Talk:Lausanne Conference of 1949

message: The current state of the article dedicates little time to the enormity of the Lausanne Conference, 1949 and seems to rely on historians that might not otherwise paint a completely objective picture of what occurred: see: Ilan Pappé. And considering the article relies almost solely on his interpretation of Israel (plus criticisms) with little information besides the bare minimal (this was the purpose of the conference [end scene] - here is israel's "real motivation" - more analysis. 
Welcome to wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.165.227 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think is seriously wrong?  I think the organization is odd, and there are things missing, but nothing flagrantly false. Pappé's views here are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial as far as I can see.John Z (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as far as you can see. The article should be focusing on the actual events recorded by the United Nations. Pappe's views are not universal and belong to a very niche side of Israeli history. A person who reads this article will leave with no understanding at the events that occurred outside that it failed, and Israel planned that all along. Hardly a balanced perspective. We should move the article (i.e, Criticisms of Israel's involve with x) or rewrite it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article shouldn't focus on primary sources but on historians' interpretations of them. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article should focus on the actual topic and describe the events and then move to a balanced series of interpretations by historians. Though preferably, an effort should be made to include the opinions of the countries involved which were extensive. It is suspect to go directly to an extremely hostile historian, almost exclusively. Suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

text: ok rewritten.  Will expand later.  Snakeswithfeet (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest we revert to the old version first and then incorporate needed changes step by step. The old version wasn't that bad. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree - Snakeswithfeet just replaced one POV with another - exactly the opposite. Such a tendentious form of editing is not acceptable. Let's try to be constructive and include both. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary rewrite if not total overhaul 

message: Thus article has serious POV issues, apparently introduced by two editors, user:Wickey-nl and User:Ashurbanippal , who made substantial changes, without ever discussing them. Both these editors have been subsequently topic banned or blocked. I am attempting to remove some of these POV issues, ad make the article consistent with its cited sources. Users who repeatedly undo my edits, without explanation or discussion of their edits  should expect to see their behavior reported. Specifically, I have changed the following statements - which  are either unsourced, or state something completely different from the sources they cite - "By signing the Protocol, Arab countries for the first time recognized the Resolutions 194 and 181 as basis for settlement of the Palestine question, which they had rejected previously." ; "but Israel remained persistent in its rejection of UN Resolutions 181 and 194. The meetings were suspended between 1 and 18 July.UNCCP, Fourth progress report, 1 September 1949 (doc.nr. A/992 d.d.22-09-1949)" Both of these were reverted without explanation by User:ElCommandanteVzl. I will report this behavior if it is repeated. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: This revert by Epsom Salts is typical.  Let's see how it stacks up.
# Despite the citation, the source is not the US Senate, nor is it Alexander Galloway.  The source is "Rev Karl Baehr, Executive Director, American Christian Palestine Committee" who claimed Galloway had made these remarks to Baehr's "study tour group" over a year earlier.[Palestine Refugee Program. Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-Third  Congress, First Session on the Palestine Refugee Program, May 20, 21, and 25, 1953, pp. 98–103; which I have examined].  So it was a verbal claim from the leader of a Christian Zionist lobby group about an alleged verbal statement of a UN official.  Where has WP:RS gone?
# Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky (two historians of right-wing persuasion) wrote in A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography Middle Eastern Studies, 46: 5, 655–675 that they could not verify Baehr's claim or even confirm that Baehr had met Galloway, despite searching many archives and Baehr's private papers.
# As if that's not enough, this sort of barely-on-topic polemic rubbish doesn't belong in articles even if it can be reliably sourced.
Zerotalk 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the Joffe & Romirowsky paper. While they do state they were unable to confirm that the meeting took place, the impression you are trying to create here, that  they doubt this meeting took place  or that the quote  is authentic is simply not in the article. They treat the  quote as consistent with other  well-documented statements by Galloway critical of UNRWA and the Arab nations' attitudes toward it and the refugee problem. I am resorting this with proper attribution and sourcing. Epson Salts (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't even write that J&R tried and failed to confirm Baehr's claim; a direct NPOV violation. This sort of quotation slinging does not belong on Wikipedia.  Take it somewhere else and let those of us who want to raise the standard of articles do our work without harrassment. Zerotalk 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Many things are difficult to confirm  via documentary evidence 70 years after the fact, so I don't believe this particular factoid is all that important, but you can add it if you feel strongly about it. Your dismissal of sources you don;t like  as "rubbish" carries not even an iota of weigh on wikipedia. Epson Salts (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galloway "quotation" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Lausanne Conference of 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140720073744/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4A5EF29A5E977E2E852561010079E43C to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4A5EF29A5E977E2E852561010079E43C
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130617161917/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E1FDBD46744526C785256BCF0077F9C9 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E1FDBD46744526C785256BCF0077F9C9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714232903/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ae4f41784aaf8f1285256af5005e0569 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/ae4f41784aaf8f1285256af5005e0569
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060450/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/60FD15FF5B22CA0D85256101007A9D2E to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/60FD15FF5B22CA0D85256101007A9D2E
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615041505/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828175019/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: can you explain your last edit. I couldn't understand your edit summary. What don't you like about the current version? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't like it because it didn't followed the secondary source that your brought.--Shrike (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it did. Can you be specific? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the source says provoked and the source clearly says for example what I did is fair paraphrase of the source --Shrike (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "for example" in the source relates to cooperation with Jordan. It has nothing to do with "opposed any exercise of independence", whic is not written anywhere. Your drafting is WP:OR. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source doesn't use the word provoked and its your drafting that doesn't follow the source.The condemnation in the source brought as example and we should follow the source.I don't have a problem to say it was example of Arab States cooperation with Jordan--Shrike (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: West Jerusalem

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lausanne Conference of 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203064550/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883 to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/93037e3b939746de8525610200567883
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312081655/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/61201e86bc8189f485256102005a8eab?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/61201e86bc8189f485256102005a8eab?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified