it is a boastful way of predicting a glorious victory and not a promise to kill babies. Zero^talk 14:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also used to assume it referred to Arabs doing massacres like the Mongols did, even though that didn't make sense because the Mongols mostly killed Arabs. When I put this interpretation to the translators, they didn't know what I was talking about and it took quite a while for me to realise that the way they understood the Arabic was completely different. The error is caused by reading an Arab pronouncement with Western preconceptions. To our mind the Mongols are known for their mind-boggling massacres, but to the Arab mind they are known as the terrible enemy which was defeated by the glorious Arab armies. Zero^talk 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This anecdotal evidence from your translator friends isn't permissible as WP:SYNTH. We have to go by what the Karsh source provides and not your own "independent translations". Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your tone is uncalled for. The newspaper says what it says. Any imputation of meaning beyond its actual contents must be done carefully. Please also note that Zero played a key role in finding the original article which Karsh has now provided his own translation of. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Plot Spoiler for revising his comment. Jsolinsky (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not SYNTH (or OR) to bring a foreign language source and strive to translate it correctly. It is good editing. Anyway, Karsh does not even address the question of exactly what the Arabic sentence means, he just brings the same ambiguous English as before. We can do better. Zero^talk 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Maps are really quite poor quality / also incorrect statements

A) Surely these low quality maps can be replaced with precise, better quality and more informative images (primary sources provided here as a guide for finding valid secondary sources) E.g.,

for the Partition Plan.

The Armistice lines (note the disclaimer bottom left) OR;

The Green line map - annexed to the Jordanian/Israel Armistice

Other maps at UNISPAL - maps

B) The current dialogue on the Armistice Demarcation Lines is quite simply, nonsense. Armistice Demarcation Lines do not change borders. In fact the Armistice Agreements specifically say;

Egypt/Israel - Article 4. 3. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice." [24]

Lebanon/Israel - Art 2. 2. "(a) The provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."[25]

Syria/Israel - Art 2. 2. "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations."[26]

Jordan/Israel - Art 2. "2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.[27]

Territory under military control is occupied according to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "[28]

I suggest the following legend for the current low quality map:

  Area assigned to a Jewish state;

    Area assigned to an Arab state;

    Corpus separatum of Jerusalem (neither Jewish nor Arab).

---

Armistice Demarcation Lines under the armistice of 1949:

  Israel

    Territory Under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation from 1949 to 1967;

    Territory under Israeli occupation from 1949 to 1967;

... talknic (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Images need to be copyright free in order to be used here. You can read about the issue at WP:COPYRIGHT.

The rest is your usual original research and interpretation of primary documents, so I'm not going to bother. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - As you didn't read the first sentence, why did you bother at all?

Copyright can be applied for thru [29]

BTW the current image and information [30] appears to be WP:OR ... talknic (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- I was doing the best that I could when I made File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png. It doesn't aspire to finely-detailed cartographic exactness, but it presents the basic parameters of 1947 vs. 1949 reasonably clearly. If you feel you can do better, then by all means, create your own image -- but upload it under a separate name (i.e. don't overwrite my image). Meanwhile, if the 1949-1950 armistice agreements did absolutely nothing to create any kind of borders, then that means that the 1923-1947 British mandate borders are still in force (since the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely-theoretical November 29th 1947 partition plan lines are of course completely irrelevant). AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "Whatever" WP:CIVIL

"when I made" = WP:OR "If you feel you can do better," ?? The referenced UN Maps in the suggestion are better, please read what you're answering to before answering.

"if the 1949-1950 armistice agreements did absolutely nothing to create any kind of borders" 'If' ?? The Armistice Agreements tell us the purpose of the Armistice Agreements. Again please read what you're answering to before answering.

"then that means that the 1923-1947 British mandate borders are still in force" As Israel has never legally annexed any territories and the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible, quite so, given that Israel was recognized and a UN Member state by 11th May 1949, BEFORE making its first claim to any other territories on 31st Aug 1949 [31]

Some six months after the Arab states rejected UNGA res 181, as was their right it being non-binding, Israel Declared Independent Statehood according to the legal conditions it contained, enshrining it in the Declaration[32] and;

on the 22nd May 1948 Provisional Government of Israel stated areas "outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard"[33] Note the date, before Israel's first claim to other territories on 31st Aug 1949 ... talknic (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's extremely pointless to attempt to chastise me for every expression of incredulity, especially when your record on more substantive issues is far from spotless. Frankly, you're the one creating unnecessary distractions to the flow of the discussion on the talk page (which is actually supposed to be about improving articles). Furthermore, there's no "Original Research" policy as such on Wikimedia Commons (as opposed to Wikipedia), since there would be no maps or illustrations on a large number of Wikipedia articles otherwise (i.e. exactly copying maps and illustrations in published sources would very often be a copyright violation, yet creating maps and illustrations which do not exactly appear in published sources necessarily implies some element of individual discretion and selectivity on the part of the image author). My image File:Shoelace knot.svg could be considered to involve a far larger element of original research than File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png, yet if you attempted to remove the shoelace knot illustration from the articles in which it appears, the regular editors of those articles would regard you as a vandal...

And if the British Mandate boundaries "went away" on May 14/15, 1948, yet the armistice declaration created no boundaries, then there are simply no boundaries at all in the area -- since of course the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely-theoretical November 29th 1947 partition plan lines remain completely legally irrelevant (despite your blatant flagrant pure personal Orginal Research interpretation of your favorite provisional battlefield communiqué). AnonMoos (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Please keep personal remarks to yourself. Pictures of shoelace knots, however interesting and I do appreciate the art of knots, is irrelevant. Improvement is exactly the topic. Primary sources in Talk are an asset to finding secondary sources that reflect them.

"if the British Mandate boundaries "went away" on May 14/15, 1948" The Mandate 'went away'. Israel was recognized before the Armistice agreements. In order to be an Independent State, Israel had to have defined territory over which it exercised control. [34]. The Provisional Israeli Government acknowledged Israel's boundaries May 22nd 1948 [35], it also acknowledged Palestine as being separate from Israel and having areas outside of the territory of the State of Israel under military control ... talknic (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between you and me on Wikipedia is that unlike you, I'm not a single-purpose account -- I edit and/or upload on diverse subjects on several Wikimedia projects. The case of File:Shoelace knot.svg is actually extremely relevant to properly understanding your pointless and meaningless accusations against File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png. When I was first laying out File:Shoelace knot.svg, I had a great deal of freedom -- I could have used many different graphic techniques and given the elements different orientations and proportions, and still come up with a useable illustration of a shoelace knot, even though the visual appearance could have been strikingly different from the actual image File:Shoelace knot.svg which I did come up with. By contrast, when I was laying out File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png, I had MUCH LESS freedom than I did with File:Shoelace knot.svg -- I was constrained by many factors, such as common cartographic conventions (North at top) and historical accuracy. The result is that if File:Shoelace knot.svg isn't too "original" to be useful as a Wikipedia article illustration, then by definition File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png isn't either.

Meanwhile, if you want to talk about the essence of Original Research, then your abstract theoretical metaphysical hypothetical speculative interpretations of documents like a provisional battlefield communiqué and the Israeli declaration of independence -- derived from nothing else other than your personal involuted navel-gazing contemplation and meditation -- are as original as it gets! AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Please stop your constant, repetitious, personal remarks and; refrain from sidelining the issue with your personal escapades ... talknic (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You're actually the one who generally "sidelines" the discussions... In any case, it remains true that you're a single-purpose account, and your accusations of "originality" against File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png are in fact really not too relevant to whether the image can be used in a Wikipedia article or not (whether you choose to acknowledge the fact or not). The map image which you've now uploaded is pretty much as "original" as my map image... AnonMoos (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- A) please refrain from personal comments. B) I have not made any accusations against the originality of the current map. C) The text of the Legend is not sourced. D) I haven't suggested the map I uploaded as a replacement ... talknic (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A) It's simply an objective fact that you're a single-purpose account (not a "personal affront"). However, I really wouldn't have bothered to mention the fact except that you seemed to disdain me for being "multipurpose"... B) Yes you did, in your message of "00:30, 22 October 2011", when you said "when I made = WP:OR". If you didn't mean it, then you really shouldn't have said it, because it launched a whole sub-thread which further distracted from the goal of discussing article improvements... C) So what? -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- A) "single-purpose account" irrelevant to the purpose of presenting a higher quality of information to readers in a niche interest. Shoelace knots is an irrelevant sideline to the topic.

B) WP:OR for the map itself, my apologies, I was un-aware at the time WikiMedia allows OR .. thanks for the heads up BTW. C) the text of the legend is WP:OR in Wikipedia, against your own criteria. D) Attempting to keep the present status is not discussing article improvements ... talknic (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, short brief phrases used as map captions really do not lend themselves to being footnoted. Such captions can be wrong or right, helpful or unhelpful, when used in combination with a particular map image and a particular Wikipedia article; however, a demand for footnotes borders on the absurd. If you think the captions are wrong or unhelpful, then by all means point this out; however, a demand that footnotes be added to Template:Partition_Plan-Armistice_Lines_comparison_map_legend is not very realistic, and really does nothing to resolve anything. -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "Such captions can be wrong or right" under which specific WP:guideline would that be? "If you think the captions are wrong or unhelpful, then by all means point this out" I did. ... talknic (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Your caption changes don't make too much sense -- in the caption "Arab territory from 1949 to 1967", the year 1967 is mentioned because that was when things changed; however, nothing changed for the light red and greyish areas in 1967. And as I've said before, either all of the Mandate was "occupied" in 1948-1949 (including Tel Aviv by Israel and Nablus by Transjordan) or none of it was occupied. Anyway, the place to discuss the wording of the centralized template is technically Template_talk:Partition_Plan-Armistice_Lines_comparison_map_legend... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Say it as many times as you like, there was no Mandate after May 14th 1948first line.

Tel Aviv was/is in Israel. States do not militarily occupy their own territory.

"in the caption "Arab territory from 1949 to 1967", the year 1967 is mentioned because that was when things changed;" I've not suggested changing the dates. Non-self Governing territory of Palestine was under the military control of (occupied) by the Arab states and non-self Governing territory of Palestine was under the military control of (occupied) by Israel. The Armistice Agreements did not change any borders.

I've left a note on the template page, referring to here ... talknic (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source (secondary, not your interpretation of primary sources) that says that "non-self Governing territory of Palestine was under the military control of (occupied) by Israel"? No source that doesn't need interpretation = not going into articles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - The dialogue you are quoting is a conversation with AnonMoos in the Talk page. It was politely put in response to his completely un-sourced assertions, which oddly enough you never challenge by the same criteria and; as it says at the top of this section, "(primary sources provided here as a guide for finding valid secondary sources)" Furthermore, I have previously pointed out other editors citing primary sources in Talk, to which you did not apply your criteria.

No where have I suggested putting the phrase "non-self Governing territory of Palestine was under the military control of (occupied) by Israel" in the legend.

I note you're not applying your criteria to the current text being A) WP:OR or B) being completely un-sourced or to entries un-sourced by consensus [36] ... talknic (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes you didn't use that exact phrase but you want to put your favorite theory in the legend. Since we all know you don't have a source for it, what reason could you possibly have for suggesting something you know nobody will agree to? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG -- A) Quite. I didn't. B) Accurate information remains the same. C) I don't have a source? I actually gave several in an earlier discussion. At this point you moved the goal posts off the field with this rather bizarre notion "The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people." As if the territory is prevented from moving by checkpoints, but the people aren't. Or perhaps you meant there were no people in the territories?

"what reason could you possibly have for suggesting something you know nobody will agree to?" More importantly, why would they who include un-sourced material in an article by consensus, do everything in their power to prevent the word 'occupied' from appearing anywhere? ... talknic (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder once again if you're joking, or trolling, or what. The source you provided above not only does not say that the areas between the partition plan lines and the armistice lines were "occupied" by Israel (it's obviously talking about post 1967 when referring to occupation), it specifically and quite clearly says that the 1949 armistice lines are Israel's "internationally recognized border". And this from Neve Gordon.

You have not once provided a secondary source that saysthe land between the armistice lines and the partition plan was occupied by Israel and that's why the word "occupied" will not appear in all the places you want to put it based purely on your original research. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - "joking, or trolling, or what" Actually I was pointing to the bizarre and nonsense notion "The problem is that the sources say that territories were occupied, not people." Quite funny. Now it seems you've read the source you're objection is at least substantial.

"the word "occupied" will not appear" Post Israeli Declaration - Shertock talking about what the US reaction would be .. "either they would have to approve these occupations..."page 38 ... Another Same book Page 46... The Official Gazette, No. 12, 2 August 1948 cites a Primary Source, the Israel Defence Forces Administration in Jerusalem Proclamation No. 1 ... talknic (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the map File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png is fine except for the imbalance of description of the post-1948 situation. In particular, West Jerusalem was not recognized as Israel any more than East Jerusalem was recognized as Jordan. I'm not sure of the best remedy, but one would be to use "controlled by Israel" in the same way as "controlled by Jordan and Egypt" is now. (We don't need "occupied".) Zero^talk 12:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Some parties (such as the Vatican) have always strongly wanted some form of international regime in Jerusalem, but ever since the 1950's, when the basic realities of the post-1949 situation had fully settled in, I don't know if this has been of great practical political importance in international relations. I labelled both the magenta area and the eastern green area as "controlled by Jordan from 1949-1967" because only a small handful of countries (some say the United Kingdom and Pakistan) ever formally de jure recognized Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank. However, I don't know that there was a significant number of countries which recognized and had diplomatic relations with Israel, yet placed any great priority on depriving it of West Jerusalem. I think "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines" is descriptive enough. Anyway, since the switchover to the SVG file, the operational wording on Wikipedia articles is now that of Template:Partition_Plan-Armistice_Lines_comparison_map_legend... AnonMoos (talk)

No, the reason hardly any countries sited their embassies in Jerusalem was precisely because Israeli sovereignty there was not recognized. Zero^talk 13:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Some countries actually did have their embassies in west Jerusalem, and then moved them to Tel Aviv after the post-6-day-war annexation. Other countries were probably influenced by the fact that it was obvious that Jerusalem would be on the front lines in any future war or instability and/or by a desire to avoid gratuitously offending Arab governments beyond what was involved in having diplomatic relations with Israel. In any case, the Vatican has been banging the drum for the internationalization of Jerusalem from the beginning continuously to the present, and some Latin American countries supported it down through the 1970s or so, but the practical importance of the internationalization of Jerusalem in international relations declined significantly during the 1950s -- as it sunk in that there was very little possibility of any major change without fighting another war -- and I don't see any truly valid reason for changing the map caption for West Jerusalem only... AnonMoos (talk)

AnonMoos - Recognition is not put to a vote. No countries have recognized Israel outside of the Partition boundaries or as Sovereign over any territories acquired by war by 1949 or 1967. Israel did not lay claim to any territories until after it was recognized, after it was recommended by the UNSC and after it became a UN Member State. By which time, Israel was bound to the UN Charter, under which non-self Governing territories such as Palestine, were and still are, under the protection of the UN Charter Chapt XI ... talknic (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It's really quite ridiculous to claim that the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely-theoretical 1947 partition plan lines have more validity than actually-implemented borders of many years standing both before and after 1948. If the Arabs wanted the 1947 partition plan lines to be be binding, then they knew exactly what they had to do -- i.e. agree to and accept UNGA 181 -- and they made a consciously and deliberate decision, with eyes fully open, NOT to do it. AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "It's really quite ridiculous...etc .. etc ... 1948" I've never made any such claim.

Israel's obligations to the UN Charter in its entirety, were and still are binding. Israel was bound to the UN Charter BEFORE ever claiming "other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria" [37] ... talknic (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Zero -- There are far more accurate and informative maps. Surely quality should be an aim? E.g., [38]

Controlled = Military Control [39]. Military control = occupation [40] ... talknic (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- File:Palestinian territories under military control of Israel Egypt and Jordan 1949.jpg could be considered good-quality if you download the entire 6 meg file and look at it at full resolution (and uploading the image was certainly a much more constructive move than many of your other semi-dubious activities). However, that image has features which would not make it too suitable for use on an article as a reduced-resolution thumbnail (and you seem to have left out Jaffa). AnonMoos (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, you have an area at the far northeastern corner of the West Bank colored in red, but that area should actually be colored in a different color, since it goes the other way -- assigned to the Jewish state under UNGA 181, but controlled by Jordan from 1949 to 1967. And leaving out the "corpus separatum" does not make it easier to understand the differences between the 1947 proposal and the 1949 armistice lines... AnonMoos (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- A) Please stop your personal affronts - B)I have not actually suggested the image be used in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

C) Corrected Nth East Cnr. Included Jaffa. Thx. D) Please address any future errors, thumbnail viability etc in WikiMedia. If you wish to collaborate there on instituting changes in order to provide readers with an accurate, fully informative maps, I'd be more than happy.

..corpus separatum.. Between the termination of the Mandate and 1949, only Israeli statehood had been established. (and by default, what was not Israeli). corpus separatum had not been instituted before or at the time of the Armistice Agreements. Jerusalem was still a part of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared & recognized, admitted to the UN & obliged to the UN Charter & had signed Armistice Agreements, before claiming any of the "other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria" [41]....Even after the '67 war the UNSC says "the Arab territories ... including Jerusalem"[42], [43].

The exclusion of corpus separatum from the map is now addressed in the description of the image at WikiMedia. The purpose of File:Palestinian territories under military control of Israel Egypt and Jordan 1949.jpg is as it's name and legend suggests, to show the difference between Israel and the Palestinian Arab territories held by Israel and the Arab States, under the Armistice agreements ... talknic (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, your map undeniably has certain positive qualities, and I appreciate the fact that you fixed some of the problems that I pointed out. However, there are a number of issues which prevent File:Palestinian territories under military control of Israel Egypt and Jordan 1949.jpg from being a good useful drop-in replacement for File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg at the present time. These include the graphics techniques used (overlaying an old dim faded map with areas of bright color), the fact that the map captions are not readable unless you download and view the full 6 megabyte file, and the fact that the "corpus separatum" was omitted, even though it was part of the 1947 plan (UNGA 181). Your map includes quite a bit of detail, but most of the details are not fully legible unless you download and view the full 6 megabyte file... AnonMoos (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Please read what you're answering to BEFORE answering : B)I have not actually suggested the image be used in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Please address issues with the image/captions etc to WikiMedia

The current map shows NO DETAIL going to the WikiMedia source shows NO DETAIL ... talknic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC).

If you're not proposing that it be used as a drop-in replacement for the PNG (now SVG), then I'm not too sure what its purpose is supposed to be, so I don't really know what to further advise you in order to improve it. In any case, I offered only cordial constructive criticism, but I'm not going to jump through your arbitrary bureaucratic hoops... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - It's purpose is delineated by it's name. Criticism of the image should be address at WikiMedia...thx. It is not the topic here. Please address the topic ... talknic (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've had great difficulty converting your non-caption related objections to File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png (and its related SVG) into terms I can understand, but if you're objecting to the fact that it's not finely cartographically detailed, then it was never intended to be finely cartographically detailed -- it was intended to show the overall contrast between the 1947 plan and the 1949 reality at a quick glance. In any case, fine cartographical detail would not show up at the resolution that the image is displayed at in Wikipedia articles, or on its image description page... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- I wonder why Wikipedia has a facility whereby people can click on the small images in an article and lo an behold, they get an enlargement, where it says (for example); Size of this preview: 206 × 598 pixels. Other resolutions: 82 × 240 pixels | 165 × 480 pixels | 206 × 600 pixels | 264 × 768 pixels | 352 × 1,024 pixels.

Regardless of who creates an image or how they created an image, in order to be fully informative, the more information the enlargement holds, the better. Whether your image had the intention of being finely cartographically detailed is not the point. The provision of detailed information is. That is the subject of the discussion ... talknic (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want my map to be more like your map, then your map has many details which do not seem to be fully legible unless you download the full 6-megabyte image and view it at full resolution, while my map is designed to be comprehensible at a glance when viewed as a 300-pixel-wide thumbnail in a Wikipedia article. Why can't my map be considered reasonably good for the purpose it was actually intended for, without it attempting to be something else? AnonMoos (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- An appropriate colour scheme can be applied to any highly detailed map so that it is, at a glance, equally comprehensible as a thumbnail. The reader can then enlarge it to reveal detailed information. The existing map, no matter who made it, has no detail

"Why can't my map be considered reasonably good for the purpose it was actually intended for, without it attempting to be something else?"

If the purpose was to just present thumbnails, Wikipedia and WikiMedia would not have a facility for showing enlargements. BUT THEY DO!

Why can't a highly detailed, quality map, coloured to be comprehensible as a thumbnail, be used to impart a wealth of information when enlarged, rather than scant information at any resolution? The aim is "article improvements" (15:09, 24 October 2011) ... talknic (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonmoos, you write in your comment (timestamp 09:36) above that it would be ridiculous to say that the Partition plan would have more validity than the subsequent armistice lines. However, e.g. professor Anthony D'Amato has written that "The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181" (source) and Francis Boyle agrees. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- however, Francis Boyle has at times been pretty much a paid advocacy employee of the PLO/PA, and his legal career seems to be marked by extravagant hyperbole, flamboyantly exaggerated rhetoric, and showboating grandstanding maneuvers such as filing for a court order to abolish the United States of America, so I would not necessarily treat anything he says as being greatly reliable. In any case, I would bet money that an actual lawyer advocating for that position would come up with something very different from Talknic's personalistic introspective speculations on a few highly-selectively-chosen primary source documents (something which has no place on the article...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- A) Please stop your un-necessary provocative harassment and false accusations B) I've not suggested any Primary Sources for the article... talknic (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- I'm giving a rough but reasonably accurate summary of your "work product" (as lawyers would say), not to mention that you're more obnoxious in your edit summaries than I am on the talk pages themselves. And you have in fact suggested very often that your personal interpretations of primary source documents should be not only included on Wikipedia articles, but be presented there as though supposedly authoritatively factual... AnonMoos (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- The record shows I've not suggested any Primary Sources for the article. Please stop making false accusations ... talknic (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the statements of the Legend: The current suggestion (19:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)) is only to change the information (statement) on the Legend. The legend template is in Wikipedia, not WikiMedia. It should accurately reflect the legal status of territories. [44] .. (numerous pages) ... [45] ... talknic (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The basic fact remains that both sides can more or less live with the current captions, but you want to replace them with far more problematic captions based on your original research personal interpretations of primary source documents... AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Noted your un-sourced opinion. The current information conveyed by the legend is is inaccurate according to the Secondary Sources I've cited ... talknic (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested legend: accurately representing the Armistice Agreements

  Area assigned to a Jewish state;

    Area assigned to an Arab state;

    Corpus separatum of Jerusalem (neither Jewish nor Arab).

---

Armistice Demarcation Lines under the armistice of 1949:

  Israel

    Occupied by Jordan and Egypt 1949 to 1967;

    Occupied by Israel 1949 to 1967

The sources are 1, 2 and 3 respectively ...talknic (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Talknic -- the idea of footnoting map captions is still really not too helpful, and the "occupied by Israel 1949 to 1967" thing is not only tendentious, but also stupid (since nothing changed in 1967 with respect to those lands, so why is 1967 even mentioned there at all??). AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Raw unformatted Google Books links would of course be unacceptable for inclusion or transclusion into Wikipedia articles -- some indication of author and title would have to be present... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Having incorrect information in Legends is not too helpful. Why did you mention 1967 only for the Arab states if not to promote a POV? Why have any 1967 at all? The article is not about 1967. The Armistice Agreements changed in 1967. Both 1949 & 1967 Armistice Agreements delineated only Armistice Demarcation Lines. Not borders. What is insisting on the inclusion of false information, if not tendentious?

BTW Who is suggesting raw unformatted Google Book links in the legend in the article. I gave the sources for convenience in Talk.

I'd be amenable to this, with a linked rationale on the Map page. It already says; Armistice Demarcation Lines under the armistice of 1949:

  Area assigned to a Jewish state;

    Area assigned to an Arab state;

    Corpus separatum of Jerusalem (neither Jewish nor Arab).

---

Armistice Demarcation Lines under the armistice of 1949:

  Israel

    Occupied by Jordan and Egypt

    Occupied by Israel

... talknic (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"1967" only needs to be mentioned for territories whose status or control changed after the year 1967 Anno Domini (MCMLXVII in Roman numerals). I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat this very basic point without your being able to grasp it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Article is not about after the 1967 Armistice agreements. Repeating nonsense makes it no more valid ... talknic (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The real "nonsense" is your monotonously tediously tiresome insistence that the never-implemented Arab-rejected, purely theoretical, speculative and hypothetical 11/29/1947 partition-proposal lines are somehow supposedly more important or real than the 1923-1948 British Mandate borders (which were actually implemented for 25 years or more, and still form the basis of the Israeli-Egyptian, Jordanian-Israeli, and Israeli-Lebanese borders today). The status of the green and magenta areas on the map changed after June 1967, while the status of the light red and grayish areas DIDN'T change after June 1967, which makes your attempt to apply mechanistic uniform formulas unfortunately rather meaningless... AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Mandate ended May 14th 1948. Israel was an already recognized Independent Sovereign State by 1949. The Armistice Demarcation Lines did not change any borders. The Armistice AGREEMENTS, i.e., Israel AGREED to the wording, specifically saying;

Egypt/Israel - Article 4. 3. "It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice." [46]

Lebanon/Israel - Art 2. 2. "(a) The provisions of this agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations."[47]

Syria/Israel - Art 2. 2. "It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military and not by political considerations."[48]

Jordan/Israel - Art 2. "2. It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.[49]

Territory under military control is occupied according to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. "[50]

Please try discussing without the continuous un-sourced, un-necessary, irrelevant & personal dialogue ... talknic (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire discussion (and am somewhat impressed that it has gone on this long) but I'm going to chime in anyway. I would think that the following is a general principle: Everything else being equal, when there are multiple ways of expressing something, at least one of which is controversial, a way which is not controversial should be strongly preferred. For example, my recent edit of the intro included language that implied that Palestine is not presently a state. Most people would agree that Palestine is not presently a state, but some might disagree (and the level of disagreement is likely to increase as additional steps towards statehood occur). I therefore edited my own language to eliminate this presumption. By eliminating it, I did not imply the opposite (that Palestine IS a state), I merely remained silent on the issue. Saying that Israel is occupying (or has occupied) Palestinian territory is plainly controversial. It may be true. The degree to which it is true may vary based on the specific piece of territory that is being discussed. But however you interpret the facts, use of the word "occupy" is an active source of controversy. If there is a way that we can label the map without using the word "occupy", while still communicating the same information, that way should be preferred. The present legend appears to achieve this, so there ought to be some very compelling and very relevant reason for us to add the word occupy to the legend before we actually do so. Jsolinsky (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Noted your self congratulatory rant. Palestine was a Provisional State as of 1920 according to the League of Nations Convenant: Article 22. Part I. (4th paragraph) It was confirmed by the Mandate for Palestine in 1922, (first line). That status has never been rescinded over what remains of Palestine since Jordanian and Israeli Independence.

By Dec 1948 Israel was recognized by 52 UN Member States of the 79 who were Members at the time = 66% .... Today Palestine has been recognized by 127 of the current UN Member States = 66%

The present legend: refers to the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The legend depicting Israel's territories under the '49 Armistice Agreements does not accurately reflect the Agreements. I have already linked to "very compelling and very relevant reason"s for using the word occupy. The text of the Agreements and Secondary Sources that accurately reflect the text of the Agreements, show the legend to be false. Knowingly perpetuating a falsehood, especially after having been shown the text of the Agreements, is NOT in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia ... talknic (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not "impressed", since I've been pointing out for at least a year now that abstract metaphysical hypothetical speculative philosophico-legal interpretive exegesis of the November 29th 1947 UN partition plan proposal leads to hundreds of thousands of bytes of somewhat repetitive and redundant Wikipedia talk page discussions, without ever resulting in the significant improvement of even one single Wikipedia article -- and I predicted to Talknic over six months ago that this would turn out to be the exact result of the current round (just call me "Nostradamus"!). I've also pointed out several times recently that in 1948-1949, either ALL of the British Mandate territory was "occupied" (including Tel Aviv by the Israelis and Nablus by the Arabs) or NONE of it was "occupied" (so that the particular tendentious distinctions which Talknic seeks to impose are unsupported and not useful). You're the second other person to point out that "occupied" is not useful in this context (see Zero0000 above on "12:04, 22 October 2011"), but this won't have the slightest effect on Talknic... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Noted - repetitive un-sourced, meaningless, 1108 character, rant. BTW There was no Mandate after May 14th 1948, certainly not by 1949 and; Tel Aviv was sovereign to Israel. Sovereigns do not have their own territory under military occupation ... talknic (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- your snarky commentary and meaningless "personal affronts" do absolutely nothing to change the fact that it's ridiculous to try to claim that the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely-theoretical November 29th 1947 partition plan lines are somehow supposedly more important or real than the 1923-1948 British Mandate borders (which were actually implemented for 25 years or more, and still form the basis of the Israeli-Egyptian, Jordanian-Israeli, and Israeli-Lebanese borders today). AnonMoos (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Noted - personal comments - false accusation (not my claim) - Mandate ended May 14th 1948 ... talknic (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I like to think that the intro is better now than it was before I started editing. The same goes for the (renamed) legal basis for Palestinian Statehood section. I have similar hopes for other sections once I have time. Controversy and long discussions are inevitable in this part of the wiki. But they do not foreclose improvement, especially not when participants follow existing wiki policies. Maybe it slows things down, but that seems to be a tolerable tradeoff Jsolinsky (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - What you'd "like to think" does not accurately convey the meaning of the resolution. The purposeful retention of inaccuracies, even by consensus, is against the principles of Wikipedia ... talknic (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, you can improve your understanding of Wikipedia by reading its policies. Here is a good place to start: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I realize that at times good faith has been lacking in this corner of Wikipedia, but while I have my own opinions, my goal is a quality article full stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolinsky (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - You have been shown the actual wording of the resolution. It DOES NOT say what ever it is you're trying to push. After having been shown this you continue to push an unsupported POV ... talknic (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

SUMMARY FOR THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE LEGEND : The Armistice Agreements, all signed by Israel, have been shown to say "Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations" ... and ... "it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. " Secondary Sources are required to accurately represent the Armistice Agreements.

Thus far here in Talk, there have been no arguments against the proposal, citing verifiable Secondary or Primary Sources accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements.

Failing any accurate and verifiable sources, I suggest the change be made to the Legend, accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements

  Area assigned to a Jewish state;

    Area assigned to an Arab state;

    Corpus separatum of Jerusalem (neither Jewish nor Arab).

---

Armistice Demarcation Lines under the armistice of 1949:

  Israel

    Occupied by Jordan and Egypt

    Occupied by Israel

... talknic (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Same objection I had the numerous times you brought this issue up in the past. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

NMMNG - you have not voiced any valid objections here. Shertock was speaking of the US reaction to territories Israel already occupied ... talknic (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor making the statement. Thus far, there has been no accurate Secondary Sourced evidence for the existing legend based on the Armistice Agreements it's supposed to represent. It has been shown above, all of the Armistice Agreements stated: " the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations". Can we please move forward ? ... talknic (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- The idea of footnoted map captions is faintly ridiculous (as explained before), and your tendentious manipulations of the word "occupied" have not been found to be helpful by anybody here. AnonMoos (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Odd ... the last compromise put forward has LESS foot notes than the existing. B) Under Military Control is 'occupied' [51] ... talknic (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is Beersheba more "occupied" than Tel-Aviv? Why is Tel-Aviv less "occupied" than Nablus or Etzion? Unfortunately you haven't been able to give any answer to these conundrums which doesn't rely on extended personal interpretation (i.e. Original Research and Synthesis) on your part... AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Uh huh. Beersheba wasn't a part of Israel when Israel asked to be recognized, Tel-Aviv was [52] ... talknic (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There you go yet again with your perpetual claim that the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely-theoretical 1947 partition plan lines somehow have more validity and importance than the British mandate borders which were actually implemented on the ground for 25 years (even longer in the case of the Egypt-Palestine border), and still form the main basis for the Israeli-Egyptian, Lebanese-Israeli, and Israeli-Jordanian borders even today. My patience with this nonsense is pretty much entirely exhausted, and it would be useless for me to even pretend to take it seriously at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- Noted your un-sourced opinion and; this "the never-implemented Arab-rejected purely-theoretical 1947 partition plan lines" is not my claim.

The Provisional Government pleaded to the International Community of Nations for recognition. The US and other countries did as the Provisional Israeli Government asked. Israel was recognized, as asked, BEFORE the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

BTW there were NEVER British mandate borders between what became Israel and what remained of Palestine ... talknic (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

MAP - Addressing copyright concerns of 20:37, 21 October 2011(No More Mr Nice Guy) - Permission received from the Geographic Information Officer (GIO), Geospatial Support Unit, Cartographic Section, Special Support Service (SSS)/ Logistics Support Division (LSD), Department of Field Support (DFS), United Nations[53] (thx to AnonMoos for contribution) ... talknic (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, your habit of "touching" article sections to keep them from being archived is sometimes not very useful. In any case, my concerns were never with the copyright -- but rather with the omission of the corpus separatum of Jerusalem, and the fact that the image would not display very well as a 300-pixel wide thumbnail within an article. My map may be a whole lot less detailed, and have certain drawbacks, but it was pretty much specifically designed for the purpose of being displayed as a 300-pixel wide thumbnail... AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "your habit of "touching" article sections to keep them from being archived is sometimes not very useful." Irrelevant. "my concerns were never with the copyright" are you No More Mr Nice Guy? "the omission of the corpus separatum of Jerusalem" The map is NOT of the partition plan. corpus separatum has never been instituted. Read the rationale on the Map page in Wikimedia.

the fact that the image would not display very well as a 300-pixel wide thumbnail within an article" I see ...

  Recognized as Israel by May 1949
  Occupied by Egypt Feb 1949/Jordan Apr 1949
  Occupied by Israel Feb/Apr 1949

... talknic (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not quite sure how to get the pic to align here ... talknic (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The corpus separatum of Jerusalem was part of the partition plan, and it was just as much implemented or "instituted" as were all the other features of the partition plan (i.e. not at all), so you can't usefully compare the November 1947 partition plan with the 1949 armistice lines without including it. If your map is not really about the November 1947 partition plan as such (but about something else tangentially connected with it), then it doesn't really belong on this article. If your omission of the corpus separatum is so that you don't have to show that the Arabs in fact "occupied" significantly more than was allocated to them (i.e. the magenta area on File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png / File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg), then that's a rather transparent and shallow artifice.

As for the visual appearance of your map, it's OK for what it is -- but what it is is a scan of an old dim faded paper map with areas of bright color superimposed, and most details not fully readable unless the full very large image is downloaded. As such, it's less clear at a small resolution than an image which was specifically designed to be used in articles... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- There is already a Partition Map in the Lede. You haven't noticed?

"most details not fully readable unless the full very large image is downloaded." There is a facility included in Wikimedia and Wikipedia to download a full sized image. I wonder why Wikipedia and WikiMedia included such a facility?

"As such, it's less clear at a small resolution than an image which was specifically designed to be used in articles" It provides as much information scaled down as does the existing map and is capable of providing much more information when the larger parent image is downloaded. Providing TWO services for readers wishing to know more detail ... 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of my map is to compare the partition plan -- in full, all of it -- to the 1949 armistice lines. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of your map is, but it seems to be a little different...

The automatic image resizing facility in the Wikimedia software can certainly be convenient, but it doesn't do miracles -- like transforming one basic kind of image into a rather different image type...

P.S. Looking at your image again, it seems that all of the no-man's-land surrounding the Latrun Salient has been colored red, which is not accurate. AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "to the 1949 armistice lines" For a start the Armistice Lines were not the borders of Israel. So please address the issues with Legend before it mis-informs more readers, unless of course that is your intention.

"I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of your map is" You've been arguing all this time without reading the suggested legend? WOW!!

"it doesn't do miracles -- like transforming one basic kind of image into a rather different image type" who is asking it to and what relevance does it have?

Re - no-man's-land A) Thx for collaborating. B) What source do you recommend in order to include no-man's-land? C) BTW the current map doesn't show no-man's-land. I haven't heard you complaining ... talknic (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Paragraph 1: Nothing worth responding to.

Re Paragraph 2: If informing Wikipedia readers of the purpose of your map involves them having to click a thumbnail to go to a separate image description page, and downloading a 6-megabyte file from there, then most of them will remain uninformed.

Re Paragraph 3: Whatever -- as clearly explained previously, Wikimedia automated image resizing (useful as it may be in some ways), can't magically transform a map most of whose details are not legible except at a very high resolution into a map which was designed from the beginning to be comprehensible at a glance when displayed as a thumbnail in a Wikipedia article. Your previous implications that Wikimedia automated image resizing has such powers are therefore false.

Re Paragraph 4: My map is quite a bit less detailed than yours, and sort of fudges the issue of the Latrun Salient no-man's-land. There's no absolute obligation that your map should show the no-man's-land -- however, you have chosen to to highlight one particular area in bright fire-engine red, and if you want to have your map be accurate, then the red area should not extend beyond its legitimate limits (as is the case when all of the Latrun Salient no-man's-land is painted red)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Your map also appears to show a sharp angle to the west of Beersheba which is not on other maps... AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - "Nothing worth responding to"Uh? You 're making the claim that Armistice Lines are the borders of Israel. The onus is on you to substantiate your claims

"most of them will remain uninformed" with the existing map in the article they remain worse than uninformed even if they do look at the enlargement. It falsely claims Armistice Demarcation Lines are the borders of Israel. Having a larger, more detailed map affords readers the ability to be MORE informed if they wish and it accurately conveys the 'meaning of' the Armistice Agreements, i.e., Armistice Demarcation Lines are not borders

"Your previous implications that Wikimedia automated image resizing has such powers are therefore false." The record shows I didn't make any such previous implications. I suggest you refrain from making any more false accusations, good faith only goes so far

"My map is quite a bit less detailed than yours, and sort of fudges the issue of the Latrun Salient no-man's-land." so fix it and while you're at it; the falsely claimed borders and; the Legend

Re - no-man's-land - You're answering to a post wherein I have already agreed to rectify the issue. As I said before, good faith only goes so far

"if you want to have your map be accurate, then the red area should not extend beyond its legitimate limits" I have already AGREED to alter it to include no-man's land. Meanwhile the existing map and legend in the Article DOES NOT accurately reflect Israel after the Armistice Agreements and viewing it enlarged affords readers no further information should they click on it to see if there is further information

"a sharp angle to the west of Beersheba which is not on other maps." I've followed the wording of the Partition Resolution as best I can. Criticism is welcome if it improves the quality of information ... go ahead.... talknic (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- Your claim about borders is nonsensical gibberish, and I have very little idea what you think you're talking about. All it says is "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines", and I don't know (and don't care to know) how you try to twist some different meaning out of that phrase. In any case (just as with the 1947 partition lines), the Arabs have treated the 1949 armistice lines inconsistently over time, sometimes claiming that they were legally completely null and void, and sometimes investing them with great significance and meaning -- depending on changing events and the fluctuating propaganda needs of the moment....

Re: Latrun Salient no-man's-land -- This is fudged on my map because otherwise it would be fussy and distracting when the image is displayed as a 300-pixel-wide thumbnail. I have no intention of "fixing" my map, because the purpose of my map is to quickly and comprehensibly display the overall situation of 1947 vs. 1949 at a glance when the image is displayed as a thumbnail in an article. My map should be serviceable and reasonably accurate at its chosen level of detail, but getting bogged down in small-scale technicalities would be fairly pointless. However, I've now added some further caveats/disclaimers to both the image description pages File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png and File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg (which maybe I should have done before)...

I'm not in fact telling you to include the no-man's land on your map (something which I don't have a very strong opinion about), just that the red area is currently inaccurate...

The sharp angle west of Beersheba is not included on maps such as http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif linked by Jsolinsky below. AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- "Your claim about borders is nonsensical gibberish" Supported on the image page under Rationale, by Primary Sources (Secondary Sources are not required at WikiMedia) ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever -- It says "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines"; it doesn't say anything about borders. I don't know what feats of acrobatic hermeneutical exegetics you perform to change "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines" into something about borders, and I really don't care to know, since it's absolutely irrelevant to improvement of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which is what this talk page is supposed to be for... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Was finally able to understand that Talknic had a somewhat legitimate complaint on one specific issue (though Talknic's comments provided very little help in narrowing the problem to concrete specifics). AnonMoos (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Israel within the 1949 armistice lines" Israel is where Israel has always been. Quite different from territory it acquired by war and occupied and has never been legally annexed to Israel. ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, WHY WHY WHY do you always repetitively come back to your theory that the never-implemented Arab-rejected, purely theoretical, speculative and hypothetical November 29th 1947 partition-proposal lines are somehow supposedly more valid or important than the 1923-1948 British Mandate borders (which were actually implemented on the ground for 25 years or more, and still form the main basis of the Israeli-Egyptian, Jordanian-Israeli, and Israeli-Lebanese borders even today)???????????? I'm heartily sick and tired of this nonsense by now (and I imagine others are too), and as I've said before, I'm done even pretending to take it seriously. AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- " November 29th 1947 partition-proposal lines" I didn't mention them. You appear to be a liar. "the 1923-1948 British Mandate borders " The Armistice Agreements don't mention any British Mandate borders. Maybe because there were none in 1949, as the Mandate for Palestine expired May 14th 1948 ... talknic (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"This is fudged on my map because otherwise it would be fussy and distracting " All but invisible actually. ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Anything that would require the introduction of yet a sixth or seventh map color into the map and/or introduce features into the map that would look like small indeterminate smudges in a 300-pixel wide thumbnail view (i.e. that would not convey any useful information at that size) is not useful for the purposes served by the map. That's why I don't include the small area at the northeast of the West Bank (which would be "Arab-occupied Israel" according to you), and don't show the Latrun Salient no-man's-land separately... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not in fact telling you to include the no-man's land on your map ... just that the red area is currently inaccurate" Make up your mind, it's one or the other. I did agree to compromise in good faith. I see none on your part... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Whatever -- feel free to include the Latrun Salient no-man's-land on your map if you want, but I didn't ask you to do so. I only pointed out that coloring all of the Latrun Salient no-man's-land bright red is inaccurate... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW 'at a glance', the map image I'm suggesting is quite readable reduced to 150px wide in the article. It can have an accompanying, coded Legend a la the current coded Legend. If readers choose to enlarge to full size, they can read the legend in the image. It serves every purpose of the current map and MORE ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

As I've said before, the Wikimedia automated image resizing (useful as it may be in some ways), can't magically transform a map most of whose details are not legible except at a very high resolution into a map which was designed from the beginning to be comprehensible at a glance when displayed as a thumbnail in a Wikipedia article. AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of a coded legend? There are numerous examples in this discussion ... talknic (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"The sharp angle west of Beersheba" Read the Partition plan, follow a detailed map. There is a very well described sharp angle. ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If there's a discrepancy between the official maps and the official text of the resolution, then you and Jsolinsky know more about that than I do. However, my map follows the other maps... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos - Follow a map that is wrong and t=you will likely to end up with a map that is wrong ... talknic (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, the map that was part of the resolution, and the description in the resolution are inconsistent. It is probably not a coincidence that the three most obvious instances of this are: Jaffa, Beersheba, and the southern dead sea. All three of these were subjected to last minute adjustments. (And in all three cases, the map likes curves whereas the description likes points. Is the description describing the map, or is the map a rendering of the description?)

You could say that Resolution 181 is internally inconsistent, but it would be fairer to say that the borders in resolution 181 had not been finalized. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky -- "the description in the resolution are inconsistent" the description hasn't changed since the last draft of the resolution was passed, it included the last minute adjustments. The gif map is a rough representation

As it says in the Rationale on the image page for the suggested replacement map at WikiMedia, the map follows the description, (to the best of my ability, which is why I welcomed criticism and will update accordingly. In good faith / the spirit of Wikipedia)

"it would be fairer to say that the borders in resolution 181 had not been finalized" It would be, to quote NMMNG, "bullshit". The final draft was the only final draft (Nov 1947) and it was accepted by the Jewish People's Council, without any registered reservation, some six months later on May 14th 1948 ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, you probably want to avoid hard-coding a legend into any map you create. Its not likely to be legible in the main article, and hard coding will prevent editors from changing it. I assume that the map is also a work in progress, and not (yet) believed to be an accurate representation of either of the two sets of areas (partition plan and armistice) which it is intended to represent. The lack of no-mans land from the current map isn't a problem, because at that level of resolution it doesn't make sense to show it (too small). The same is true for numerous other geographic features. If you make a map at a much higher level of resolution, it needs to adhere to a much higher degree of geographic precision. You'll notice that the actual partition map is based on the same original map as your is, but was deliberately drawn to lower precision, with fewer features showing (a decision which greatly improves legibility in my opinion): http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif Jsolinsky (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky -- Odd...The current legend is already hard coded. Complaints from you? NIL!! Suddenly you're interested. Address the issue to AnonMoos, otherwise good faith might be rather hard to maintain.

"The lack of no-mans land from the current map isn't a problem, because at that level of resolution it doesn't make sense to show it (too small)." It isn't on the enlargement of the current map either. Complaints from you ? NIL!!

"You'll notice that the actual partition map " This discussion isn't about the Partition map.

"..with fewer features showing (a decision which greatly improves legibility in my opinion)" improves legibility at that size, but it does not improve the quality of information at that size.

Never the less, why not use it instead of the even lower quality map currently in use for the partition boundaries? It is in the public domain ... talknic (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The article presently uses a map which does not have a hard coded legend. This has allowed the editors to discuss what the legend should say. This also ensures that the legend is highly legible, both of which are good things. I probably would prefer that all maps on wikipedia use soft coded legends. Compare the legibility of the text in the first map in the article to the soft coded map that compares partition to armistice. The text in the hard coded maps is much harder to read. My assumption is that the hard coded maps exist because they were not originally created for Wikipedia, but were instead borrowed from other sources, and already had a legend attached.

The map which is presently used actually does a very good job of illustrating the desired information (comparing who controlled what after the war to the partition plan).

I think that a detailed map which precisely identifies which territory was supposed to belong to which entity would be an interesting project. This discussion has made me aware, for example, that the map which the General Assembly passed is inconsistent with the text of the resolution it passed. This is partially explained by the fact that the borders were never finalized. Still it is interesting. I had always assumed that the partition plan was precisely defined and precisely illustrated in the more popular maps. This seems to have been an unreasonable assumption.

I spoke up now because I had the suspicion that you were working on this map because you believed that once completed it would give you effective control over the legend, which you had previously objected to. I wouldn't want you to complete your project, and only then realize that this is not the case.

The best choice of graphic, and the best choice of legend are separate issues. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky -- "The article presently uses a map which does not have a hard coded legend" 'hard code/soft code'? The Legend to the map mentioning the Armistice lines in the article now, (not the Partition Map), is all code, all changeable, colour and/or text. The Partition Map and Legend (1st in the article/not the map with the legend questioned here) is all graphic. It could be changed, as could the map, to provide much more detail. However in both cases, in a very detailed enlarged map it's best to have the legend included in the image.

"The map which is presently used actually does... " not afford the reader an opportunity to view more detailed information should they seek it by clicking on the thumb. The suggested map is as readable as he article as the present map in the article and; it is true to the 'meaning of' the Armistice Agreements. The map presently used, is not true to the Armistice Agreements it's supposed to represent. It is the minority opinion of Israel and those who push that minority POV

"..the map which the General Assembly passed is inconsistent with the text of the resolution it passed..." The final 'resolution' was passed. The original survey maps, which are usually huge, are not available in high resolution as best as I have been able to ascertain. Here for example is a map of just the Jerusalem area [54], no doubt a fraction of the size of the original for that area alone. Imagine such a map if you will for the entire partition area. A very large table or wall full.

"This is partially explained by the fact that the borders were never finalized." Again, to quote NMMNG "bullshit". The final draft of UNGA res 181 was passed in 1947. It detailed the boundaries between the proposed Jewish state and the proposed Arab state. The Jewish People's Council accepted UNGA Res 181 in total without registering objection. Israel was declared May 15th 1948 and recognized in 1948, before ever claiming any territory in 1949, some months after becoming a UN Member State, after the agreeing to the Armistice Agreements, which all say The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice." Only Israel claims its borders were never finalized. It is actually a minority opinion.

"..the suspicion that you were working on this map because you believed that once completed it would give you effective control over the legend" Uh? The Armistice Agreements are the definitive documents for the Legend. In Wikipedia, the onus is on the editor to prove their claims with secondary sources. If AnonMoos can find a Secondary Source accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements, at the same time disagreeing with the Armistice Agreements, I'll have no complaint ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talknic -- the PNG had hard-coded legends, but the SVG doesn't, and the SVG is what's currently being used on English Wikipedia. In any case, the map legends in File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.png are of such a size that they were reasonably legible when the image was displayed as a 300-pixel wide thumbnail, whereas the captions in your image are unreadable unless the image is viewed at high resolution... AnonMoos (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos -- PNG? Other than to divert and waste time, why on earth are you now talking about something which is not being used and not presently being suggested?

The Legend for SVG has a Legend which is ALL code, can be edited separately, colours and/or text. I already know. I've copied and adapted the code here in Talk.

"whereas the captions in your image are unreadable unless the image is viewed at high resolution" Yes, they're for the enlarged image. In the Article a separate all code Legend can be supplied a la the present all code legend.

On the image page for the suggested detailed map residing in WikiMedia it provides a set of suggested legend images which editors outside of Wikipedia might use. There is also an all code method suggested for Wikipedia ... talknic (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know why you sometimes choose to pointlessly quibble over tangential issues, apparently just for the sake of prolonging a discussion. The PNG is not currently used in the article, but it was used in the article for many months, and it has the kind of in-image captions which remain useful when the image is thumbnailed at a reasonable size, while your image doesn't have them. AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos "prolonging a discussion" Uh? It's about conveying RS information.

"The PNG is not currently used in the article" So why are you talking about it? I have provided code for Wikipedia it can be included anywhere the map appears. Please read the comments you answer to. Oh and drop the bizarre personal comments thx ... talknic (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally was able to understand that there was one legitimate issue amid all the verbiage

Just now figured out (somewhat accidentally) that Talknic had a legitimate complaint, in that the word "borders" occurred on Template:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend, and so changed the word "borders" to "boundaries" accordingly. I kept looking at the text on File:1947-UN-Partition-Plan-1949-Armistice-Comparison.svg and the text next to the color boxes on template, and overlooked the bold text on the template; and Talknic's own comments -- where many issues and accusations (some quite dubious) were all jumbled together -- did very little to particular issue in a clear and specific way (otherwise this particular minor issue might have been resolved six weeks ago). AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

They're actually Armistice Demarcation Lines. Changing neither Borders or Boundaries. BTW cease your perpetual personal remarks thx ...talknic (talk)

"..single out this particular issue in a clear and specific way (otherwise this particular minor issue might have been resolved six weeks ago)" ...when I first mentioned it? and; You still haven't got it right BTW

Egypt Israeli Armistice Agreement [55]Article IV 3. "It is further recognized that rights, claims or interests of a non-military character in the area of Palestine covered by this Agreement may be asserted by either Party, and that these, by mutual agreement being excluded from the Armistice negotiations, shall be, at the discretion of the Parties, the subject of later settlement. It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice"

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question" and ""

Lebanon Israel Armistice Agreement [56] "Article V 1. The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine" Not 'Mandate Palestine' BTW.

Hashemite Jordanian Kingdom Israel Armistice Agreement [57] "Article IV 1. The lines described in articles V and VI of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Lines and are delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948. 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Lines is to delineate the lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move. 3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI." 3. is especially interesting. Israel agreed in the Armistice Agreement that Israelis would not be allowed into Jordanian held territory. Likewise Article IV 3. in the ;

Syria Israel Armistice Agreement [58] "ARTICLE IV 1. The line described in Article V of this Agreement shall be designated as the Armistice Demarcation Line and is delineated in pursuance of the purpose and intent of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948. 2. The basic purpose of the Armistice Demarcation Line is to delineate the line beyond which the armed forces of the respective Parties shall not move. 3. Rules and regulations of the armed forces of the Parties, which prohibit civilians from crossing the fighting lines or entering the area between the lines, shall remain in effect after the signing of this Agreement with application to the Armistice Demarcation Line defined in Article V, subject to the provisions of paragraph 5 of that Article. ARTICLE V 1. It is emphasized that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarized Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement. 2. In pursuance of the spirit of the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948, the Armistice Demarcation Line and the demilitarized Zone have been defined with a view toward separating the armed forces of the two Parties in such manner as to minimize the possibility of friction and incident, while providing for the gradual restoration of normal civilian life in the area of the Demilitarized Zone, without prejudice to the ultimate settlement. 3. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall be as delineated on the map attached to this Agreement as Annex I. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow a line midway between the existing truce lines, as certified by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization for the Israeli and Syrian forces. Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line" Doesn't say Mandate Palestine

When you can find a Secondary Source accurately reflecting the Armistice Agreements, you might have a point. Until such time ... talknic (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)