Talk:Mandate for Palestine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2017

"the future governmnent of Palestine" needs spelling correction of "government" Ergateesuk (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Good spot, done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Marking request as "answered" for the bot –72 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sanford Silverburg

I have removed this Sanford Silverburg quote here, as the second part re "non-sequitur" does not appear to match what is written in his work. It was added back in 2009 by User:Harlan wilkerson, who had not edited wikipedia for six years. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Background section

This is a poorly drafted section, which overlaps with numerous different articles. I propose to shorten this dramatically, with a header pointing to "main article = Balfour Declaration". The story of this article can start from the endpoint of the BD article. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Redirect tidy up

Please see Talk:British Mandate of Palestine (disambiguation)#Disambiguation tidy up. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

United States in 1917

Just to be a pedant, I am quite sure that it's not true that the United States "had yet to suffer a casualty" in 1917. Even if you are only talking about military personnel and choose to ignore all the lives lost on the Lusitania and onboard other vessels, there were plenty of US citizens killed and wounded in European service. And while I assume the reference is to in the European conflict only, what about the occupation of Veracruz? That was related to the war in Europe. Haiti? THe Phillipines? US servicemen were being wounded and killed during the entire duration of the war, before and after the US declared war, and even before they committed large units to combat operations in the Western theater.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It means military casualty, and it is correct. Veracruz was prior to World War I. Haiti was part of the Banana Wars and not usually considered part of World War I. There were no Filipino casualties until 1918 (fighting for the Americans).
Plus it is sourced to: Zieger, Robert H. (2001). America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 58, 91. ISBN 978-0-8476-9645-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) → British Mandate for Palestine – The brackets are not needed. They have been there since the 2012 split from Mandatory Palestine. The two articles now have very separate scopes, clear introductions and detailed hatnotes, so it is very unlikely that readers would be confused or unable to distinguish after removal of the brackets. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammatically, the preposition "for" in "British Mandate for Palestine" means that Mandate (i.e. the document) is the subject. Aside from grammar, the phrasing "Mandate for Palestine" matches the exact formal title of the document. Noone fluent in English would write "British Mandate for Palestine" and mean Mandatory Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it was installed to prevent frequent confusion per Dekimasu.GreyShark (dibra) 09:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure - an examination of the wiki articles for the other LoN Mandates (Iraq/Mesopotamia, Syria/Lebanon, Tanganyika etc) points to more confusion around the same issue. If I was starting over from scratch I might well do it differently (and at least attempt to be somehow consistent). I will defer to the majority opinion, whatever that is.Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Dekimasu עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Draft mandates

To editor Oncenawhile: The draft of July 1920 is in CAB 24/107/21; I can send it to you if you can't easily get it. Do you know where the 1919 Zionist draft can be found? Zerotalk 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thank you! That would be great if you could send. My understanding of the choreography is as follows:
The one I really want to see is the July 1919 Foreign Office draft, as this is the first truly recognizable version of the final mandate (the ZO draft was really just a set of five principals). McTague says a copy is in here but I only have snippet view at this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sent. If you find an archival reference for the July 1919 draft, I may be able to get it. Zerotalk 18:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if there was a July 1919 draft, there were Zionist and British drafts dated 26 September (these are the ones in BDFP I believe) then there was December 11, March 15 1920, June 10 1920.(Note that Curzon took over from Balfour in October 1919 and set about a sort of rearguard action on the drafting (he considered the Zionists should not have been consulted on the drafting in the first place and disagreed with some of the things that were in the drafts up until then). At any rate this is what I have in some notes I made about this, let me see if I can find the places where I got the info from).Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Selfstudier: good to hear from you. I am hoping to make this a good article, just as for the McMahon and Balfour articles. One day I’ll try to get the Sykes-Picot to the same level, but it will need a deeper understanding of Armenia, Cilica and Kurdistan than I currently have.
As to the “July 1919 mandate”, I understood that from McTague: “Then in July, Foreign Secretary Balfour authorized Eric Forbes-Adam to begin direct negotiations with members of the Zionist Organization, including Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter, over the wording of the text. The Foreign Office unveiled a much longer document (twenty-nine articles compared to five in the earlier draft), but one which adhered quite closely to the general principles laid down in April.” (currently footnote d in the article). McTague’s footnote points to the 26 September document - it’s not clear to me when the document was first created.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Section "The drafting of the Palestine Mandate" from The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem:1917-1988 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0 and in Grief (his sourcing is usually OK) pages 322 and 471 has info there. Hope that's of some use.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you self. FYI I recently made an article on that work at The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem, and another one on a similar publication which also covers the period in detail (ESCO Foundation for Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Correcting some errors: What I sent has a covering note of June 10, 1920 (not July) and is in CAB 24/107/71 (not CAB 24/107/21). It has 24 articles. In CAB 24/111/99 there is one with a covering note of Sep 25, 1920, with 29 articles. I'll send that later today. Maybe it is the same as what was sent to the LofN later that year, but that needs checking. Zerotalk 14:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I will send you the two DBFP versions but it might have to wait two weeks as I'm far away from my library. Zerotalk 14:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
That’s great news, thank you Zero.
In case you didn’t see i’m using the wiki software to compare the versions. For example:
I’ve uploaded the June 1920 version to wikisource and will see if I can align its format to make the comparison work.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
See below a table I am planning on adding to the article once I can fully source it. I should have enough from secondary sources between McTague, ESCO and UNDPR. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
List of notable British drafts of the mandate
Draft date Negotiated between Primary changes vs. prior version
July 1919
Political Section draft
(Wikisource) 		Political Section draft, following discussion with Zionist Organization
24 September 1919
Zionist Organization proposal
(Wikisource) 		Zionist Organization proposal
11 December 1919
"provisionally agreed upon between Zionist Organisation and British Delegation"
(Wikisource) 		Forbes-Adam and Cohen; DBFP, IV, p.571: "The provisional agreement of this draft resulted from discussions early in December 1919 between Mr. Forbes Adam and Mr. Malkin for the Foreign Office, and Mr. Cohen for the Zionist Organization."
15 March 1920
 Curzon
10 June 1920
Submitted to the British Cabinet
(Wikisource) 		Curzon
25 September 1920
Submitted to the British Cabinet
(Wikisource) 		Curzon
7 December 1920
Submitted for review by the LoN
(Wikisource) 		Curzon Preamble added "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country"
Two articles regarding boundary demarcation removed (Articles 2 and 3 of the September version)
22 July 1922
Approved by the Council of the LoN
(Wikisource) 		Council of the League of Nations Holy Places and Transjordan

A small aside: Zander, 1973, p.18 (which I have just added to the Bibliography) discusses Article 14 regarding the Holy Places. p. 18 suggests that this article was not completed on 22 July 1922 (i.e. when the mandate was approved), but was left open until a later meeting (in August according to the footnote reference). Seems odd that Zander is the only one to mention this that I have seen. It does seem to be confirmed by the snippet I can see at Journal Officiel: Supplément special / Société des nations. Harrison & Sons. 1922. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have access to the full Official Journal (which is partly in French and partly in English). I'll send you these items along with some other stuff shortly. Zerotalk 10:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
After a couple of abortive attempts, the contemplated Commission was never set up with the result that the situation stayed as the so called "Status Quo" of 1757 (about which you can read here https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/FD455E412ACE30AD0525668E006EF702)Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Kattan (Coexistence to Conquest) pages 61 and 62/ (footnotes 161 to 163 refer to a March 20 1919 Proposals from Frankfurter to Meinertshagen (UK NA FO 608/100 and to the "travaux preparatoires" (preparatory work) re drafts of the mandate between Zionists and Political Section as available in CO 733/248/19. Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these are files I have easy access to. The NA links are here: [1] [2]. What happens if you want a copy is that first they charge you a non-refundable 8.40 pounds to tell you how much a copy will cost, and then you will have the choice of paying for the copy. In my experience it can cost quite a lot (once I was quoted several hundred pounds for a large file). It's always a "how badly do I want it?" type of decision. Zerotalk 12:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Zero0000:, on the same theme, have you come across a copy of the 211-page "Report on Middle East Conference held in Cairo and Jerusalem" (CO 935/1/1 or FO/371/6343)[3]. It's available at Adam Matthew but I don't have access.
This is the conference during which Article 25 was drafted, so I'm keen to get to the primary source on the matter. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1v0n1q3ctz2t0mi/cab-24-122_77.pdf?dl=0 might be of some interest, Churchill memo to Cabinet of April 1921, "Transjordania".(extracted from CAB24)Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Your ping didn't work. I thought I sent that 211-page report to you before. I'll send it again when I'm not at an airport. To editor Selfstudier: you can have it too if you send me wikimail. Zerotalk 22:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Zero0000: thanks for offer, afraid I do not know what wikimail is, lol. Iirc, most of that conference was about colonial budgets and force deployments around ME, maybe when you have some time, dropbox just the relevant pages if that's not too much trouble. Thanks.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: If you have an email address set in your preferences, you can send mail to anyone who has likewise set an email address by clicking the link "Email this user" that appears in the sidebar when you visit their user page. In my case the link is this one. Note that it exposes your email address to the person you write to, so people who don't want this have an anonymous email address for Wikipedia purposes. Sorry I don't use dropbox and don't want to write any cloud-based address in the clear here. Zerotalk 22:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Zero0000: I set an email in my prefs and sent you a wikimail to test it, think I did it OK, thanks for explanation Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I managed to get access to the 211-page doc. I read it and read it but nothing on article 25 seemed to be there. Until almost the last page in the appendix. I will add to the article.
I am pleased to confirm that we can finally dispense with the debate about Transjordan. The correspondence is explicit, that Article 25 was added to the mandate to allow for the inclusion of Transjordan into the boundaries of Palestine.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It was always the case that the boundaries of "Palestine" for the purposes of the Mandate (ie some geographical area to be defined) were to be established (perhaps the confusion was caused by different people talking then about "Palestine" having different ideas about what they precisely meant by that term)Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine included Transjordan.

All these BS wikipedia entries are revisionist and consider "Palestine" and "Transjordan" as separate entities. They weren't. It was all "Mandatory Palestine" until the Brits gave the Arabs (Hashemite family) nearly 80% of Palestine and then called it Transjordan. I'm sure this has been edited in and out several times, but it is the reality. Someone with more admin strength should set this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40f:600:1abb:cc77:1d30:6f9c:8d2d (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

please read the section of the article on Transjordan. All of it. And look at the sources. You will see when you read it that you have been taken in by propaganda. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Funny to choose the word "revisionist" when this fairy-story version is strongly associated with Revisionists. Zerotalk 02:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandate for Palestine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


  • Hi there, this seems to have waited way too long already, so I'll have a look soon. It will probably also take a while to review. In the meantime, some preliminary issues below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[4]  Done
The script still shows three duplinks within the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Those are from additions I made after the original check. Now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a lot of paragraphs ending without citation, you should probably skim through the entire article for this. Done
  • The "Key Mandate dates" section could need citations for the info there. Done
  • This[5] file only has a US PD tag, yet it is from UK archives... Done
  • Likewise with this:[6] Done
  • And this:[7] Done
  • This image[8] could need to cite on Commons what it is based on.  map replaced with one with much clearer sourcing
  • There seems to be unneeded extra space between some words and citations, I removed some, but could be checked throughout.  Done
  • I'm sure there will be, as with the Balfour article, complaints about heavy quoting of copyrighted texts here, if you take it to FAC. Perhaps some of it could be snipped? Covered in further comments below Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote g needs a citation.  Done
  • As it still seems like significant additions of text are being made/are to be added (Selfstudier should probably be added to this conversation), I'll wait before I review the text until this has settled down, and the article structure has stabilised. Could also be good to have that move request settled within the time-frame of this review. I'll keep this review open for as long as it takes (no need to worry about the "seven days" mumbo jumbo). FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: thank you and I agree that makes sense. This has been a helpful catalyst to bring some momentum back and identify some areas to focus on. I’ll let you know when I've worked through them. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Shrike

I am not sure that I should post here or an article talk page in new section.Several problem that I noticed:

  • Usage of primary or old sources. For such well learned and controversial subject many books were written so there are no need to use such sources and if information doesn't appear in them then it doesn't relevant and shouldn't be included in our article.  all resolved per comment further below
  • Usage of sources that don't talk about the topic of the article thus violation WP:OR.For example this line at the time an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population (around 3–5% of the total).Sourced to Bussow that I didn't found the information there and specially connected to the mandate and other source that in not in open view.Also this line might have POV problem because we mention only one factoid about the area.We for example doesn't mention historical Jewish connection to it.I suggest we remove that. --Shrike (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 removed, and following text at Balfour Declaration article
User:Onceinawhile Again what source discuss it?Is not clear.Also like I said its pov a problem mention "only that there are minority of Jews" while omitting other factors.--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added a couple of refs which specifically juxtapose the Declaration against the Jewish minority population in the same way. It is this specific point which makes the Balfour Declaration unique in international relations. Note that our article Balfour Declaration made FA, and TFA, with this construct in the first sentence of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Again it may be WP:DUE in Balfour declaration article but not here.We talk only about the document if the sources discuss declaration in context of the mandate we may include it but if it not then we shouldn't as declaration is large topic by itself so we can't cherry pick sources to give WP:UNDUE representation to one fact among many as is goes against our policies --Shrike (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but I cannot understand your post. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly can't you understand?I suggest to remove this line --Shrike (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot understand the reason for your view. The Balfour Declaration was the crucial predecessor of the mandate, so we must include the key facets of that declaration. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • By late 1917, in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate, with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged: the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of a revolution I didn't found Balfour Declaration in the given source [9]
 added Gelvin
The problem that Gelvin discuss it in context of Balfour declaration and not mandate.I think this line doesn't belong to the article --Shrike (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This section is called “Balfour Declaration”, so it is right that sources discuss that topic. The section, including this particular sentence, is no more than a version of the lede at the main article, which is best practice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes but the article is about mandate document also naming of the section is editorial decision and maybe WP:OR too --Shrike (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot understand this either. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest discussing Balfour declaration only in contexts of mandate document.You seem want to widen the scope --Shrike (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The Balfour Declaration was the crucial predecessor of the mandate. If we don't explain why it was issued, then this article will not be set in its appropriate context per WP:FA? 1b. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Only looking at the first two lines of the body I have found plenty problems with sourcing I don't think this article ready for GA review yet especially on such controversial subject --Shrike (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Should be fine to bring up issues here too. Not sure if it is true primary sources should be excluded entirely as long as more recent sources are used to discuss them, but adittional recent analysis is of course a good idea, if it exists. As for being GA ready, GAN is for improving articles, so unless these problems are very obvious (the trouble here seems to be minor, we can always add more points of view), they can be dealt with during the review. It might not be ready for FAC, but this is not a FAC nomination anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree if modern scholarly sources discuss relevant quotes they could be brought.But the problem is cherry picking of primary source to promote certain WP:POV so its always better to see what recent WP:RS says about the subject and there are plenty of it --Shrike (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for highlighting this. For all the primary sources I brought, they are definitely covered in secondary sources as that will be where I read them originally. I will add the secondary references alongside. For those I didn’t bring myself, I’ll check through. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that all of the refs highlighted by Shrike pre-date my work on this article by many years – most if not all have been in the article for more than a decade. I am working through them to confirm. One point to note: Quincy Wright is not a primary source. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, would be best to get the issues brought up in the section here sorted out before the review can continue (the text should preferably be stable). FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 all primary sources now have a secondary source as well.Onceinawhile (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Status query

FunkMonk, Onceinawhile, where does this nomination and review stand? As best I can tell, while there have been edits on the article over the past couple of months, the last post here was on March 2, over two months ago. Can this move forward? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for the prompter. I had been moving slowly and spending time fixing adjacent articles; I will accelerate the effort on this now. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ready for review

@FunkMonk and Shrike: I am pleased to confirm that I have now resolved all the points raised in the comments from you both. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Was anything done withy the extensive quotes? FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes there has been some trimming but not material. And some more have been added. If ok with you I'd rather leave this until later in the process - it'll be easier to assess in the round once the main body of the article is up to scratch. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'd like to see if Shrike has some major suggestions for changes before I go on. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll also wait until the renewed activity below and on the talk page has settled down (odd how it always erupts just as I'm about to begin). FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems discussion has stalled, but are the talk page issues resolved? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi @FunkMonk: yes I believe they are. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Makeandtoss

Hello @Onceinawhile:. Great job! The article is exceptionally well-written; prose-wise and content-wise. In fact I am most impressed by the due weight that Transjordan has been given. Usually, it is completely ignored in these articles. However I feel the Balfour Declaration subsection is missing out on the (conflicting) arrangements made by the British with the Sharifian King Hussein. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 added background information on the British agreement with Hussein and also with the French Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Makeandtoss. Do you mind if I move this comment onto the GA review page? It will help me keep track.
I agree on your comment, not least because that agreement was the root of the reason why Abdullah was given Transjordan.
What do you think of the article Transjordan memorandum? I created it many years ago, and now I’m wondering whether it wouldn’t be better merged in to the mandate page.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Go ahead. That is a separate memorandum so I would rather have a standalone articlee. Makeandtoss (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: ok thank you – happy to keep it as a separate article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Continued review

  • I still see a lot of duplinks throughout, maybe they were introduced in the meantime?  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote h has no source.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is permitted, but many paragraphs end simply with footnotes, but no citations. I assume the citations are given in the footnotes, but I would assume everything has to be sourced within the article body itself? I have reviewed the footnotes. The way they are working, in the cases where the reference is in the note and not the body, is that the footnote is acting as the reference, providing more detail. If this needs to be solved, the sfn reference from the footnote can be duplicated in the body, next to the footnote reference. It strikes me as duplication, but I don’t mind. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, I would assume they would have to be duplicated, because it's quite a detour to have to find them in the footnotes. I am not sure, though, so I'll ping Brianboulton and Lingzhi2, who often do source reviews at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, no answer, will ping Gog the Mild too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Overall, "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", otherwise they are "desirable". However, the GAN criteria suggest, they are a little vague, that inline citations are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". If something not in one of those categories is uncited, it still meets the GA criteria. Much of the material under discussion seems to me to be of this type, ie not requiring a cite. So if it is covered in the footnote that is a bonus. If a statement does fall into one of these categories then IMO it needs directly citing, even if this duplicates a cite in the footnote next to it. IHTH. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm pretty sure the intention is to take it to FAC too, would that make a difference, Gog the Mild? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Strictly, no. In practice, the nominator has a low to negligible chance of persuading four plus reviewers to accept it at FAC without everything having an inline cite. Given that the fix is simple and easy I would suggest that the nominator simply bites the bullet. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of the tables under "Key dates from Balfour Declaration to Mandate becoming effective" have sources, but a few don't.  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the images have very vague source info (just saying "Her Majesty's Stationery Office", "League of Nations", "Times of London" and such). If these were taken form online sources, links should be added.  Done
@FunkMonk: thanks for these; all comments have been processed per above. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait, a bit more below. I think I will be done within the week .FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine,[1] at the time an Ottoman region" Why is Ottoman only linked at second mention?  DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Some additional terms and names in the image captions could be linked. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the future of Palestine" Perhaps link to Palestine (region). DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration" All terms should be linked at their first occurrence outside the intro too.
I did away with the BDs in sections other than the lead, is it a rule that there must be another outside the lead?Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done I have added the link Onceinawhile (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Now you have several terms linked at second occurrence, and often never. Would be good to go through this carefully and add links (while of course avoiding duplinks). Also, you link the declaration again under "its own Balfour Declaration of 1917". <-This last one is  DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I have gone through and moved numerous links to their first occurrence, and added new links where they didn't exist. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the Russians were in the midst of a revolution" Link their revolution. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • WW1 also needs a link. It is linked in the lead, does it need another outside the lead? If not  DoneSelfstudier (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands" In whose words? Hyperbolic quotes need in text attribution. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "in other countries outside of Palestine" "other" seems redundant. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You say both "authorised" and "recognize", check such endings throughout to make it consistent. Since the subject has a strong UK connection, the former spelling would be best. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I can see this is a problem throughout, even in the footnotes. Also, most of the quotes use "ise" endings, which would also support the article doing so in general.
  • "in a reference to US President Woodrow Wilson's policy of self determination" The policy is already linked, and you don't have to spell out his full name at second mention (you present him again later, "U.S. President Woodrow Wilson"). DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Same with other full names.
  • "and continued the fight known as the Turkish War of Independence" Already mentioned and linked earlier. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Curzon is never linked or presented. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mr. Frankfurter (as he than was)" Not sure what this means? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking closer, I think the very lengthy quotes from recent publications, such as McTague 1980, will definitely be problematic at FAC, due to copyright issues. I think the individual quotes will have to be cut down considerably. Keep in mind this is not an issue with the public domain quotes, but the rules are much stricter when it comes to copyright, so it is probably best to deal with these issues before FAC to prevent lengthy discussions and instant opposes.
I have been trying to land on a rule of thumb for acceptable size here. Our guideline says: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." An ANI thread interpreting this from two years ago includes comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long."
I have been reducing unnecessary material from the quotations, and retaining only the information which provides critical context and clarity in a manner in which paraphrasing could not replicate. I will confirm later on when done.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done I have shortened or remove entirely a number of unnecessary quotations. We now never use more than a paragraph. And the longest quote used is just 297 words (which incidentally is from a source, Wright 1930, which is most likely out copyright. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "that direct negotiations begun between" Began? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Balfour authorized 30-year-old diplomatic secretary Eric Forbes Adam to begin negotiations with the Zionist Organization. On the Zionist side, the drafting was led by 24-year-old Benjamin V Cohen" Why is it important to note their ages? You don't do this for any other characters. If their ages have significance and had any bearing on events and how they were perceived, this should be discussed in the text, otherwise it just sticks out. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Benjamin V Cohen" V.? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "submitted by Lord Balfour, then Lord President of the Council," Not sure why this level of detail is necessary in image captions, better keep it in the article body. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "the approval of the Council of the League of Nations.." Any reason for the double ..? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The blue links on blue backgrounds in some of the quote boxes are rather unfortunate (my vision is not particularly good, and I cna't be the only one): I wonder if either the links could simply be remove,d as they are mostly present in the article body anyway, or the background colour could be changed?
This was not picked up before in say, Balfour Declaration article. I changed one background to light grey, how is it?Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done I changed the other one. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "On the way, delegation held meetings" The delegation? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "opinion became increasingly unfavourable to state support for Zionism" You could explain why. The following quote does so in part, but it is a bit unclear. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Weizmann noted in his memoirs that he considered the most important part of the mandate, and the most difficult negotiation, was the clause" Something wrong here. "that what he considered"? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is still a good deal of duplinks throughout, which seem not to have been detected by the script because they are redirects.
 Done I have been through and removed more of these. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You say both Transjordan and Trans-Jordan, any reason for the inconsistency?
I don't know the rule here, problem is that there are official documents (eg cmd 3488 of 1928 and the passports) that use Trans-Jordan while many sources (and us) use Transjordan. We could just use the latter throughout for a slight abuse of sources? Apart from this, there was I believe usage of Transjordania to mean the region prior to creation of the Emirate, I need to check that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done I have removed any remaining references, outside of quotes, to the antiquated forms of the terms. Now it is just "Transjordan", which was judged by our community here to be the common name. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "At the Battle of Maysalun on 23 July 1920, the French removed the newly proclaimed nationalist government of Hashim al-Atassi and expelled King Faisal from Syria." The battle should be linked, and I think you could make clearer earlier in the sentence that all of this relates to Syria. Damascus state could also be linked. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Neither Palestinian nor any other Arabs" Palestinans? Think this one is OK ie Palestinian Arabs DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "this border separated Britain and France" Is this the right way to put it? Not French and British controlled areas?  Done fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "that this border separated Britain and France and that it ran through heavily populated areas" You could state that these areas were (Syria/Lebanon). Now, it is only mkentioned at the end of that section which would make it unclear for unfamiliar readers.  Done I added a link further up to explain this. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "nder the Arab administration of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration East (OETA East)" Mentioned earlier than that, but only presented down under "Palestine-Transjordan border". DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Palestine".[k]The British" Missing space. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "and they didn't have" Contractions are discouraged. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "who "disregarded both Husein in Mecca and Feisal in Damascus with impunity" According to who? In text attribution is needed for hyperbolic statements. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You say both Hijaz and Hejaz outside quotes. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "This followed a proposal from Lawrence" Lawrence is neither presented or linked until this point. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Could there be more discussion of the long term consequences and later scholarly views? Perhaps some of the quotes under "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives" could rather be summarised and discussed in-text in a final section.
 Done Long term consequences and later scholarly views are now well covered in the revised "key issues" and "impact and termination" sections of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Especially something like "the words of Professor of Modern Jewish History Bernard Wasserstein, to result in "the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' [which became] part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" seems like it would belong in a section about consequences rather where it is now (it seems somewhat misplaced in the historical context). Also I remember a Zionist claim that "the Arabs got their state when they got Jordan", which might be discussed.  Done This now is placed better with the rest of the section being moved elsewhere. I found a good source connecting the Jordan-is-Palestine point. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "after the Arab Kingdom in Damascus was toppled by the French" This does not seem to be spelled out outside the intro. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.  removed from lede as unnecessary detail Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "was agreed upon in the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement" Only mentioned in intro.  Added in main body Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities." Not stated or elaborated upon outside the intro.  Done via a restructure of the final section to make room for this. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Transjordan became a no man's land after the French defeated Faisal's army" Only stated in intro. And I think you could discuss more of what's outlined under footnote l in the article body, as it seems to explain some circumstances left vague there. Overall, the whole business with the Hashemites (a term only used once) in relation to the Zionists could be elaborated a bit; who were they, what did they want, and what happened to them. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (linked out and see also Sharifian Solution article, is that enough?)
  • Likewise, you could also give more background on the Zionists and what they wanted. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC) (see similar point below)
  • Little word on what the local Palestinian Arabs wanted and their movements. Yes, they were deliberately kept out of many negotiations it seems, but do we know what they would have demanded? This does seem to be in the article? (1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement section). DoneSelfstudier (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I have added an image and descriptive caption to make this more clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • And did they (those in what became Transjordan) even accept Hashemite rule?  Done added confirmation. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "and allowed the Mandatory there "to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions." Why include this lengthy quote, out of so many, in the intro? Seems rather arbitrary, and could be summarised or cut.  DoneSelfstudier (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is little elaboration on the Zionist claims to more of Transjordan; what did they want and why? One question mentions water, but little is discussed in the article. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Added material about the Zionist desiderata, might need tidying up a little.
  • Some of the "Primary supporting quotes" are not quotes (such as g, q and m), but rather seem to be footnotes.  Done These have been fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "incorporated the Balfdur Declaration" This is in a quote, but must be a typo? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnotes s and t are almost identical. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That should be most, Onceinawhile. I haven't looked closely at the "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives", because I don't believe they can survive FAC in their present state, but will leave it for those reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
1919 King Crane Commission Report - Petition Opinion Poll Summaries in Syria, Palestine and Lebanon
  • By chance I just read article[10], which mentions that the 1919 King–Crane commission found that many locals wanted the to US take over the Syria mandate (and what was included in it). Perhaps worth a mention, if it can be corroborated by other sources. "For one of the commission’s conclusions – and Arab scholars have confirmed its veracity – was that most of the people of the Middle East region wanted to live under an American mandate. In other words, most trusted the US above all other western powers (they hated the French but also distrusted the British) to protect their unitary nation as it moved towards independence."
I have been looking for the full K-C report for a long time, and as a result of your question I have finally managed to find it. I spent some time bringing together the tables to create the image on the right which covers the results of the survey. Fisk's statement is likely based on the K-C confidential appendix [11] which says "Practically all of the Moslems, who number about four-fifths of the population of Syria, are for America as their first choice. It is true that there was little direct expression of this in Palestine, since after the first declarations at Jaffa, the question of choice of mandate was held up and referred to Damascus. Possibly this was done under instructions from the Emir Feisal, who may have been trying to hold the field for Britain. If so the evidence of sincere declaration for America is all the stronger, since the Congress reached unanimity for America. As for the Christians, while comparatively few declared directly for America as first choice—only a part of the Protestants and Syrian Orthodox and Armenians—they were bound by old ties and recent agreements to declare for Britain or France, but a large proportion mentioned America as second choice, and stated that they would welcome her, while there were abundant assurances that an American mandate would be satisfactory to practically all. The [Page 855]members of the Commission can entertain no doubt of the genuineness of the desire for the United States as mandatory power, in view of the countless earnest appeals, both by individuals and groups, and of the manifest enthusiasm shown on many occasions, in spite of the Commission’s discouragement of demonstrations and avoidance of every form of ostentation. It was furthermore always possible to ask why a group or individual objected to France or England, but not to ask why a group failed to declare for the United States. It is of course also a fact that France and only less openly England were making bids for the mandate, while the United States was not."
The table shows that K-C's statement is not numerically provable in Palestine.
So for now I have left this out as a complicating factor.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: a quick note to thank you for these excellent and detailed comments. I will work through them and ping you when complete. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I changed background colour in one of the boxes, how does it look? If it still bad, can you choose one color here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#X11_color_names Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done I think the color you picked works well, and I have changed the other to match. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New status query

What's the status on this? It looked like it was going well until late july, now suddenly nothing. Hopefully this is close to being wrapped up. Wizardman 02:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging FunkMonk, Selfstudier, and Onceinawhile, in the hopes that they can answer Wizardman's query. Thanks to you all for your work on this review and nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi yes, my fault – I have been too busy. FunkMonk’s final set of excellent comments have been part-implemented. I will finish the job now. Thank you for the prompt. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I am making good progress. I need to step back to figure out how to implement the remaining points. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk and Selfstudier: I believe there are now just two issues remaining: the Transjordan section and the footnotes. I have temporarily collapsed all the comments that I consider fully resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: I think I made enough amendments now to deal with TJ/Hashemite/Zionist connections.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Thank you. Fully agree. I have also improved the flow by breaking up what was a very long section and spreading it around the article in the logical sections. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments resolved

@FunkMonk: thanks again for your excellent comments, and your patience in seeing them resolved. I have finally finished going through them, and together with SelfStudier have answered each individually above. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice, I will go through the points in the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This looks fine to me now, all that is left seems to be a bit of duplinking within some sections, which can be found with the script. Other than that, getting such an important/controversial article to peer review before FAC wouldn't hurt, but it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: thank you very much.
I have removed the remaining duplinks. It always amazes me how they keep finding their way back in...
I agree with you re peer review. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a consequence of more than one editor working on the article, but anyhow, looks good now,so I'll promote. Good luck with the rest! FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: thank you for this, and for all your support and guidance in getting the article to this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Question/Suggestion on Balfour Declaration Incorporation in to Mandate for Palestine

It seems odd that in the Balfour section of this entry on the Mandate for Palestine there is not an explicit mention of the fact that it was incorporated explicitly. It seems that something like the following sentence should be added, likely in the beginning of that subsection, but also in the summary introduction: "The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the preamble and second article of the Mandate for Palestine."

It's a plain factual statement and would help clarify the relationship of the Balfour Declaration to the Mandate -- without making it clear in the beginning, all the explanation of the specifics and background of Balfour are wasted. No matter one's opinion on the underlying issue, this seems like a flaw that ought to be addressed. The supporting documentation is pretty easy -- it's right in the WikiSource text of the Mandate.

Hopefully I'm simply adding this suggestion to the ongoing discussion on this page -- which is my intent, and not muddying an existing discussion, which is not my intent.

Paul

Thanks for the helpful suggestion. I have added this in. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Lieshout and the border between Palestine and Jordan

The resolution per the conference minutes, 25 April 1920

@Selfstudier: I think Lieshout's statement (the basis for your edit [12]): "As to Palestine’s boundaries, during the conference France and Britain had decided with respect to its eastern frontier to adhere to the line fixed in the Sykes–Picot agreement, where the River Jordan had been the boundary between zone ‘B’ and the area under international administration" is incorrect. My read of the minutes which Lieshout uses (see image of page 10, right) has the French referring to this topic twice, but the British avoid giving a commitment. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:I don't know, it could be so. The problem is that Lieshout is a secondary source and the minutes are a primary source so we have a little bit of a problem there since interpretation (by us) of a primary source could/would be considered OR(it seems to me that you CAN read those minutes in the way that Lieshout has done). I can't remember now, do we have an alternative secondary source confirming when the border was set? Then we can include that in addition as an alternative view to that of Lieshout. Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I am looking at the OETA and Transjordan pages, the whole thing seems very unclear at the moment, I will do some more hunting about.Selfstudier (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The area was included in the Arab Kingdom of Syria from 26 Nov 1919 then on the OETA page secondary source says after Maysalun (24 Jul 1920 which is after San Remo) that the Arab zone was divided into two, the southern part of which became TJ and the French took the North part. So when you look at it this way, Lieshout opinion starts to make some sense, right? Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, it is the British leaving OETA East in November 1919 that "allows" the creation of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. I can't figure out the geographical Eastward extent of AKS (the West is the Jordan, I think), I am just guessing that the Southernmost part of it becomes (some or all of) TJ in the end. In a way, San Remo had to happen to sort out the potential (which became actual) mess brewing between the French and Faisal after the latter finds out about SP.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
To further confuse the issue, on the San Remo page we have "Palestine was included within the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria comprising the mutessarriflik of Jerusalem and part of the vilayets of Beirut and Syria" (!)Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Also on the San Remo page, we give Karsh as saying that "Curzon instructed Vansittart to leave the Eastern boundary of Palestine undefined" but that is not what Curzon (or Karsh, quoting, Curzon) actually said, he said that "HMG are already treating TJ as separate from the Damascus State while at the same time avoiding any definite connection..."Selfstudier (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We are giving Paris on page 203 as a ref relating to this but take a look at page 202. "two principles that emerged in 1920 and were calculated to further define the nature of the new state, served only to further confuse matters and to generate the uncertainty of which Abdullah, Samuel and Philby later complained. The first was that the administrative authority of the Palestine government would not be extended east of the Jordan, a principle laid down as early as July 1920." and "SinceMcMahon had excluded from the area of promised Arab independence territorylying west of the ‘district of Damascus’, he argued that in areas to the east of that district—that is, east of the River Jordan—Britain was obligated to ‘recognise and support’ such independence." To my mind this clearly establishes the British thinking on the subject (even if the i's were not dotted and the t's not crossed) and I cannot see any reason why they would have had a different opinion at San Remo which would seem to lend support to the Lieshout version of events.Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this (we have Curzon's 26 August 1920 "There must be no question of setting up any British administration in that area" in the article).
Note that immediately before this, in early August 1920, Samuel was still pushing to widen the boundary. And Curzon was not fond of Zionism, whereas Lloyd George was, so it's entirely possible for different body language in San Remo vs later Foreign Office decisions.
You mentioned above that "it seems to me that you CAN read those minutes in the way that Lieshout has done". Could you point to which sentences you have in mind?
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You are interpreting the primary to say that the British did not commit to it, I am interpreting it (or Lieshout is, let's say) to say that the lack of British commitment to it implies agreement to the suggestion -> You have "...no difficulty in regard to the Eastern frontier of Palestine" and in second para, "...fully agreed with..." and in the last para "....no real difficulties.....Mosul". I read any difficulties as only relating to the "Dan to Beersheeba" nonsense (because no-one knew where Dan actually was). In any case, the Lieshout interpretation is possible (as I said, if we could find another interpretation of the same data, that would help).

Also note that we are not talking about legalities here, only what the French and British might have agreed to at some point. Other data (ie facts on the ground) also would seem at least in principle to support the Lieshout interpretation. And if later Churchill is going around saying "What Syria is it that the French have been given a Mandate for" (how far South does it go) how can he ask that (decide that) unless the territory be known?

This is not a question of "body language" it is a question of whether or not the French and British had agreed something (between themselves). It's clear that Iraq and Palestine in the original conception were going to meet and it is simply a question of where they were going to meet and it seems to me the British might well have decided that it would be at the Jordan (it is where the Ottoman also divided it in terms of sanjaks). I agree that at various points, the Zionists did attempt to extend their claims across the river but afaik all these claims were rebuffed.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it another way, in all the negotiations from Versailles on, the French wanted to stick with SP and the border of "Palestine" (brown area) that was in that agreement. The French then became increasingly irate at LG/English demand for more and more concessions after they had already given over Palestine and Mosul, which is why you see all these arguments in the FRUS accounts. So while the French did give way eventually on the Northern side (the "Dan" bit) I think they simply insisted on SP otherwise (which includes the Eastern border) and what else could the English do except go along with that? Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not helpful to write "no-one knew where Dan actually was" since what mattered was where they thought it was. At time the only options on the table were Tel el-Qadi (the place accepted today) and Banias (preferred by George Adam Smith). Since these are only 4km apart, it doesn't make a difference regarding most of the eastern boundary. It could only make a difference regarding the water sources at the northern boundary. Zerotalk 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I only meant that to the extent there was any dispute between the English and the French then that area was where it was , LG had introduced the biblical reference into the discussion and it was well North of the SP line.Selfstudier (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

On a separate matter (my memory is bad these days) can you remind me where we get the "no man's land" thing from? It says Transjordan became a no man's land after the French defeated Faisal's army in July 1920.Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

See Mandate_for_Palestine#cite_ref-117. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you :) That is also quite puzzling since we are talking about a time after San Remo ie Mandates had been awarded according to which either it was Syrian or it was going to be Iraq (or even (theoretically) revert to Turkey). Once again, I find myself thinking that it is only the French and the English that can sort it out (at this point in time). At any rate, the "territory" or "no man's land" being discussed must have had some definition and where can it begin except at the Jordan?Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Also see the British explanation to the right from March 1921; they refer to art 132 of Sevres: [13]. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, legally speaking Turkey surrenders the territory in question at Sevres and then again, later. Although that is dated in 1921, that British position goes back much earlier than that, I think. Anyway, they had to add it to the Mandate in order to subsequently run it separately. The Iraq revolt in 1920 also confused the issue.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Biger (on pages 164 and 165) manages a reasonable explanation of all this. In particular: 

  "At the beginning of 1918, soon after the southern part of Palestine was conquered, the Foreign Office determined that ‘Faisal’s authority over  the  area  that  he  controls  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan  river should be recognized. We can confirm this recognition of ours even if our forces do not currently control major parts of Trans-Jordan.’"

and subsequent.Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited the relevant section to put it in date order and to show that there were two opposing viewpoints in the UK gov, the debate going on all the while since the end of the war. I hope I managed to make it a bit clearer. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: The only thing bothering me now is that there seems to be a fair amount of crossover in the material under the sections Transjordan and Palestine transjordan border. Could we not integrate the material from the second section into the first?Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Officially setting the eastern border

...which set the boundary as simply "the Jordan [river]", and subsequently in the September 1922 Transjordan memorandum which described the boundary in more detail: "from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk; thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian Frontier" — all true. The Transjordan memorandum was presented to the LoN on Sep 22, but this exact border description had already appeared in the Palestine Gazette of Sep 1 citing the authority of the Order-in-Council published in the same issue. There is nothing wrong with the way this is presented; I just want to note for future reference that the border presented in the TM had already been firmly decided, contrary to some sources which think the border description in the TM was just a proposal for LoN consideration. Zerotalk 02:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thinking more, I wonder if the O-in-C shouldn't be mentioned instead of, or before, the TM. Here is the full text from p16 of Official Gazette of Government of Palestine, Extraordinary Issue, 1st September, 1922.:

WHEREAS it is provided in the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922, that the said Order shall not apply to such part of the territories to the East of the Jordan and the Dead Sea as shall be defined by Order of the High Commissioner, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS :— The Palestine Order-in-Council 1922 shall not apply to the territory lying East of a line drawn from a point two miles West of the town of Akabah in the Gulf of Akabah up the centre of the Wady Arabah, the Dead Sea and the River Jordan to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian Frontier. HERBERT SAMUEL, High Commissioner, 1st September, 1922. Zerotalk 02:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

TJ came into existence 11 April (I suppose you would call that a border in principle or some such term). Then the Mandate was approved 24 July (that included TJ at this point, I assume, but still with only a border in principle?). Then on 1 September, you get the o-i-c (there is a gap there of a month or so, is that where the carving up myth comes from?). Anyway, it is a good idea to pin it down as much as possible, so I agree with the suggestion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

VI. Order defining Boundaries of Territory to which the Palestine Order-in-Council does not apply

@Zero0000: thank you for pointing this out. Biger confirms it on page 183: “The publication of this version in an official newspaper gave official validity to the existence of two separate mandatory territories – Palestine and Trans-Jordan, and this determination received international validity together with the acceptance of the corrected mandate’s sections by the League of Nations, on 23 September 1922.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is my understanding that although the mandatory was to fix the border (for a class A) it still required a sign off from the LoN (not just an oic) for it to be fully legal (although I can't see why they would object provided that there was otherwise no breach of the mandate terms).So here, TJ is added to the Palestine mandate with borders to be fixed between it and Palestine and then, some weeks later, they are fixed and then some weeks after that, signed off on. Is that not how it works? Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Harv warning

  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBentwich1929.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFESCO_Foundation_for_Palestine1947.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFUnited_Nations_Division_for_Palestinian_Rights1978.

Nice article btw. Cinadon36 13:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Muza Kazim edit

Onceinawhile Not entirely sure the given text accurately reflects the article (I gave a url for the full text). Also it seems to contradict the reference in Balfour Declaration article that says Balfour Declaration was in Sevres but not in Lausanne? Selfstudier (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; the last sentence re Lausanne is problematic. It was drafted here.
Grief, although prone to bias, has a reasonably clear explanation: Grief, Howard (2008). The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law: A Treatise on Jewish Sovereignty Over the Land of Israel. Mazo Publishers. p. 274-275. ISBN 978-965-7344-52-1.
He says that all the relevant articles in Sevres were replaced by just Article 16 of Lausanne, which did not provide any specifics about the mandates.
Would be good to find a source connecting all this together – i.e. how did the drafters of the Lausanne treaty think about the question at the time.
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I will see if I can find something, one problem is that many legal questions were never (and may never be) tested in any court and there is a multiplicity of legal opinions on the issues. While it is clear that San Remo didn't make it into Lausanne, it is not clear that it matters at all (in other words, it didn't matter that it was in Sevres and it equally did not matter that it wasn't in Lausanne which is essentially what we have in the Balfour Declaration article at this point). It is clear that Turkey (and the Hejaz) did not sign off on the Mandates and it is also clear that Turkey did not cede its territories to anyone in particular (in Sevres it ceded them to the Allied Powers and required Turkey to cooperate with San Remo). There are all sorts of legal issues which follow from this and as you might expect, there is disagreement about all of them.
For example, here is the flip side of Grief https://i-p-o.org/Koechler-Palestine-Jerusalem-Arab_League-IPO-OP-February2012.htm (the para that begins "Through these provisions...)

Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you have summarized it very well. It is of limited consequence, but it was disputed heavily for some time so we should note it. Perhaps another sentence or two could be added in the “Legality” section of the article regarding Lausanne? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
These same issues were raised by the Saudi, Syria and Lebanese representatives of the Arab League as part of their testimony to UNSCOP in 1947 (39th meeting at Sofar, A/AC 13/PV39). The UNSCOP report had a majority and minority and two committees were set up to detail them, the minority committee raised up all the legal questions and wanted an ICJ opinion but were voted down in favour of the majority report (there was a lot of arm twisting going on in the background).

I doubt we would add any value to the article by discussing these particular issues specifically, there are many other legal issues besides these.I did alter the edit to clarify that the Mandates were not in Lausanne.Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Grief as source

@Zero0000: has reverted my adding him in as a source (which has in turn messed up the edit wherein I used it:) OK, I do not disagree that he is a bit ott in his opinions but if he has been accepted as a source for the Balfour Declaration article (which I just copy edited it from) then I see no reason for a change of heart now? I have only relied on it for a small statement of fact not for some outrageous opinion of his.Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise he had been used as a source for BD. That is unacceptable and I'll remove him from there. Just read some pages from Grief to see how far from RS he is. It is nearly impossible to find a book on this subject that is more unreliable. Zerotalk 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Look at the starting point of Grief's book: "The term “Israel” appearing in the title of this book is used to denote all areas of the historical Land of Israel, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan that were part of the mandated area of Palestine. It also includes those parts of the historical Land of Israel that were illegally excluded when the boundaries of Palestine were determined by Great Britain and France in 1920 and 1922: Southern Lebanon up to the bend of the Litani River, the Bashan (including the Golan) north of the Yarmuk River, and at least half of the Sinai Peninsula." Nobody who takes such an extreme position should be used as a source in our articles. Zerotalk 16:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to fight over RS, I will see if I can find an alternative reference for that fact. I am not disagreeing with you that his opinions are off piste, its just that WP seems not that clear about where the line is for RS (or who decides where the line is, for that matter). I'm sure Grief has his defenders, even for his opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandate_for_Palestine/Archive_2&oldid=1183422986"