This is an archive of past discussions about Mandatory Palestine. 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 article is in process of being merged with Mandate Palestine, i apologize for some inconvenience and instability of the page in this regard. The last version of Mandate Palestine is available in this link.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Need admin help - correcting confusing page histories
Once the move below is completed, please could an admin kindly help fix the history of these articles under WP:HISTMERGE? If I understand it correctly, two things need to happen to correct everything here:
The history and talk of this page prior to the 24 Dec merger needs to be combined with the history and talk page of British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) (since both are about the legal instrument)
The history and talk of Mandate Palestine (now a redirect) prior to the 24 Dec merger needs to be combined with the history and talk page of whatever this page gets renamed to (since both are about the political entity)
Not done: I think that this falls under the "troublesome case" caveat on history merging. As long as there are clear indications on both talk pages that this merger-and-split was done, then the attribution history will still be preserved.--Aervanath (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Requested move - please vote
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved for lack of consensus. The majority certainly seems to feel that "British Mandate of Palestine" or "British Mandate for Palestine" are to be preferred, but very good arguments against this have also been put forth. Since it doesn't seem that there will be consensus on an alternate name, the article title will stay as British Mandate for Palestine, where it has been located since 2010. Should further discussion here condense the options to a reasonable number, another requested move could be opened. It has generally been my experience that the more options that are offered as alternative titles, the less likely it is that consensus is reached. Aervanath (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be difficult to misinterpret, in light of the confusion between the previous article titles
Please VOTE for one of the following choices below, which i believe are the most commonly suggested options (in alphabetical order):
(A) British Mandate of Palestine
(B) British Mandate Palestine
(C) British Palestine
(D) Mandate Palestine
(E) Mandatory Palestine
(F) Palestine (British Mandate protectorate)
(G) Palestine under the British Mandate
(H) Palestine (British Mandate)
(I) Palestine (British Mandate administration)
(J) Palestine (British Mandate territory)
(K) British Mandate for Palstine (territory)
My vote is for Option (F), since it is very clear that it refers to the political entity not the legal instrument and it is the correct commonname for the entity as can be seen from stamps, passports and legal documents from the period. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Option (F), Palestine is of course the head part of the name. A similar move should be done for British Mandate for Mesopotamia. Suédoise (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Option (A). Although I think the current name is fine as it is very commonly used in RS. I think everything except F should be a redirect, since I don't think I've ever seen a source call it a "British Mandate protectorate". A quick search of google books shows only one source using that terminology, and not by a historian. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Option (A), although I also agree that the current wording ("for" not "of") should be retained. I don't see any particular need to move the article, particuarly to the very awkward title of (F). When I have linked to this in infoboxes as country of birth, I have simply piped it as [[British Mandate for Palestine|Mandate Palestine]]. Number5709:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment The issue with the current name has been discussed at some length above. "British Mandate for Palestine" was a legal instrument passed at the league of nations that formalized two separate political entities -Palestine (west of the Jordan) and Transjordan (east of the Jordan) that had already been established prior to the act. An article named "British Mandate for Palestine" purporting to be about a single "geopolitical polity" that included both Palestine and Transjordan is highly misleading, as such a polity never existed. Leaving aside the lead and the title, the content of this article is clearly about Palestine (west of the Jordan) during the mandate era (1920-48), and the title should make this crystal clear to avoid misleading readers and confusing editors. My issue with (A) British Mandate of Palestine, is that I am not 100% clear if the scope of an article of this name is to include both political entities formalized under the terms of the British mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), or whether it is to cover only one of the two entities - Palestine (i.e. the territory west of the Jordan). Dlv999 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, when people are referring to what name is commonly used in RS, they need to be very careful about what concept the RS discussing when it uses a certain name. For instance, this secondary source [1], uses "British Mandate of Palestine" to refer to the legal instrument, whereas it simply uses "Palestine" to refer to the political entity (west of the Jordan) that is the subject of this article. Dlv999 (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Option (H). It says precisely what it means in a Wikipedia-like fashion. (A) may be the most common name, but we have the additional task of disambiguating it from the legal instrument. (C) is too colloquial, and literally false. (F) is bad because most legal experts do not consider that a mandate is a type of protectorate (Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations, p317). (G) is the one that sounds nicest but maybe it's too cute for a title(?). Zerotalk14:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Your point re protectorate is fair, as it can be viewed as technically incorrect. But not putting anything to identify whether this is the document or the political entity will cause the same confusion as before. I have struggled with other options such as state/territory/governate but all fall foul of the same technical issue. How about Option (I)? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But I'm not sure we can't do something with "territory", as it doesn't have heavy legal baggage. What about "Palestine (British mandated territory)"? Zerotalk22:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
As regards use of the word territory, perhaps it would help if I quote the following from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 'mandate' article: A mandate was "an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. The territory was called a mandated territory, or mandate." ← ZScarpia01:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Short remark on this regard - most people search for the info on the geopolitical entity under British Administration, not the instrument / the document (which they will now find at the "legal instrument" article). It is like the Second World War article is about the war, and the The Second World War (book) is about the book, no confusion there.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment A number of editors have stated that Option (A) is the most common name. The problem is, that although it is found commonly in RS, it is often used ambiguously and to refer to different concepts. An ongoing issue with this and the related "legal instrument" article is to clearly differentiate between 3 separate concepts which have been confused and conflated - 1. British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), 2. the entire area subject to the terms of the legal instrument(including two political entities Palestine & Transjordan), and 3. Palestine (one of the two entities formalized under the legal instrument). A quick search of google books shows that "British Mandate of Palestine" has been used by secondary sources to refer to all three of the concepts. 1.[2], [3]2.[4], [5]3.[6]. WP:COMMONNAME requires that article titles be precise, which option A is clearly not. If this name is chosen I don't think we will have progressed at all in defining the scope of the article. The first question will be, okay, but what is "British mandate of Palestine"? and unfortunately it is not something on which secondary sources agree. Dlv999 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggested in one of the sections above that we call it "British Mandate for Palstine (territory)" which solves the issues of COMMONNAME and ambiguity, and gives both articles on the related issues related names. Unfortunately my suggestion didn't make it to the list of proposed names. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I should add though that there was never a territory called "British Mandate for Palestine". All official documents referred to the territory as simply "Palestine". Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment - the article British Mandate of Mesopotamia is factually incorrect and misleading (see the disputed tag at the top and the comment I added to its talk page this morning) and the article French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon is very poorly and confusingly structured. Perhaps when we're finished here we can go and fix them. But for these purposes, it is important to note that neither of these are good examples to follow here. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: So far, I've checked about 22 history books dealing with mandate-era Palestine. Mostly, they just refer to Palestine. Besides referring to just Palestine, a couple of the books refer once or twice to (small 'm') 'mandated Palestine', including one by Benny Morris. Benny Morris also refers once or twice to (capital 'M') 'Mandate Palestine'. Besides referring to just Palestine, Bernard Lewis refers a few times to (small 'm' and suffix 'ary') 'mandatary Palestine'. No other terms, as far as I can see, appear.
I don't think the claims that 'British Mandate of Palestine' is the most common term used to refer to mandate-era Palestine stand up. Doing a Google Books search on that term (and including a '-Wikipedia' to try to stop books such as those by publisher Hephaestus, which just collate material from sources such as Wikipedia, appearing), I only get 6,580 hits (and a lot of the results are referring to the League of Nations legal instrument rather than the mandate territory). By comparison, for 'Mandatory Palestine', I get 36,600 hits. For 'Mandate Palestine', I get 23,300 hits. Unless those editors giving a WP:COMMONAME justification for choosing option A can give a convincing demonstration that their choice is the most common term used to refer to mandate-era Palestine in reliable sources, I think that, as consensus is supposed to be based on the best arguments, their votes should be discounted.
I get over 56,000 hits for "British Mandate for Palestine" (rather than "of"). I indicated in my first comment here that I think that's the name this article should have. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, but are you able to show that a meaningful proportion of those hits refer to the territory rather than the legal instrument? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the results, you'll find that only one of the higher results returned is actually referring to the mandate territory rather than the legal instrument. The exception is "The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict", where it is one of a number of different terms used to refer to the mandate territory. ← ZScarpia14:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) (I wrote this comment before reading Onceawhile,s comment of 08:39, 28 February 2012, which agrees with my observation about the usage of the term)
I agree that Option (K) (with the spelling fixed, of course) is the correct and logical choice, with the preposition "for" being the most authentic and prevalent form from the earliest origins. Name "K" is also the perfect counterpart for that of the companion article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Hertz1888 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment With respect to NMMNG's comment just above re 56,000 hits for "British Mandate for Palestine", I have analysed the top 20 hits below and separated them in to references to the legal instrument, the territory and those that are unclear (whenever even slightly unclear):
1. N/A British Mandate for Palestine - wiki mirror
2. LEGAL INSTRUMENT "The British Mandate for Palestine The ability of Britain to gain the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine which it accepted in 1920"
3. LEGAL INSTRUMENT The British Mandate for Palestine Date: 24 July 1922 Source: League of Nations Official Journal, August 1922
4. LEGAL INSTRUMENT The British Mandate for Palestine 24 July 1922 The Council of the League of Nations Whereas
5. UNCLEAR The British Mandate for Palestine in Historical Perspective
6. LEGAL INSTRUMENT The Supreme Muslim Council: Islam under the British mandate for Palestine
7. LEGAL INSTRUMENT The British Mandate for Palestine, approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922
8. TERRITORY The illegal immigration of Jews from Europe to the British Mandate for Palestine.
9. LEGAL INSTRUMENT As the British Mandate for Palestine was expiring
10. LEGAL INSTRUMENT Terms of the British Mandate for Palestine Confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922
11. LEGAL INSTRUMENT Terms of the British Mandate for Palestine Confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922
12. UNCLEAR Acre under the British Mandate for Palestine: The city of Acre played a passive role in the international events and decisions that followed World War I and the replacement of Turkish rule with the British Mandate for Palestine.
13. UNCLEAR the boundaries of the British mandate for Palestine were determined by the interests of the ...
14. LEGAL INSTRUMENT The British Mandate for Palestine must be annulled since it is an insuperable and fundamental obstacle
15. LEGAL INSTRUMENT The British mandate for Palestine was approved by the Council of the league of Nations on July 24, 1922
16. LEGAL INSTRUMENT On May 14, 1948, the British Mandate for Palestine was terminated
17. UNCLEAR Taxation under the British Mandate for Palestine The British Mandate for Palestine began in 1920 under the aegis of the League of Nations and ended in 1948
18. LEGAL INSTRUMENT By 1922, the year the League of Nations confirmed the British Mandate for Palestine
19. UNCLEAR Transjordan had originally been included in the British Mandate for Palestine
20. LEGAL INSTRUMENT Israel 50 years: a history in documents: The Council of the League of Nations regarding the british mandate for Palestine 24 July 1922 THE COUNCIL ... British Mandate for Palestine.
Conclusion: for the top 20 hits (19 non-wiki), 13 are clearly for the legal instrument, 1 is clearly for the territory and 5 are unclear. So thats:
Which, by the way, is not at all surprising since no official documents that I am aware of ever used the phrase "British Mandate for Palestine" to refer to anything other than the legal instrument. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I get a completely different search result, but that's not really the point. The issue isn't if it's used more for the instrument than for the territory, the issue is if this is the most common name for the territory. Even if we decide to use a different name we're going to need the current name as a redirect and since it's ambiguous, we'll need a dab page as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
That mainly illustrates you are willing to draw flawed conclusions from incomplete data. Unless you're sure that all the "unclear" references are talking about the legal instrument and that any source that uses the term for the legal instrument doesn't also use it for the territory. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I think the discussion has made some good progress. In my view, options J and K are both major improvements on the previous offerings. As I mentioned in my previous comment, the main issue here is to clearly differentiate between the 3 concepts that have been confused and conflated (1. British Mandate for Palestine -legal instrument, 2. the entire area subject to the terms of the legal instrument - including two political entities Palestine & Transjordan, 3. Palestine - one of the two entities formalized under the legal instrument). The task is to pick a name that unambiguously refers to only one of the concepts so that the scope of the article is clearly defined to avoid confusing editors and misleading readers. Both J and K rule out the legal instument concept by referring to "territory". But importantly J and K refer to different concepts. K defines the territory by referring to "British Mandate for Palestine" - so to me this title is about the whole area subject to the terms of British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), which during the mandate era included two political entities (Palestine and Transjordan) that were both formalized under the terms of the legal instrument. Option J, is clearly referring to only one of the two political entities (Palestine) formalized under the terms of the legal instrument. Given that the two names (J and K) do not refer to the same concept I don't think it is logical to argue over which is more common in RS. In my view what we should be discussing is what is the most rational structure for the set of articles relating the mandate era history of the Levantine area and specifically what should be the scope of this particular article within that structure. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion to closing admin - close and reopen: The discussion (which has lost all momentum) seems to have brought most views out, but due to the diversity of options and the fact that four new options (H, I, J and K) were added during the debate, it is not clear where we are. From reviewing the discussion in its entirety, I draw two conclusions:
(1) There are two groups of editors - those who believe the title should start with "British Mandate..." and those who believe the title should start with "Palestine". The logic behind these positions has been summarised by Dlv999 above.
(2) There appears to be rough consensus that the title should include a term which makes it clear that the article refers to a state, to differentiate it from the article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). My read is that the rough consensus for the term which should be used is the newest suggestion in the list: "territory"
Therefore I think the best way to reach conclusion here is to close this debate and open a clean discussion with only the two options J and K above: Palestine (British Mandate territory) versus British Mandate for Palestine (territory).
Whatever else it is, judging by his earlier remarks, the second choice isn't a preferred option of Onceawhile's. ← ZScarpia22:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: In my opinion, we shouldn't touch the second choice with a barge pole. For referring to the Palestine mandate-territory, it's a minority usage term and, I'd say, probably a spurious one too (being used by people confused between the difference between a mandate authorisation and a mandate territory), an imposter term pretending to be the formal proper name for mandate-era Palestine. Perhaps, reducing the move request procedure to a choice between those two options isn't the best way to go? My personal preference? I'd rather we didn't end up using options A, F, I or K. ← ZScarpia19:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, and I would dispute the claim above that there is consensus that the phrase "British Mandate for Palestine" needs a disambiguator. If the document is disambiguated, this article doesn't need to be. Number5720:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
And as an aside, I think the only other option I support would be (D) "Mandate Palestine", which was just used on British TV to describe the country. Number5721:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose both- if those are the options you think are coming out of the discussion - then those were "Putin" elections (wasn't "A" the leading option here?!). Anyway both options including "territory" are implying geography, not geopolitical entity, and are essentially original research (never saw such terms in literature).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the term mandated territory is used by the Encyclopaedia Britannica. If you really think that there's a clash between the terms territory or mandate territory and the term geopolitical entity, then why not find a replacement of the latter (wasn't it introduced by you when you did the merge?)?
Greyshark, I agree you should have the choice to vote whatever option you think is best. But to get back to the crux of the issue:- There was never a geopolitical entity that included both Palestine and Transjordan during the Mandate era. If you want to select a name that covers the whole area that was subject to the Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) the lead will have to make clear that the area subject to the legal instrument included two entities (Palestine & Transjordan) during the mandate era and the article will have to cover both those entities equally. This will be a very different article to the current incarnation which (apart from the lead) is about Palestine (west of the Jordan). This is why I favour a name that makes clear that the article is about Palestine during the mandate era (not the whole area subject to the terms of the mandate for Palestine legal instrument). Covering the whole area subject to the legal instrument makes very little sense, there is already a Transjordan article which covers Transjordan during the mandate era. Just about any aspect you look at (politics, government, demographics, economics, education, Jewish home provision, inter communal violence etc) there is no similarity in circumstances between Palestine and Transjordan during the Mandate era (apart from that they were both subject to the legal instrument - and even the terms were applied differently). I have consulted numerous secondary sources that support my position some documented here [7]. Dlv999 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Please re-vote with views on ALL the options
Since Greyshark opposed my proposal to focus the debate, I have another proposal to try to move this forward.
We need to identify an option that works for everyone. That means taking into account positive and negative views on each of the names. Given the diversity of views here, I suggest that the outcome may need to be the one which "no one is happy with, but everyone is ok with" - i.e. a true compromise.
Could I suggest therefore that all editors resubmit their votes, but this time providing a view on ALL the options. My votes are below:
Support F, G, I, J - emphasises the official name (Palestine), and is clearly differentiated from the name of the legal instrument
Neutral B, C, D, E - prefer more clarity in the title to avoid confusion of the previous years under a similar article name. Also prefer the official name to be emphasised
Oppose A, H, K - very strongly against for reasons of clarity set out above, because this is an article about a geopolitical entity. The analysis of scholarly sources brought shows that most references to British Mandate for Palestine refer to the legal instrument. This is obvious when you consider the syntax - this order implies emphasis on the word Mandate.
I didn't oppose your focusing the debate, i opposed the awkward administrator decision. This is a too complicated vote - it's "Pirrus" elections which won't get anywhere. Nothing personal against you Oncenawhile, i assume you try your best, but it is just becoming a mess. I think you should find one best option which most people agree on (this has been done until now), and then try to make a "single option vote" for the best candidate with just "Support"/"Oppose" options. Hope you succeed.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Greyshark, thanks for your explanation. I respect your views as to what might be the best way of doing this, and you might be right. I just don't think we have enough clarity on people's views yet to pick a "least worst" option. Putting an option up which has strong opposition would be a waste of time. I'd like to identify one which most people are neutral on / ok with. Even if you don't agree that it will solve the problem, I'd be really grateful for your contribution.
Support A (don't see a need for a move), D (succinct and in common usage)
Neutral E (awkward name ("mandatory" also means compulsory, so sounds odd) but succinct)
Opposed B (awkward title), C (name should include Mandate), F, H, I, J, K (awkward and I really don't think a disambiguator is needed/helpful when there are other options available), G (too long and a description rather than a place name). Number5715:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake (it was at that title for a long time), but either of those variates ("of" or "for" are ok). Number5716:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Number 57. Could you just clarify for me what you see as the scope of the article with the name A, as it is unclear to me what an article of that name is about. As has been pointed out there is a major issue with ambiguity of meaning and conflation of different concepts - choosing title A does not help clear up any of this confusion which is why I strongly oppose such a choice. Dlv999 (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - You can't expect all editors to come back and re-vote. I suggest that if someone wants to change their vote they should note it here and strike their vote in the previous section, otherwise they should be considered as keeping their previous vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
NNMNG- I disagree. A lot of the early votes were for A. Strong arguments against A have been raised and no-one has addressed them. You yourself voted for A, but you then offered an (in my view better) alternative instead of defending A on its merits. If people want to stick with their early votes they should be willing to defend their choice in light of the subsequent arguments and evidence that has been presented. Dlv999 (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
A is the only sensible one based on history and sources. The others are just distractions or POV pushing. Why not include "(L) British-occupied Israel" at that point... Metallurgist (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain in more detail? All the A votes are the same - coming from editors who provide no substance in their comments. Metallurgist, if you have read any of the discussion above, please comment on the objections to AOncenawhile (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Request for sources to show "British Mandate for Palestine" was a geopolitical entity
As per the above discussion and the "citation needed" tags added to the lead, please could editors who believe the current title (and/or A above) is an appropriate title for this article please provide sources supporting this? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The cited sources for that article (and the passports themselves) refer to "Palestine" not "British Mandate for Palestine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I had even written this in my two short lines.
It seems then, that we are in agreement. I don't think there is any doubt that Palestine (west of the Jordan) was a geopolitical entity. The issue is what is the justification for saying that the whole area subject to the terms British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) -i.e Palestine and Transjordan- was a single political entity during the mandate era. I think an examination of the secondary sources[8] shows there was no time during the period that they were a single geopolitical political entity -hence the request for clarification. Dlv999 (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion - we have not made much progress here, but it is clear that the current title does not have consensus as the title of an article about the geopolitical entity. Can I suggest that we return to the status quo title of Mandate Palestine from before this veeerrrrryyyy long debate began. I think there is a case of wiki-fatigue amongst some editors, so it might be good if we all take a breather for a while and can return to this debate later. Any objections? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
British Mandate for Palestine or Mandate Palestine are both used by sources.
The 1st one is better because it reminds the British control of the administration.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Move back to previous article name prior to merge+demerge
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
British Mandate for Palestine → Mandate Palestine – Relisted. Mandate Palestine or Mandatory Palestine? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Propose to move back to what appears to be the most neutrally-viewed name for this article (about the geopolitical entity). Since the merger and then demerger of the now separate article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), we have been going round in circles. It's time to take the path of least resistance. A quick message to any editors who believe that this article should keep the current name - please review the history of the merge and demerge, then look at the content of this article. If you still believe this article's current name is appropriate, please provide WP:RS to support usage of the term "British Mandate for Palestine" to define the political entity (as opposed to the legal instrument). Thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Reverting back to the original name would be more sensible than leaving the article with its current one I think. ← ZScarpia11:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Why reverting? This article is the original one, "Mandate Palestine" was originally forked in 2010, becoming a "twin" article since (until our merger).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reversion to the original name used in the article which was about the current topic. In purpose, if not in edit history, this article is effectively the original Mandate Palestine one. ← ZScarpia14:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Weak support - might not be the best options among my preferred titles, but is certainly better than using "for" suffix, which is a bit confusing.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
support preferable to the current name in my opinion for the reasons already outlined above. Also hopefully can work as a compromise option. Dlv999 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also agree, but I think the idea of this proposal is a step in the right direction, given the lack of consensus in previous discussions. To paraphrase Voltaire, do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or in this instance, do not let the perfect be the enemy of the better than nothing). Dlv999 (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Termination of the Mandate: Israel declaration of Independence
The article as of 30 April 2012 does not accurately describe the wording of the Israel Declaration of Independence.[1]
1 The operative words of the Declaration are HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-YISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Ben-Gurion did mention its borders, i.e. it was in ERETZ-YISRAEL.
2 What was to occur from the moment of the termination of the Mandate was this, People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State. In the absence of when the Declaration is to take effect, presumably it takes effect when David Ben-Gurion reads it on the afternoon of 14 May 1948.
3 At best Israel came into existence on the reading of the Declaration. It was Ben-Gurion and those who signed the document who declared independence.
"In Eretz-Israel" is much too vague to be described as a specification of borders. The fact is that the Council had a debate on whether the declaration should mention borders and Ben-Gurion's view that it should not mention borders prevailed. This is well documented. Zerotalk 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC) And what is it with you and capital letters? Ben-Gurion spoke in capitals? Hebrew doesn't even have capitals. Zerotalk23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy
The operative words are in capitals because that is how they appear in the two websites that I have found on the Declaration of Independence of Israel[2] and [3]
Removing the capitals would be a good start. If you want to quote the deceleration, you can do so (in quotation marks) as far as I'm concerned, but this is not a specification of borders. If I say I'm declaring a new state in Europe, does that mean it includes the whole of Europe? It's the general area wherein my new state exists. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
What was the point of this edit, beside butchering the English language? There's no need for "scare quotes", nor the need for the names of the new government agencies. Trahelliven, it seems like you have a real problem with the fact that the declaration didn't define Israel's borders. It's not a big deal, and your edit-warring to keep it in the article will lead to a short Wikipedia career. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I shal wait the statutory time before I edit it again.
1 My objection to the article before I edited it was that it purported to summarise the operative part of the declaration. The operative part is so short; it is better to quote it in full rather than attempt to summarise it
2 In Eretz Israel. If it is not meant to establish borders, let the words speak for themselves. If the intention was for Ben-Gurion etc to comply with the Plan of Partition, they presumably would have defined the borders in terms of the area set aside for the Jewish state. That they did not do so implies that they wanted less or even possibly even more. The use of the term Eretz Israel suggests that they wanted more.
3 I do not understand where the idea that the declaration was to be effective the next day, i.e. on 15 May. The reference in the later paragraph of the Declaration to the moment of the termination of the Mandate is to lay down when the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State,...
4 I fail to see how Israel could have declared itself an independent nation when it had not come into existnce. My reading of the Declaration is that We in the main operative part of the document refers to Ben-Gurion and the other signatories.
5 What document shows:- On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel.Trahelliven (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Even though it might be a little bit ambiguous, the intention of the declaration as explained in most sources was that the new state would come into existence as the Mandate ended. Otherwise you have to believe they deliberately left it without a government for several hours. Waiting until the Mandate ended would have avoided unnecessary legal complications, and the ceremony was only held in the mid-afternoon rather than the evening because it was Shabbat eve there would have been big trouble from the religious sector if they held it after sunset. Zerotalk12:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
A pointer to some comments I made previously about the timing of the end of the Mandate and the coming into effect of the Declaration of Independence.
In presenting the Declaration of Independence, David Ben-Gurion read out the Founding Charter of the State of Israel. It gave dawn on the 15th, a Saturday, as the official start of the functioning of the apparatus of state [9]:
WE DECLARE that starting from the moment of the end of the Mandate, tonight, at dawn of day Saturday, Vav [6th] in Eiyar 5608, 15th of May 1948, and until the establishment of the elected and regular authorities of the State in conformity with the law which will be decided by the elected Legislating Assembly ["Asifa Ha'Mekhokeket"] not later than the 1st of October 1948, the People's Council ["Moetzet Ha'Am"] will function as a temporary National Council ["Moetzet Medina"], and her executive institution, the People's Administration ["Minhelet Ha'Am"], will constitute the temporary government of the Jewish State, which will hereby be called by the name ISRAEL.
"Dawn of day" (an unusual translation) means "when the day begins", not when the sun comes up. It is usually translated as "eve". Now note that the page you cited has a letter from the Provisional Government to the US President stating: "The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of May 14, 1948, Washington time [i.e. at one minute past midnight Saturday morning in Palestine, when the Mandate will have terminated]." (These days the time difference is 5 hours; when did the USA start using daylight saving?) This seems pretty clear, but I have a quibble. The starting point of Israeli law was defined by the Law and Administration Ordinance, of which the authorized translation reads "from the eve of the Sabbath, 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948)". That might sound like midnight, but actually the eve of the Sabbath is at sunset on Friday (14th May in this case). Why would the Sabbath be mentioned if the "Sabbath eve" according to Jewish law was not the intention? Maybe the Hebrew is more definite. Zerotalk13:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I verified that the letter says "one minute after six o'clock on the evening of May 14, 1948, Washington time" in the Department of State Bulletin, No. 484, May 23, 1948, p673. Zerotalk13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread what Ben-Gurion said; I should have written dawn of day, not dawn. Judging from what I've read elsewhere, caution must be applied not to read too much into the letter written by Eliahu Epstein, the agent in Washington DC of the Provisional Government of Israel, to President Truman. He was in the position of having to improvise because, while he was negotiating with the US Government, decisions were still being made on the ground in Jerusalem. His letter is the only source that I came across which said that the State of Israel was going to come into being at a minute past midnight, rather than at midnight itself. Also, in order to procure recognition of Israel from Truman, he had to write that Israel had been "proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations", which was untrue. ← ZScarpia15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) (Sorry ... I'm tired and not reading anything, sources or editor's comments, straight at the moment. I'll absent myself for a while.)
FWIW, translating it as "dawn" is not precise. It says "אור ליום שבת" which basically means "when Saturday begins". Considering it's preceded with "starting from the moment of the end of the Mandate", I don't think there's much ambiguity there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
ZScarpia: Yes, good point about Epstein's letter. NMMNG, can you find the Hebrew text of the Law and Administration Ordinance (1948)? The date specification is near the end and it would be interesting to know if the Hebrew is completely clear on what it means. Zerotalk02:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The Law and Administration Ordinance (1948) was published in 19 May 1948 ([10]), and its validity goes back to be from the eve of Shabbat, which is the very beginning of the Shabbat day of 15 May 1948 (which is 12:00 at night of 14/05/1948, or 00:00 of 15/05/1948). The Hebrew text of the Ordinance in clause 23 is: תקפה של פקודה זו הוא למפרע מליל שבת, ו' באייר תש״ח. So there is no contradiction between the Ordinance and the Declaration; both are referring to the moment of the end of the Mandate. Noon (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, FWIW, the ordinance is less specific than the deceleration. It doesn't reference the termination of the Mandate. It does say it applies retroactively from May 15th, so it can't mean Friday the 14th, but when exactly on Saturday it came into force it doesn't say. Noon is correct that there is no contradiction, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy and others.
I am sorry that I did not realise that there is no ambiguity there, but unfortunately, I speak not a word of Hebrew.
Presumably Bier, Aharon, & Slae, Bracha,For the sake of Jerusalem, Mazo Publishers, 2006, p.49 is authority for the proposition that the declaration was to become effective from the end of the Mandate at midnight of Friday 14 May. If not, a reference should be included.
Even if in Eretz Israel does not define the borders of the new state, it is a key phrase in the Declaration and should be included in the article.
The Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence, without mentioning its borders.--- Declared independence of what? Whose borders? To what noun does the pronoun its refer?
On the date of British withdrawal, the Jewish provisional government declared the formation of the State of Israel.--- On 14 May there was no Jewish provisional government. If this is merely a restatement of Ben-Gurion's reading of the Declaration, it is superfluous and should be deleted.
The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation.--If this is a reference to the Declaration by Ben-Guion, it is factually incorrect. If it is something else, an appropriate reference should be included.
As I have said earlier the simplest and correct wording is:- declared the existence of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The above of course should be:- declared the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy and others
Perhaps a compromise for the paragraph might go as follows:-
'The Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared the independence of the State of Israel on the afternoon of Friday, 14 May 1948 (5 Iyar 5708 (Hebrew calendar date).[4][5] The declaration did not mention specific borders, but indicated that the new state was in 'Eretz Israel'. The declaration was to become effective from the end of the Mandate at midnight of that day.(give reference with quotation AND argument} The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognised by the Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries, but not by the surrounding Arab states. Over the next few days, approximately 700 Lebanese, 1,876 Syrian, 4,000 Iraqi, 2,800 Egyptian troops invaded Palestine.[6] Around 4,500 Transjordanian troops, commanded by 38 British officers, who had resigned their commissions in the British army only weeks earlier (commanded by General Glubb), invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs (in response to the Haganah's Operation Kilshon[7]), as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan.'
I have compromised on the following points
1 I have left independent rather than established even though established is the word used in the English translations of the Declaration.
2 At this stage at least, no mount of sophistry will tell me that the Declaration did not operate from other than Friday, 14 May.
I added a reference to this 1950 article by an Israeli judge in a law journal in support of the midnight interpretation, though I would still like to know where this issue is discussed in full detail. I also removed part of the "independent state" sentence as it was awkward and unnecessary after "declared independence". Incidentally another problem in the article is the use of mideastweb.org, which is a self-published web site that fails WP:RS. Zerotalk04:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz and others
The words, declared independence, without mentioning its borders, still present problens.
1 At the very least, to make sense, it should read, declared the independence of the new state of Israel, without mentioning its borders.
2 However, I fail to understand why the words of the English translation of the Declaration are not used, declared the establishment of a Jewish state.
3 I concede that in the strict sense, the Declaration does not mention the new state's borders, but it does at least indicate that the new state was in Eretz Israel rather than perhaps in South America. In Eretz Israel should be added to the opening sentence. Trahelliven (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I still, however, do not understand what is wrong with established. Is it a mistranslation of the original Hebrew text? I have put a wililink in Eratz Israel. Trahelliven (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
All
No-one has attempted to explain what is wrong with the use of the word establishment rather than independence when the English translation of the Declaration uses the former word. There is a subtle distinction; independence suggests that the entty was already in existence, while establishment suggests that it was not. I apologise for being a somewhat pedantic lawyer. Trahelliven (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You have a point, now that I understand you. Incidentally, during the discussion over the wording of the declaration, some people argued that the word "independent" should be included, but others argued that it was implied and so not necessary. I'd like to get both words in there, since strictly speaking one can establish an entity that has less than sovereign independence and that was not the intention. I'll take a shot at it. Zerotalk11:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Zero0000
I am still not really happy with the inclusion of the word 'independent'. If the declaration of 14 May 1948 had complied with the recommendation in Resolution 181(II) of the UNGA and defined the boundaries of the Jewish state to those set out in Res. 181, you would be able to use the word. Res.181 uses the following phrase, Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.
However, by using the phrase 'in Eretz Israel', the Declaration purported to create a state and government potentially including parts of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. (See the article on Eretz Israel.) Presumably this was not intended. I find the concept of an independent state without defined boundaries difficult to understand. It is simpler and cleaner to omit the word. Trahelliven (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz
I included the full text of the document signed by Harry Truman with a reference with photo of the document for two reasons:-
1 It makes clear that recognition was only de facto.
2 Truman's document uses the words in Palestine as against the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs' use of the words in Eretz Israel. I won't speculate on the reasons for the difference, but it is useful to have them both for an observant reader to speculate for himswlf.
The words of the document signed by Harry Truman indicate that did not recognise Israel, but the the provision government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel; there is a big distinction. De jure recognition came later. Trahelliven (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Troops numbers
Hello, in the same paragraph as the one that is discussed here above, I suggest to replace 'around (...) 1876 Syrians' by 'around (...) 2000 Syrians. 1876 is not an approximation and the variations of these numbers in sources have always been huge (and amazing). I am quite sure most sources talk about 10,000 Egyptians (50% moving along the coast ; 50% moving to Jerusalem via Hebron). I don't understand the interest of talking separately about the entering of the 4,500 Jordaninans in the 'corpus separatum' in reaction to Kilshion operation here. That is too complex a problem to be introduced here and nobody but experts understand why it is talked about. I add that according to Morrs and Gelber, no Lebanese troops intervened (but only as part of the ALA). There were also volunteers from Sudan and Soudia Arabia that came with Egyptians troops...
All in all, I would suggest to replace these last sentences by : 'the following days, expeditionnary corpses from Jordan, Irak, Egypt and Syria with new voluntarees coming from the Arab world entered Palestine and fought the Israelis'. If a number is required, I think that 'totalising around 20,000 fighters' is the average from what can be found in the reliable sources. 81.247.81.57 (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Map
The area should include also Transjordan, which was under direct British Mandate until 1928. Granting fully autonomous status to the Emirate of Transjordan in 1928 should also be mentioned as a key event in the history of the Mandatory Palestine. Since i still banish myself from directly editing this article - other editors are welcome to do that or explain why not? Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need for you to maintain your self-imposed exile from the article. But you might want to go back to read the discussions that occurred directly after you left on February 12 to see the evidence and arguments that were adduced to get us to the present article. Dlv999 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Mufti in WWII
I propose to delete the following gratuitous detail (shown in strikeout below) which is not directly related to the topic of this article. This is appropriately covered on the Mufti article and does not require duplication here.
The Mufti al-Husseini would spend the rest of the war in Nazi Germany and the occupied areas in Europe, in particular encouraging Muslim Bosniaks to join the Waffen SS in German-conquered Bosnia. Al-Husseini was also responsible for establishing the Arab unit of the Wehrmacht, which was largely operating on the Eastern European front.[dubious – discuss] Despite his efforts, most of the Arab pro-German volunteers were not Palestinian.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1987-004-09A, Amin al Husseini und Adolf Hitler.jpg|250px|thumb|Haj Amin al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler (December 1941).
Sounds reasonable to me. Frankly, I would have preferred to see you seek consensus for this proposal before making it, but it seems fine. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk13:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. The section concerns the activity of the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine during WW II. The Mufti was at the very least the de facto Arab leader at that time. His activities at that time are as relevant as Obama's current foreign policy to an article about the Afghan war. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)14:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, the Afghan War is being fought by American soldiers and funded by the American government. That is why there is a connection there. But the logic doesn't hold in this case. Firstly, do you have a source that the Mufti was the "de facto" leader at the time? I suggest you double check what de facto means first. Secondly, could you explain what impact you think the Mufti's activities in Europe had on Palestine? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Very simple: Amin al-Husayini was leader of the Arab Higher Committee, the main political institution representing the Arab community in Palestine. Therefore, his pro-Nazi anti-Zionist activities in Europe and elsewhere are completely relevant for this article.--Jabotito48 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No that's not logical. What effect did the Muslim Bosniaks in the Waffen SS have on Palestine? Can you identify any at all? Zerotalk08:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It's just one sentence about al-Husayini's activities around world. Why are you so worried to hide this information?--Jabotito48 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Because it discredits wikipedia to have gratuitous propaganda incorporated in unrelated articles. This information is adequately covered in much more detail at the Mufti article. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Both Zionist activities in Europe related to Mandatory Palestine as well as Palestinian Arab nationalist activities there need to be covered here. Husseini's role as Palestinian leader, even though not representing all Palestinian Arabs, needs a proper review, as his actions in alliance with the axis were directly oriented on promoting axis conquest of the Levant.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have any evidence of the Mufti's impact on Palestine during the period? Otherwise, I'll delete the lines proposed above. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't Jordan a part of the Mandatory Palestine? And, if so, shouldn't it be included in the map and mentioned in the text? Faunas (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@Dalai, i think we got some kind of misunderstanding on the way, as apparently i was edit conflicted with your revert, before i could put the reference. At the bottom line, the official name on English documents was "Palestine" (Filastin in Arabic) or "Palestine - EY" (also Palestina - Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Greyshark. I am aware of what was paced on official documents, but does make EY an official name. See this
The British authorities decided to use the traditional Arabic and Hebrew equivalents to the English name, i.e. filasţīn (فلسطين) and palestína (פּלשׂתינה) respectively. The Jewish leadership proposed that the proper Hebrew name should be Eretz Yisra′el (ארץ ישׂראל=Land of Israel). The final compromise was to add the initials of the Hebrew proposed name, Alef-Yud, within parenthesis (א″י), whenever the Mandate's name was mentioned in Hebrew in official documents. The Arab leadership saw this compromise as a violation of the mandate terms. Some Arab politicians demanded that the Arabs be allowed to choose the Mandate's name in Arabic, and suggested the name "Southern Syria" (سوريا الجنوبية). The British authorities rejected this proposal. http://www.enotes.com/topic/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
I will accept a note to this effect in body, but i will revert the present incorrect claim regarding adding a Jewish proposal which did not change the official name. Hope this helps you.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think enotes is just a Wikipedia rip off so that is a waste of time. On the Other hand Greyshark's reference is "A Personal Retrospective of Mandate Days in Palestine". So that would be a primary source and not suitable in this instance. Dlv999 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The treatment of this matter is very unsatisfactory at the moment. The only source given is a primary source that records an interchange between two people who don't seem to agree on it. It also gives no support at all to the claim that something changed in 1926. Actually the practice of adding "aleph-yod" in Hebrew began in 1922 at the latest. As far as I can tell, there are two descriptions around: (1) the official name in Hebrew was "Palestina (aleph yod)", (2) the official name in Hebrew was "Palestina", to which "(aleph yod)" was appended by agreement. The difference between thesKe two descriptions was negligible for almost all purposes, so you can't expect sources to carefully distinguish between them. Abu el-Haj, "Facts on the Ground", has a few pages on it, but they are a bit confusing. It looks like she is citing the Peel Commission Report (1937), but actually she seems to be citing some 1920 document that was included in the Memoranda provided to the Peel Commission. I'm still looking for the perfect source. Zerotalk02:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
In the meanwhile, is there any reason not to include the fact the Hebrew name included EY (see pic of official stamp for an example )? I mean other than some editors' IDONTLIKEIT? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I would think that not edit-warring until a satisfactory solution has been agreed would be the best idea. Incidentally, this page, which is not a reliable source by itself, shows that inclusion of "aleph yod" on stamps started in 1920. Zerotalk03:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A satisfactory solution would be to include the official Hebrew name which anyone who knows anything about the period knows and not edit war over technicalities. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's a book by Prof. Aviva Halamish. Translation of footnote 27: "...The document includes 'Palestina (E"Y)', which is the official Mandatory translation of 'Palestine'". I hope this is "satisfactory". Can't wait to hear the next excuse. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed there's already a ref in the article for this, in the Name section. I'd like to hear a good reason why official non-English names shouldn't be included in the first sentence of the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree it was the official Hebrew translation, suppose we replace the start by "Mandatory Palestine, written in its official languages as "Palestine" in English, "[arabic]" (Filastin) in Arabic and "[hebrew]" (Palastina (E.Y.)) in Hebrew, ..." (with the Arabic and Hebrew filled in). My browser seems to be incapable of putting parens around the א"י without shuffling the letter order, can you do it? Zerotalk09:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope. It's a problem with all right-to-left languages on windows. If you're writing in something that's not specifically RtL (like a word document) any character not in the RtL alphabet will cause the text to change direction. This includes punctuation. You can (usually) copy/paste the whole text though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No one has produced an RS that shows that the official name of MP was anything other than the traditional Arabic and Hebrew equivalents to the name in English, i.e. filasţīn (فلسطين) and palestína (פּלשׂתינה) respectively. The fact that Jewish authorities asked for the official Hebrew name to be something else and that this was refused, and a compromise reached whereby that title could be used on official documents is not disputed. This is all in the name section as I have already pointed out. See the reference 49. Note also that in regard to stamps the LoN Article 22 states that
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
None of this changes the official name of MP. official is not official. This is not a technicality or semantics, or anything to do with what those who 'know about the period' want to believe. We can't change something just because you do not like it. The present text is perfectly adequate to explain the situation. I have added in the two Hebrew and Arabic versions of the name in English, as you requested.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
However you haven't established your case. The brief exchange in PMC 1926 is a primary source and can easily be read contrary to the way you'd like it. Now I have several good sources (including some hostile to the Jewish position) that say "Palestina (E.Y.)" was the official way to write the name in Hebrew. Of course Article 22 was used as an argument against that, and so was a similar article in the Palestine Order in Council. The dispute even got to the High Court, but it refused to strike down the practice. I'm going to replace the "name" section by the details of this, as well as the process by which this situation arose (Herbert Samuel did it on his own authority to the surprise of his superiors in London). Zerotalk11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
it is you who needs to establish a case to change the established text in the News section. Establishing the official way to write the name in Hebrew does not make that an official name. You could be accused of trying to project backwards into History. I hope that you do not replace the name section, but instead add your new information to it. No one is objecting to that. The more background info the better.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The "established text" has essentially no source. As to the difference between an official name and an official way of writing it, they are different concepts but I'm not sure there is any difference in this case. Many political entities have laws or constitutions that say "The name of this place will be X", but I don't know anything like that in the case of Palestine. The Palestine Order in Council (1922), which established the whole governance structure in Palestine, says only that the High Commissioner can choose a name (Section 11). Can you show an official document (or a citation of one) that says explicitly that the official name was "Palestine"? I suspect there wasn't one. On the other hand, I have a good secondary source that says "Palestina (E.Y.) became Palestine’s official Hebrew name, and it consequently appeared on all official documents and notices", and several other good secondary sources that say similar things. Zerotalk12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Zero -- 11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.
It was called "Palestine" in 11.--(1). A part of Palestine was renamed named TransJordan 1922-1950 (Jordan in 1950). A further part was renamed Israel May 15th 1948. So when was the remainder of Palestine officially re-named? Fact is, never! UNSC resolutions call for peace in "Palestine".
If someone can find a secondary source showing us when, after Jordanian and Israeli Independence, the remainder of Palestine was officially renamed, there might be some point to this silly attempt to write Palestine out of history. talknic (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Today Part of
The accurate description is Israel and the Palestinian Territories (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza). The current formulation is wrong. The Palestinian Authority is not a geographical entity, so it is nonsensical to say the Palestinian Authority was once part of Mandatory Palestine. Further, the Area under the control of the PA is only a minority of the West Bank, the current formulation does not take into account Area C which is not part of Israel, or under the control of the PA. Dlv999 (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
West Bank of Jordan is the name used between 1948 and 1967, it is not an entity. Since 1993 Palestinian Authority exersizes a limited rule over large parts of former West Bank area, while Israel controls the rest. PA is an autonomy, and is of course a geopolitical entity with UN status of an observer.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
"Geopolitical entity" (see the "about" at the top of the article, the article's first sentence and perhaps elsewhere)... is that a euphemism? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Move to British Palestine
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Actually, frequency of use (measured using Google Books hits) was one of the arguments used to adopt the current title rather than others. ← ZScarpia13:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title is correct. The British may have held the mandate and it is true that they effectively ruled it as a colony or protectorate, but it was never officially part of the British Empire and there were significant differences. For a start, the inhabitants were Palestinian citizens, not British subjects as were people elsewhere in the Empire, and held Palestinian passports, not British passports. It was also administered by a high commissioner, not a governor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I suspect this is sound, although I haven't checked. Was, for example, Lebanon and/or Syria most commonly known as "French Lebanon" or "French Syria"? (How about other League of Nations / UN mandates?) CsDix (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
In 1920 it was not even known if Transjordan would be covered by the Palestine mandate and it was not known if Aqaba would be in Jordan or Arabia. The borders of Transjordan were not determined until long after 1923. The first specification of the Jordan-Iraq border was in 1928 and the Jordan-Saudi border even later. During the 1920-1923 time period there was in fact no region with a shape similar to that in the map. Also, until Sep 1923 there was no mandate at all, just a plan for one. What actually existed was British military occupation west of the Jordan River together with some British management (but not military occupation) east of the Jordan River. Zerotalk15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Palestine Regiment
I stumbled across a couple of inconsistencies in the following paragraph and am calling upon the history buffs to rework it:
On the other side, about 6,000 Palestinian Arabs and 30,000 Palestinian Jews joined the British forces, forming the Palestine Regiment. From Palestine Regiment, two platoons, one Jewish, under the command of Brigadier Ernest Benjamin, and another Arab were sent to join allied forces on the Italian Front, having taken part of final offensive there.
1) The second sentence is very poorly written, the whole paragraph unsourced, not linked to Palestine Regiment (or Jewish Brigade, see below), and the numbers of volunteers doesn't match either article (3800 for the regiment, 5000 for the brigade).
2) The linked article on Brigadier Ernest Benjamin mentions him becomming Commanding Officer of the Jewish Brigade (not Regiment) - the Brigade, according to its article, being formed in 1944 from the Palestine Regiment plus auxiliaries (the regiment, in turn, already being formed in 1942 from various Palestine Infantry Companies, according to its article). Something is wrong here.
3) I seriously doubt that, of all the infantrymen in the Jewish Brigade, only two platoons would be sent to Italy, especially not under command of a Brigadier. Perhaps they were battalions, not platoons? I have no idea.
4) The Jewish Regiment (or Brigade or whatever) was really segregated into Jewish and Arab sub-units? I find that hard to believe. (Actually, the article on the Brigade doesn't mention Arab participation at all, while the (much shorter) article on the Regiment does...)
As I said, that's not my field of knowledge, and I don't even begin to have the proper sources available to correct this paragraph. Just pointing a finger so those who know better are made aware of the issues. -- DevSolar (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I wrote that paragraph, and the reason is that the existence of the Regiment was a notable fact in collaboration of Palestinian Jews and Arabs during World War II, despite the fact that Al-Husayni was Hitler's ally. See my response accordingly:
On your first point, you may correct this, but please bring a good source (this can be a great addition).
On the second point - Regiment indeed was formed in 1942, and out of it Jewish Brigade was formed in 1944. You may fix some discrepancies if any.
Regarding the third point, i have no idea either, but your point makes sense - much of the Brigade should have been in Italy logically.
Number four - as far as i know, indeed the Regiment was planned to be segregated into Jewish and Arab units/platoons, but due to the shortage of Arab volunteers only one Arab subunit was eventually formed and later disbanded with the formation of Jewish Brigade (which was almost entirely Jewish). The regiment however did have a notable Arab presence among its lines.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Concern of wp:undue
In the lead, it is written : ""British Israel" redirects here. For the belief that the British people are direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, see British Israelism."
I think this is so fringe a theory that this should not be mentionned in the article, even as a disambiguation. It sounds to my ears as talking of creation in the article about evoluation and in fact, it is even more unrelevant because this "controversy" is nearly unknown even in the media.
'No Mention of "civil war" in Mandatory Palestine'
I just found a page on the Israeli forcing of non-Jewish Palestinians to flee, which I'll add a link to. It's an important part of the climax of Mandate Palestine and the birth of Israel.
And without such information in the article it misses out an important part of the Palestinian experience of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.150.17 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: I think that this falls under the "troublesome case" caveat on history merging. As long as there are clear indications on both talk pages that this merger-and-split was done, then the attribution history will still be preserved.--Aervanath (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
