This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Shame on Wikipedia for bowdlerizing the caption to say "assistant of Faisal" instead of earlier sources' correct and self-evident "SLAVE of Faisal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.128.137 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016
With all the study I have been making of Mcmahon and Balfour, I can see now that the Sykes-Picot article needs a bit of work as well; of course it's directly and indirectly related to the other two so if anyone wants to pitch in and edit a bit over there....:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs)
"Britain" is "commonname" for UK ie it means the same thing and is used a lot by everyone (sometimes officialdom may make a difference between the two but no-one pays any attention to officials). "British" is the same thing as UK citizen except that virtually no-one would describe themselves as the latter.(Note British embassy, not UK embassy and British prime minister is just as common as UK prime minister, UK policy, British policy etc).Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Selfstudier:; if this is meant for me; yes I have changed 'Britain' and 'British' to 'United Kingdom' / 'UK' in several places. Formally, the country occupying the island of Great Britain, the adjacent islands and the northern part of Ireland (known as Northern Ireland) is called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]]. Since Wikipedia uses formal English, and that the copy-edit request is for a planned FA nomination, I thought the change was appropriate but I was too tired to change them all. If you want to change it back, please go ahead, I won't revert you because I don't care either way. Cheers, Baffle☿gab01:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Baffle gab1978:Hello, Once and I also worked together on the related Balfour Declaration which went through FA process. All the Britain and British were left alone on that occasion and I think that is the right thing tbh.(I think the issue was not raised then by the copyeditors, I might be wrong). Most British authored sources will also prefer Britain and British. I find WP a bit confusing on this, besides United Kingdom, Great Britain (sometimes used to mean UK but strictly speaking this is wrong) has a page but Britain goes instead to a rather confusing disambiguation page if one attempts a Wikilink.Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then; as I said I've no objection and tbh I probably shouldn't have changed it anyway. I wouldn't wish to confuse our readers (thank goodness those pesky Scots didn't vote for independence or we'd be in real trouble!). Cheers, Baffle☿gab02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the following quotation box from the article; it clutters the section it was removed from, intrudes into later sections and seems to be unnecessary commentary on a minor point. It could be summarised and/or worked into the article, but to leave it in a quote box seems like dumping it there for the reader to deal with. Baffle☿gab00:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The consequences of interpreting McMahon's 'wilayahs' as meaning 'Ottoman provinces' are so disconcerting that it was – and, to my mind, still is – difficult to believe that McMahon was intending to use the word in this sense in his letter. This interpretation would force on us a choice between the two following alternative conclusions:
(i) First alternative: McMahon was completely ignorant of Ottoman administrative geography. He did not know that the Ottoman vilayet of Aleppo extended westward to the coast, and he did not know that there were no Ottoman vilayets of Homs and Hama. It seems to me incredible that McMahon can have been as ill-informed as this, and that he would not have taken care to inform himself correctly when he was writing a letter in which he was making very serious commitments on HMG's account.
(ii) Second alternative: McMahon was properly acquainted with Ottoman administrative geography, and was using the word 'wilayahs' equivocally. Apropos of Damascus, he was using it to mean 'Ottoman provinces'; apropos of Homs and Hama, and Aleppo, he was using it to mean 'environs'. This equivocation would have been disingenuous, impolitic, and pointless. I could not, and still cannot, believe that McMahon behaved so irresponsibly"
... The documents written by British officials, contesting the interpretation of McMahon's word 'wilayahs' that was made by me and, before me, by the author of the Arab Bureau's History, all date from after the time at which HMG had become sure that Britain had Palestine in her pocket... I do not think that Young's or Childs' or Mr Friedman's interpretation of McMahon's use of the word 'wilayahs' is tenable. After studying Mr Friedman's paper and writing these notes, I am inclined to think that the drafting of this letter was, not disingenuous, but hopelessly muddle-headed. Incompetence is not excusable in transacting serious and responsible public business."
@Baffle gab1978: thank you for the excellent copy edits, which have been a great improvement to the article. Regarding the above, I have extracted the core text as a blockquote, and expanded Selfstudier’s helpful introduction. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the recent ce, the "English" being used was changed Diff from EngvarB to Oxford spelling (English + "ize", basically). Do we want to keep that or change it back?
Yes, the article contains "ise's as well as "ize's" because later editors (perhaps including me, sometimes I do, sometimes not) have put the latter. So the question is really do we change all the ises to izes or vice versa? (i hadn't noticed that McMahon's letter is oxford, haha, maybe because it is being sent to a non British place, not sure what the etiquette was then?Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they all have to be changed to something consistent and I think it could be argued that there is a tie to Oxford spelling here given the correspondence itself (though I haven't looked through all of it). 142.161.83.66 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple things there, statusquo (it always was engvarB so why change it?) and the fact that in Brit English, either one is correct whereas in US English only ize is correct. It would be nice to know what the breakdown is among editors and readers here, not sure how we would find that out and maybe in the end, no-one cares.Selfstudier (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
