![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Oncenawhile, could you kindly provide direct quotes from the sources you used to restore the image and caption you synthed from various stuff? I'm looking at the Ingrams book and can't see how it supports the caption, and unfortunately I don't have access to Huneidi (it's ridiculously expensive and doesn't seem to have a digital version). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it really as clear as all that (me being suspicious now, (lol)? That CAB in the synth is foreign office stuff (ie might not necessarily reflect all gov positions), also was it available at the time? (CAB 24 159 6 is CO stuff later on in 1923 (Devonshire) and says Palestine not (supposed to be) in, haha) Or was this one of the later disclosures? (I see it marked secret). Of course I think all are aware of Churchill's geographical games but if the other was not really known about, then is it fair to say that the position changed between...." (even if it is in fact true). I really do not like this McMahon thing at all, whole lot reeks of trickery. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at this now, Kedourie kind of follows Friedman, both of those works have been attacked (fairly harshly) by Charles D Smith (par for the course, haha) so if we are going to start peddling the first two then I think we need to peddle him as well, lol. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The error is note 54 invalid ref tag, lots of red, lol, I din't look to see what it was, too busy with kedourie, haha. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited it so as to quote the primary sources and refer to the sources as background information, all in a footnote. I don't know the date that the fo doc became poublicly available. If you don't like it, tell me and I will revert it. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I finally figured out (I'm a bit slow) that one Times leak of 1964 (not 74) Light on Britain's Palestine Promise is Curzon (how it gets in bentwich's box I have no idea:) and the other leak that Kedourie mentions is that key sentence from the FO memo. For interest, also tried to traceback on the 22 changed interpretation and what Churchill was claiming, seems to have originated in some FO meetings with Faisal in arly 1921 where he apparently said something like he was "prepared to accept the statement that it had been the intention of HMG to exclude Palestine" (this was of course around the same time as they were setting him up in Iraq lol). World is full of good intentions, haha. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"...the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem, since in fact this argument was no older than Young's memorandum of November 1920"
Kedouri
So, would it be possible to see some quotes from the sources used to substantiate the caption of those images? This is only the third time I've asked. Looking at Kedourie, he's not saying that "the British Government" changed its interpretation. Or at least not in the way Oncenawhile is trying to promote here. He's saying that the colonial office memorandum presented a new argument against the advice of the FO (and against McMahon's interpretation). Who is the "British Government" in this case? I'm going to tag that with a failed verification tag since it's pretty obvious. For the other two, rather than quotes there's some general hand waving towards chunks of 5+ pages. I've read those and can't see how they support the caption. So I will wait a little longer for some exact quotes that explicitly say what the caption says, and if those don't materialize in the next few days, I'll tag those as well. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This one http://www.balfourproject.org/the-mcmahon-hussein-correspondence-revisited/ in 1921, Feisal, at a Foreign Office meeting, was informed that Palestine was excluded because it lay “west of the Province of Damascus”. Feisal clearly explained the linguistic fallacy of the Foreign Office’s position, but to no avail.
talks about a meeting on 20 january (p323) Lindsay, Young and Cornwallis with Faisal, Haddad and Haidar This says that this meeting wrongly led to Churchill claim in parliament that Palestine was excluded and that the minutes (which I have no idea how to get) show that faisal “only accepted that this could be the British governments interpretation of the exchanges as they related to palestine, without necessarily agreeing with them”
in the notes for pages 305-12 mentions a few meetings there including the above one and others on Jan 13 and December 23 but I can’t view those pages lol
I can’t see a page number but it mentions the meeting and that expression i used “expressed himself as prepared to accept the statement...”
I can’t prove it with materials available to me , seems tho, coming so soon after Young memo/Churchill to CO etc this must be where this comes from (I see a lot of books (very proisrael sort) claiming that he had agreed to abandon all claims, doesn’t look like it tho.) Selfstudier ( talk) 18:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The "always" is clearly not true, bit of a red herring tho, other matters are more important. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
We can easily show a change if we also show the Young memo as well, then it's obvious where it comes from (it's more obvious on the actual McMahon pages itself for that reason). Selfstudier ( talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's Hansard, Churchill using the phrase and referring to the FO January meeting of 20 january so that would seem to settle where it came from initially. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1922/jul/11/pledges-to-arabs Selfstudier ( talk) 18:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
What IS true and incontestably so is that the position of the UK government did change as you have described and that the public at large had no idea what was happening cos all the documentation was being kept hidden (we know this now). Only thing I don't get is why Childs gets into this in 1930 (again doesn't really matter cos 1939 overrules it) so I am going to have a look at that next just for interest. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
IDEA- Looking at all this, couldn't we just put all the nitty gritty details on the McMahon page and then all we really need on here is a summary position (which I think we actually have even if not written out) together with a link out to the McMahon page to prove what is said in the summary. We are kind of doing the same work twice at the moment. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose the following amended language for the image caption:
The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered Palestine to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain
Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I also have no difficulty with that language for the caption, it is self evident from the documents. If we do move it over to Mcmahon, all this problem will go away anyway because when we look at it there, the whole position is very clear. (and I have never edited Wikipedia with another account, why would anyone ask that?) Selfstudier ( talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Amended proposal following feedback:
The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain
Oncenawhile ( talk) 05:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
To tidy up this section and fix the continuity I moved the discussion about the alleged synth down the page. Nice, we have 2 editors in Agreement with where it stands now (Once version) and 3 editors in support of the other version (Selfstudier version) and you in disagreement with both (not having provided any version of your own). I suggest that you choose one or other in order that we can move on.(I see that you now have started to make potentially contentious edits (eg was it a treaty) on the McMahon page so it would in any event be just as well to leave off McMahon here and we will rehash the arguments, if need be, over there). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added the following footer to the pic-
"The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded."
This is in line with WP policy in regard to quality primary sources-
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully ie Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.
Selfstudier ( talk) 07:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is an additional primary source http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-24-72-GT-6506-2.pdf discussing the Ottoman settlement overall, wherein, apart from referring to the GT 6508 we already have in the pic, it again states, on page 8 "6. Palestine (west of Jordan) (a) We are pledged to King Husein that this territory shall be ”Arab“ and ”independant." (b)...“ Selfstudier ( talk) 08:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, about the secondaries...the way to finish off the section that includes the pic is to have some content there by the pic clearly stating that there are sources that support the position in the foreign office document and that there are sources that support the position in the white paper and that a full discussion of them may be found in the McMahon article. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Your position seems simply to be to revert without consensus and to snipe from the sidelines without contributing anything useful to the effort yourself. This pic and its commentary was there before I even came to this page as an active editor, it is not even about the Balfour Declaration but about the subject matter of a completely different page so you are as well making a mountain out of a molehill because any serious arguments should be dealt with there not here. Having said this I see that Once has added text to the pic which although not entirely to my liking I can live with so can we now move on with fixing up this article? If you revert again without consensus and without good reason I will take it to dispute resolution. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If there is a source saying one thing and a source saying something else, it is perfectly ok to present both and note the difference. Actually it is required by WP:BALANCE to do that. The caption "The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." is not SYNTH violation but just a presentation of two disagreeing sources. However the SYNTH boundary is pretty close and we would step over the line if we added our own conclusion from the disagreement. It comes down to a careful choice of wording. Zero talk 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem that no secondary source compare between White Paper and the Cabinet document.If any secondary source base their interpretation on of the primary documents then we should attribute each source and I don't think we should use any caption but rather attribute each view in the body of the article. Shrike ( talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Another problem that McMahon discussion should be only with connection with Balfour declaration if the sources doesn't mention it in context of the topic of the article we shouldn't do it too. Shrike ( talk) 12:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The essence of the SYNTH allegation is that an argument is being made (cherry picking implies the same thing); no argument is being made at all (that is why I first suggested direct quotes as appropriate). So then one may reasonably enquire why these two documents in particular? Well, they represent the source for the subsequent arguments that began in earnest once the White Paper became public even though at that point in time all of the documents even the correspondence itself was held secret. The correspondence was published in 1938 and there was an enquiry in 1939 and still documents were being kept secret; these, including the CAB, were declassified in 1964 (all this is now well known). So any of the declassified CABS (or the declassified Curzon minute) could serve as the first official reason for the subsequent argument Palestine was included (they actually say that) while the White Paper is the first official communication to conclude the opposite. As to the arguments themselves, they can be made in the McMahon article, this matter is only of relevance to the Balfour Declaration in the sense that Britain may or may not have made contradictory undertakings during this time period to various parties, including to the Jews and to the Arabs. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Just for clarity in case there is some confusion about it, this section is in reference to the allegation of synth and reverting of this footer on the basis of that allegation "The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." The existing footer is subject of a different discussion up above Selfstudier ( talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
NMMNG, you have just introduced needless repetition into the lead, it already says that the Declaration was incorporated into the Mandate just above your newly introduced repetition of same. Kindly remove/amend one or other. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine."
to the end of the lead. IMO, it simply serves to break up the text that relates to the Declaration Selfstudier ( talk) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been added POV (secondary sourced) edits to the section. This is not helpful for the discussion of the Balfour Declaration, if we wish to add POV's re McMahon Corresppondence (and I could add 20 of them if needs be) then I think that ought to be done on the McMahon page, rather than trying to duplicate the entirety of the McMahon page here in the Balfour page. So I would ask the author to self revert these and perhaps add something along the lines of "See McMahon page for a discussion of many POVs as to whether Palestine was or was not included and as to whether McMahon intended or did not intend to include and whether a district is a vilayet and sundry other....blah" Selfstudier ( talk) 12:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus and anyway this discussion is for McMahon page not for here so I have removed all the alleged non NPOV material as stated above. I will later add some clause along the lines of this in any case only being of relevance to Balfour in the sense of whether or not conflicting promises had been made. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
NMMNG's version is below (as now removed [4]):
According to Huneidi, the British Government's interpretation of the what had been "intended" and the resulting nature of the contradictions evolved over the subsequent years... According to Kedourie, McMahon had intended to exclude Palestine from the beginning.{{sfn|Kedourie|1976|p=247}} Biger states that Palestine was not included in the area discussed between McMahon and Hussein, and that "the British government constantly claimed that Palestine was never promised to Hussein".{{sfn|Biger|2004|p=48}}
The issues that I see are as follows:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies to Once if I jumped the gun on deletion, I did it because the "NPOV" (!) additions rather diminished the overall article quality. I have recorded the deleted materials over on the McMahon page if anyone wants to add things from it back in over on that page. In my view, the overall "feel" of the Balfour page is not materially altered by the deletion so I would suggest just letting it go here and arguing it over there instead. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of good order, I will record here that what Biger actually says on page 48, the reference page given by NMMNG:
Palestine was never even mentioned in the letters exchange, but the discussion over its inclusion in the area promised by the British to the Arabs had become a central question in the relationship between the two sides during the years in which the British government ruled Palestine. The discussion over this historical-political question has yet to end. The expression ‘west of the districts of Aleppo, Hamma, Homs and Damascus’ was too general and it created a multitude of possible meanings about its territorial inclusions and about the promises about Palestine. The British government constantly claimed that Palestine was never promised to Hussein, and that the geographic description regarded the vilayets (provinces) of Aleppo, Hamma, Homs and mainly Damascus. Prior to the war, the Damascus (A-Sham) vilayet extended all the way to the Gulf of Aqaba. Palestine is situated to the west of this area, and therefore was not a part of the area that was promised to the Arabs in the letters. Britain also claimed that it could set aside only ‘areas in which it had freedom to do as it wished to with’, and Palestine was not an area of that kind because of the French demands. An expression of the geographic settlement situation that existed while these early discussions took place is the fact that they lack mention of any important town west of the Jordan river, because at that time there was no important town south of Damascus. The Arabs claimed later – and the Arabs and other historians continue arguing to this day – that the vilayet (province) of Damascus didn’t exist at all. Instead, there was a district (sanjak) under this name, and it only surrounded the city of Damascus. The vilayet was called ‘Syria A-Sham’ and this name was not mentioned in the letters exchange. Therefore, according to this explanation, Palestine was part of the area that was promised to the Arabs. The discussion over this historical-political-geographic question has not ended yet, but the influence of the unofficial understanding between Britain and the Arabs is already apparent in the Sykes–Picot agreement, which was signed later.
I trust that the above makes it clear that the edits made by NMMNG not only misrepresent the source, they are evidence of bad faith. Certainly editors need to be aware when considering edits by this individual that they are in all likelihood POV (at a minimum). Selfstudier ( talk) 18:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
For ease of reference, I removed the below paragraph as it only (possibly) relates to the negotiations on Sykes-Picot and the material (in a slightly different form) already exists at the Sykes-Picot article:
Three months prior to the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sykes had been approached with a plan by Samuel in the form of a memorandum which Sykes claimed to have committed to memory.{refn|group=lower-alpha|In a 27 February 1916 letter, prior to his departure to Russia, Sykes wrote to Samuel: "I read the memorandum and have committed it to memory."{sfn|Kamel|2015|p=109}}}} Sykes wrote to Samuel about the boundaries marked on a map Which map? attached to the memorandum, noting that with the exclusion of Hebron and the "East of the Jordan" there would be less to discuss with the Muslim community.{refn|group=lower-alpha|Sanders quotes Sykes's letter as follows: "By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."{sfn|Sanders|1984|p=347}}}}
This fellow had his fingers in all 3 pies:) I am presently trying to piece together exactly what he did and when. It all seems to begin with De Bunsen Committee as mentioned in the article so I will add something over there first, I think. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not entirely happy with this section, I assume it is intended to cast light on the question of WHY the British decided on such a Declaration and why at that time in particular (it seems there is no scholarly agreement on the why/when).
It does now give some insight into those questions (is it intended to suggest that the progress of the war was a factor all by itself?); I am wondering whether we might not be able to rearrange the thing as a list of reasons (in order of time as far as possible) and then with respect to each reason sources backing up that interpretation or otherwise.
Reasons I have come across up to now include (maybe there are others too):
1) Different world views of Asquith and Lloyd George splitting the Governement views about the war.
2) DLG unhappiness with Sykes Picot
3) UK versus the French
4) The Zionists were masters of the art of persuasion and Weizmann was a wizard :)
5) PR, religious, guilt type things.
6) Luck, coincidence, confluence of events/The US relationship.
7) Mark Sykes did it (joke). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 11:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this edit is not correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Balfour_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=785011258 The new text about "There is ongoing controversy" makes it seem like historians quibble over the interpretations of historical documents. That is perhaps correct, but it is also correct that Arab leaders at the time charged that the Balfour Declaration contradicted previous promises made. I think that the old text was better. ImTheIP ( talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that's an improvement! In my opinion, Wikipedia articles should always begin with the what and the why. What is X and why is X worthy of a Wikipedia article? And we have a looong article about the BD precisely because of it's controversial status. ImTheIP ( talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy, wouldn't it be nicer of you to first discuss changes? ImTheIP ( talk) 00:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that the account by Edy Kaufman has been added; I was planning to read it, but I haven't yet. The French position evolved over the years and perhaps could use a bit of elaboration. Somewhat simplified the story is as follows. At the time of WW1, the French had basically accepted sole British suzerainty in Palestine. Zionism was not much of a force in France, and the French aim was to not alienate the Arabs, while keeping good relations with the US and British diplomats where Zionism was more of a force. According to Picot, Sokolow negotiated with the French while making it clear that the Zionists considered that the British had sole suzerainty. Sokolow's aim was to get an assurance of sympathy from the French about the Zionist project. Clemenceau later confirmed to Lloyd George the position that Britain should have responsibility for Palestine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Oncenawhile, could you kindly provide direct quotes from the sources you used to restore the image and caption you synthed from various stuff? I'm looking at the Ingrams book and can't see how it supports the caption, and unfortunately I don't have access to Huneidi (it's ridiculously expensive and doesn't seem to have a digital version). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it really as clear as all that (me being suspicious now, (lol)? That CAB in the synth is foreign office stuff (ie might not necessarily reflect all gov positions), also was it available at the time? (CAB 24 159 6 is CO stuff later on in 1923 (Devonshire) and says Palestine not (supposed to be) in, haha) Or was this one of the later disclosures? (I see it marked secret). Of course I think all are aware of Churchill's geographical games but if the other was not really known about, then is it fair to say that the position changed between...." (even if it is in fact true). I really do not like this McMahon thing at all, whole lot reeks of trickery. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at this now, Kedourie kind of follows Friedman, both of those works have been attacked (fairly harshly) by Charles D Smith (par for the course, haha) so if we are going to start peddling the first two then I think we need to peddle him as well, lol. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The error is note 54 invalid ref tag, lots of red, lol, I din't look to see what it was, too busy with kedourie, haha. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited it so as to quote the primary sources and refer to the sources as background information, all in a footnote. I don't know the date that the fo doc became poublicly available. If you don't like it, tell me and I will revert it. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I finally figured out (I'm a bit slow) that one Times leak of 1964 (not 74) Light on Britain's Palestine Promise is Curzon (how it gets in bentwich's box I have no idea:) and the other leak that Kedourie mentions is that key sentence from the FO memo. For interest, also tried to traceback on the 22 changed interpretation and what Churchill was claiming, seems to have originated in some FO meetings with Faisal in arly 1921 where he apparently said something like he was "prepared to accept the statement that it had been the intention of HMG to exclude Palestine" (this was of course around the same time as they were setting him up in Iraq lol). World is full of good intentions, haha. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
"...the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem, since in fact this argument was no older than Young's memorandum of November 1920"
Kedouri
So, would it be possible to see some quotes from the sources used to substantiate the caption of those images? This is only the third time I've asked. Looking at Kedourie, he's not saying that "the British Government" changed its interpretation. Or at least not in the way Oncenawhile is trying to promote here. He's saying that the colonial office memorandum presented a new argument against the advice of the FO (and against McMahon's interpretation). Who is the "British Government" in this case? I'm going to tag that with a failed verification tag since it's pretty obvious. For the other two, rather than quotes there's some general hand waving towards chunks of 5+ pages. I've read those and can't see how they support the caption. So I will wait a little longer for some exact quotes that explicitly say what the caption says, and if those don't materialize in the next few days, I'll tag those as well. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This one http://www.balfourproject.org/the-mcmahon-hussein-correspondence-revisited/ in 1921, Feisal, at a Foreign Office meeting, was informed that Palestine was excluded because it lay “west of the Province of Damascus”. Feisal clearly explained the linguistic fallacy of the Foreign Office’s position, but to no avail.
talks about a meeting on 20 january (p323) Lindsay, Young and Cornwallis with Faisal, Haddad and Haidar This says that this meeting wrongly led to Churchill claim in parliament that Palestine was excluded and that the minutes (which I have no idea how to get) show that faisal “only accepted that this could be the British governments interpretation of the exchanges as they related to palestine, without necessarily agreeing with them”
in the notes for pages 305-12 mentions a few meetings there including the above one and others on Jan 13 and December 23 but I can’t view those pages lol
I can’t see a page number but it mentions the meeting and that expression i used “expressed himself as prepared to accept the statement...”
I can’t prove it with materials available to me , seems tho, coming so soon after Young memo/Churchill to CO etc this must be where this comes from (I see a lot of books (very proisrael sort) claiming that he had agreed to abandon all claims, doesn’t look like it tho.) Selfstudier ( talk) 18:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The "always" is clearly not true, bit of a red herring tho, other matters are more important. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
We can easily show a change if we also show the Young memo as well, then it's obvious where it comes from (it's more obvious on the actual McMahon pages itself for that reason). Selfstudier ( talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's Hansard, Churchill using the phrase and referring to the FO January meeting of 20 january so that would seem to settle where it came from initially. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1922/jul/11/pledges-to-arabs Selfstudier ( talk) 18:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
What IS true and incontestably so is that the position of the UK government did change as you have described and that the public at large had no idea what was happening cos all the documentation was being kept hidden (we know this now). Only thing I don't get is why Childs gets into this in 1930 (again doesn't really matter cos 1939 overrules it) so I am going to have a look at that next just for interest. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
IDEA- Looking at all this, couldn't we just put all the nitty gritty details on the McMahon page and then all we really need on here is a summary position (which I think we actually have even if not written out) together with a link out to the McMahon page to prove what is said in the summary. We are kind of doing the same work twice at the moment. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose the following amended language for the image caption:
The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered Palestine to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain
Oncenawhile ( talk) 18:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I also have no difficulty with that language for the caption, it is self evident from the documents. If we do move it over to Mcmahon, all this problem will go away anyway because when we look at it there, the whole position is very clear. (and I have never edited Wikipedia with another account, why would anyone ask that?) Selfstudier ( talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Amended proposal following feedback:
The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain
Oncenawhile ( talk) 05:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
To tidy up this section and fix the continuity I moved the discussion about the alleged synth down the page. Nice, we have 2 editors in Agreement with where it stands now (Once version) and 3 editors in support of the other version (Selfstudier version) and you in disagreement with both (not having provided any version of your own). I suggest that you choose one or other in order that we can move on.(I see that you now have started to make potentially contentious edits (eg was it a treaty) on the McMahon page so it would in any event be just as well to leave off McMahon here and we will rehash the arguments, if need be, over there). Selfstudier ( talk) 10:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added the following footer to the pic-
"The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded."
This is in line with WP policy in regard to quality primary sources-
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully ie Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.
Selfstudier ( talk) 07:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is an additional primary source http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-24-72-GT-6506-2.pdf discussing the Ottoman settlement overall, wherein, apart from referring to the GT 6508 we already have in the pic, it again states, on page 8 "6. Palestine (west of Jordan) (a) We are pledged to King Husein that this territory shall be ”Arab“ and ”independant." (b)...“ Selfstudier ( talk) 08:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Now, about the secondaries...the way to finish off the section that includes the pic is to have some content there by the pic clearly stating that there are sources that support the position in the foreign office document and that there are sources that support the position in the white paper and that a full discussion of them may be found in the McMahon article. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Your position seems simply to be to revert without consensus and to snipe from the sidelines without contributing anything useful to the effort yourself. This pic and its commentary was there before I even came to this page as an active editor, it is not even about the Balfour Declaration but about the subject matter of a completely different page so you are as well making a mountain out of a molehill because any serious arguments should be dealt with there not here. Having said this I see that Once has added text to the pic which although not entirely to my liking I can live with so can we now move on with fixing up this article? If you revert again without consensus and without good reason I will take it to dispute resolution. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If there is a source saying one thing and a source saying something else, it is perfectly ok to present both and note the difference. Actually it is required by WP:BALANCE to do that. The caption "The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." is not SYNTH violation but just a presentation of two disagreeing sources. However the SYNTH boundary is pretty close and we would step over the line if we added our own conclusion from the disagreement. It comes down to a careful choice of wording. Zero talk 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem that no secondary source compare between White Paper and the Cabinet document.If any secondary source base their interpretation on of the primary documents then we should attribute each source and I don't think we should use any caption but rather attribute each view in the body of the article. Shrike ( talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Another problem that McMahon discussion should be only with connection with Balfour declaration if the sources doesn't mention it in context of the topic of the article we shouldn't do it too. Shrike ( talk) 12:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The essence of the SYNTH allegation is that an argument is being made (cherry picking implies the same thing); no argument is being made at all (that is why I first suggested direct quotes as appropriate). So then one may reasonably enquire why these two documents in particular? Well, they represent the source for the subsequent arguments that began in earnest once the White Paper became public even though at that point in time all of the documents even the correspondence itself was held secret. The correspondence was published in 1938 and there was an enquiry in 1939 and still documents were being kept secret; these, including the CAB, were declassified in 1964 (all this is now well known). So any of the declassified CABS (or the declassified Curzon minute) could serve as the first official reason for the subsequent argument Palestine was included (they actually say that) while the White Paper is the first official communication to conclude the opposite. As to the arguments themselves, they can be made in the McMahon article, this matter is only of relevance to the Balfour Declaration in the sense that Britain may or may not have made contradictory undertakings during this time period to various parties, including to the Jews and to the Arabs. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Just for clarity in case there is some confusion about it, this section is in reference to the allegation of synth and reverting of this footer on the basis of that allegation "The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." The existing footer is subject of a different discussion up above Selfstudier ( talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
NMMNG, you have just introduced needless repetition into the lead, it already says that the Declaration was incorporated into the Mandate just above your newly introduced repetition of same. Kindly remove/amend one or other. Selfstudier ( talk) 21:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
"The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine."
to the end of the lead. IMO, it simply serves to break up the text that relates to the Declaration Selfstudier ( talk) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been added POV (secondary sourced) edits to the section. This is not helpful for the discussion of the Balfour Declaration, if we wish to add POV's re McMahon Corresppondence (and I could add 20 of them if needs be) then I think that ought to be done on the McMahon page, rather than trying to duplicate the entirety of the McMahon page here in the Balfour page. So I would ask the author to self revert these and perhaps add something along the lines of "See McMahon page for a discussion of many POVs as to whether Palestine was or was not included and as to whether McMahon intended or did not intend to include and whether a district is a vilayet and sundry other....blah" Selfstudier ( talk) 12:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus and anyway this discussion is for McMahon page not for here so I have removed all the alleged non NPOV material as stated above. I will later add some clause along the lines of this in any case only being of relevance to Balfour in the sense of whether or not conflicting promises had been made. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
NMMNG's version is below (as now removed [4]):
According to Huneidi, the British Government's interpretation of the what had been "intended" and the resulting nature of the contradictions evolved over the subsequent years... According to Kedourie, McMahon had intended to exclude Palestine from the beginning.{{sfn|Kedourie|1976|p=247}} Biger states that Palestine was not included in the area discussed between McMahon and Hussein, and that "the British government constantly claimed that Palestine was never promised to Hussein".{{sfn|Biger|2004|p=48}}
The issues that I see are as follows:
Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies to Once if I jumped the gun on deletion, I did it because the "NPOV" (!) additions rather diminished the overall article quality. I have recorded the deleted materials over on the McMahon page if anyone wants to add things from it back in over on that page. In my view, the overall "feel" of the Balfour page is not materially altered by the deletion so I would suggest just letting it go here and arguing it over there instead. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of good order, I will record here that what Biger actually says on page 48, the reference page given by NMMNG:
Palestine was never even mentioned in the letters exchange, but the discussion over its inclusion in the area promised by the British to the Arabs had become a central question in the relationship between the two sides during the years in which the British government ruled Palestine. The discussion over this historical-political question has yet to end. The expression ‘west of the districts of Aleppo, Hamma, Homs and Damascus’ was too general and it created a multitude of possible meanings about its territorial inclusions and about the promises about Palestine. The British government constantly claimed that Palestine was never promised to Hussein, and that the geographic description regarded the vilayets (provinces) of Aleppo, Hamma, Homs and mainly Damascus. Prior to the war, the Damascus (A-Sham) vilayet extended all the way to the Gulf of Aqaba. Palestine is situated to the west of this area, and therefore was not a part of the area that was promised to the Arabs in the letters. Britain also claimed that it could set aside only ‘areas in which it had freedom to do as it wished to with’, and Palestine was not an area of that kind because of the French demands. An expression of the geographic settlement situation that existed while these early discussions took place is the fact that they lack mention of any important town west of the Jordan river, because at that time there was no important town south of Damascus. The Arabs claimed later – and the Arabs and other historians continue arguing to this day – that the vilayet (province) of Damascus didn’t exist at all. Instead, there was a district (sanjak) under this name, and it only surrounded the city of Damascus. The vilayet was called ‘Syria A-Sham’ and this name was not mentioned in the letters exchange. Therefore, according to this explanation, Palestine was part of the area that was promised to the Arabs. The discussion over this historical-political-geographic question has not ended yet, but the influence of the unofficial understanding between Britain and the Arabs is already apparent in the Sykes–Picot agreement, which was signed later.
I trust that the above makes it clear that the edits made by NMMNG not only misrepresent the source, they are evidence of bad faith. Certainly editors need to be aware when considering edits by this individual that they are in all likelihood POV (at a minimum). Selfstudier ( talk) 18:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
For ease of reference, I removed the below paragraph as it only (possibly) relates to the negotiations on Sykes-Picot and the material (in a slightly different form) already exists at the Sykes-Picot article:
Three months prior to the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sykes had been approached with a plan by Samuel in the form of a memorandum which Sykes claimed to have committed to memory.{refn|group=lower-alpha|In a 27 February 1916 letter, prior to his departure to Russia, Sykes wrote to Samuel: "I read the memorandum and have committed it to memory."{sfn|Kamel|2015|p=109}}}} Sykes wrote to Samuel about the boundaries marked on a map Which map? attached to the memorandum, noting that with the exclusion of Hebron and the "East of the Jordan" there would be less to discuss with the Muslim community.{refn|group=lower-alpha|Sanders quotes Sykes's letter as follows: "By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."{sfn|Sanders|1984|p=347}}}}
This fellow had his fingers in all 3 pies:) I am presently trying to piece together exactly what he did and when. It all seems to begin with De Bunsen Committee as mentioned in the article so I will add something over there first, I think. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not entirely happy with this section, I assume it is intended to cast light on the question of WHY the British decided on such a Declaration and why at that time in particular (it seems there is no scholarly agreement on the why/when).
It does now give some insight into those questions (is it intended to suggest that the progress of the war was a factor all by itself?); I am wondering whether we might not be able to rearrange the thing as a list of reasons (in order of time as far as possible) and then with respect to each reason sources backing up that interpretation or otherwise.
Reasons I have come across up to now include (maybe there are others too):
1) Different world views of Asquith and Lloyd George splitting the Governement views about the war.
2) DLG unhappiness with Sykes Picot
3) UK versus the French
4) The Zionists were masters of the art of persuasion and Weizmann was a wizard :)
5) PR, religious, guilt type things.
6) Luck, coincidence, confluence of events/The US relationship.
7) Mark Sykes did it (joke). Selfstudier ( talk) 11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 11:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think this edit is not correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Balfour_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=785011258 The new text about "There is ongoing controversy" makes it seem like historians quibble over the interpretations of historical documents. That is perhaps correct, but it is also correct that Arab leaders at the time charged that the Balfour Declaration contradicted previous promises made. I think that the old text was better. ImTheIP ( talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that's an improvement! In my opinion, Wikipedia articles should always begin with the what and the why. What is X and why is X worthy of a Wikipedia article? And we have a looong article about the BD precisely because of it's controversial status. ImTheIP ( talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy, wouldn't it be nicer of you to first discuss changes? ImTheIP ( talk) 00:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that the account by Edy Kaufman has been added; I was planning to read it, but I haven't yet. The French position evolved over the years and perhaps could use a bit of elaboration. Somewhat simplified the story is as follows. At the time of WW1, the French had basically accepted sole British suzerainty in Palestine. Zionism was not much of a force in France, and the French aim was to not alienate the Arabs, while keeping good relations with the US and British diplomats where Zionism was more of a force. According to Picot, Sokolow negotiated with the French while making it clear that the Zionists considered that the British had sole suzerainty. Sokolow's aim was to get an assurance of sympathy from the French about the Zionist project. Clemenceau later confirmed to Lloyd George the position that Britain should have responsibility for Palestine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 14:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)