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. |
The main issue here is that the article is not stable, which is a major GA requirement. While there is no actual edit warring, probably since the article falls under ARBPIA, the article has had hundreds if not thousands of edits since receiving GA, and there is talk page agreement that it's missing large amounts of information in both the Background and the Long-term impact sections. I think the article should be delisted until it stabilizes. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.(Footnote adds:
Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.) There appear to have been extensive revisions—good faith improvements, I'm guessing—but as the nominator points out, no edit warring. Without a major and extended edit war/content disagreement, there are no grounds for delisting that I can see. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The section on the beginning of formal negotiations between Sykes and the Zionist leadership could do with more specificity on Sykes's actual role. The lead calls him a War Cabinet secretary, whereas the body describes him as being in the War Office. It turns out both are true. The best secondary source on the matter appears to be: Roger Adelson (1995). London and the Invention of the Middle East: Money, Power, and War, 1902-1922. Yale University Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-300-06094-2., and the best primary source on the matter appears to be: HC Deb 14 March 1917 vol 91 cc1098-9W. Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As for the title I don't see anywhere in your sources that it says "senior member", what is your source for that? What does it even mean? Why cannot you call him by his actual title instead of something made up? Selfstudier ( talk) 11:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
To borrow from something you wrote below, and from the Adelson source I linked above, how about "the member of the War Cabinet Secretariat responsible for Eastern affairs"? Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I will make a new section here and move the stuff about whether he was authorized into it. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(Moved)
I don't think we have got this right yet. I cannot find any evidence that the government had a pro Zionist policy at the time nor any evidence that Sykes was acting in accordance with any such policy (I don't think there was any such policy myself). Also sentences in the lead need to be in the body and at the moment what we have there is "“Following the change in government, Sykes was transferred to the War Office Secretariat as political secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, and charged with reopening discussions with the Zionists.” (unsourced)
"...on February 7th. Sykes explained that he was attending the conference in his private capacity. He was bound to make this clear since he had no authority to bind the government by any promises to the..."
I think that clears it up, don't you? Selfstudier ( talk) 10:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 11:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(End of Move)
Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East Scott Anderson
"what made this gathering extraordinary was Sykes’ opening announcement that he was there without the knowledge of either the Foreign Office or the War cabinet and therefore their discussions had to remain secret" Selfstudier ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you know of anything official earlier than this? (from Lieshout)
On 3 April 1917, Weizmann, in the company of Scott, breakfasted with Lloyd George and discussed the question of Palestine. Scott recorded in his diary that the Prime Minister said that the Palestine campaign was ‘the one really interesting part of the war,' and that he ‘was altogether opposed to a condominium with France.' He also wanted to know Weizmann’s position on an internationalised Palestine. The latter replied that this was ‘even a shade worse’ than an Anglo–French condominium. That same afternoon Sir Mark had an interview with Lloyd George and Curzon. Both impressed on Sykes ‘the importance of not prejudicing the Zionist movement and the possibility of its development under British auspices’. Lloyd George ‘suggested that the Jews might be able to render us more assistance than the Arabs’. Sykes agreed, but also pointed out that ‘it was important not to stir up any movement in rear of Turkish lines which might lead to a Turkish massacre of the Jews’. Although the Prime Minister had not referred to a British protectorate over Palestine in his interview with Weizmann, he now was emphatic ‘on the importance, if possible, of securing the addition of Palestine to the British area’. Sir Mark, therefore, should ‘not […] enter into any political pledges to the Arabs, and particularly none in regard to Palestine’.(Notes of a Conference, G.T.–372, 3 April 1917, Cab 24/9) Selfstudier ( talk) 15:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
http://erenow.com/ww/the-balfour-declaration-the-origins-of-the-arab-israeli-conflict/16.html (this and next page is Schneer) Selfstudier ( talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Saw Weizmann in morning about Palestine question ... Very important to obtain American Jews’ support. It would be unanimous if they could be assured that in the event of British occupation of Palestine the Zionist Scheme would be considered favourably. Now was the moment for pressing the matter when British troops were actually on Palestinian soil.
which is exactly how it shows up in the book, Political Diaries of C.P.Scott. So perhaps Lewis is getting the info from somewhere else?
Also, Lewis, later on page 130, discussing the meeting of 7th:
"Sykes might insist, as he did, that he was acting privately, but the Zionists knew at this juncture he was the man, the British expert advising the cabinet on the Middle East, on whom their hopes hung, Although the government might not have specifically authorized the negotiations, it could not afterwards forswear them”
So Lewis also agrees about "privately" and "unauthorised" (although he seems to be trying to spin it a little bit).
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest writing the body first, then summarizing it in the lead. It would be simpler and more concrete; and that's the usual way these thing are done anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Selfstudier ( talk) 12:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think Friedman has a reasonable account on pages 148 to 150 of QoP, Graham (to Hardinge) clearly believes that the CPO authorisation means “His Majesty’s Government are now committed to support Zionist aspirations” (he also refers to Paris and Rome) while having doubts abouts the whole thing (It looks like Lloyd George was just assuming, take Gaza, occupy Palestine, fait accompli for the French) . I think we can certainly say that Sykes is authorized at this point although its not particularly clear just how far the authorisation extends (because it is not spelled out in the minutes).
Selfstudier ( talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Following the change in government, Sykes was promoted to the War Cabinet Secretariat with responsibility for Middle East Affairs. In early 1917, despite having previously built a relationship with leading British Zionist Moses Gaster,[ix] he began looking to meet other Zionist leaders and was introduced to Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow at the end of January 1917. On 7 February 1917, Sykes, claiming to be acting in a private capacity, entered into substantive discussions with the Zionist leadership; present at the meeting were.....(Rothschlds, Samuel, Weizmann Sokolow, etc)
"Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on the 7th February that included Sir Mark Sykes and (Rothschilds, Zionist leadership) that eventually resulted in Balfour requesting on 19 June that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration." Selfstudier ( talk) 23:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering whether we ought not to have something about this in the article. That is, that the terms of the Declaration were included in the Mandate for Palestine (although it was some time before it was eventually ratified); that the omission of political rights ("the right to vote and take part in elections") was contested at San Remo by France and that it was agreed that France's objection be recorded formally in the minutes as part of the proces-verbal (the US ambassador in Rome was in attendance as an observer. /info/en/?search=File:Minutes_of_Meetings_of_the_Supreme_Council_of_the_Allied_Powers_in_San_Remo_at_the_Villa_Devachan,_April_24_and_April_25,_1920.djvu?page=11 The Italians wanted a clause about protecting the rights of Roman Catholics (on behalf of the Vatican; the French surrendered their protectorate rights) and it was agreed a clause in the mandate to set up a special commission (it's in the mandate and was never implemented). (Curzon referred to the Arabs as a "minority" at this meeting and the French referred to the Balfour Declaration as a "dead letter"!) Selfstudier ( talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
At the WP:FAC review we have received a number of views on the inclusion of the verbatim declaration in the lead paragraphs and/or infobox, from @ Wehwalt, Hertz1888, Rjensen, Kingsindian, Selfstudier, and Brianboulton:. I propose to bring this to a close by opening an RfC on this talk page with numerous options. Before opening this, please could all interested editors take a look at the options in the link below and propose any additions you would like to add:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Now with diffs:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt, Hertz1888, Rjensen, Kingsindian, Selfstudier, and Brianboulton: since you have all expressed views on this topic in the past, please could you throw in your two cents below? Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the verbatim text of the declaration be in the lead and/or infobox, and if so, in which of these proposed forms? Please vote on the four options below:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Given a free choice, I prefer #3 and no infobox (the picture could go in the article later); I don't know how serious this issue is for FA status so will just go along with the majority opinion in any event. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the RFC template and implemented option 3. Limited interest was shown in the RFC, but a clear preference was shown for option 3.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did see the ping but forgot about this. I don't have any particular choice; #3 looks fine to me, however. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the first sentence slightly inaccurate? It says:
I propose it be changed to
Because the declaration doesn't actually specify that the imagined "national home" be "Jewish." I was about to change it myself, but this article is so controversial. ImTheIP ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI discussion related to recent amendments on this topic at Talk:Sykes–Picot_Agreement#British_Zionist_discussions.3F. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@ 23 editor: thanks for your edits on Serbia’s interest in the declaration.
I assume the reference does not refer to the actual governing body of Serbia at the time ( Imperial and Royal Military Administration in Serbia) but rather Nikola Pašić’s Serbian government in exile in Corfu? If so, we should explain that.
Can you also provide the context for their early recognition of the declaration? In other words, was early recognition expected to have some indirect benefit for the position of their government-in-exile?
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The declaration was first endorsed by a foreign government on 27 December 1917, when local Zionist leader and diplomat David Albala announced the support of Serbia’s government in exile during a trip to the United States.
Yes, I believe that would be more accurate. Just change "local" to "Serbian" for precision and "trip" to "visit" so it doesn't sound so informal. 23 editor ( talk) 12:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Per a comment at the FAC, I have been mulling over options to replace “the origin” in the phrase “was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. For reference, below are excerpts from a few of the sources in the bibliography:
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just found another source, published just two weeks ago: Tucker, Spencer C. (2017). "35. Is the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Blame for the Long-Running Arab-Israeli Conflict?". Enduring Controversies in Military History: Critical Analyses and Context. ABC-CLIO. pp. 469–482. ISBN 978-1-4408-4120-0.
The source gives three perspectives on the question, with all acknowledging the declaration and the conflict are related, and the open question being being whether the declaration is either partially or fully responsible for the conflict:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
As Selfstudier pointed out here, we now have a higher res version of the letter from Verbcatcher. As a result, we may no longer need the paragraph in the lead. Before the new high res letter we had an RFC (above) on this question - please could interested editors comment as to whether their views have changed? Also pinging @ Qexigator, Kingsindian, and Hertz1888: Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is clearly a very powerful tool... It has calculated that this article is FA status:
https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/805801416
(FYI the " https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/" can be used across all wikipedia pages, whilst the 9-digit number at the end is just the edit number of the latest version https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Balfour_Declaration&oldid=805801416)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This chapter in the article is partial, to say the least, because it gives very little – to none at all – direct and clear account of the Jewish immigration to Palestine during the time period the chapter discusses. As a matter of fact, this immigration, and the Jews that settled in Palestine as a result, were not only an inherent part of “early Zionism”, but also happened to play a dominant role in the history of the Balfour declaration. In contrast to the impression the chapter gives, early Zionism did not start with Theodore Herzl, and did not exploit itself in pamphlets like “Autoemancipation” of Pinsker. In parallel to the Zionist ideological groups and political activities that emerged in Europe until the Balfour Declaration, several tens of thousands of Jews actually emigrated to Ottoman Palestine, mainly from Europe but also from Yemen, due to pure Zionist emotions. By 1897, the time when Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress, Ottoman Palestine has already witnessed some 15 years of relatively intense Jewish immigration that resulted in nearly 20 new Jewish settlements, mostly based on agriculture and clearly distinct from the hundreds-years-old traditional Jewish communities in the country (e.g. in Jerusalem, Hebron etc.). By 1900, Jewish population in Palestine has doubled, compared to twenty years earlier. Soon after the beginning of the 20th century a new wave of immigration to Israel started, and by the beginning of WWI in 1914, the population has more than tripled (compared to the population in 1880), with an estimated 59,000 Jewish inhabitants (the data are taken from Justin McCarthy, “The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate”, Columbia University Press (1990) , as quoted in Wikipedia “Demographic history of Palestine”). Although the chapter “Ottoman Palestine” briefly mentions the First Alliya and the Second Alliya, these terms remain vague, and most importantly, they remain disengaged from the ideology that drove them, namely from “early Zionism”. What important in this sense is that not only the Jewish population in Palestine grew quickly during that period, but that this growth was the very manifestation of Zionism by tens of thousands of Jews, beginning even prior to any organized political movement endorsing it, not to mention prior to gaining international support. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Balfour Declaration did not create Jewish immigration to Palestine, but rather opened the door to international legitimization to a national movement (and demographic displacement) that has been on-going for about 35 years by that time. 77.126.7.102 ( talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
“The 1881–84 anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire encouraged the growth of the latter identity, resulting in the formation of the Hovevei Zion pioneer organizations,
andthe publication of Leon Pinsker's Autoemancipation and the emergence of the first wave of Zionist immigration to Palestine, later to be termed the first Aliyah.”
This chapter, while describing in some length the discussions between Zionist and British politicians in London over the future possible fate of Palestine, avoids any mention of the contribution of Jewish residents of Palestine to the British war effort. However during 1917, the NILI spy network in Palestine, headed by Aaron Aaronson, established with British intelligence a routine – yet extremely risky – link for delivering information for assisting the British campaign into Palestine. This contribution won the recognition of both the highest British commanders in the field, up to Allenby, as well as the highest British officials, up to Lloyd George, and should be accounted for in the article. The following description is based on Scott Anderson’s “Lawrence in Arabia” (ISBN 038553292X), “Lawrence and Aaronsohn“ by Ronald Florence, “The Aaronsohn Saga” by Shmuel Katz (2007, ISBN-10: 9652294160) and several additional sources listed below.
Aaronson was very active not only in running the spy network, but also in collecting the political fruits of these pro-British efforts, by promoting the Zionist idea within British intelligence officers and diplomats. In 1916 Aaronson visited London, and circulated a memorandum which argued the case for a sovereign Jewish state. He met Mark Sykes three times within the 10 days of his visit, and the two discussed potential British-Jewish collaboration in Palestine, once Britain would push the Turks out. Sykes, who was trying to secure exclusive British control over Palestine vis. a vis. France and Russia in view of the SP Agreement that had just been signed, has evidently seen Aaronson as a representative of a Jewish community in Palestine that could be supportive of British interests, in return for gaining political national rights. In 1922 William Ormsby-Gore (who met Aaronson as an intelligence officer, together with Sykes, in Cairo in 1916 and later served as an assistant secretary in the War Cabinet of Lloyd George) said:
“the matter was first breached by Sir Mark Sykes in 1916 speaking to Dr Gaster and Sir Herbert Samuel. Dr Weizmann was then unknown. Sykes was furthered by General Macdunagh DMI (Director of Military Intelligence) as all the most useful and helpful intelligence from Palestine (then still occupied by Turkey) was got through and given with zeal by Zionist Jews who were from the first pro British”
(taken from “A Broken Trust: Sir Hebert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians” by Sahar Huneidi, as quoted in “‘Mack’: Aaron Aaronsohn, the NILI intelligence network and the Balfour Declaration” by Efraim Halevy ( http://fathomjournal.org/balfour-100-mack-aaron-aaronsohn-the-nili-intelligence-network-and-the-balfour-declaration/).
The detailed story of NILI can be found in many sources (a concise summary on the internet can be found for example in encyclopedia.com http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nili). The contribution of NILI’s espionage efforts to Allenby’s Sinai and Palestine Campaign is highly praised by some sources, less by others, but it may not be considered as non-existing. In July 1917 Aaronson met Allenby in person. According to Florence, Aaronson supplied Allenby the maps with the routs and locations of oases in the desert that allowed Allenby, after two failing attempts to concur Gaza (with some 10,000 casualties – dead, wounded or missing), to bypass it and attack Beersheba. As is well known, the successful concur of Beersheba was the key to taking Palestine. According to the “Encyclopedia of Intelligence and Counterintelligence” (Editor Rodney P. Carlisle, 2004, ISBN 10: 0765680688, under “reconnaissance”),
“As soon as Allenby took over British intelligence operations in Cairo, he had Aaronsohn and the NILI ring focus its attention on the Beersheba region. The reconnaissance trips that the NILI member – all amateur spies – made to the Beersheba area had a major impact on British war plans… Using information supplied by the NILI agents, Allenby took the Turks completely by surprise and smashed through their defensive lines at Beersheba.”
Aaronson’s death in a plane crash in 1919
“deprived me of a valued friend and of a staff officer impossible to replace”
wrote Allenby posthumously (taken from Douglas Feith, “The Jewish Spies Who Helped the British Defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I”, https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2017/09/the-jewish-spies-who-helped-the-british-defeat-the-ottoman-empire-in-world-war-i/). The Chief of British Military intelligence at the War Office Major General George Macdonogh was quoted as saying in his lecture in 1919 at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich:
“You will no doubt remember the great campaign of Lord Allenby in Palestine and perhaps you are surprised at the daring of his actions. Someone who is looking from the side lines, lacking knowledge about the situation, is likely to think that Allenby took unwarranted risks. That is not true. For Allenby knew with certainty from his intelligence (in Palestine) of all the preparations and all the movements of his enemy. All the cards of his enemy were revealed to him, and so he could play his hand with complete confidence. Under these conditions, victory was certain before he began.”
A few years later, Raymond Savage, Deputy Military Secretary to Allenby, told a New York press conference:
“It was very largely the daring work of young spies, most of them natives of Palestine, which enabled the Field-Marshal to accomplish his undertaking effectively.”
(quoted in “Unsung Heroes, https://web.archive.org/web/20090611041943/http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000437.php).
British appreciation to Aaronson’s group efforts was not limited only to words. In September and October 1917, in the midst of Allenby’s campaign, the Turks exposed the group and arrested it’s main members including Aaronson’s father, sister and colleagues. According to the “Historical Dictionary of World War I Intelligence“ (Nigel West, 2013, ISBN-10: 0810880016, under “NILI”), Aaronson pleaded with MI1 for 5,000 pounds to bribe the Turks for his colleagues release, and Mansfield Smith-Cumming, (the director of what would become the Secret Intelligence Service) authorized payment of 4,000 in appreciation of the organization’s service, although asserted that he was opposed in principle to the practice of paying ransoms (eventually the payment could not be settled and the group members were hanged; Aaronson’s sister, Sara, was interrogated and brutalized in her home for three days until she managed to get a pistol and shoot herself to avoid hanging). In November 1917, Aaronson’s brother, Samuel, was handed an advance copy of the Balfour Declaration to circulate it within the local Jewish community to gain support for Allenby’s advance towards Jerusalem. According to Halevy, on 31 October 1917 when the British cabinet assembled for its final discussion over the Jewish issue in post-Ottoman Palestine, two Zionist leaders were invited to be on hand in an anteroom –Weizmann and Aaronson. As the door to the inner sanctum opened, Sir Sykes announced ‘It is a boy,’ and the two were invited into the cabinet room to shake hands with Lloyd George, Balfour, and other cabinet ministers. 77.126.7.102 ( talk) 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice job, article is promoted. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This phrasing is a bit weird. First, the "declaration" here refers to the Balfour Declaration, not the declaration of war, with which it can be easily confused (the latter comes at the end of the previous sentence). Secondly, it should probably be "In the lead-up". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Serious flaws in the lede (and some ended up in the TFA):
DePiep ( talk) 23:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In a sentence within the section Jewish "national home" vs. Jewish state, looking at the source given, this statement seems incorrect and should be fixed:
Some within the British government devoted efforts to denying that a state was the intention over the following decades, including in Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper – the first in a series of statements on British policy in Palestine during the mandate period.
However, Churchill, from the sourced quotation, denied only that Palestine in its entirety would become a Jewish state:
They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.
While not exactly the opposite of the original sentence, a subsequent statement about his quote stated: "... there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended." -- Light show ( talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the lead begins with "The British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine...". The word began implies a continuing and on-going motion and thus makes the third paragraph a partial continuation of the second about the publishing of the text.
Wouldn't it better to revise the first sentence to read "The British War Cabinet had begun to consider the future of Palestine..."? In this way it is clearer that the continuation of the lead has more to do with the background of the subject and we are placing the third paragraph's action in the past, relative to the second. I'm new to the article and didn't want to disturb whatever talks that had gone on previously for today's feature article. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
...about how after the umpire makes the Balfour Declaration, the batter walks to first base. -- M @ r ē ino 19:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Unbelievable this article made WP:Featured Article status. For example, simple check: search for "colonial". Or Bund (instead if simplistic 'anti-Zionism'). - DePiep ( talk) 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
In paragraph 1 we read “Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population.” Later on we read “rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population.” Who was the majority in the area in 1917? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Foot ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
A deliberately overlooked aspect of the Balfour declaration is that it confirmed the acceptance of British Zionists offer to the British government that the Zionists would involve America in the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine from Turkey and giving it to the Zionists.
As a consequence of the deal, Zionist Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed US President Woodrow Wilson (about his illicit affair with another Princeton Professor's wife) into appointing Lous Dembitz Brandeis as head of the US Supreme Court. Brandeis compelled Wilson into declaring war against Germany, using the bogus story that a German submarine had killed dozens of Americans aboard the steam ship Sussex, a ferry between England and France.
The 'overlooked aspect' is that America entered the war against Germany after the German Kaiser made the best peace offer in history in 1916. He stated that all belligerents should quit the war and return to the pre-war borders. Germany did not want territory or reparations. If that offer had been accepted then the war would have ceased at the end of 1916 and there would have been no Russian revolution, second world war or the numerous other subsequent wars. A hundred thousand Americans died as a consequence and millions of Germans died as a consequence of the Zionist machinations, before world war two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.247 ( talk) 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
While all this might or might not be the case, you do need to supply some reputable secondary sources for these views. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
A series of amendments were made to this section (not discussed here). Reviewing same, I find that they were copied almost verbatim from the initial pages of Friedman's 1973 QoP Chap 18 Meaning of the Declaration. The copying included several instances of representing Friedman's source as primary sources for the article (ie instead of giving the reference as being Friedman, the reference was given as being Friedman's source without ascribing it to Friedman.)
Editing a Wikipedia article involves more than locating a source and then selectively copying out bits of it in order simply to push a POV, otherwise we might just set a bot to copy out the entirety of Friedman's text into the article inclusive of his sources and we could all go home. A Wikipedia article is not a book, much of what is included in a book is unsuitable for Wikipedia.
Friedman's proIsraeli/Jewish bias is not a secret and he has as well been accused by other historians of abuse of sources; although these things just by themselves do not mean that we cannot make use of his material where it is justified it does mean that we might more carefully scrutinize material from said source. As we all know, it would not be that difficult to find authors of the opposite persuasion and copy out their material into the article by way of counter POV push (this game has been played before in this article and it is a rather pointless game).
If we consider the material in the section prior to the edits made, it is a reasonably straightforward matter to draw the conclusion that whether or not there would be a Jewish State would depend on a Jewish majority, this was the position taken by all of the key players. Rewriting the material to try to imply that a Jewish State was intended in any event is a waste of effort as well as obvious POV push.
I have not yet finished my review but it would seem that some of this material, if it is of sufficient weight to be included at all, is rather more selectively detailing some reactions of various parties to the Declaration rather than having anything to do with whether or not a Jewish State was intended.
Apart from the above we presently have the makings of an edit war as lightshow seems intent on reinserting material that I removed, he has just reverted my undo without initiating a talk discussion, instead inviting me to do so. I invite @ Light show: to justify his actions to date and further to justify the edits made in the section for correctness, weight and other factors affecting their suitability for inclusion in the article.
Selfstudier ( talk) 10:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
For those without access to the source, this is what Friedman says :
“The Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference recommended that ‘there be established a separate State in Palestine’ and ‘that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish State in fact”.
(At present Lightsource has reinserted this material leaving out the words “The Intelligence Section of ” thereby misrepresenting the source.
Friedman then sources this material to David Hunter Miller My Diary at the Conference of Paris (New York), Appeal Printing Co., (1924), vol 4 pp. 263-4 , (this being the source originally provided by lightsource in support of his edit). The author served on The Inquiry a group of 150 academics that assembled country and region recommendations for the American representatives at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference under the heading “Outline of Tentative Report and Recomendations Prepared by the Intelligence Section, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919”. (very similar things, the P-memos, were prepared for the British by their Foreign Office).
So Friedman selectively quotes from a tentative document of a recommendation/discussion nature ignoring the discussion in respect of the recommendation and implying that this was United States policy ( https://archive.org/details/MyDiaryAtConferenceOfParis-Vol4). Shortly thereafter, it turned out that the US did not join the League and no-one knows whether or not this particular recommendation would have been taken up or even if it had been, whether it would ever have been pursued as a policy; in the actuality, no such recommendation was ever taken up nor is there any evidence that the USA even attempted to promote such a policy so the issue is in addition, moot.
One could also consult (by way of simple counterexample) Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967 By Matthew F. Jacobs on page 191 wherein the the Inquiry is heavily criticized, even by Miller ( “general absence of specialist knowledge about the region” and “like much of the rest of the Inquiry’s work on the Middle East, the reports on Palestine were deeply flawed” and “the Inquiry’s work on Palestine presupposed a particular outcome to the conflict” and “virtually all of the reports that dealt with Palestine in any meaningful way assumed that a Jewish State of some form would come into existence”).
I therefore suggest that this particular edit documents an event of little weight that had no effect and is being introduced simply to push a POV.
If despite my comments, other editors consider that this material should nevertheless be included then I submit that all of the rest of the material existing in the Miller source be also included so that readers are not left with the wrong impression. I would also suggest that the resultant material should be placed (at best as a note) in the section Reaction: Allies and Associated Powers where the actual US position is laid out namely the Lodge Fish resolution. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the removed material:
The Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 recommended that "there be established a separate state in Palestine," and that "it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state, as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact."
We may initially compare this to what it says at page The Inquiry (exactly the same source):
As for Palestine, it was advised that an independent Palestinian state under a British League of Nations mandate be created.[27] Jewish settlement would be allowed and encouraged in this state and this state's holy sites would be under the control of the League of Nations.[27] Indeed, the Inquiry spoke positively about the possibility of a Jewish state eventually being created in Palestine if the necessary demographics for this were to exist.[27]
Selfstudier ( talk) 18:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC).
To take your points in the order in which you made them:
“1: You suggested that including "Intelligence Section" would not misrepresent a source, so it was then added in;”
I did not suggest that, I said that you were misreprenting a source (which you were).
“2: You wanted Miller's observations included, and the entire paragraph you gave was then included; ”
“3. The rest of your comments are essentially adversarial: There is no valid reason to exclude a RSd quote by Miller simply because the U.S. did not join the League of Nations, so in your personal opinion his written observations are "moot," which of course is not possible. You also rely on another writer's subsequent opinion who felt that Miller's statements are flawed (although that person wasn't at the conference,) and thereby Miller's observations shouldn't be mentioned, or in other words: censored. In fact, you diminish the validity of the original quotes because they were "selected," as if quotes are usually not selected, then proceed to add your own selected quotes.”
“Yet even after all the material you wanted in was included, you're still creating some imaginary dispute to keep out the portion you don't seem to like. So please state exactly what is in dispute and why RSd quotes should be excluded, since I at least see nothing in dispute. ”
Selfstudier ( talk) 21:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Suitably rested, I have taken the opportunity to reflect further on the issue of these latest edits.It seems to me that the present problem has arisen principally by virtue of the Section title, namely "Jewish national home vs. Jewish state". This straightforwardly implies that there was a debate about this. Let's assume there was. Who took part? What were the positions of the participants? What factors were considered? When did it take place? What was the result?
Now I have no objection if we rearrange and expand this section in an attempt to answer these questions (or some alternative set as may be). Of course, with reference to suitable secondary sources (for the avoidance of doubt, Friedman qualifies as would, say, Charles Glass for the other camp) for each and every line added (adding sentences such as "Political leaders and the press in other countries also took the position that the Declaration implied an intent to eventually create a Jewish state." without specification or citation would be inappropriate).
If that is thought a reasonable way to proceed then perhaps we might first agree on the questions we will attempt to answer (which would indirectly define what material ought perhaps to be elsewhere in the article). Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The edit is clearly sourced by WP:RS there is no reason not to include it except WP:IDONTLIKEIT-- Shrike ( talk) 14:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the third-party speculations and opinions by Rustam Haidar, an aid with no notability but a stub, and Awni Abd al-Hadi, a secretary, both are giving their hearsay opinions about an event with which they were not involved. The article should stay on topic and not include trivial third-hand guesses by others. For example, Haidar, an aid, "had no recollection," and "finds it exceeding strange that....", while al-Hadi, a secretary, said "he was not aware..." and "I believe..." (twice). And the only source for those speculations is Allawi's book, where he himself is cited as giving his own speculations: "the most likely explanation..." and "He then may or may not have been...."
Most of the third-party guesses don't fit and go against the purpose of the article. Per guidelines, "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Nor is it "an indiscriminate collection of information... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion." Per more guidelines, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." -- Light show ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven’t been following all of the discussion here as I am on a mini-break, but you might want to look at:
The letter being debated is shown there as an image (in Lawrence’s handwriting) and is discussed with well sourced text. It might be worth splitting out as a separate article.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to edit the following sentence. Firstly, there is no reference to the claim re the British government below:
"The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine."
The boundaries were stipulated by the time Transjordan was severed from the whole in 1922 and the mandate took effect in 1923. A page documenting the Transjordan Memorandum: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Trans-Jordan_memorandum. The memorandum is here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Palestine_Mandate#Trans-Jordan_Memorandum,_16_September_1922 The boundaries were unspecified when the mandate was approved by the principal powers in San Remo on April 24, 1920. On September 16, 1922, the mandate was amended with an explicit definition of the boundary between Trans-Jordan (Palestine-east) and Cis-Jordan (Palestine-west).
I believe the reference to the boundary was probably inserted to contextualize or frame the point that "the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine".
Firstly, this is a strong statement regarding a concept that is very complicated because of many arguments made on each side of this point. It would be safest and easiest to remove the paragraph. If the comment is to remain, it most definitely requires an explicit reference. If that is done, I would say that other references/citations contradicting or contextualizing such a claim be added.
I don't believe I have the right to edit the page. Please give me an idea as to the direction I should go with this edit. If you would allow me to edit, let me know. Thank you. ElishevaZ ( talk) 07:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
"The boundaries of the mandated territories at San Remo were not precisely defined.[29] Chaim Weizmann subsequently reported to his WZO colleagues in London:
"There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Faisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris."[33]
The reference 29 is Biger 2004 and 33 are Weizmann comments.
Do you wish to contradict these two sources or what is the the source (you didn't give any) of "many arguments on each side". The sentence that you speak about is a true statement as far as it goes although we could add in both of the references above in some form if that improves it from your perspective? If what you are speaking about is specifically the Transjordan, I believe that is sufficiently covered in the aforementioned article. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There are so many POV issues here I don't even know where to start. I think I'll start with two easy to grasp problems, and add more if/when these are solved.
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Karsh is not a New Historian"You are correct (and I've struck my comment). Apparently I didn't read all the words in that sentence in the article about him. My mistake. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the proposal:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Balfour_Declaration&action=edit§ion=33
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 00:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 00:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Have just fixed a rather confusing piece of writing - a comment was attributed to Lloyd George's Memoirs. He actually wrote two works called Memoirs - his War Memoirs (which we had already met in the article), and his Memoirs of the Peace Conference, better known as The Truth About the Peace Treaties, to which the comment should have been attributed. DuncanHill ( talk) 11:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Balfour Declaration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change X: Early British political support for an increased Jewish presence in the region of Palestine was based upon geopolitical calculations. [1] [i]
to Y: Early British political support for an increased Jewish presence in the region of Palestine was based upon geopolitical calculations. [1] [ii] J.C. Hurewitz has written that one of the motives for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine during World War One was to secure a land bridge between Egypt and its Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, by annexing from the Turkish Ottoman Empire what are now the nations of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, thereby forming an alternative maritime link between The United Kingdom and its colony in India, in addition to the one which already existed via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. [3] Suspended Time ( talk) 06:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Notes
References
This
edit request to
Balfour Declaration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change X: Lloyd George described a total of nine factors motivating his decision as Prime Minister to release the declaration, [1] including the additional reasons that a Jewish presence in Palestine would strengthen Britain's position on the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to their imperial dominion in India. [1]
to Y: Lloyd George described a total of nine factors motivating his decision as Prime Minister to release the declaration, [1] including the additional reasons that a Jewish presence in Palestine would strengthen Britain's position on the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to their imperial dominion in India. [1]. J.C. Hurewitz has written that one of the motives for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine during the immediate aftermath of World War One was to secure a land bridge between Egypt and its Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, by annexing from the Turkish Ottoman Empire what are now the nations of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, thereby forming an alternative maritime link between The United Kingdom and its colony of India, as well as with its Persian Gulf protectorates of what are now in Kuwait, southern Iran, Bahrain, Qatar, and The United Arab Emirates, in addition to the one which already existed via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. [2] Suspended Time ( talk) 05:11, 19 April 2020 (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. |
The main issue here is that the article is not stable, which is a major GA requirement. While there is no actual edit warring, probably since the article falls under ARBPIA, the article has had hundreds if not thousands of edits since receiving GA, and there is talk page agreement that it's missing large amounts of information in both the Background and the Long-term impact sections. I think the article should be delisted until it stabilizes. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.(Footnote adds:
Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.) There appear to have been extensive revisions—good faith improvements, I'm guessing—but as the nominator points out, no edit warring. Without a major and extended edit war/content disagreement, there are no grounds for delisting that I can see. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The section on the beginning of formal negotiations between Sykes and the Zionist leadership could do with more specificity on Sykes's actual role. The lead calls him a War Cabinet secretary, whereas the body describes him as being in the War Office. It turns out both are true. The best secondary source on the matter appears to be: Roger Adelson (1995). London and the Invention of the Middle East: Money, Power, and War, 1902-1922. Yale University Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-300-06094-2., and the best primary source on the matter appears to be: HC Deb 14 March 1917 vol 91 cc1098-9W. Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
As for the title I don't see anywhere in your sources that it says "senior member", what is your source for that? What does it even mean? Why cannot you call him by his actual title instead of something made up? Selfstudier ( talk) 11:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
To borrow from something you wrote below, and from the Adelson source I linked above, how about "the member of the War Cabinet Secretariat responsible for Eastern affairs"? Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I will make a new section here and move the stuff about whether he was authorized into it. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(Moved)
I don't think we have got this right yet. I cannot find any evidence that the government had a pro Zionist policy at the time nor any evidence that Sykes was acting in accordance with any such policy (I don't think there was any such policy myself). Also sentences in the lead need to be in the body and at the moment what we have there is "“Following the change in government, Sykes was transferred to the War Office Secretariat as political secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, and charged with reopening discussions with the Zionists.” (unsourced)
"...on February 7th. Sykes explained that he was attending the conference in his private capacity. He was bound to make this clear since he had no authority to bind the government by any promises to the..."
I think that clears it up, don't you? Selfstudier ( talk) 10:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 11:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(End of Move)
Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East Scott Anderson
"what made this gathering extraordinary was Sykes’ opening announcement that he was there without the knowledge of either the Foreign Office or the War cabinet and therefore their discussions had to remain secret" Selfstudier ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you know of anything official earlier than this? (from Lieshout)
On 3 April 1917, Weizmann, in the company of Scott, breakfasted with Lloyd George and discussed the question of Palestine. Scott recorded in his diary that the Prime Minister said that the Palestine campaign was ‘the one really interesting part of the war,' and that he ‘was altogether opposed to a condominium with France.' He also wanted to know Weizmann’s position on an internationalised Palestine. The latter replied that this was ‘even a shade worse’ than an Anglo–French condominium. That same afternoon Sir Mark had an interview with Lloyd George and Curzon. Both impressed on Sykes ‘the importance of not prejudicing the Zionist movement and the possibility of its development under British auspices’. Lloyd George ‘suggested that the Jews might be able to render us more assistance than the Arabs’. Sykes agreed, but also pointed out that ‘it was important not to stir up any movement in rear of Turkish lines which might lead to a Turkish massacre of the Jews’. Although the Prime Minister had not referred to a British protectorate over Palestine in his interview with Weizmann, he now was emphatic ‘on the importance, if possible, of securing the addition of Palestine to the British area’. Sir Mark, therefore, should ‘not […] enter into any political pledges to the Arabs, and particularly none in regard to Palestine’.(Notes of a Conference, G.T.–372, 3 April 1917, Cab 24/9) Selfstudier ( talk) 15:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
http://erenow.com/ww/the-balfour-declaration-the-origins-of-the-arab-israeli-conflict/16.html (this and next page is Schneer) Selfstudier ( talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Saw Weizmann in morning about Palestine question ... Very important to obtain American Jews’ support. It would be unanimous if they could be assured that in the event of British occupation of Palestine the Zionist Scheme would be considered favourably. Now was the moment for pressing the matter when British troops were actually on Palestinian soil.
which is exactly how it shows up in the book, Political Diaries of C.P.Scott. So perhaps Lewis is getting the info from somewhere else?
Also, Lewis, later on page 130, discussing the meeting of 7th:
"Sykes might insist, as he did, that he was acting privately, but the Zionists knew at this juncture he was the man, the British expert advising the cabinet on the Middle East, on whom their hopes hung, Although the government might not have specifically authorized the negotiations, it could not afterwards forswear them”
So Lewis also agrees about "privately" and "unauthorised" (although he seems to be trying to spin it a little bit).
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I suggest writing the body first, then summarizing it in the lead. It would be simpler and more concrete; and that's the usual way these thing are done anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Selfstudier ( talk) 12:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think Friedman has a reasonable account on pages 148 to 150 of QoP, Graham (to Hardinge) clearly believes that the CPO authorisation means “His Majesty’s Government are now committed to support Zionist aspirations” (he also refers to Paris and Rome) while having doubts abouts the whole thing (It looks like Lloyd George was just assuming, take Gaza, occupy Palestine, fait accompli for the French) . I think we can certainly say that Sykes is authorized at this point although its not particularly clear just how far the authorisation extends (because it is not spelled out in the minutes).
Selfstudier ( talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Following the change in government, Sykes was promoted to the War Cabinet Secretariat with responsibility for Middle East Affairs. In early 1917, despite having previously built a relationship with leading British Zionist Moses Gaster,[ix] he began looking to meet other Zionist leaders and was introduced to Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow at the end of January 1917. On 7 February 1917, Sykes, claiming to be acting in a private capacity, entered into substantive discussions with the Zionist leadership; present at the meeting were.....(Rothschlds, Samuel, Weizmann Sokolow, etc)
"Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on the 7th February that included Sir Mark Sykes and (Rothschilds, Zionist leadership) that eventually resulted in Balfour requesting on 19 June that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration." Selfstudier ( talk) 23:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I am wondering whether we ought not to have something about this in the article. That is, that the terms of the Declaration were included in the Mandate for Palestine (although it was some time before it was eventually ratified); that the omission of political rights ("the right to vote and take part in elections") was contested at San Remo by France and that it was agreed that France's objection be recorded formally in the minutes as part of the proces-verbal (the US ambassador in Rome was in attendance as an observer. /info/en/?search=File:Minutes_of_Meetings_of_the_Supreme_Council_of_the_Allied_Powers_in_San_Remo_at_the_Villa_Devachan,_April_24_and_April_25,_1920.djvu?page=11 The Italians wanted a clause about protecting the rights of Roman Catholics (on behalf of the Vatican; the French surrendered their protectorate rights) and it was agreed a clause in the mandate to set up a special commission (it's in the mandate and was never implemented). (Curzon referred to the Arabs as a "minority" at this meeting and the French referred to the Balfour Declaration as a "dead letter"!) Selfstudier ( talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
At the WP:FAC review we have received a number of views on the inclusion of the verbatim declaration in the lead paragraphs and/or infobox, from @ Wehwalt, Hertz1888, Rjensen, Kingsindian, Selfstudier, and Brianboulton:. I propose to bring this to a close by opening an RfC on this talk page with numerous options. Before opening this, please could all interested editors take a look at the options in the link below and propose any additions you would like to add:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Now with diffs:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt, Hertz1888, Rjensen, Kingsindian, Selfstudier, and Brianboulton: since you have all expressed views on this topic in the past, please could you throw in your two cents below? Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the verbatim text of the declaration be in the lead and/or infobox, and if so, in which of these proposed forms? Please vote on the four options below:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Given a free choice, I prefer #3 and no infobox (the picture could go in the article later); I don't know how serious this issue is for FA status so will just go along with the majority opinion in any event. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the RFC template and implemented option 3. Limited interest was shown in the RFC, but a clear preference was shown for option 3.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did see the ping but forgot about this. I don't have any particular choice; #3 looks fine to me, however. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the first sentence slightly inaccurate? It says:
I propose it be changed to
Because the declaration doesn't actually specify that the imagined "national home" be "Jewish." I was about to change it myself, but this article is so controversial. ImTheIP ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI discussion related to recent amendments on this topic at Talk:Sykes–Picot_Agreement#British_Zionist_discussions.3F. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@ 23 editor: thanks for your edits on Serbia’s interest in the declaration.
I assume the reference does not refer to the actual governing body of Serbia at the time ( Imperial and Royal Military Administration in Serbia) but rather Nikola Pašić’s Serbian government in exile in Corfu? If so, we should explain that.
Can you also provide the context for their early recognition of the declaration? In other words, was early recognition expected to have some indirect benefit for the position of their government-in-exile?
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The declaration was first endorsed by a foreign government on 27 December 1917, when local Zionist leader and diplomat David Albala announced the support of Serbia’s government in exile during a trip to the United States.
Yes, I believe that would be more accurate. Just change "local" to "Serbian" for precision and "trip" to "visit" so it doesn't sound so informal. 23 editor ( talk) 12:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Per a comment at the FAC, I have been mulling over options to replace “the origin” in the phrase “was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. For reference, below are excerpts from a few of the sources in the bibliography:
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just found another source, published just two weeks ago: Tucker, Spencer C. (2017). "35. Is the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Blame for the Long-Running Arab-Israeli Conflict?". Enduring Controversies in Military History: Critical Analyses and Context. ABC-CLIO. pp. 469–482. ISBN 978-1-4408-4120-0.
The source gives three perspectives on the question, with all acknowledging the declaration and the conflict are related, and the open question being being whether the declaration is either partially or fully responsible for the conflict:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
As Selfstudier pointed out here, we now have a higher res version of the letter from Verbcatcher. As a result, we may no longer need the paragraph in the lead. Before the new high res letter we had an RFC (above) on this question - please could interested editors comment as to whether their views have changed? Also pinging @ Qexigator, Kingsindian, and Hertz1888: Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is clearly a very powerful tool... It has calculated that this article is FA status:
https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/805801416
(FYI the " https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/" can be used across all wikipedia pages, whilst the 9-digit number at the end is just the edit number of the latest version https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Balfour_Declaration&oldid=805801416)
Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This chapter in the article is partial, to say the least, because it gives very little – to none at all – direct and clear account of the Jewish immigration to Palestine during the time period the chapter discusses. As a matter of fact, this immigration, and the Jews that settled in Palestine as a result, were not only an inherent part of “early Zionism”, but also happened to play a dominant role in the history of the Balfour declaration. In contrast to the impression the chapter gives, early Zionism did not start with Theodore Herzl, and did not exploit itself in pamphlets like “Autoemancipation” of Pinsker. In parallel to the Zionist ideological groups and political activities that emerged in Europe until the Balfour Declaration, several tens of thousands of Jews actually emigrated to Ottoman Palestine, mainly from Europe but also from Yemen, due to pure Zionist emotions. By 1897, the time when Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress, Ottoman Palestine has already witnessed some 15 years of relatively intense Jewish immigration that resulted in nearly 20 new Jewish settlements, mostly based on agriculture and clearly distinct from the hundreds-years-old traditional Jewish communities in the country (e.g. in Jerusalem, Hebron etc.). By 1900, Jewish population in Palestine has doubled, compared to twenty years earlier. Soon after the beginning of the 20th century a new wave of immigration to Israel started, and by the beginning of WWI in 1914, the population has more than tripled (compared to the population in 1880), with an estimated 59,000 Jewish inhabitants (the data are taken from Justin McCarthy, “The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate”, Columbia University Press (1990) , as quoted in Wikipedia “Demographic history of Palestine”). Although the chapter “Ottoman Palestine” briefly mentions the First Alliya and the Second Alliya, these terms remain vague, and most importantly, they remain disengaged from the ideology that drove them, namely from “early Zionism”. What important in this sense is that not only the Jewish population in Palestine grew quickly during that period, but that this growth was the very manifestation of Zionism by tens of thousands of Jews, beginning even prior to any organized political movement endorsing it, not to mention prior to gaining international support. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Balfour Declaration did not create Jewish immigration to Palestine, but rather opened the door to international legitimization to a national movement (and demographic displacement) that has been on-going for about 35 years by that time. 77.126.7.102 ( talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
“The 1881–84 anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire encouraged the growth of the latter identity, resulting in the formation of the Hovevei Zion pioneer organizations,
andthe publication of Leon Pinsker's Autoemancipation and the emergence of the first wave of Zionist immigration to Palestine, later to be termed the first Aliyah.”
This chapter, while describing in some length the discussions between Zionist and British politicians in London over the future possible fate of Palestine, avoids any mention of the contribution of Jewish residents of Palestine to the British war effort. However during 1917, the NILI spy network in Palestine, headed by Aaron Aaronson, established with British intelligence a routine – yet extremely risky – link for delivering information for assisting the British campaign into Palestine. This contribution won the recognition of both the highest British commanders in the field, up to Allenby, as well as the highest British officials, up to Lloyd George, and should be accounted for in the article. The following description is based on Scott Anderson’s “Lawrence in Arabia” (ISBN 038553292X), “Lawrence and Aaronsohn“ by Ronald Florence, “The Aaronsohn Saga” by Shmuel Katz (2007, ISBN-10: 9652294160) and several additional sources listed below.
Aaronson was very active not only in running the spy network, but also in collecting the political fruits of these pro-British efforts, by promoting the Zionist idea within British intelligence officers and diplomats. In 1916 Aaronson visited London, and circulated a memorandum which argued the case for a sovereign Jewish state. He met Mark Sykes three times within the 10 days of his visit, and the two discussed potential British-Jewish collaboration in Palestine, once Britain would push the Turks out. Sykes, who was trying to secure exclusive British control over Palestine vis. a vis. France and Russia in view of the SP Agreement that had just been signed, has evidently seen Aaronson as a representative of a Jewish community in Palestine that could be supportive of British interests, in return for gaining political national rights. In 1922 William Ormsby-Gore (who met Aaronson as an intelligence officer, together with Sykes, in Cairo in 1916 and later served as an assistant secretary in the War Cabinet of Lloyd George) said:
“the matter was first breached by Sir Mark Sykes in 1916 speaking to Dr Gaster and Sir Herbert Samuel. Dr Weizmann was then unknown. Sykes was furthered by General Macdunagh DMI (Director of Military Intelligence) as all the most useful and helpful intelligence from Palestine (then still occupied by Turkey) was got through and given with zeal by Zionist Jews who were from the first pro British”
(taken from “A Broken Trust: Sir Hebert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians” by Sahar Huneidi, as quoted in “‘Mack’: Aaron Aaronsohn, the NILI intelligence network and the Balfour Declaration” by Efraim Halevy ( http://fathomjournal.org/balfour-100-mack-aaron-aaronsohn-the-nili-intelligence-network-and-the-balfour-declaration/).
The detailed story of NILI can be found in many sources (a concise summary on the internet can be found for example in encyclopedia.com http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nili). The contribution of NILI’s espionage efforts to Allenby’s Sinai and Palestine Campaign is highly praised by some sources, less by others, but it may not be considered as non-existing. In July 1917 Aaronson met Allenby in person. According to Florence, Aaronson supplied Allenby the maps with the routs and locations of oases in the desert that allowed Allenby, after two failing attempts to concur Gaza (with some 10,000 casualties – dead, wounded or missing), to bypass it and attack Beersheba. As is well known, the successful concur of Beersheba was the key to taking Palestine. According to the “Encyclopedia of Intelligence and Counterintelligence” (Editor Rodney P. Carlisle, 2004, ISBN 10: 0765680688, under “reconnaissance”),
“As soon as Allenby took over British intelligence operations in Cairo, he had Aaronsohn and the NILI ring focus its attention on the Beersheba region. The reconnaissance trips that the NILI member – all amateur spies – made to the Beersheba area had a major impact on British war plans… Using information supplied by the NILI agents, Allenby took the Turks completely by surprise and smashed through their defensive lines at Beersheba.”
Aaronson’s death in a plane crash in 1919
“deprived me of a valued friend and of a staff officer impossible to replace”
wrote Allenby posthumously (taken from Douglas Feith, “The Jewish Spies Who Helped the British Defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I”, https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2017/09/the-jewish-spies-who-helped-the-british-defeat-the-ottoman-empire-in-world-war-i/). The Chief of British Military intelligence at the War Office Major General George Macdonogh was quoted as saying in his lecture in 1919 at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich:
“You will no doubt remember the great campaign of Lord Allenby in Palestine and perhaps you are surprised at the daring of his actions. Someone who is looking from the side lines, lacking knowledge about the situation, is likely to think that Allenby took unwarranted risks. That is not true. For Allenby knew with certainty from his intelligence (in Palestine) of all the preparations and all the movements of his enemy. All the cards of his enemy were revealed to him, and so he could play his hand with complete confidence. Under these conditions, victory was certain before he began.”
A few years later, Raymond Savage, Deputy Military Secretary to Allenby, told a New York press conference:
“It was very largely the daring work of young spies, most of them natives of Palestine, which enabled the Field-Marshal to accomplish his undertaking effectively.”
(quoted in “Unsung Heroes, https://web.archive.org/web/20090611041943/http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000437.php).
British appreciation to Aaronson’s group efforts was not limited only to words. In September and October 1917, in the midst of Allenby’s campaign, the Turks exposed the group and arrested it’s main members including Aaronson’s father, sister and colleagues. According to the “Historical Dictionary of World War I Intelligence“ (Nigel West, 2013, ISBN-10: 0810880016, under “NILI”), Aaronson pleaded with MI1 for 5,000 pounds to bribe the Turks for his colleagues release, and Mansfield Smith-Cumming, (the director of what would become the Secret Intelligence Service) authorized payment of 4,000 in appreciation of the organization’s service, although asserted that he was opposed in principle to the practice of paying ransoms (eventually the payment could not be settled and the group members were hanged; Aaronson’s sister, Sara, was interrogated and brutalized in her home for three days until she managed to get a pistol and shoot herself to avoid hanging). In November 1917, Aaronson’s brother, Samuel, was handed an advance copy of the Balfour Declaration to circulate it within the local Jewish community to gain support for Allenby’s advance towards Jerusalem. According to Halevy, on 31 October 1917 when the British cabinet assembled for its final discussion over the Jewish issue in post-Ottoman Palestine, two Zionist leaders were invited to be on hand in an anteroom –Weizmann and Aaronson. As the door to the inner sanctum opened, Sir Sykes announced ‘It is a boy,’ and the two were invited into the cabinet room to shake hands with Lloyd George, Balfour, and other cabinet ministers. 77.126.7.102 ( talk) 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice job, article is promoted. Selfstudier ( talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
This phrasing is a bit weird. First, the "declaration" here refers to the Balfour Declaration, not the declaration of war, with which it can be easily confused (the latter comes at the end of the previous sentence). Secondly, it should probably be "In the lead-up". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Serious flaws in the lede (and some ended up in the TFA):
DePiep ( talk) 23:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In a sentence within the section Jewish "national home" vs. Jewish state, looking at the source given, this statement seems incorrect and should be fixed:
Some within the British government devoted efforts to denying that a state was the intention over the following decades, including in Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper – the first in a series of statements on British policy in Palestine during the mandate period.
However, Churchill, from the sourced quotation, denied only that Palestine in its entirety would become a Jewish state:
They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.
While not exactly the opposite of the original sentence, a subsequent statement about his quote stated: "... there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended." -- Light show ( talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the lead begins with "The British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine...". The word began implies a continuing and on-going motion and thus makes the third paragraph a partial continuation of the second about the publishing of the text.
Wouldn't it better to revise the first sentence to read "The British War Cabinet had begun to consider the future of Palestine..."? In this way it is clearer that the continuation of the lead has more to do with the background of the subject and we are placing the third paragraph's action in the past, relative to the second. I'm new to the article and didn't want to disturb whatever talks that had gone on previously for today's feature article. -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
...about how after the umpire makes the Balfour Declaration, the batter walks to first base. -- M @ r ē ino 19:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Unbelievable this article made WP:Featured Article status. For example, simple check: search for "colonial". Or Bund (instead if simplistic 'anti-Zionism'). - DePiep ( talk) 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
In paragraph 1 we read “Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population.” Later on we read “rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population.” Who was the majority in the area in 1917? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Foot ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
A deliberately overlooked aspect of the Balfour declaration is that it confirmed the acceptance of British Zionists offer to the British government that the Zionists would involve America in the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine from Turkey and giving it to the Zionists.
As a consequence of the deal, Zionist Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed US President Woodrow Wilson (about his illicit affair with another Princeton Professor's wife) into appointing Lous Dembitz Brandeis as head of the US Supreme Court. Brandeis compelled Wilson into declaring war against Germany, using the bogus story that a German submarine had killed dozens of Americans aboard the steam ship Sussex, a ferry between England and France.
The 'overlooked aspect' is that America entered the war against Germany after the German Kaiser made the best peace offer in history in 1916. He stated that all belligerents should quit the war and return to the pre-war borders. Germany did not want territory or reparations. If that offer had been accepted then the war would have ceased at the end of 1916 and there would have been no Russian revolution, second world war or the numerous other subsequent wars. A hundred thousand Americans died as a consequence and millions of Germans died as a consequence of the Zionist machinations, before world war two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.247 ( talk) 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
While all this might or might not be the case, you do need to supply some reputable secondary sources for these views. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
A series of amendments were made to this section (not discussed here). Reviewing same, I find that they were copied almost verbatim from the initial pages of Friedman's 1973 QoP Chap 18 Meaning of the Declaration. The copying included several instances of representing Friedman's source as primary sources for the article (ie instead of giving the reference as being Friedman, the reference was given as being Friedman's source without ascribing it to Friedman.)
Editing a Wikipedia article involves more than locating a source and then selectively copying out bits of it in order simply to push a POV, otherwise we might just set a bot to copy out the entirety of Friedman's text into the article inclusive of his sources and we could all go home. A Wikipedia article is not a book, much of what is included in a book is unsuitable for Wikipedia.
Friedman's proIsraeli/Jewish bias is not a secret and he has as well been accused by other historians of abuse of sources; although these things just by themselves do not mean that we cannot make use of his material where it is justified it does mean that we might more carefully scrutinize material from said source. As we all know, it would not be that difficult to find authors of the opposite persuasion and copy out their material into the article by way of counter POV push (this game has been played before in this article and it is a rather pointless game).
If we consider the material in the section prior to the edits made, it is a reasonably straightforward matter to draw the conclusion that whether or not there would be a Jewish State would depend on a Jewish majority, this was the position taken by all of the key players. Rewriting the material to try to imply that a Jewish State was intended in any event is a waste of effort as well as obvious POV push.
I have not yet finished my review but it would seem that some of this material, if it is of sufficient weight to be included at all, is rather more selectively detailing some reactions of various parties to the Declaration rather than having anything to do with whether or not a Jewish State was intended.
Apart from the above we presently have the makings of an edit war as lightshow seems intent on reinserting material that I removed, he has just reverted my undo without initiating a talk discussion, instead inviting me to do so. I invite @ Light show: to justify his actions to date and further to justify the edits made in the section for correctness, weight and other factors affecting their suitability for inclusion in the article.
Selfstudier ( talk) 10:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
For those without access to the source, this is what Friedman says :
“The Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference recommended that ‘there be established a separate State in Palestine’ and ‘that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish State in fact”.
(At present Lightsource has reinserted this material leaving out the words “The Intelligence Section of ” thereby misrepresenting the source.
Friedman then sources this material to David Hunter Miller My Diary at the Conference of Paris (New York), Appeal Printing Co., (1924), vol 4 pp. 263-4 , (this being the source originally provided by lightsource in support of his edit). The author served on The Inquiry a group of 150 academics that assembled country and region recommendations for the American representatives at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference under the heading “Outline of Tentative Report and Recomendations Prepared by the Intelligence Section, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919”. (very similar things, the P-memos, were prepared for the British by their Foreign Office).
So Friedman selectively quotes from a tentative document of a recommendation/discussion nature ignoring the discussion in respect of the recommendation and implying that this was United States policy ( https://archive.org/details/MyDiaryAtConferenceOfParis-Vol4). Shortly thereafter, it turned out that the US did not join the League and no-one knows whether or not this particular recommendation would have been taken up or even if it had been, whether it would ever have been pursued as a policy; in the actuality, no such recommendation was ever taken up nor is there any evidence that the USA even attempted to promote such a policy so the issue is in addition, moot.
One could also consult (by way of simple counterexample) Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967 By Matthew F. Jacobs on page 191 wherein the the Inquiry is heavily criticized, even by Miller ( “general absence of specialist knowledge about the region” and “like much of the rest of the Inquiry’s work on the Middle East, the reports on Palestine were deeply flawed” and “the Inquiry’s work on Palestine presupposed a particular outcome to the conflict” and “virtually all of the reports that dealt with Palestine in any meaningful way assumed that a Jewish State of some form would come into existence”).
I therefore suggest that this particular edit documents an event of little weight that had no effect and is being introduced simply to push a POV.
If despite my comments, other editors consider that this material should nevertheless be included then I submit that all of the rest of the material existing in the Miller source be also included so that readers are not left with the wrong impression. I would also suggest that the resultant material should be placed (at best as a note) in the section Reaction: Allies and Associated Powers where the actual US position is laid out namely the Lodge Fish resolution. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the removed material:
The Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 recommended that "there be established a separate state in Palestine," and that "it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state, as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact."
We may initially compare this to what it says at page The Inquiry (exactly the same source):
As for Palestine, it was advised that an independent Palestinian state under a British League of Nations mandate be created.[27] Jewish settlement would be allowed and encouraged in this state and this state's holy sites would be under the control of the League of Nations.[27] Indeed, the Inquiry spoke positively about the possibility of a Jewish state eventually being created in Palestine if the necessary demographics for this were to exist.[27]
Selfstudier ( talk) 18:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC).
To take your points in the order in which you made them:
“1: You suggested that including "Intelligence Section" would not misrepresent a source, so it was then added in;”
I did not suggest that, I said that you were misreprenting a source (which you were).
“2: You wanted Miller's observations included, and the entire paragraph you gave was then included; ”
“3. The rest of your comments are essentially adversarial: There is no valid reason to exclude a RSd quote by Miller simply because the U.S. did not join the League of Nations, so in your personal opinion his written observations are "moot," which of course is not possible. You also rely on another writer's subsequent opinion who felt that Miller's statements are flawed (although that person wasn't at the conference,) and thereby Miller's observations shouldn't be mentioned, or in other words: censored. In fact, you diminish the validity of the original quotes because they were "selected," as if quotes are usually not selected, then proceed to add your own selected quotes.”
“Yet even after all the material you wanted in was included, you're still creating some imaginary dispute to keep out the portion you don't seem to like. So please state exactly what is in dispute and why RSd quotes should be excluded, since I at least see nothing in dispute. ”
Selfstudier ( talk) 21:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Suitably rested, I have taken the opportunity to reflect further on the issue of these latest edits.It seems to me that the present problem has arisen principally by virtue of the Section title, namely "Jewish national home vs. Jewish state". This straightforwardly implies that there was a debate about this. Let's assume there was. Who took part? What were the positions of the participants? What factors were considered? When did it take place? What was the result?
Now I have no objection if we rearrange and expand this section in an attempt to answer these questions (or some alternative set as may be). Of course, with reference to suitable secondary sources (for the avoidance of doubt, Friedman qualifies as would, say, Charles Glass for the other camp) for each and every line added (adding sentences such as "Political leaders and the press in other countries also took the position that the Declaration implied an intent to eventually create a Jewish state." without specification or citation would be inappropriate).
If that is thought a reasonable way to proceed then perhaps we might first agree on the questions we will attempt to answer (which would indirectly define what material ought perhaps to be elsewhere in the article). Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The edit is clearly sourced by WP:RS there is no reason not to include it except WP:IDONTLIKEIT-- Shrike ( talk) 14:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the third-party speculations and opinions by Rustam Haidar, an aid with no notability but a stub, and Awni Abd al-Hadi, a secretary, both are giving their hearsay opinions about an event with which they were not involved. The article should stay on topic and not include trivial third-hand guesses by others. For example, Haidar, an aid, "had no recollection," and "finds it exceeding strange that....", while al-Hadi, a secretary, said "he was not aware..." and "I believe..." (twice). And the only source for those speculations is Allawi's book, where he himself is cited as giving his own speculations: "the most likely explanation..." and "He then may or may not have been...."
Most of the third-party guesses don't fit and go against the purpose of the article. Per guidelines, "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Nor is it "an indiscriminate collection of information... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion." Per more guidelines, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." -- Light show ( talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven’t been following all of the discussion here as I am on a mini-break, but you might want to look at:
The letter being debated is shown there as an image (in Lawrence’s handwriting) and is discussed with well sourced text. It might be worth splitting out as a separate article.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to edit the following sentence. Firstly, there is no reference to the claim re the British government below:
"The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine."
The boundaries were stipulated by the time Transjordan was severed from the whole in 1922 and the mandate took effect in 1923. A page documenting the Transjordan Memorandum: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Trans-Jordan_memorandum. The memorandum is here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Palestine_Mandate#Trans-Jordan_Memorandum,_16_September_1922 The boundaries were unspecified when the mandate was approved by the principal powers in San Remo on April 24, 1920. On September 16, 1922, the mandate was amended with an explicit definition of the boundary between Trans-Jordan (Palestine-east) and Cis-Jordan (Palestine-west).
I believe the reference to the boundary was probably inserted to contextualize or frame the point that "the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine".
Firstly, this is a strong statement regarding a concept that is very complicated because of many arguments made on each side of this point. It would be safest and easiest to remove the paragraph. If the comment is to remain, it most definitely requires an explicit reference. If that is done, I would say that other references/citations contradicting or contextualizing such a claim be added.
I don't believe I have the right to edit the page. Please give me an idea as to the direction I should go with this edit. If you would allow me to edit, let me know. Thank you. ElishevaZ ( talk) 07:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
"The boundaries of the mandated territories at San Remo were not precisely defined.[29] Chaim Weizmann subsequently reported to his WZO colleagues in London:
"There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Faisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris."[33]
The reference 29 is Biger 2004 and 33 are Weizmann comments.
Do you wish to contradict these two sources or what is the the source (you didn't give any) of "many arguments on each side". The sentence that you speak about is a true statement as far as it goes although we could add in both of the references above in some form if that improves it from your perspective? If what you are speaking about is specifically the Transjordan, I believe that is sufficiently covered in the aforementioned article. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There are so many POV issues here I don't even know where to start. I think I'll start with two easy to grasp problems, and add more if/when these are solved.
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
"Karsh is not a New Historian"You are correct (and I've struck my comment). Apparently I didn't read all the words in that sentence in the article about him. My mistake. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the proposal:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Balfour_Declaration&action=edit§ion=33
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 00:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 00:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Selfstudier ( talk) 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Have just fixed a rather confusing piece of writing - a comment was attributed to Lloyd George's Memoirs. He actually wrote two works called Memoirs - his War Memoirs (which we had already met in the article), and his Memoirs of the Peace Conference, better known as The Truth About the Peace Treaties, to which the comment should have been attributed. DuncanHill ( talk) 11:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Balfour Declaration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change X: Early British political support for an increased Jewish presence in the region of Palestine was based upon geopolitical calculations. [1] [i]
to Y: Early British political support for an increased Jewish presence in the region of Palestine was based upon geopolitical calculations. [1] [ii] J.C. Hurewitz has written that one of the motives for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine during World War One was to secure a land bridge between Egypt and its Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, by annexing from the Turkish Ottoman Empire what are now the nations of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, thereby forming an alternative maritime link between The United Kingdom and its colony in India, in addition to the one which already existed via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. [3] Suspended Time ( talk) 06:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Notes
References
This
edit request to
Balfour Declaration has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change X: Lloyd George described a total of nine factors motivating his decision as Prime Minister to release the declaration, [1] including the additional reasons that a Jewish presence in Palestine would strengthen Britain's position on the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to their imperial dominion in India. [1]
to Y: Lloyd George described a total of nine factors motivating his decision as Prime Minister to release the declaration, [1] including the additional reasons that a Jewish presence in Palestine would strengthen Britain's position on the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to their imperial dominion in India. [1]. J.C. Hurewitz has written that one of the motives for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine during the immediate aftermath of World War One was to secure a land bridge between Egypt and its Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, by annexing from the Turkish Ottoman Empire what are now the nations of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, thereby forming an alternative maritime link between The United Kingdom and its colony of India, as well as with its Persian Gulf protectorates of what are now in Kuwait, southern Iran, Bahrain, Qatar, and The United Arab Emirates, in addition to the one which already existed via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. [2] Suspended Time ( talk) 05:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)