Jump to content

Talk:1949 Armistice Agreements

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

I removed the "demographic implications" section because it is propagandistic and inaccurate. The circumstances of the refugees is stated falsely, and the part about Jordan is also false (in fact, Jordan gave citizenship to all the Palestinian residents of the West Bank or Jordan). Something could be put back, but let's aim for some NPOV.

I also added links to the armistice agreement texts.

-- zero 13:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can anybody explain why the Green Line is called the Green Line?

-- Ken Bloom

That's the color the Israel-Jordan line was drawn in the first official maps for the armistice agreements. They're out there somewhere on the web, probably at the UN. Should dig up a link and put it in the article one of these days.--John Z 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Armistice with Lebanon

[edit]

This line is incorrect

  • The armistice line ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) was drawn along the international border.

To reflect the agreement, it should read

This line is odd, I'm not sure what the editing author is trying to say or imply .... Palestine in 1949, did not include Israel which had been declared independent of any other entity or area.

  • Unlike the other agreements, there was no clause disclaiming this line as an international border, which was thereafter treated as it had been previously, as a de jure international border.

In order for it to reflect the agreement, it should read

  • Unlike the other agreements, there was no clause disclaiming this line as an international border, which was thereafter treated as it had been previously, as the de jure international border between Lebanon and Palestine.

However, the second line is rendered redundant by the correction to the first talknic (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, clarity does not seem to be your strong point, but the line was drawn along the international border originally determined between British Mandate Palestine and French mandate Syria/Lebanon in the 1920s... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos --- I have no idea what you're trying to say. By May 14th/15th 1948 and certainly by 1949, Lebanon was not a part of Palestine. It's International borders with Palestine had already be delineated, recognized, set. On May 15th 1948, what remained of Mandate Palestine after the Arab States had been recognized and no longer a part of Palestine, Palestine was divided into two separate entities. Israel was declared as a separate independent entity, no longer a part of Palestine. The remainder was and still is called Palestine. The line was drawn as stated in the source. Not as stated in the article. I suggest the article be changed to reflect the source. Quite simple really. talknic (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little idea what you think you're talking about, but as I've told you previously, the usage of the word "Palestine" for "Arab state to be created out of the British Mandate" was not actually very common during the 1947-1949 period, and at the time the Israel-Lebanon armistice was signed, there was no Arab military control in parts of the former British mandate bordering on Lebanon. AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - The word Israel was never used for the Jewish state either. In fact Israel didn't appear at all in any UN documents until after May 15th 1948. Palestine did, countless times. Did you have point or purpose?
"created out of the British Mandate" ..Cute try ...How odd that the British were tasked under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine with the responsibility of attempting to foster the creation of a state called Palestine in which our fellows could form a Jewish homeland and become citizens of Palestine as Palestinian Jews.
Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.[2]
The rest of your 'contribution' is completely irrelevant to the issue. The statement does not reflect the source. Quite simple really. Again calling for valid objections or contributions towards rectifying that issue. talknic (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talknic, you're going to have to accommodate yourself to the fact that while today the word "Palestine" overwhelmingly signifies "non-Israeli Arab", that was just not the case in 1947-1949. In 1949, the leading Jewish Israeli newspaper was still the Palestine Post, etc. You seem to be trying to manipulate terminology in some anachronistic way to arrive at some murky conclusion which (whatever it turns out to be) will probably not be very well established (and "Original Research" to boot)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos - Palestine overwhelmingly signifies Palestine, as it has for at least 2,000 years. Somewhat smaller as chunks have been carved off and renamed as states. The last and youngest of which was declared as being the State of Israel in accordance with UNGA 181, without reservation to any condition or delineation of territory, as the Jewish people's homeland [2]. What remains is still called Palestine, as it was on May 15th 1948.
This is reflected in every UN/UNSC resolution since May 15th 1948 and subsequently in the source. Palestine and it's people, the Palestinians, have existed longer than any 'state' on the planet, name unchanged, always under the control in part or entirely of some entity or another. Having part or all of their territory under the control of some entity or another, the last of which is Israel, has prevented the Palestinians from ever effectively declaring independence.
Noted another irrelevant comment, non contribution and veiled accusation on your part talknic (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can call me by whatever bad names you want in your snarky edit summaries, but that doesn't change the facts that your arguments seem to be based on manipulating semantics, and giving the word "Palestine" a particular meaning which was far from being its most common or usual one during the 1947-1949 period (i.e. a rather anachronistic meaning). And your "2,000 years" claim is complete nonsense -- 2,000 years ago the word ΠΑΛΑΙΣΤΙΝΗ was merely the Greek equivalent of "Philistia"; it generally meant the southern coastal plain, or area of the formerly-Philistine cities (i.e. a kind of extended Gaza strip area only). The word changed its meaning ca. 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian rather arbitrarily changed the name of the province of "Judaea" to Palaestina for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews (as part of his brutal measures in suppressing the Second Jewish Revolt). The name "Palestine" remained in use under the Roman, Byzantine, and Arab caliphal empires (when Jund Filastin had completely different boundaries from the later British mandate), but after the Turkish invasions and crusades it was no longer the official name of any prominent province or administrative subdivision. By the 19th century, Europeans used the term "Palestine" to refer to the southern Levant or Holy Land area far more than the actual inhabitants themselves did -- in the Arabic language usage of the time, فلسطين tended to be something of a historical or antiquarian term, referring more to the memory of the glorious caliphates than to the current-day situation (except among a few Christians under European influence)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- When I call you a name it is AnonMoos...I'm guessing you chose it. "The name "Palestine" remained in use under the Roman..." that's about 2,000 years. Places had their names changed by those who controlled them. Simple.
The article does not reflect the source. That's the issue. Again quite simple.
Having seen no valid argument or valid objection against correcting the issue or objection to the source or any contribution to improving the information according to the source, I suggest it be corrected accordingly to reflect what is actually in the existing source." talknic (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving no valid response, no valid objection, noting not objection to the existing source, corrected the first point to reflect the source talknic (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and removed No More Mr Nice Guy's vandalism adding the word 'Mandate' to the Lebanon Armistice article. It does not accurately reflect the source. A) The Mandate expired May 14th 1948. B) The source in fact emphasizes that the agreement did not say Mandate Palestine talknic (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source specifically says "The only exception was the Israel-Lebanon armistice, which implied recognition of what had been the border between Mandate Palestine and Mandate Lebanon". Your interpretations are, as usual, irrelevant.
By the way you also broke the avalon link I fixed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source says there is an 'implication' because the Armistice Agreement says Lebanon and Palestine. And guess what, that is exactly what what the Armistice Agreement actually says ... Lebanon and Palestine.
Why would it say Mandate Palestine? The mandate expired May 14th 1948. Do you think no one noticed?
BTW the edit history shows your accusation to be false. talknic (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "implication" is that the border is recognized, not what the border is. You see, this is why we use secondary sources by experts. The primary source is ambiguous (which "Palestine" are they talking about?) and the secondary source explains it. In this case the "international boundary" the primary source is talking about was created between Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine, which in 1943 became the border between Lebanon and Mandate Palestine. It doesn't matter if the mandate existed anymore or not, that was the last recognized (implicitly or otherwise) international border.
You're right, you didn't break the avalon link. My mistake. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- The issue is not the 'implication'. The issue is what the Armistice Agreement actually said according to the secondary source.
I responded to your WP:1RR report. Including your accusation of a possible infringement on this Article, which carries no such restriction.
Now I've seen your apology here re your accusation, I accept, here. Never the less, a false accusation was made and remains included in the WP:1RR reply. talknic (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Arab-Israeli conflict related articles are subject to 1RR, even if they don't have the template at the top of the page, as you may have seen in the template I pointed out to you on another article. I'll add the template to this page now to avoid confusion in the future.
The issue is what the secondary source says the primary source is talking about. In this case, the international boundary between Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine.
You can include the "false accusation" wherever you like. Nobody cares. Other editors will WP:AGF. You should try it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wondered why the WP:1RR notice suddenly appeared. Thx much clearer.. My apologies. There also.
As for WP:AGF. The record shows I did try it. The same record also shows assuming good faith in respect to your statements on what constitutes WP:RS would be rather naive . //"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."// Alas, in abundance. talknic (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The issue is what the secondary source says the primary source is talking about." That's your issue and the authors issue. The issue here is stated at the outset and has been corrected accordingly. talknic (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to be getting is that the author's issue (as opposed to your personal opinion) is the article's issue. See WP:V, which is a core content policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Armistice Agreements and subsequently the "Armistice Demarcation Line". The author emphasizes the fact that the Armistice Agreement says "..the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine". Which is not my personal opinion, it IS what he says and precisely what the Armistice Agreement says about the "Armistice Demarcation Line".
What ever the "border", it does not delineate the line over which the respective parties agree their armed forces will not move. Armistice Demarcation Lines do. Perhaps your argument, the source and the implication would fit in an appropriate article. Like....borders. talknic (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the armistice line follows a border. What that border is is explained to us by the secondary source. The author quotes the primary document and then explains what it means. This is what we use secondary sources for.
Again, you are misunderstanding policy and again I'm getting tired to trying to explain it to you. If another editor supports the change I wanted to make and there are no other objectors, I'll be putting it back in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your tiredness is of less interest than your now, quite suddenly needing consensus, where you didn't before. As for misunderstanding policy, I might have misunderstood some aspects, but I've not purposefully misconstrued. [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]
The primary source the author cites in respect to the Armistice Demarcation Lines does not say Mandatory Palestine. A fact that even he points out. The argument you're presenting is about borders, not Armistice Demarcation Lines. The article is the Armistice Agreements. The Armistice Agreement was agreed to. Both parties agreed to the Armistice Agreement saying, 1. "The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine."
Furthermore according to this secondary source [7], the armistice says in Article II -- 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. Negating the notion that the agreed wording of the Armistice 'implied' anything but what the two parties agreed to.
If you really want to contest that they didn't agree to the Armistice Agreements exact wording, best of luck. talknic (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody misconstrued policy, you just don't understand it and refuse to listen to anyone. I'm not sure what you think the links you provided to previous discussions prove. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy -- How about really informing the reader : The Armistice Demarcation Line, ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) according to the Agreement signed by both parties, was drawn along the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.[3] BTW The links show your own record - in your own words. talknic (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct wording would be "The Armistice Demarcation Line, ("Green Line", see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) according to the Agreement signed by both parties, was drawn along what had been the international boundary between Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine". This according to your own source.
By the way, the diffs you provided only show that 1. you don't understand policy and 2. you are (for the 5th or 6th time now) deliberately trying to misrepresent something I said after I explained it to you not once but twice. FYI, civility is also one of wikipedia's core policies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Talknic -- Obviously the the armistice was concluded between Lebanon and Israel (not between Israel and "Palestine"), and the agreed border was the same as that fixed between the British mandates and the French mandates before WW2. I'm really not too sure what all this is supposed to be about, but after May 15, 1948, the word "Palestine" standing on its own (without additional accompanying qualificatory and explanatory wording) did not have significant specific political or legal meaning (as opposed to geographical and historical meaning). AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos -- I guess Israel and Lebanon agreed to the wording then, seeing as they signed it. "the agreed border was the same as that fixed between the British mandates and the French mandates before WW2" In 1949 it wasn't. There was no Mandate, Lebanon's International border was set in 1943, it might have escaped your attention, but not the attention of the folk who wrote the words of the final draft or the parties who agreed to the wording and signed the agreement.
"..after May 15, 1948, the word "Palestine" standing on its own etc etc etc.." Might pay you to read every UNSC resolution from 1945. talknic (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the mandates did not still exist in 1949; however, the borders agreed between Lebanon and Israel at that time were the same as those previously agreed between the British and French mandates. If any border was fixed in 1943, it would have been the Lebanon/Syria border -- the British mandate / French mandate border was determined before that.
As for the rest, OK, look at United Nations Security Council Resolution 50 (which appears to be the first relevant resolution adopted after May, 15, 1948). It calls on a lot of groups or governments to do things or refrain from doing things in Palestine (as a geographical and historical term), but it does not call on Palestine itself to do anything. If you want to have constructive discussions which lead to real collaborative article improvement, then you'll have to doff your terminological blinkers and accept the fact that words were not always used in 1949 the same way that they were used in 1973... AnonMoos (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No More Mr Nice Guy -- I know policy enough to know that:
1) A. a secondary source can't be definitively said to be a reliable source for a particular context unless it's been challenged and gone via WP:RSN. B. The JPost episode being classic example [[8]] that didn't pass the very basic premises of WP:RS. C. The list of reliable sources via WP:RSN includes only those sources that have been tested via WP:RSN.
2) a repeat of the assertion that one could call people terrorists, contrary to the guidelines you'd previously advocated [[9]], while twice completely misrepresenting the "activities" actually proposed, after the hasty retraction and so called 'explanation' was rather odd, especially when was clearly specified from the outset, as in the Mi5 report, "activities", yet there was repeated misrepresentation. [[10]].
3) [[11]] A. False accusation B. Misrepresenting "activities" again C. Second suggestion to call a group terrorists. [[12]]. The record is littered with similar, from demanding consensus, to ignoring it to suit yourself. Demanding explicitly what the source says [[13]], while JPost can be completely inaccurate in relation to the source it quotes. Yet you made the change without the consensus you demanded. Likewise making the change to change to "Mandate" Palestine, seems to indicate an interpretation of the guidelines so far removed from acting in good faith, it's absurd.
From the secondary source -- "The only exception was the Israel-Lebanon armistice, which implied recognition of what had been the border between Mandate Palestine and Mandate Lebanon by saying that "the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine." --- The secondary source makes two assertions in the statement. Only one is conclusively correct according to WP:RS, that being the wording of the armistice agreement.
Lebanon had it's International border in 1943. Six years before the Armistice agreement was written. Referring to Lebanon's International border after 1943 as Mandate Lebanon is speculation made after the parties agreed to the wording. As for Palestine, it didn't suddenly have a name change. Palestine was and still is the name of Palestine, it has never had a name change according to the various conditions under which it has existed. UNSC resolutions of the time didn't say 'Mandate Palestine'. So one would have to dig through all the drafts of the Lebanon Israeli Armistice agreement in order to see to see how the agreement was reached so as to draw a definitive conclusion about the other assertion, being the implications. talknic (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the things you assert you "know policy enough to know", 1)A. is incorrect (RSN is used to find a consensus of uninvolved editors, sources don't have to go through it), B. is incorrect (nobody said JPost is not a reliable source, only that a source by a historian is preferred), C. is incorrect (there is no "list of reliable sources"). 2) is incorrect (it is fine to report that someone specific called something "terrorist", it is not ok to label stuff as terrorist in the encyclopedia's neutral voice). 3) Just shows all the above amount to your not understanding policy and that you are engaging "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them" in contravention of WP:CIVIL.
To summarize, you do not understand policy correctly and refuse to listen to other editors or seek the advice of experienced editors as I have suggested to you repeatedly, and you are constantly engaging in incivility. Now that you have officially been notified of the WP:ARBPIA case, I suggest you read it carefully, specifically the final decision, before you find yourself indefinitely blocked from editing.
Back to the issue here, the source you provided explains what border the agreement is talking about. It does not "assert" the second part of the sentence, it's quoting from a primary document. It's really that simple and that obvious. I'm not sure why you want to put less clear and less specific text in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) A. Who said sources have to go through it? You're immediately misconstruing what was said. B. Who said JPost was a reliable source per WP:RS The primary source it was reporting simply did not contain the words Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It completely failed even WP:RS in that instance. C. Who wrote this "JPost is considered a reliable source...... if you do a search on the board you'll find that this issue has come up before and there is a wide consensus JP is reliable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC) "
2) Who wrote "Although wikipedia tends to avoid labeling people and organizations as "terrorist" " ..... Wikipedi says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization etc etc" It does not say activities. I used the word 'activities' because that's what the Mi5 report says and despite your numerous attempts to push it towards the British labeling an organization as terrorists, the original 'activities' stood to the end of the discussion.
WP:CIVIL There is a record of duplicity. It speaks for itself.
To the issue..Fine, it does not assert in the second part of the statement, it quotes. All the better. The assertion of an 'implication' was made after the fact that both parties agreed to the wording of the Armistice Agreement. The Armistice agreement does not say "Mandate" Palestine. talknic (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said sources have to go through RSN? You did, right in your previous post. It was your point 1)A. Who said JPost is a reliable source? WP:NEWSORG did. Your thoughts on how JPost interprets a primary source (which you don't even have access to) are irrelevant. I did indeed say JPost is considered a reliable source, which it is. Your wikilawyering regarding WP:TERRORIST is really weak. The guideline talks about "value-laden labels" and gives a few examples (one of which is an activity, but never mind), but the point is the usage of the label, as is obvious to anyone reading it in an attempt to understand policy rather than how to get around policy.
Yes, the primary document doesn't say "Mandate Palestine". A secondary source interpreting the primary document does, and secondary sources is what we use here at wikipedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The record shows that what you 'think' was my point, wasn't, and WP:NEWSORG doesn't in fact say JPost is a reliable source. It says this. " Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis" Elsewhere in policy "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context" . You said JPost is a reliable source. I've quoted you.
"(which you don't even have access to)" You just took JPost at face value? I didn't and found it most odd that it did not quote once any of the instances of the report saying the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. It simply didn't support itself by what it quoted.
The secondary sources I've given show Haj Amin al-Husseini was undoubtedly removed from the position in Oct 1937 by the authorities at the time, confirmed by the recorded words of the authorities of the time. Sources, secondary or primary, regardless of where they come from, saying he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem after Oct 1937 are not reliable in that particular case/context. By their criteria Olmert is still prime minister of Israel and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister of the UK. (They could say according to 'someone', but that someone would be just as ill informed)
WP:TERRORIST The change was made with your help....
To the topic..The secondary source makes two points in the statement. Only one is conclusively correct. That being the wording of the armistice agreement, which is quoted. That is what must be reflected when talking about what the Armistice Demarcation Line followed.
In respect to the implications. If you want to add another paragraph somewhere on the 'implications' go right ahead. However, note that the source in talking about the implication says 'border'. What is quoted says 'International boundary'. Lebanon's 'International' boundary was only finally set on independence in 1943 from which time Lebanon was not a part of the Mandate. BTW Your "Lebanon and Mandate Palestine" did not accurately reflect the secondary source, which says Mandate Lebanon and Mandate Palestine talknic (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have once again reached the point where it's pointless to continue discussing with you. You do not understand policy correctly, and despite your very limited experience in applying it, feel the need to argue endlessly with experienced editors who try to explain it to you.
Hopefully another editor will stop by and improve the article according to the source you provided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have actually reached the usual point of preventing by consensus WP:RS VERIFIABLE information from being included, leaving ambiguous misleading and statements that do not accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements referred to by the Secondary Sources used, making a total farce of Wikipedia's guidelines ... talknic (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9fb163c870bb1d6785256cef0073c89f/2fca2c68106f11ab05256bcf007bf3cb?OpenDocument
  3. ^ 1949 Lebanon / Israeli Armistice Agreement Article VThe case for Palestine: an international law perspective By John B. Quigley Page 89

TALKNIC, STOP THIS "TOUCHING"!

[edit]

Talknic, unfortunately your habit of "touching" talk-page sections by adding semi-meaningless perfunctory pro forma comments to them for the sole and exclusive purpose of keeping them from being moved off into the archives is really not productive or constructive. In fact, you've been warned about this habit of yours before, and it can seem quite distinctly annoying to other people. I have half a mind to move this whole section directly to the archives, regardless of whether you've "touched" it or not... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1949 Armistice Agreements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1949 Armistice Agreements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1949 Armistice Agreements. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

[edit]

Please change the entry in the "Further Reading" section from this: Ben-Dror, Elad The Mediator: Ralph Bunche and the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1949 (Ben Gurion Institute, 2012)

to this:

  • Ben-Dror, Elad (2016). Ralph Bunche and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mediation and the UN 1947–1949,. Routledge. ISBN 978-1138789883.

The existing entry is for the Hebrew version of the book, which was published in 2012, but it should be for the English version, which was published in 2016. Also, the ISBN no. is missing. Phillipatracy (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1949_Armistice_Agreements&oldid=1233134786"