Jump to content

Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Hebrew name

Mandatory Palestine . . . (Hebrew: (פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י) Pālēśtīnā (EY), where "EY" indicates "Eretz Yisrael", Land of Israel) . . .

What does this mean? That every time someone says "Palestine" in Hebrew they add "(Land of Israel)" to it? That certainly seems odd. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The mandate is almost always regarded in Hebrew as "British Mandate of the Land of Israel" and when being official, they say "Palestine-Eretz Yisrael". You can see this also in currency, revenue stamps and banknotes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
That is about what I wanted to say. During the times of the British mandate, or may we call it occupation?, the official publications used both names together. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep. See Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Formation_of_the_British_Mandate for key points in the history here - particularly 1920 and 1926. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there are a few interesting details here. 1. The word "Eretz Israel" was only added in the Hebrew. 2. It was always abbreviated to "E.I." (but in Hebrew). 3. The Hebrew spelling for Palestine was "פלשתינה", instead of the modern "פלסטינה". Debresser (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Also something with the Arabic name. "Mandatory Palestine[1] (Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn; Hebrew: פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י) Pālēśtīnā (EY), where "EY" indicates "Eretz Yisrael", Land of Israel) " this article is about a political entity and the name of the article, when translated should not lose its meaning. In Arabic its فلسطين الانتدابية not فلسطين, 'Filastin ilintidabiya' instead of 'Filastin' .. I don't know about Hebrew tho. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Issue

"two sides had different interpretations of this agreement" in lead, didn't find that in source [3] which appears to be a primary source? Makeandtoss (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for edit

Under "Zionist Insurgency" it is stated that the hangings of the Sergeants was retaliation for the Acre Prison Break. This is not the case. Suggest rephrasing the ultimate sentence by deleting the incorrect word "retaliatory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKozan (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Section: After World War II: the Partition Plan

The section titled After World War II: the Partition Plan contains the following text:

The Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-formation, accepted the plan, and nearly all the Jews in Palestine rejoiced at the news.
The partition plan was rejected out of hand by Palestinian Arab leadership and by most of the Arab population. Meeting in Cairo on November and December 1947, the Arab League then adopted a series of resolutions endorsing a military solution to the conflict.
Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not accepted by the Arabs. Britain also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period. In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end at midnight on 14 May 1948.


The contents of Palestine: Termination of the Mandate, 15 May 1948, a "statement prepared for public information by the Colonial Office and Foreign Office, His Majesty's Stationery Offic" of the British Government in the lead up to the termination of the Palestine Mandate at midnight on 14 May 1948, in regard to British opposition and dates, contradict, or cast in a different light, the above (See sections 5 and 6, "The Problem Referred to the United Nations" and "The Last Months of the Mandate"):

  • p.10: On 15th May 1947, at the special session of the UN at which the decision to appoint a Special Committee to investigate the problems occurring in Palestine and recommend a solution, the United Kingdom Delegate explained that the British government could not commit themselves to enforcing alone any settlement not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.
  • p.10-11: Neither plan presented by the Special Committee on 31 August 1947 "was acceptable to the Arabs, but the Jews were willing to agree to partition subject to certain detailed reservations." When the Committee's report was considered by the General Assembly of the United Nations in September 1947, the UK delegate explained that the British government was not "prepared to undertake the task of imposing a policy in Palestine by force of arms, and that, in the absence of a settlement, they must plan for an early withdrawal of British forces and of the British administration from Palestine." At the close of the session, a modified scheme of partition was adopted which was "to be implemented by a Commission of five members unsupported by any police or military forces." "This plan was accepted in principle by the majority of the Jews, but the Arabs announced their intention of resisting it by every means within their power and were promised full support in their resistance by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan and the Yemen." While the modified plan was being discussed and before a vote was taken, the British Government "repeatedly emphasized that, in the absence of agreement by both Arabs and Jews, they would not themselves enforce it and announced their intention to withdraw all British forces from Palestine by 1st August, 1948." None of the states supporting the modified plan were prepared to enforce it either.
  • p.11: "The renewal of Arab violence on the announcement of the United Nations decision to partition Palestine and the declared intentions of Jewish extremists showed that the loss of further British lives was inevitable. It was equally clear that, in view of His Majesty's Government's decision not to enforce the partition of Palestine against the declared wishes of the majority of it inhabitants, the continued presence there of British troops and officials could no longer be justified." Accordingly, the British government "announced on 11th December, 1947, that the Mandate would end on 15th May, 1948, from which date the sole task of the British forces in Palestine would be to complete their withdrawal by 1st August, 1948."
  • p.11-12: "It had originally been the intention of the United Nations that the Commission appointed to implement the Assembly's recommendations should succeed to the authority exercised by the Government of Palestine and should arrange for the transfer and maintenance of the essential services operated by the Government. Experts from the United Kingdom and Palestine were accordingly appointed to assist the Commission at Lake Success and the many problems involved were discussed in detail, both in London and in New York. The arrival of the Commission in Palestine to implement the partition plan would have inflamed Arab violence and made the problem of internal order more difficult than ever in the final period of evacuation. His Majesty's Government could not, therefore, agree to the proposed entry, in February, of the whole Commission, but suggested the despatch of a small advance party. When this advance party had visited Palestine and seen for themselves the conditions prevailing there, the Commission reported to the Security Council that they would be unable to carry out their task without the assistance of armed forces, which the Security Council declined to provide. It then became obvious that the Commission would not themselves be able to arrange for the transfer of the functions exercised by the Central Government and steps were accordingly taken to devolve upon local authorities those functions which could appropriately be assumed by them."

    ←   ZScarpia   19:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


Your point being? Debresser (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
My purpose, this being the article's talkpage, is to provoke a discussion on the errors, inaccuracies and biases in the quoted text.     ←   ZScarpia   21:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is an article talkpage, not a discussion page. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
[EC] The quoted text referred to is the text quoted from the article near the top of my first comment; therefore, I'm trying to address "errors, inaccuracies and biases" in the part of the article quoted. Understand?     ←   ZScarpia   22:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
In a maybe more friendly tone, I failed to understand what you offer to change, that requires a discussion. The first quote, doesn't seem to contradict anything. "...any settlement not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews" seems like a general statement. If you want to say this is somehow proving the Jews opposed the partition plan, than I think you need a better source. The British obviously wrote in a neutral tone. There are three sources for the third sentence in the section, if the content isn't there, than it should be deleted.
As for the second quote, yes, there was a different schedule for the British withdrawal, which was changed several times. The draft for the withdrawl stated the final withdrawal will be on 31 July, as agreed on 14th November 1947 the the main leaders of the British army in the Middle East and the High Commissioner. Following the developments of the war, the withdrawal timeline was shortened: the evacuation of the Negev was complete in mid February, when it was supposed to only begin according to the draft. All of the British forces centered in Haifa on 15 May and not 31 May as initially planned and the last troop left Haifa on 16 June and not 31 July. If you ask me, you have a green light to use any reliable source you have to change the dates chosen by the British for their evacuation, and I will gladly add what I have in my sources.
I don't get the point with the third quote as well as the fourth.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Palestine Mandate Ensign

I've just been reacquainted with this flag and wondered if it should be used in the article.

GregKaye 14:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, because it was not the flag of Palestine. Zerotalk 16:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
If memory serves me, I believe it has been established to have been a naval flag. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Naval, yes (in the sense of shipping, not in the sense of military navy). There are sources in the section "Flag should be the Union Jack" of Archive 7. Zerotalk 21:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
See; Red Ensign.

Today part of "State of Palestine"

@Oncenawhile:. Can't really have a discussion since I am going back to the millitary tommorow, but here's the deal: The "State of Palestine", is not yet a state. It doesn't exist, physically. If you use the article, you can navigate through the entities and territories that preceeded and succeded Mandatory Palestine. It was succeded by the Jordan's West Bank, which was succeded by the Israeli occupation. The Israeli occupation never ended, despite the fact the PLO declared a state in 1988. The situation remaines pretty much the same, with the exception that the Palestinians have some degrees of self-rule in Area A and B. This has nothing to do with the "State of Palestine", which is the name the PLO uses for its foreign affairs. The State of Palestine was never established, nor it ever got sufficient recognition and even if it did got recognized by 192 states of the UN, still Mandatory Palestine isn't today part of the "State of Palestine" since the "State of Palestine" doesn't exist. Therefore I used the political term of the UN for the territories outside of the Green Line, which is the "Palestinian Territories", a term which is still the main term used by the UN to refer to the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Regardless of what you have to say, "State of Palestine" is completely unacceptable.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your description of the situation. But the State of Palestine claims the same area as the territories, and is relevant to readers. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The "State of Palestine" is the PLO. Unlike something like Somaliland, which is a state with no recognition, Palestine is not a state, but with recognition. The "today part of" line refers to what does the territory in question consists of today. For example, we want to know which states today have territories once ruled by the Roman Empire. The claims of a non-existant state are not relevent here. It makes more sense to write that Mandatory Palestine is today part of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip becuase these two entities are real, but it is better to simply put aside the mess of the conflict and simply refer to it as the Palestinian Territories, with the self-rule of the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation within.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
136 countries have reconized the SoP; that makes it highly relevant. As far as those 136 countries are concerned, it is a legitimate descendent of Mandatory Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Legtimiate (in the eyes of these countries) but not an actual decendent of Mandatory Palestine. I drove through the West Bank on my home today, can we both agree that my bus didn't go through an existing state? The soil on which the road was paved, that was owned by the British, doesn't belong to any existing state, that can be mentioned in the infobox? East Timor didn't exist between 7 December 1975 and 31 October 1999, despite the fact every state that existed apart from Australia still recognized East Timor's independence. Palestine doesn't exist, as it is under the occupation of Israel, and, technically, Hamas' government. The difference between Palestine and occupied East Timor, is that Palestine isn't a state and was never a state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
In reality, there is no sovereign State of Palestine. The declaration that was made by some 136 countries who voiced their opinion about the so-called "State," was only to make a "political statement," without any legal binding or basis. It does not affect the reality on the ground. Everything is done here through the approbation of the State of Israel, while the Palestinian Authority works in conjunction with the State of Israel.Davidbena (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't Hamas control of Gaza mean that the State of Palestine full-fills the four criteria of the Montevideo convention? Population? Check. Territory? Check (Gaza strip). Government? Check (Hamas). Capacity to enter into relations with the other states? Check (because Hamas has negotiated with the Government of Israel). I have seen several legal scholars argue this position based on the Montevideo convention. In fact, Wikipedia should have an article that discusses the various points of views on the existence of the SoP. ImTheIP (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bolter21: @Davidbena: You are applying a definition of "state" which requires control over its territory. There are indeed a few international lawyers who have argued it that way but they are not a majority. Most would say that a state whose territory has been occupied by another state has not ceased to be a state, but is a state under occupation. Without the concept of a state under occupation, a large part of international law (Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, parts of UN Charter, etc etc) doesn't make any sense. Since ImTheIP mentioned the Montevideo Convention, we should note that states must have a defined territory but don't need to be able to exercise their rights there. (Both are stated explicitly, see Articles 1 and 4.) Davidbena, sorry but your opinion on why 136 countries recognised Palestine is not admissible into the article; you know that. I have an opinion too: Palestine exists, but it is a baby that Israel will never allow to live. Zerotalk 21:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zero0000:Just for the record: If you mean by "state under occupation" that Israel ought to return to the pre-1967 borders, bear in mind that Jordan held it between 1949-1967, and that its inhabitants were under occupation by Jordan as well; in saying so, we're back to square one. If you mean, however, "state under occupation," in the sense that native "Palestinians" are being held under the dictates of an Israeli government, this too is problematic, since Jews living in the country prior to 1949 were also called "Palestinians," and they are just as much a part of the "Palestinian equation" as are Arabs, and they would be equally entitled to a "Palestinian State" as anyone else. In the final analysis, the question has little to do with "occupation" in the pure sense of the word, but rather with wanting to be given a sovereign state and territory of their own, at the expense of Jewish hegemony. The banal truth is that the history of this country did not begin in 1967, nor in 1949. The people of Israel's connection to the land goes back long before this, in spite of what some historians might think.Davidbena (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@ImTheIP: according to your logic, the Gaza Strip under Hamas is a state, but not the "State of Palestine", which is a psuedo-state represented by the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
@Zero0000:, doesn't matter what conventions you bring, it won't change the fact that Palestine still doesn't exist. My point here is not to spread some stupid opinion that "there is no Palestine" or some crap like that, which Israelis love to do on Wikipedia, I simply try not to mislead readers. There are people who think, thanks to Wikipedia's democratic nature, that there is, actually, a state called "Palestine" and it exists, but it doesn't. Maybe it exists under international law, and maybe not, but one thing is sure, it doesn't exist beyond the papers. This is the sort of stuff that fucks people minds. We had so many arguments on this topic in the last three years and it seems there is always a need by pro-Palestinian users to try and blend the difference between Palestine and other states, like the demand that in the SoP article, the lead section will say that "Palestine is a state in the Middle East". It is absurd how such a misleading line, in one of the most visited articles, was approved by a democratic pole and made probably hundreds of thousands of people believe that there is actually a state in the Middle East called Palestine. If I am honest enough to recognize the fact Israel is occupying the West Bank and that Palestine has 136 countries recognizing it, you should also be honest and recognize the fact Palestine doesn't yet exist, and thus can't be listed as a decendent of Mandatory Palestine or any other state.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bolter, can the dispute be settled using footnotes? The one on Palestine could say "The existence of the State of Palestine is disputed and therefore also if any territory is part of it. For a deeper discussion, see the Legal status of the State of Palestine article."? ImTheIP (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The existence of Palestine is not disputed. Maybe the existence of God or dark matter is disputed, but only a dishonest person, an ignorant, or an innocent reader of Wikipeida would think that, yes, there is an actual state called Palestine, that exists at this very moment. You may support Palestine's existence, you may claim it should exist under international law, you can claim it does exist on paper you may present the fact 136 countries recognize it, but it will never change the fact, the State of Palestine was never established. It has no government, no sovereignty, no residents and still, insufficient recognition. Step out of it already, you don't have to shove the State of Palestine anywhere just becuase you support it's existence. Users here try to find every way to blend the difference between Palestine and the rest of the countries in the world. It is not a question of political affiliation or opinions, it is simply a question of the facts on the ground.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has spiraled into WP:NOTAFORUM territory and I think it's time to maybe put on the brakes. - SantiLak (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Discussing "Mandatory Palestine" is part and parcel with discussing the status of Palestine prior to and after the British Mandate.Davidbena (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Davidbena: Respectfully at this point it isn't a discussion of Mandatory Palestine, it's a discussion of whether the State of Palestine exists, which does fall into not a forum territory. - SantiLak (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary. If the article has in it the statement, "Today part of State of Palestine," it makes the discussion relevant.Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead and continue having it if you would like to think of it that way. - SantiLak (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bolter21: I agree that perhaps Palestine doesn't have all the characteristics of a state and it is arguable that it is one. Fwiw, I don't think it benefits the "Palestinian cause" at all if Palestine is seen a state (because then they aren't stateless and have a state to "return" to). However, John Quigley and John V. Whitbeck have argued the SoP exists. They are both "on the Palestinians side," but I don't think that justifies discarding their opinions a priori. Others have answered the question of whether the SoP exists or not with "it depends." That is enough for me to say that it is not certain that the SoP does not exist. I believe there are many situations in the Israel-Palestine conflict which are like this. One thing seems obvious on the surface, but then when you dig through all the details then it doesn't seem so sure anymore. ImTheIP (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bolter21: We could also do it the other way around. Meaning we only list Israel and then in a footnote note that the possibly (likely?) existing State of Palestine also has territorial claims in the former mandate. ImTheIP (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems in lead

The quote is taking up the lead. Also there is no mention of the demographic situation and Jewish immigration. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading map

The map in the lead only illustrates the part of Mandatory Palestine located west of the Jordan river, but it should also include the eastern part (Transjordan). I propose changing to this map. Dank Chicken (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

See the FAQs at the top of this page. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and merry Christmas! Dank Chicken (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

The UN partition map in this section should be moved right above the paragraph that starts "On 29 November 1947,...". Also to avoid WP:Sandwich, but it's not necessary to put it on the left.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, Huldra (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mandatory Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1RR on FAQ

@No More Mr Nice Guy: you have just crossed 1RR on the FAQ here. Please self revert, or I will raise at AE.

The FAQ was extensively discussed and reached consensus three years ago at Talk:Mandatory_Palestine/Archive_7#Edits_to_the_FAQ.

If you would like to change the FAQ, please discuss it here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My edits are almost 4 days apart, how is that a 1RR violation?
Read the discussion from 3 years ago. There was never consensus for this, your relentless editwarring notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
My mistake; I just didn’t see your first edit until now.
There was a clear discussion with multiple editors; consensus doesn’t need to have a vote. Particularly since there were no objections subsequent to the revised proposal being laid out; you were involved and had ample opportunity to input further, which you did without objecting.
The FAQ on this high-traffic article will remain as it has been for three years unless and until consensus is gained to change it.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There was no consensus then and no such consensus now --Shrike (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
^ No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Indo not see a consensus for this back then, and definitely not now. Q1 is factual on currrent editorial consensus (which could be changed). Q2/A2 is a polemic viewpoint that should not be in the FAQ.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy, Shrike, and Icewhiz: over the last few days, the three of you have turned up at a number of otherwise unrelated ARBPIA-related articles together, at similar times, espousing the same viewpoint, at least at first. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consider you as tag-teamers; Icewhiz for example is almost always willing to participate in thoughtful discussion. But this recent fact pattern means I cannot be satisfied that consensus has changed just because the three of you share a viewpoint.
This FAQ has been discussed at length and has served a valuable purpose for three years. Mutilating it without appropriate discussion in unacceptable. I will be reverting to the long term WP:STATUSQUO, and then opening up a wide discussion from all interested parties to assess whether consensus has changed.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This article (and Rachel's Tomb) are on my watchlist - I merely showed up after there were comments/changes. Status Quo is a very weak form of consensus - looking at the original discussion a while back it seems there was little participation, and the collapsed FAQ may have been ignored by mostt regular participants (while accepted by newcomers).Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not just those two talk pages in the last couple of weeks: [1]
But back to the FAQ, the idea that the FAQ was ignored by regular participants is impossible. It has been discussed widely in numerous threads since 2014:
And has been edited by numerous editors since its creation:
And these are some examples where the FAQ has been used to help educate newcomers to our old discussions:
To assess whether the community consensus has changed here, all interested parties in this article should be invited to discuss. The STATUSQUO will remain until then. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Funny. "I cannot be satisfied consensus has changed". As if anyone needs your personal approval. Also, please feel free to either make your innuendo into a formal complaint somewhere or shut up about it.
Anyhow, all you've shown with that list of links is that multiple editors complained about the FAQ and few if any explicitly supported it. Now we have 3 editors who think it should be removed and only you who thinks it should remain. Please explain why you think WP:STATUSQUO (an essay) allows you to override this explicit consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
See below. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

FAQ removal?

@Shrike, Icewhiz, Makeandtoss, Zero0000, Pluto2012, Igorp lj, and DaoXan: Per the above discussion, User:No More Mr Nice Guy would like to remove the FAQ, which has been on this talk page since 2014, and in particular the second question (see [2]).

I have pinged all editors who have discussed or edited the FAQ in the past. Please share your views.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support remove Q2/A2 which takes a side on a widely disputed point. Q1 on the decided scope of the article should remain for as long as consensus is not achieved to modify scope.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: it is simply not correct to suggest that this is a "widely disputed point". Please source your claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need to source Revisionist Zionism claims and The East Bank of the Jordan (adopted as their anthem)? There are ample sources showing some Zionist factions disputed this in the 1920s and 30s. The merits of the dispute (and parsing of the conflicting British WWI promises to various factions) are political - not technical. There is little need for us to take a stance on the merits of the dispute (in the article, or in the FAQ) - merely document it. Some modern writers espouse the non-revisionist position, others espouse the revisionist position - but there is little need to go into it.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Are you really proposing to use Jabotinsky as your source here?! You write "Some modern writers espouse the non-revisionist position, others espouse the revisionist position" - this is simply incorrect. All specialists on the subject agree on a single position, which is what our FAQ says. That is because the British government documents released in the 1960s were crystal clear on the matter. The only "looser" interpretations you will find come from non-specialists referring to the matter in passing having done no research, because the Revisionist propaganda "meme" on this matter continues to float around. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Lets assume that what you are saying is correct (and obviously the British records reflect the British perception at the time) - what's to be gained by this assertion in the FAQ? I see little gain - just cause for argument. Q1/A1 on the other hand (which could be slightly expanded) clearly states the boundaries of this article. There are many other articles in which this dispute could be relevant (say - Balfour Declaration, British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), San Remo conference). For this particular article - what's needed is a definition of scope - what's you've scoped this to the Mandate in its recognized borders - you're done - there's no need to address the severing or wholeness of the Palestine mandate - it simply becomes offtopic.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue that comes up repeatedly from new editors here is Q2. The first question is just a scene-setter. It is entirely driven by the Revisionist propaganda you referenced. Q1 on its own simply doesn't do the job, because those exposed to the propaganda will always follow up with "well they shouldn't be separate articles because it was a single mandate" or "the history section of this article is wrong because it should include Transjordan in scope for the early years". So Q2 is the entire point of the FAQ. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Even the most obstinate editor should recognize that the mandate, in practice, did not include the eastern bank, and that this was a "dead horse" from circa 1921-4 onward. The questions of whether it should have included the eastern bank are a topic for how this entity was formed, but not for the entity itself.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
See these discussions as examples:
There is a clear correlation between those editors who believe the "separated from the Jewish National Home" propaganda and those editors who know very little about Mandate Palestine yet still wish to push their beliefs here. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
To your second sentence ("The questions of whether it should have included the eastern bank are a topic for how this entity was formed, but not for the entity itself") is exactly right. That is why it is covered in detail at British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Transjordan, but not covered in this article. Which is exactly why an FAQ is required here. The coverage in the main article is simply too detailed for most people, so the FAQ is intended to provide a summary which makes it easy to educate those who come along armed with the Revisionist propaganda you described. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
What I'm basically trying to suggest - is formulating the FAQ in such a way that instead of asserting what is "right" and "wrong" (even if the merits are strong) - which in my view elicits push back - the better solution is a clear FAQ detailing why this is off topic. Off topic is a much stronger argument than wrong (as clearly some disagree) - it is harder to argue against off-topic.Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That logic only holds if there is any semblance of an argument against the scholarly position, which there is not. Unless you take the time to assess the underlying scholarly question (I imply from the above that you are reserving your judgement until you have time to look in to it), it's not possible for you to know. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic comes back again and again. This FAQ just summarizes the different discussion about the topic. NMMGG deleted this based on the argument there is no source. They are listed end of the A2... Pluto2012 (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is pov-ed because I don't think that the sources that you have provided conclude the contrary of what is written in the FAQ.
If the question was to know if British or some British (with others too) had in mind and promised to establish a Jewish home also East of Jordan river, the answer is : 'yes'. And it could be added and Balfour quoted for this. As a reminder anway : it was also promised to King Hussein that an independent Arab state would be established in Syria and it is not clear if this included Palestine West of Jordan River (ie Palestine, ie what will become Israel) or not...
But all this is not the point here.
Balfour or the British (or the French, the Arabs or the Zionists, ...), if they could suggest or promise whatever they wanted, could not decide anything. They had not legacy or legitimacy for that. As it was stated in the past discussions what is important is the final decision ruled by the League of Nations coming after all these promises, declarations and negociations.
And : the Mandate on Palestine that was given to the British by the League of Nations (not at San Remo but much later) didn't contain Transjordan by article 25. Transjordan was not excluded from the Mandate. It has never been included.
So why did the British rule Transjordan then ? And with the same administration ! Maybe because it was more practical and easier for them. But that's not the point. They had not Mandate for that. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: the editors with the removal of the question have not demonstrated their arguments or the sources they used to claim that this is a “widely disputed point”. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove: This is pure OR. None of the editors supporting inclusion have actually sourced the argument this "FAQ" is making. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Here are just a few sources that contradict this alleged FAQ:
      • Martin Sicker Reshaping Palestine: From Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922
        • There was no question at the time, at least insofar as both Britain and France were concerned, that Trans-Jordan was part of Palestine and was included within the British Mandate. Indeed, there appears to have been a British plan, never advanced to the point of being formulated on paper, to use the territory as a reserve for Arabs to relocate to as the Zionist program in Palestine began to be achieved and the country was transformed into a Jewish dominated and ruled entity. p. 158
        • Again, on August 11, 1919, Balfour stated that "Palestine should extend into the lands lying east of the Jordan. It should not, however, be allowed to include the Hedjaz Railway which is too distinctly bound up with exclusively Arab interests."Indeed, even Abdullah himself expressed astonishment at the basic shift in Britain's position on Trans-Jordan that took place in 1921. He exclaimed: "He [God] granted me success in creating the Government of Transjordan by having it separated from the Balfour Declaration which had included it since the Sykes-Picot agreement assigned it to the British zone of influence." p. 163
      • Christopher Sykes Crossroads to Israel: 1917-1948 (University of Indiana Press)
        • The southern half of the former vilayet of Syria, due east across the Jordan from Palestine, had been under Feisal's rule. By the San Remo decisions this territory came under the British Palestine mandate. p.43
      • Mutaz M. Qafisheh in The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality (Brill Academic Publishers)
        • The Palestine Mandate was originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of 'Palestine'. Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, "with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold the application of such provisions of this mandate as ... [it] may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions". Subsequently on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine's territory and ultimately the borders between Palestine and Trans-Jordan were fixed as suggested by Britain. p. 46
      • Asher Susser Israel, Jordan, and Palestine: The Two-state Imperative
        • In 1921 the British decided that the territory of the East Bank of the Jordan River, though part of the Palestine Mandate, would become the Emirate of Transjordan and would develop into an independent Arab State. The Zionist project would, therefore, be restricted solely to Palestine west of the river. Thus carved out of the Mandate for Palestine, Transjordan was to be intimately associated with the Palestinian question from its very inception, and it remained part of the Palestine Mandate until granted independence in 1946. p. 7
      • Naseer Aruri Jordan, a study in political development (1972) -
        • The San Remo Conference on April 25, 1920, approved a French mandate in Syria proper and Lebanon, and a British mandate over Palestine. The League of Nations confirmed this decision two years later. Transjordan, which was part of Syria under Ottoman administration as well as Faisal's government, was excluded from the French mandate. The San Remo Conference allotted this area to the British mandatory on the grounds that it was part of Palestine. p. 17
    • The FAQ conclusions, which are put in the encyclopedia's neutral voice and are not supported by the sources, are OR (best case scenario) or a deliberate NPOV violation since whoever wrote that FAQ (Onceinawhile) was aware of these sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Per excellent sources given by NNMG.--Shrike (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Shrike: In the discussion below, subsequent to your vote, NMMNG’s sources have been described as WP:FRINGE positions (for 2), vague or imprecise (for 2) and irrelevant (for 1). NMMNG responded only with the argument that the sources were published by academic presses, despite these being niche / minor points within wider works on different topics, and ignored the direct criticisms. Since your vote was based explicitly on these sources, could you please expand on your position at this point? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I found your criticism of sources provided unconvincing.I have full trust in works published by academic houses and I think that sources provide solid backup for my position.--Shrike (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: please don't lie about what I said. I did not "respond[ed] only with the argument that the sources were published by academic presses" and anyway suggested you take these sources to one of the appropriate boards to get more input, which you refused to do. I don't know what you think BLUDGEONing this is going to accomplish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: all I expect is good faith, direct, and fulsome responses to the challenges put to you. I try to provide my perspective on all your challenges. But the other way round, you have been evasive. Key concerns being danced around but never addressed directly. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: again that's false. I have addressed your concerns fully. You just don't accept the answers, refuse to seek wider participation, and then lie about what I said. Luckily it's all here for everyone to see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
So now it's time to assess the quality of these five sources:
  • Sykes: Not a historian. He wrote the book because he was the son of Mark Sykes, not because of any particular credentials. All he wrote was: "By the San Remo decisions this territory came under the British Palestine mandate." This is a loose statement - "by the" could easily mean "via (indirectly)", which would be true.
  • Qafisheh: Not a historian (a lawyer). His work is not history book, nor was it focused on this period of history. His statement simply describes the legal process. It does not contradict the history of the political decisions, which took place in 1921, a year before the period he is commenting on.
  • Aruri: Not a historian (a scholar-activist and expert on Middle East politics, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and human rights). His work is not history book, nor was it focused on this period of history. His statement: "The San Remo Conference allotted this area to the British mandatory on the grounds that it was part of Palestine" is provably incorrect since the minutes of the San Remo conference are public, do not mention Transjordan at all, and have been written on by numerous scholars (see the sources in our article San Remo conference).
  • Susser: Primarily a political scientist, as well as a successful historian. Has never specialized in this period of history. The specific work quoted is polemical; as illustrated by numerous uses of the irredentist term "Western Palestine". The reference "In 1921... though part of the Palestine Mandate" is made is passing in the introductory remarks, is unsourced, and is not explicated anywhere else in the body of the book.
  • Sicker: A political scientist and religious author, who has written books of history. Has never specialized in this period of history. He shows the error underlying his assertion on p.157: “The territory, which was part of the Palestine mandate assigned to Britain at the San Remo Conference in April 1920, became, in essence, a no-man's-land whose 300,000 peasants and semi-nomads were ruled by local sheikhs who did as they pleased.” Per above, it is an undisputed fact that Trans-Jordan was not referenced at San Remo, nor were the boundaries of the Palestine Mandate discussed at any point, and it is undisputed because the minutes of the meetings are publicly available and multiple scholars have written on them.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
These two Israeli scholars (a noted Historian (Aviva Halamish) and an extremely noted law professor Ruth Gavison) - [3], [4] - seem to disagree (and there are more). However, I repeat my contention that this is simply off topic for this article (and the FAQ) given that the article scope is the British Mandate as actually formed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Since those sources are in Hebrew, please translate the relevant parts, with their underlying sources, if you would like them to be assessed. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Should I bring Howard Grief[5] (oh grief! not really serious). But - Yoav Gelber would seem to disagree - stating that Balfour envisioned the eastern bank as part of the Jewish home - Jewish-Transjordanian Relations 1921-1948: Alliance of Bars Sinister, Yoav Gelber, page 7, 15, and a few others. And again - I repeat my contention that this is off topic in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: You might be interested to note that Gelber cites two Hebrew works by Yitzhak Gil-Har:
  • The Separation of the East Bank from the Land of Israel,” Cathedra, 1979, 12, p.47-69
  • A New Viewpoint on the issue of Transjordan's Separation from Palestine, Yahadut Zmanenu, 1984, I, p163-170
Gelber also wrote a related article in English in 2000: Boundaries Delimitation: Palestine and Trans-Jordan
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Gelber is a good source. Balfour's "envisioning" is well known (from a 1919 quote), but it is irrelevant as it was not discussed at the time of the Balfour Declaration and nor was the Balfour Declaration really Balfour's (the declaration was on behalf of the Cabinet, of which Balfour was not a member).
Gelber writes: "Yet the British view of Transjordan as different from Palestine began a few years earlier, soon after the Egyptian Expeditionary Force under General Allenby had occupied southern Palestine… Ormsby—Gore's counsel did not necessarily reflect a common or agreed British position. There were British officers and officials in London and in Egypt who regarded Transjordan as a part of a future Arab kingdom.7 By contrast, Balfour interpreted the geographical meaning of the Jewish National Home as embracing the Jordan's sources and the Litany in the north, and the territory east of theJordan up to the Hijaz railway"
So he is in agreement with our FAQ - there was no agreed British position prior to the creation of Arab Transjordan. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
What our present faq does not make clear, while Gelber (and others do), is that there is some (contested) basis to the claim this was part of what was intended to be the Mandate and what was conveyed to thr Zionists. And again - this is simply off topic which is why this should be excluded.Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, perfect. If the FAQ is retained, I suggest we add the below to address your point:

“Whilst some individual British politicians / civil servants envisaged that a small portion of what was to become Transjordan (at most, from the Jordan River to the Hedjaz Railway) might become part of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, there was no agreed British position on the matter prior to the creation of Arab Transjordan.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say add that "Some Zionist statesman have seen this as part of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, based on what they perceived to be included in the Balfour declaration." - or something along those lines - which is what makes parsing this legalistic pretext remotely marginally relevant (in my mind - just for rhetoric/narrative (which I view as irrelevant, mostly, for geopolitics - what is "right" or "wrong" is less relevant than what various parties claim - in this particular instance I'm mildly amused at Zionists seeing the British as foreign occupiers (who should leave) on the one hand, while basing a pretext off a perceived British promise) - which is why for the most part I avoid the subject). And I'll say - off-topic for this article, once more :-).Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That’s a little cute! Bernard Wasserstein is more precise: “Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."
Any objections to being that direct? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You'd have to attribute that - which is sort of not the point of the FAQ - and while the Revisionists continued beating the dead horse, in the early 20s (and maybe a bit longer) this was an issue in wider Zionist circles, and as a claim (e.g. we already gave up so and so) it continued to be made by other Zionists in various contexts (it is even marginally relevant today to the "Jordan is Palestine" notion (which dates back a while - e.g. Shimon Peres (not a revisionist) in 1978 [6] - and I think this dates quite a bit more back) - so it is actually relevant beyond just the revisionists. It's all off-topic anyway.Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The continuing prevalence of the “Jordan is Palestine” propaganda theme is exactly why this FAQ is still needed. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
But that motivation is WP:ADVOCACY. and has us editors quibbling over the merits of this off-topic dead horse claim.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The FAQ is there to combat wp:advocacy by providing an easy-to-use, verifiable and neutral explanation of a set of facts crucial to the overall scope of this article.
FAQs are used at numerous other controversial article talk pages for exactly the same reason. And that is why this has lasted here so successfully for four years. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course his motivation is ADVOCACY. He has admitted it multiple times over the years of discussion over this piece of OR/SOAP. He does so just above. Advocacy to the point of trying to obscure historical data. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The only reason we are still having this conversation, almost three years after the last one, is that instead of engaging with discussion and research, you attack other editors. it seems to be a game to you, rather than something to be invested in with thought and effort. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
No, the only reason we are still having this conversation three years after the last one is that you think your personal musings are more important than what academics say. Unfortunately you seem to have an unlimited amount of time to edit war these musings into articles, and when that doesn't work into talk page "FAQ"s. Just read what you said above - The continuing prevalence of the “Jordan is Palestine” propaganda theme is exactly why this FAQ is still needed. You don't care about the encyclopedia, you care about your own advocacy.
Anyway, and to the point (again) - I have provided multiple sources by academics published in academic presses (otherwise known as "high quality RS") that contradict your ridiculous "FAQ". Feel free to take them to RS/N if you think they don't qualify. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yet you ignore the detailed deconstruction of those sources above by throwing generalities around! It is clear that you know your position holds no water. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
No I didn't, but allow me to repeat (for the last time): A work by an academic which is also published by an academic press is considered a high quality RS by Wikipedia standards. If you disagree you may take these sources to RS/N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not how wikipedia works. You don't get to throw sources around because you found them from a three-year-old edit you made, and then when the challenge comes point to a bunch of other editors on a noticeboard because you don't have time. Take responsibility for your claims, or don't bother us. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly how Wikipedia works. I pointed you to policy (WP:V, WP:RS) which the sources I provided amply satisfy. You disagree. You know what the next step is, feel free to utilize it. Or not. I am not obligated to go round and round in circles with you ([7]). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Responding to detailed deconstructions of your arguments with hand waving means you get ignored. That is the way the world works. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Take your "detailed deconstructions" to RSN and see if you can find a consensus there that a professor of political science, in a book about the political development of Jordan published by Springer Publishing, making a comment on the political borders of pre-statehood Jordan is not RS. We're done here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So you are unwilling to defend your argument. This is exactly why we are still here going round in circles on this simple point, three years later. Sorry that you didn't get consensus to remove the FAQ. See you in another three years then, I guess. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Both @Icewhiz: and @No More Mr Nice Guy: are, intentionally or otherwise, disregarding the fact that the second question in the FAQ talks specifically about the official British position -> "After all, the Palestine mandate was assigned at San Remo in April 1920, and the Transjordan Emirate wasn't established until April 1921?". The question does not tackle what Zionist leaders had interpreted or what different British politicians had in mind. Most important excerpts from the FAQ sources are I believe to be these:
  • "Samuel’s appeals received no answer, and he assumed his position on 1 July 1920 without a clear definition of the eastern (and northern) limits of the territory he was supposed to govern"
  • "Abdullah did not know the limits of the area that he controlled – whether the southern Negev was included in it, or whether his rule extended all the way to the Jordan river, the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea"
  • "Transjordania, which in the first draft of the Mandate lay outside the scope of the Mandate, is now included."
  • "This language confuses some readers into imagining that Transjordanian territory was covered by the conditions of the Mandate as to the Jewish National Home before August 1921. Not so; what became Transjordanian territory was not part of the mandate at all. As noted, it was part of the Arabian Chapter problem; it was, in other words, in a state of postwar legal and administrative limbo. And this is also not to speak of the fact that, as of August 1921, the mandates had yet to be approved or take effect."
  • "Indeed, there appears to have been a British plan, never advanced to the point of being formulated on paper, to use the territory as a reserve for Arabs to relocate to as the Zionist program in Palestine began to be achieved and the country was transformed into a Jewish dominated and ruled entity."
The first two quotes show explicitly that the British official position was not defined at all. Neither Samuel nor Abdullah, both arguably the most influential figures in the Mandate, initially had any idea of the borders they were supposed to govern.
Third quote is by Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organization at the time, come on now!
Last two quotes also explicitly show that Transjordan had never been promised as part of the Jewish homeland. @Onceinawhile:'s assessment of the authors of the opposing POV shows that the FAQ's sources are more numerous, more reliable and much less ambiguous. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think Samuel and Abdullah not knowing where the border is supposed to be supports the FAQ rather than proves it's OR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Proves that Transjordan was not severed from Palestine/the Jewish home? Ffs look at this pile of puke published today [www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22000 ] Makeandtoss (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
How so? Neither head of state (for lack of better term) knew where the border was = no part that theoretically belonged to one wound up with the other? Seriously?
Also, what's the point of posting that A7 op-ed? To tell us you too are not interested in an accurate encylopedia but are fighting "propaganda memes"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If the borders weren’t defined then Transjordan could not have been severed from anything. No, Ia m fighting for an accurate Wikipedia against this propaganda. Its technically the same objective Makeandtoss (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you explain the following text from the Mandate itself: "In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled..."?[8] Where are the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary? Not Transjordan? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Per our legal instrument article: “On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Palestine Mandate. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921”
This was after it had been agreed to give Transjordan to the Emir at the start of the Cairo Conference (1921) on 12 March. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What was the “eastern boundary”? So we shifted from discussing scholarly secondary sources to OR? Makeandtoss (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
NoteThis is a new editor who immediately began editing ARBPIA articles on reaching 500 edits. Out of nowhere this editor decided to make this edit; a very strange place for a new editor to appear having never edited the article itself or its talk page previously. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop with baseless WP:ASPERSIONS any editor can !vote in the talk you don't have to reach 500 edits to vote.--Shrike (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
So you think it's believable that a new editor would just happen to find this esoteric FAQ page, right in the middle of an attempt to edit war part of it out? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The user is not so new it have more then 700 edits he probably saw conversion here in talk please WP:AGF--Shrike (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The user’s first 500 edits were outside ARBPIA, after which the user suddenly began focusing almost exclusively on ARBPIA. Our ARBPIA restriction is 500/30. Do you consider that a coincidence? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: So, you were lucky enough to be grandfathered in before the ridiculous ARBPIA policies took effect. That doesn’t change the fact that your first edit on Wikipedia was in the Arab-Israeli topic area. And—ironically—was one of the most complicated first edits I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia, but I digress.
Should I be singled out for my desire (and right) to edit in this topic area, especially after I followed the rules and amassed 500 edits? The policy is also to edit on Wikipedia at least 30 days. I’ve been here for more than one year, which should give me more than enough cred to edit without having an editor violated WP:ASPERSIONS.
Not that I need to justify my edits, Sherlock, but I got to these pages after following No More Mr. Nice Guy’s edits from this topical discussion. The Kingfisher (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Kingfisher: Great, that's good to hear. I note your !vote included a reference to the sources provided by NMMNG. Did you read the whole thread before voting? If so, you'll have seen my assessment of NMMNG's sources. It would be helpful to understand whether your continuing confidence in those sources aligns entirely with NMMNG's rationale, or whether you have an independent view. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
When you begin questioning every editor's vote, including from those on your side of the street, I may consider giving a response, but most likely not. The Kingfisher (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Only two editors have yet to provide detailed explanations to their positions. You and Shrike. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@The Kingfisher: please could you share your explanation with us? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove based on argument by Pluto2012. As this half baked FAQ does not address British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)#Article 25 and Transjordan memorandum.Jonney2000 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jonney2000: please could you explain? User:Pluto2012's argument was for keep, so i'm not sure how you could base a remove vote based on Pluto's arguments? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
User: Pluto2012's argument is that final borders were not set until article 25.
I disagree with him that this view is compatible with border being set in 1920. The final border need not have followed the Jordan river line. They easily could have been slightly beyond that line, as the proposed Paris Peace Conference borders where.
It is very easy to project the present onto the past.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jonney2000,
I don't at all project the present on the past. Where ?
I just underline that if there were proposals (you write "as the proposed Paris Peace Conference borders"), if there may be obvious stuffs (you write "the final border need to have followed..."), ..., nothing is decided before it is signed.
The Mandate started 'after' the article 25 was negociated and signed. (That's the signature that officiliazes this). Transjordan was never removed from the Mandate. Because it was never included.
Exactly the same way : Syria (and at the time Syria included Palestine and Palestine Arabs claimed for that rattachment...) was promised to Arabs by the British but the French expelled them. Zionist claims and supported claims on Transjordan were never followed. And the instrument that officialized the support of their project by the League of Nations was the Mandate. This lattest (the Mandate, and not the Balfour's declaration (declaration) or the San Remo discussions (nothing was signed)) officializes the mandate given by the LoN to the British the support the establishment a Jewish home in Palestine, in respect of the right of the local populations (etc - read all the articles). But it didn't extend to Transjordan. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Break

Current summary: Shrike, Icewhiz, Kingfisher and myself against including. Onceinawhile, Pluto, Makeandtoss (who hadn't seemed to have ever commented on the FAQ before Onceinawhile called him in) for including. That's 4:3 against inclusion.
To summarize the issue as far as I'm concerned, there are plenty of high quality sources (per Wikipedia policy) that contradict the leading question that was in the FAQ. Including the text would be at best an NPOV violation and at worse OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The FAQ has been here for four years. So far three editors support retaining it, and three would like to remove it, and one would like to remove half of it. Even 4:3 to remove is not a particularly strong consensus to overturn four years of stability. I suggest we summarise our positions and bring more editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thats funny NMMNG [9]. Anyway, Wiki is not a democracy, and your sources are not "high quality". Comparing both sources its obvious that your sources are more ambiguous and are less numerous, and are the works of less qualified writers. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What this discussion has demonstrated thus far - is that this topic is off topic for this article (which is about the actual mandate, and not what led to its being in its administered borders) - which is why we should exclude this from here - for the sake of focusing the content dispute to where this is actually relevant (e.g British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) or San Remo conference) - and not creating a time sink here. As for high or low quality sources - we still need to reflect the variety of views in the sources on the matter - and not choose one as the WP:TRUTH in our voice -but again - off topic for this article.Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Books by academics which are published by academic presses are the highest quality sources we have. The argument that someone is a political scientist rather than a historian and we can't use them because of that is not based on any Wikipedia policy (not to mention makes very little sense). The fact Onceinawhile refuses to take these sources to a wider and more experienced audience at RS/N should tell you something.
But even if these sources were not quite as good as some other sources, we are, at minimum, obliged to include them with DUE weight per NPOV. This FAQ question not only deliberately omits them, it tells readers to ignore them. There is no basis in policy to do that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion at #/Archive_7#Opposing_sources and the existence of your preferred sources at Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ/Sources for the last three years suggests the exact opposite of what you just wrote in your last sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's your never-ending edit warring and my having a life which allowed this page to remain as it was. There was no point in time when nobody objected. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Separately two major weaknesses have been exposed in your position:
(1) Your entire argument for your sources is the stature of their publishing houses. That is an incredibly weak argument when we are not talking about the central thrust of any of the works you have cited (which is an important weakness in itself), which is the only scenario where the status of the academic press could be used as an argument on its own.
(2) In this edit earlier today you asked a basic and misguided question about Article 25, which of course is the fundamental point underlying this discussion. This shows how little you have read about this topic, and explains why you are unable to defend your position against any detailed critiques.
Finally, your RSN suggestion is both lazy / shirking responsibility, but also a red herring and avoidance tactic. This is not a question of whether we can use these sources, but whether their views on this particular topic are WP:FRINGE (in this case, some of them are simply factually and provably incorrect) or so vague that any such interpretation of them as relates to this question would be misleading. So RSN is simply the wrong forum. Anyway, their positions have been entirely deconstructed above.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(1) false.
(2) yawn.
Finally, excuses excuses. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of NMMNG's sources

Per the discussion above, I have removed NMMNG's sources here [10] from the list of sources page. Aruri and Sicker are WP:FRINGE on this topic since provably incorrect, Sykes and Susser are too vague to be relevant, and Qafisheh covers an irrelevant time period. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Amusing. I'm going to restore those sources since they are obviously RS and have the support of at least one other editor here (and yours in the past, but of course you're entitled to petulantly change your mind). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Aruri and Sicker are WP:FRINGE on this topic since provably incorrect, Sykes and Susser are too vague to be relevant, and Qafisheh covers an irrelevant time period.
Why are you adding back these inappropriate sources? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Aruri and Sicker are RS par excellence, Sykes and Susser are not vague at all, and Qafisheh covers a relevant time period. Feel free to take them to RSN if you disagree. But we already know you don't want a wider audience to weigh in on this issue, or you would have gone to RSN already. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
RS and FRINGE are different concepts. Most scientific controversy begins in academic journals of "RS par excellence" (climate change denial and vaccine controversies are good examples).
As WP:FRINGE states: "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter."
I have provided an independent reliable source which does exactly that - Bernard Wasserstein.
You are pushing a position you know to be incorrect.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact you have hardly shown this is a FRINGE view and that by your continued refusal to take this issue to RSN you are just making it obvious you know these sources are good, what "article about a meainstream idea" are you referring to with your quote above? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You are seeking to confuse readers into thinking there is some kind of academic debate on this subject. You have already confused other editors here into thinking the same.
Yet you know better by now - the answer to your question on Article 25 proved it out of hand. The position you are pushing with these FRINGE / vague sources is untenable.
There is simply no academic debate on the question of whether Jordan was once included in the promised Jewish National Home, so no article, FAQ or list of sources should suggest otherwise.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
That does not seem like an answer to my question, but no matter. You've wasted enough of my time going around in circles. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I have provided a clear "independent reliable source" which shows that your sources are WP:FRINGE. I will be removing them from the list. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
No you haven't and it doesn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
We should always keep sources. But anyway, as explained here above, these sources do not contradict the summary. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with "we should always keep sources". Actually we should aim to keep a balanced selection of the most reliable sources and delete the rest. Zerotalk 08:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
In a talk page, the best way to analyse the due weight of an information is to keep all the sources. In seeing that wp:fringe points of views are just promoted by not academic and not reliable sources gives us an important information and makes us earn time in not trying to find the origin of these theories. In a talk page... Pluto2012 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A solution ?

The FAQ was expected to summarize former discussions but why not just add the folliwing question and send to the article to answer to it ?

Q2. What is the precise status of Transjordan in the Mandate for Palestine ?
A2. This question is answered in the article dealing with the legal aspects of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Everything is explained with all promises and the detailled discussions that took place. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have supported along with others, so we could just go with that; I am not sure if the objection is to the fact of having a FAQ or to the content of it, I would also support not having a FAQ, PROVIDED that the content (the question, the controversy, whatever) along with the explanatory wikilink mentioned above is placed at some suitable point, into the main article where it will easily be seen by readers.Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect tidy up

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

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandatory_Palestine/Archive_8&oldid=1124246122"