Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight/Archive 3

message: In another section of the discussion I saw people start talking about a restructuring of the article. The sturcture right now is indeed liable to improvement. However, I don't think we can save much space though, so we'd still end up with a long article. Therefore I think forking of is still a good idea (of course adequate summaries should stay in the article):
* 'Role of Arab leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (EoF section)
* 'Role of Yishuv leaders in the 1948 Palestinian exodus' (transfer idea section, master plan section)
What would be left in the article are the more direct causes and circumstances of the exodus. Morris' view and the two stage theory  have a similar sturcture in common (e.g. Gelber divides the first stage also in phases similar to Morris). Probably also the 'ethnic cleansing' section could be combined with these. The remaining two sections ('Arab fears' and 'psychological warfare') could either remain, or be integrated into the 'waves'.
--JaapBoBo 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I would support this.  --GHcool 19:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting the article II 

message: I suggest that instead of stating  : I agree and arguing or I don't agree and arguing, we should deal with proposals in stating : I see the following advances and the following disadvantages to your proposal. We should modify this that way bla bla bla.
Because with wp process, a "I don't agree" just block everything, whatever the arguments that follow that mind... Alithien 10:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: May I suggest we ask an admin to block the article in the current version and that editors collaborate on the redaction of a better article. This is to respect everybody sensitivity on this matter and not to be distracted in the work by "controversed" or "non-consensual" edits.
THEN, we archive all these discussions and we build here, step by step, the article.
I will see the following phases.
1. Discussion of the structure
2. Agreement on the main arguments to be added in each section of the structure with the source where we can find the material referring to this and also the relative approximate weight to be given to each of them.
3. Writing
Alithien 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The point that Morris believes that the Zionists considered the "transfer idea" as an available option is made way too many times.  One paragraph (or blockquote) would drive the point home.  Do we really need all of the following?
#The made through summary:"According to Morris, while not discounting other reasons for the exodus, the 'transfer principle' theory suggests that this prevalent 'attitude of transfer' is what made it easy for the Jewish population to accept it and for local Haganah and IDF commanders to resort to various means of expelling the Arab population."
#The point is made in The Birth ... Revisited: By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leadership for what transpired. Thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948 so that, as it occurred, few voiced protest or doubt; it was accepted as inevitable and natural by the bulk of the Jewish population."
#The point is made in "Review of Fabricating ...:" "The nexus between thought and action was not so much a matter of 'predetermination' and preplanning as of a mind-set that accepted transfer as a legitimate solution. Once that 'transfer' got under way, of its own accord, in late 1947-early 1948 (Arabs fled mainly out of fear of bombs and bullets), the Zionist leadership, guided by Ben-Gurion, was predisposed to nudge the process along, occasionally with the help of expulsions."
Seriously, can't we agree on a general rule that every one point made by the same author deserves only one paragraph for the sake of WP:Undue weight, reducing redundancy, and making an already lengthy article just a little bit shorter? I propose we keep the first one because it is the most succinct and makes the point well and is NPOV and we remove the two ugly and redundant blockquotes.  --GHcool 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be synthetised here but more widely developed in another article. That is also Gatoclass and JaapBoBo mind excpet there is no consensus nor on the title and the topic to deal with. Alithien 07:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good idea to make it shorter. The summary (1) still misses In an article, Morris says the 'transfer idea' also influenced the Zionist leadership to propell the exodus:, but the quotes (2,3) are just illustrations to this pov of Morris. On the other hand this is the core of Morris' reasoning, so it does deserve some length. --JaapBoBo 11:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it deserves some length, but the same point rephrased 3 times is beating a dead horse.  Would you prefer some sort of synthesis between the summary (#1) and quote #2? --GHcool 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please go ahead. --JaapBoBo 09:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy in the "transfrer idea" section 

message: :Don't like it. Much prefer your original proposal, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what was wrong with it.  Gatoclass 10:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion with Gatoclass 

message: ::For my 2 cents'worth, I agree, with Gatoclass. I will admit I have great difficulty in following the thread that emerged from Alithien's first proposal, which has the virtues of Occam's razor.</BR>
::(1) The page as it is will never meet quality standards, being utterly confused as a result of POV compromise-driven editing. (2) As a result of this history there is a good deal of natural uneasiness about radical changes which might upset the respective salients built up by opposing parties (3) The wariness over suggestions to restructure the article reflects diffidence built up by the earlier page's drafting (4) The probability is that the diffidence will translate into an endless discussion, equally futile, even if based on reciprocal good reasons, that will lead to the same stalemate evidenced by the page itself (5) Alithien's suggestion should be accepted in good faith: it is neutral, does not overdetermine what can be said, has the virtues of ordered clarity of exposition (6) When both sides are in more sh*t than Biggles, suspending mutual suspicions, and striking out on new ground, where the chances of confusion are reduced, as indicated by an experienced poster with a record (at least judging from my own experience, and we two disagree on fundamentals in some regard) for responsibility and an attentive ear to the judgements of others, constitutes an act of good faith, and builds up credit for all parties. (7) You will never get a perfect model. But testing one that is far superior to the existing one formally, will enable you to get out of the embarrassing impasse present at the moment, and may well provide editors with a bridge to a model superior to the first working one Alithien has provided. Nishidani 10:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @Nashidani : thank you for your support. :-) Alithien 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion with Nishidani 

message: * Globally he also considers that the 'intentionnalism' thesis is untenable in the global context of the events and lack historical methodology. He emphasizes that if the events the 'intentionnalists' put forward are true, they are mainly gathered because they have an a priori reading of the events. To comply with their analysis, the protagonists should have had a global consciouness of all the consequences of the project they promoted. [...] In an 'intentionalist' approach, he claims, events must be read without a priori and each action must be considered without assuming it will lead to where we know a posteriori it lead but it must be considered in its context and in taking into account where the actor thought it would lead.
can be synthesised as
* Laurens also criticises the 'lack of historical methodology' in the analysis of the 'intentionalists', saying their conclusions follow from an 'a priori' reading of the events. (although textually I don't like the last part of this line)
:This is not good because the text is already a synthesis of Laurens. In fact, it should be expended to be more clear.
:What lacks in you summary of the synthesis is the arguments Laurens put forward ie : the fact that protagonists do not know by advance, on a 30 years period, what will happen and that they cannot guess the protagonists expected each of their action to lead to what occured.
::Are you saying Laurens claims that 'intentionalists' say that the master plan was hatched 30 years in advance?? --JaapBoBo 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I will expand this to make it more clear. Alithien 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  split 1 

message: *Laurens considers that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion.
can be synthesised as
*Laurens says that this "complot theory", on such a long period of time, could not have been planned, even by a Ben Gurion.
:Because what you write is a synthesis ?
:I will develop this to show why he considers this and not just "say" this.
:This is in fact based on the way Pappé, Finkelstein and Morris picture Ben Gurion.
::'consider' is also fine with me, if you insist. --JaapBoBo 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must this sentence be in the middle of Laurens critics on the 'lack of historical method'? --JaapBoBo 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he claims that in the middle of his cricts about the intentionalist analysis. Alithien 10:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  split 2 

message: The text under this heading reads:
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to quote Childers on the "Israeli position" when he in fact demonstrated that it was all hock and bollocks? If nobody objects, I will rephrase the paragraph.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.11.2007 09:10
:I don't think its disingenuous.  Childers accurately summarized the "traditional" Israeli position.  If Karsh accurately summaized the "traditional" Arab position, I wouldn't find it disengenuous to quote that either.  I don't strongly disapprove rewording the sentence, but I don't see anything wrong with it as it currently stands.  --GHcool 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (for the second time today!) with GHcool. --JaapBoBo 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @JaapBoBo, I'll bet we would probably agree on most things.  You strike me as someone who is moderate and genuinely trying to make the article better.  I'll bet that if I were the prime minister of Israel and you were the president of the PA in 2000-2001, there would already be an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel and the Intifada would have been avoided.  --GHcool 01:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you'd allow the residents of al-Faluja back to their homes? PRtalk 09:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus#Initial positions and criticisms]]