Talk:1920 in British-administered Palestine

Proposed merger with "1920 in the British Mandate of Palestine"

Moved from Talk:1920 in the British Mandate of Palestine

I propose that the contents of this article and the article 1920 in the British Mandate of Palestine be merged, as I believe it is unnecessary and could be confusing to divide the year 1920 in Palestine between these two articles. The merged article could take the name of either article (On reflection, I prefer the name (1920 in British-administered Palestine British Mandate of Palestine) and there would be a redirect to the merged article from the name of the other article. There could also be a note near the heading to the article that the territory was not administed by the UK under a mandate until April 1920. Davshul (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose to your suggestion. I believe that merging those two articles would create confusion since the British Mandate of Palestine did not start on the 1st of January. Nevertheless, lets wait and see what the other Wikipedians say about your proposal. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Mandate did not come into effect until 26 September 1923, so the issue that TheCG raises is serious. Also, I am suspicious about this whole series of articles. They carry no citations and feel very much like a copyvio. Where is the information from? Zero^talk 04:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The information comes from many different sources. Mostly Hebrew sources though. I have done a lot of work on these articles in the last months and I am still working on improving these articles and adding as many English references as I can (I might start adding Hebrew references if I would not be able to find English references). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The choice of 26 April 1920 as the date of commencement of the mandate (and accordingly the first date in this article) appears to be largely arbitrary, it being the date of conclusion of the San Remo conference, which confirmed the allocation of a mandate to Britain. (In fact, the declaration of the conference was the day earlier, 25 April 1920.) However the conference largely incorporated an agreement that had been made at the Conference of London on 24 February 1920. The decisions of both of these conference were only later, on 10 August 1920, incorporated into a treaty - the stillborn Treaty of Sèvres. Such mandate was, however, only a mandate by the allied powers. It was not until 22 July 1922 that the League of Nations approved the Mandate, which did not come into effect until 26 September 1923. Accordingly, there appears to be no justification in dividing 1920 between 1920 in British-administered Palestine and 1920 in the British Mandate of Palestine, the former title clearly covers the latter. Davshul (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that a single series of articles is best even if the title is not quite accurate for the first few years. Starting with the British military victory in Palestine would make the most sense to me. Zero^talk 10:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge—the title of the article/list isn't important (and can be changed to either title), but we shouldn't have two lists about the same year; it's simply pointless. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We do have two articles for the same year in 1918 (here and here) and 1948 (here and here) - do you propose doing the same thing in those articles as well? If so, how do you propose choosing the right name for the merged articles? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

1918 and 1948 saw massive political changes and it would be reasonable for both years to be both the last of one series and the first of another series. I don't think any of the years 1919-1947 deserve more than one page. Zero^talk 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

I have been planning to add more articles about the years in Ottoman Syria (currently I have gone back until 1915). Due to the fact that we can not expand these articles significantly (In my opinion not much happened in this region in those times to justify an article for each individual year), I'm beginning to think the best solution would be to create one big article which would contains all the most significant events in Ottoman Syria. In my opinion, this solution might also work better for the timeline of the British-administered Palestine and the British Mandate of Palestine AND it would solve the problem we have been discussing here. What do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A single page for Ottoman Syria sounds good. Another single page for Palestine 1918-1948 would also be good. A potential problem is bloat. There is a tendency for pages in the I/P area to gradually expand to include the entire conflict. Can we devise an inclusion criterion (and maybe a per-entry limit) that will prevent this? Zero^talk 15:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a single page for Ottoman Syria would be preferable. However, I consider that the present pages, by year, for "British" Palestine are fine (with the exception of the need to merge the two present pages for 1920), even though several of the pages are not well filled at the moment, but the articles are still in their early stages. Davshul (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that ;). Zero^talk 06:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger

In light of the above discussion, I propose taking steps to proceed with the merger these two articles. Davshul (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The two articles have now been merged, pursuant to the above discussion. Davshul (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)