Jump to content

Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

[edit]

Original: After Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War, the Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988.[citation needed]

Suggestion: Include this citation: https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/02/01/jordan-stop-withdrawing-nationality-palestinian-origin-citizens#:~:text=In%201988%2C%20however%2C%20King%20Hussein,West%20Bank%20at%20the%20time. HeloPait (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This sentence is not in the article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the source is: "In 1988, however, King Hussein severed Jordan's legal and administrative ties to the West Bank, relinquishing claims to sovereignty there and withdrawing Jordanian nationality from all Palestinians who resided in the West Bank at the time."
The sentence in the Wikipedia article paraphrases it. HeloPait (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

[edit]

In the section titled End of the first phase missing one occurrence of the word injured (fifth paragraph).

Original: the Jordanian Arab Legion had 300 of its men killed and 400–500 (including irregulars and Palestinian volunteers fighting under the Jordanians);

Suggestion: the Jordanian Arab Legion had 300 of its men killed and 400–500 injured (including irregulars and Palestinian volunteers fighting under the Jordanians); — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclaytong (talkcontribs) 07:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✅ Done. Thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image(s)

[edit]

What is the reason for this revert, @Snowstormfigorion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is I don't see that there's a reason for placing a collage in the infobox; the images are identical in purpose of demonstration and sentiment to the ones in the body, which, per MOS:PERTINENCE, are much ample and number 40+ and include multiple galleries. One of the images in the collage, albeit slightly cropped, is already used in the body. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowstormfigorion: For me, I don't see a reason to place an exclusively Israeli picture in the infobox. We can either replace it with a more neutral picture or use a collage. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not meant to portray one side over the other; rather, it merely captures a pivotal moment in the conflict. As for the collage, as per the above, I don't see that there's a need for whatsoever given that the article is ladened with images and galleries/collages in the body. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is multiple images not superior to a single image? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the above; the number of images used in the infobox by itself is impertinent. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of images used in the infobox by itself is impertinent"? Then why have you reverted my edit? This doesn't make sense. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impertinent as in simply more images are not "superior" to less and vice versa; again, see the above for why a collage in the infobox is redundant in the case of this article, which further applies to 1948 Palestine war. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your opinion is that it doesn't matter either way whether we use one or multiple images? Myself and seemingly Makeandtoss prefer multiple images so why not go with that? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not how this works, we don't merely go by opinions or preference; I've presented based on policy why a collage in the articles(s) is not needed, unless you're willing to refute this in a parallel manner a notion alone does not constitute a counterargument. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can I refute that "a college in the articles(s) is not needed"? Obviously it isn't needed but the question is is it preferable. I and another prefer it. You oppose it. I think we'll need more input from others. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not needed and "obviously" so, it's WP:NONCONSTRUCTIVE. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]