Talk:Balfour Declaration/Archive 2

Lord Shaftesbury's and supporters' motivation

Although Lewis' work is alluded to, it's miscited to claim that convictions about Biblical doctrine 'were not a primary motivating factor'. Shaftesbury and his extensive and vocal evangelical supporters cajoled Palmerston for precisely these primary reasons, and Lewis argues there is every reason to believe that without this pressure, expediency would have excluded the first Anglican bishop, church and mission in Jerusalem in the face of Ottoman opposition. This Biblical and romantic expectation set the scene for Balfour and his cabinet, even in the cooling devotion of the years of the early 20th Century and Lewis documents this extensively. The sentence ought to reflect this major contribution and capture nuances of different historical opinion about what was primary or not, to what extent evangelical purposes were post hoc justifications or foundational drivers later. The article also ought to add some reference to Shaftesbury's role. Cpsoper (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If there are that different views by historians, I agree both should be presented. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, have pruned rather discursive Renton fn, and specific references to various doctrinal convictions (some of which varied from one group of supporters to another) may be appropriate to include some contents in text later. Cpsoper (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Cpsoper: I agree re the Lewis quote: when you added the cite [1] it was in a different place in the sentence, although the sentence said the same thing (i.e. it wasn't the primary motivating factor), albeit without a source. Numerous other sources in the article say the same thing though - ie geopolitical was the primary factor - there are no different historical opinions about this, because the Cabinet minutes between 1915-17 are crystal clear, and ultimately this was a decision made by the Cabinet, not by Balfour himself. So we should not delete Renton and his point re retrospective justification, which certainly was the case, although I also agree with your setting the scene / foundational drivers points above, which should be in as well. We should include all these points and sources - I agree the nuancing is key here.

I don't have Lewis's book, so if you can bring any relevant quotes to this talk page it would be helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No objection to Renton note quote being restored, if deemed useful. Had thought explanatory fns discouraged, see this is not the case at WP:FN. Will come back on Lewis, with print before me. Cpsoper (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have a broader interest in this topic, and the time/inclination to help more broadly, any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive1 would be appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Oncenawhile: Without overloading with quotes, here's some seminal ones from Lewis

• p 183, citing Shaftesbury diary Aug 1 1840. 'Dined with Palmerston...P has been chosen by God to be an instrument of good to his ancient people; to do homage as it were, to their inheritance of the promises, & to recognise their rights without believing their destiny. And it seems he will yet do more. But tho' the motive be kind, it is not sound. I am forced to argue politically, financially, commercially; these considerations strike him home; he weeps not like his Master, over Jerusalem, nor prays that now at last she may put on her beautiful garments.' (Emphasis in original)
• p 185, Lewis' own opinion, following Palmerston's representation to the British Ambassador at Istanbul, Lord Ponsonby, instructing him against his will to advocate for permission for Jewish liberties in Palestine, 'Clearly Shaftesbury's arguing "politically, financially, commercially" had struck its mark; Palmerston had been won over to the view that the Jews could be useful in buttressing the collapsing Ottoman Empire, thus helping to accomplish the key object of British foreign policy in the area.' Implying this was not Palmerston or his colleagues' general opinion before, nor was it Shaftesbury and his evangelical allies' primary motive for seeking to persuade Palmerston.
• p 185, following a sceptical report in 17th August 1840 in The Times about restoration, 'Shaftesbury recorded in his diary...his alarm at The Times report. He had not authorised the publication of his list of questions and feared that charges of fanaticism would sink the whole project...'
• p 186, in Shaftesbury's diary for 29th August 1840, 'The newspapers teem with reports about the Jews - many assail, & many defend them; ... What violence, what hatred, what combination, what discussion!' Indicating the degree of controversy aroused over the benefit of the policy.

In chapters 9, 10 and 11 (pp.22-298) Lewis makes the case for first the appointing of a diplomatic consul, then the founding of Christchurch and then the bishopric all being the product of intense lobbying by evangelical Christians, who used pragmatic arguments to further their cause, but whose motivation was primarily faith driven. Each of these steps had to be driven forward in the face of Ottoman opposition and domestic inertia. Cpsoper (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Cpsoper: many thanks for bringing these - very interesting. I wrote much of this section in Shaftesbury's article a few years ago, and these quotes would be valuable additions.

Re this article, what does Lewis say about the Balfour Declaration? Particularly re page 380 which we are using as a source (ref 4). Oncenawhile (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Oncenawhile: The p 380 reference is whole no of pages, not a specific argument, I am sorry this is my fault.

The first chapter of Lewis's book is a survey of Hyamson, Sokolow, Renton, Stein, Kochav, Rubinstein, Merkley, Hempton, Stein, Friedman and Bar-Yosef's etc positions on the relative merits of the importance of religious motivation in stimulating support for Balfour's declaration. Verbatim quotes that do justice to the full colour of this chapter's discussion here would take too much space. These four give some bones of his case.

*p 7 If we are to understand the Protestant religious culture in the backgrounds of many of those responsible for issuing the Balfour Declaration, we have to delve into the ethos of the mid-Victorian era and in particular into the mindset of Victorian evangelicalism.

*p 8 The main body of this work then seeks to explore the origins and significance of Christian Zionism as it emerged in nineteenth-century Britain, in an effort to understand why Christian support for the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was so prevalent in Victorian Britain and this forms an important background to the Balfour Declaration on 1917. This resurgence of Christian Zionism occurred well before the emergence of modern Zionism as a political force in the Jewish world.

*p 10 The themes of Christian philosemitism and Christian Zionism are the central concerns of this book. It is the contention of this work that only by understanding these two phenomena can one make sense of the religious and cultural influences that worked together to create a climate of opinion among the political elite in Britain that was well disposed to the Balfour Declaration.

*p 11 A study of Shaftesbury's role in the development of Victorian philosemitism and Christian Zionism must also necessarily examine his role in shaping British foreign policy toward the Near East. All three of these themes (Shaftesbury, philosemitism, and Christian Zionism) are closely connected, and the pursuit of one quite naturally leads on the other. Cpsoper (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Cpsoper: thank you for this. I will have a think about how to clarify in the article, possible with (another) endnote. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Done (see [2]). Oncenawhile (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

delete false Charlotte newspaper story

Ahead of the American entry into World War I, it became clear that Woodrow Wilson and his advisors were in favor of Zionism. Six months before the Declaration, this front page article from the Charlotte Observer notes the announcement that Balfour and Wilson had "informally discussed" the project.

I deleted the illustration showing the front page of the Charlotte newspaper. The caption read "Six months before the Declaration, this front page article from the Charlotte Observer notes the announcement that Balfour and Wilson had "informally discussed" the project". The story is false speculation based on rumor-- there was no "announcement' and there was no meeting between Wilson and Balfour that discussed the Palestine issue. No Wilson biographer mentions it. See John Milton Cooper, Woodrow Wilson, page 418. Instead Balfour met with Brandeis, who was the leading American supporter of Zionism. See Albert S. Lindemann (1997). Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. p. 417.. It goes to reinforce the Wikipedia advice at WP:WPNOTRS that editors should be very careful about using primary sources, (like this newspaper's untrue speculation), and rely instead on solid reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt that this is false. Per [3], Balfour's mission stayed in the United States for a month from 22 April until mid-May. The Charlotte Observer is/was a highly reputable paper and would not have explictly referenced an "announcement" if it couldn't back it up. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Rjensen: I think it provides a very good illustration of the sentiment in certain American communities at the time. I don't feel that strongly, but changing the caption would likely have solved your concern. With respect to the text that you added, please could you format the footnotes so that they are consistent with the rest of the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• What is false here, the story itself, or just the caption? If just the caption, I don't see why the image can't be included? FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The story and caption are both false as is the headline. Balfour talked with Brandeis, not Wilson, and the anonymous reporter did not know that. Likewise the headline is false. Since the 1970s we have the detailed daily White House files and no historian reports this story. No biographer of Wilson or Balfour reports it. Balfour's autobiography does not mention it. No British history I have seen mentions it. Wilson did meet Balfour in a formal, awkward meeting that did not deal with the Declaration. In fact Wilson told his advisors at this point that he would NOT issue an approval--he changed his mind later. The inclusion is an example of how easy it is to misread primary sources that are reporting gossip. for the real story see https://books.google.com/books?id=bHg8DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165 And what RS says the paper had a reputation for national news reporting?? Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the details of this incident, but newspapers are generally not considered WP:RS for historical matters. On a topic such a this, a lot has been written; so one should not directly cite a newspaper. If sources disagree, the newspaper claim should be treated as suspect unless proved otherwise. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I look at some of the Balfour biographies. The most useful here is online Dugdale v 2 p168-69 It goes into detail about Balfour's meeting with Justice Brandeis, and then states "there is no evidence that he discussed Palestine with Mr. Wilson himself." p 145 Tells of Belfour's meeting with Wilson, which focused on secret treaties and war aims and did not mention Palestine. Dugdale is online free at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4311821;view=1up;seq=205

It doesn't say they they didn't discuss Palestine, it says that the author is not aware of any evidence that they did. Balfour and Wilson had an "intimate" dinner on 30 April 1917, the purpose of which was to indirectly discuss the secret treaties and war aims which Wilson was so sensitive about. Colonel House's notes from this session are here.

The key must be finding this "announcement". I do not believe the Charlotte Observer report (which was syndicated across a number of newspapers) would have made this claim up out of thin air. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

the RS state explicitly there is no evidence --so Wiki should not report it. Wilson in fact did not let his favorable opinion be known to anyone until October. --Colonel House had to ask him if he had made up his mind yet. see Hodgson's bio of House p 156. The so-called "announcement" is not in indexed newspapers such as NY TIMES and is not mentioned by any RS. Take a look at the RS at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1878450 that shows Wilson did NOT support the Balfour declaration when this newspaper story appeared on May 27 1917. Rjensen (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Rjensen: well I can't find another source for the announcement. With respect to the text that you added, please could you format the footnotes so that they are consistent with the rest of the article? I am hoping to take the article to WP:FAR. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if Rjensen saw your comment, but I have changed the references to harv format. I am not sure if they should be present in the "specialized works" or the "general works". You can change them if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Palestine had always formed part of Syria

What dos that mean? this sentence appears in the beginning of the article, and does not include any source. I think it is incorrect - for example, Palestine was not part of Syria when it was part of the Egyptian New Kingdom, or the Crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem. The 6th Floor (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a difficulty here is that Palestine is a variable in history, additionally different users may mean different things in their use of the term. The earliest usage refers to "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in Herodotus, 5th Century BC (see Timeline of Palestine) and it or parts of it were more often than not, in Syria (another variable).

Probably every student of Israel Palestine should spend some time with the pages covering this (there are quite a few); for example, Holy Land = Land of Israel = historical Palestine (more or less) and evidently, Mandate Palestine is not any of these. Nor is it entirely clear what Zionism in 1900's meant by Palestine (or historical Palestine) or even whether that is the same thing as it means now, come to that.

Maybe whenever the word Palestine is used it should link to the page Palestine and there should be a short summary of this issue along with the relevant links; it does sort of do this now, tho it's a bit of a trek around the houses to get to the bottom of it.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And Syria is similar. See Palestine (region) and Syria (region). Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So what is the solution you are proposing? It is not true that Palestine had always formed part of Syria, and having imprecise/variable geographic designations for both Palestine ans Syria only makes the problem worse. Why do we have this incorrect sentence in the very beginning of the article ? The 6th Floor (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it still there? I can't see it now, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I see it was removed after my last comment. Thank you! The 6th Floor (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Weizmann and Acetone

To editor Rjensen: we should agree what part of the acetone story has been discredited, and what is relevant to the article. I believe the discredited part is any suggestion that the Declaration was some form of repayment for Weizmann's work on acetone production, and possibly even the suggestion that Weizmann was a particularly brilliant chemist (he had been fired from his previous role a few years earlier, and was a reader (academic rank), not a professor, before he managed to get funding for his acetone work during the war). What is not discredited is the fact that (a) this is a very well known claim, based on Lloyd George's memoirs, and (b) that Weizmann's first meeting with Lloyd George came in the context of his chemical work (this is particularly relevant, as Weizmann never met Asquith, for example).

On the basis of the above I would like to agree with you a middle ground on the text. I intend to add back all the sources that have been removed in your last edit so that readers can see the detail if they wish - do you object to this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

no objection. In my opinion the text states that historians reject LG's claim--and so there is no need to tell it. If it is in the article students will take notes and in this case will be wasting their time. It's ok to briefly say W was a scientific consultant to LG --but neither LG nor Balfour had ever studied chemistry. let's not tell readers that chemistry is a big part of the Declaration. My own take on additional cites is that there is a danger of pointing people off the main Declaration topic and many readers will not come back--they have a time budget on articles and if their 30 minutes (say) is up they may move on. Rjensen (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added back the sources, but kept your drafting. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence about McMahon-Hussein correspondence

The lead needs to be rewritten anyway, but I'll just deal with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The source cited lays out both the British and Arab position, however it makes clear that the British position in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence was duplicitous, and was only made to secure support of Hussein for the war effort. Here are quotes:

At the same time, the British along with the French and Russians were drawing up the secret May 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement which would demonstrate that the British government had little intention of making good on the McMahon pledges.

Here is another quote, from the next page, directly addressing the discrepancy between the British and Arab positions: Of course, events not soon after the McMahon-Hussein correspondence ceased would make many of these discrepancies moot. The Balfour Declaration certainly seemed to fly in the face of Hussein's understanding of the McMahon's agreement, but even that declaration contains a phrase that implies protection of the rights of the existing Arab inhabitants of Palestine. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George's insistence at the 1919 Paris Peace conference that Great Britain maintain control of Palestine (and Iraq) further demonstrated the British unwillingness to honor the agreements McMahon had made.

The lead should not give the impression that this is a "he said/she said" matter. It should make it clear that the British position was duplicitous and they had no intention of keeping to the terms of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, and nor did they actually do so in practice. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Per #McMahon_in_lede above, there is too much info on M-H in the lede anyway. And per #Palestine_had_always_formed_part_of_Syria, the current wording is poor. And per [4] and [5], these details were only added into the lead a few months ago, without talk discussion.

It is now clear that the text in No More Mr Nice Guy's reversion [6] (which needs to be self reverted given risk of an AE block for reverting a revert without consensus) is opposed from various angles by five editors (myself, RJensen, Kingsindian, The 6th Floor and Selfstudier).

I suggest we wait a little for any further comment, but it would be good to remove the troublesome sentence and then agree on replacement text in the context of the new lead (which needs to be much broader in scope to reflect the full contents of the article).

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd suggest the lead is pretty much ignored until the more serious structural disagreements about the article body are solved. The intro is just a summary, and we can't summarise an article that isn't finished yet. And again, the intro should not have information not explicitly stated in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems more like a POV than an undisputed fact. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What seems like a POV? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether the British were deliberately duplicitous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As opposed to stupidly duplicitous? :) I vaguely recall Kedourie, was it? arguing that there wasn't really a conflict between Sykes Picot and McMahon in which case not duplicitous at all. Not sure, thng that does it for me is that it was wartime, that the French were a major ally (usually) and they kept it all secret and they probably would've sold their grandmothers if they thought it would help them win the war, haha.Selfstudier (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy The source you cited says in plain language that the British had no intention of keeping to the McMahon pledges, and they, in fact, didn't keep their pledges (not only about Palestine, but other cases like Iraq as well). That's not a "POV", it is a question of summarizing the source accurately. The lead can certainly mention the British position, but it cannot give the impression that this is all a "he said/she said matter". This point was recognized by Balfour himself. This is a primary source, so I do not wish to include it in the article, I just give it to prove the point. I quote:

In 1915 we promised the Arabs independence; and the promise was unqualified, except in respect of certain territorial reservations. In 1918 the promise was by implication repeated; for no other interpretation can, I think, be placed by any unbiased reader on the phrases in the declaration about a“National Government’, and “an Administration deriving its authority from the initiative and free choiceof the native population’.

But in 1916 (Sykes-Picot) the independence even of the most independent portion of the new Arab State(i.e. , areas A and B) was qualified by the obligatory presence of foreign advisers; as, indeed, it is under the mandatory system of 1919. Now, by ’adviser’ these documents undoubtedly mean —though they donot say so— an adviser whose advice must be followed; and assuredly no State can be described as really independent which has habitually and normally to follow foreign advice supported, if the worst comes tothe worst, by troops, aeroplanes and tanks.

In our promises with regard to the frontiers of the new Arab States we do not seem to have been more fortunate than in our promises about their independence. In 1915 it was the Sherif of Mecca to whom the task of delimitation was to have been confided, nor were any restrictions placed upon his discretion in this matter, except certain reservations intended to protect French interests in Western Syria and Cilicia.

In 1916 all this seems to have been forgotten. The Sykes-Picot Agreement made no reference to the Sherif of Mecca, and, so far as our five documents are concerned, he has never been heard of since. A wholly new method was adopted by France and England, who made with each other in the Sykes-Picot Agreement the rough and ready territorial arrangements already described—arrangements which the Allied and Associated Powers have so far neither explicitly accepted nor explicitly replaced.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said below (where I also linked this same Balfour memo in full)in the matter of IsraelPalestine I am rather of the view that primary sources can/should be quoted directly(in addition to secondary)seems not a problem so long as no conclusions/OR are actually drawn and left to the reader to decide. Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with using primary sources (or secondary sources for that matter, but less problematically) is that so much has been written on the topic that it is very easy to find sources one likes. In this case, one does not need to quote the primary source in the article itself; the secondary source cited (one could even call it tertiary, but nvm that for now) makes the same point. There are tons of primary sources opining on the matter, see the table here. We do not need to use the word "duplicitous" if one doesn't like it. The point can be made less bluntly if one chooses. Anyway, Sykes-Picot needs to be mentioned in the lead somewhere. But it's probably best to consider the lead as a whole. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, new to me. Of course I agree with your assessment in general, I am just tired of reading what appear to be biased or revisionist secondaries that on close examination appear to have read things into primaries that are not there (or even misrepresented primaries altogether).I can find this McMahon thing in several different Wiki pages with apparently different interpretations of the same material (the San Remo page says that the McMahon was the basis for Sykes Picot and then Sykes Picot article comes at it again from a different perspective as well as the McMahon page itself and so on. That's OK tho, I guess, the more perspectives the better.Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see you both like that table. I was quite proud of it. I agree with SelfStudier that secondary sources often try to spin this question one way or the other, so the choreographical list of primary sources from all sides of the debate seemed like the best way to end the wikipedia dispute on this question once and for all. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Broader Arab response

I had thought it was the Sykes Picot that was leaked by the Sovs(not the Declaration)and that the response for that was the Basset letter (I have a copy now and it is no better than the telegrams I guess). Not sure how Husein finds out about Declaration, it was published anyway and then the response for that is the Hogarth message. Anyone got anything to add to that?Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Khouri (p.8) says exactly that. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Want me to fix it up? Or you do it? I will just the main error for now (ie it should say SP not Declaration) I guess timewise should be the other way around? ie finds out about Declaration first (it was a few weeks before the leak) and gets Hogarth and then finds out about about Sykes Picot, gets telegrams/Basset.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, please do. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

K, will do, for interest, Idk if its of any use, here's that Basset letter: COMMUNICATION FROM THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO THE KING OF THE HEJAZ (February 8, 1918) (The text of the original communication has often appeared in the Arabic Press in facsimile reproduction from a photostat copy supplied by the late King Husain. The original communication was in Arabic. The version given here is my own rendering from the Arabic

text.) - Antonius, op. cit., p. 431-2

( TRANSLATION) THE ACTING BRITISH AGENT, JEDDA TO KING HUSAIN Jedda, February 8, 1918 Complimentary titles. I am directed by His Britannic Majesty's High Com- missioner to forward to Your Majesty the text of a tele- graphic message which His Excellency has had from the For- eign Office in London for transmission as a communication from His Britannic Majesty's Government to Your Majesty. The text is verbatim as follows: Begins. The loyal motives which have prompted Your Majesty to forward to the High Commissioner the letters ad- dressed by the Turkish commander-in-chief in Syria to His Highness the Amir Faisal and to Ja'far Pasha have caused His Majesty's Government the liveliest satisfaction. The steps taken by Your Majesty in this connexion are only a token of the friendship and mutual sincerity which have always inspir- ed the relations between the Government of the Hejaz and His Majesty's Government. It would be superfluous to point out that the object aimed at by Turkey is to sow doubt and suspicion between the Allied Powers and those Arabs who, under Your Majesty's leadership and guidance, are striving nobly to recover their ancient freedom. The Turkish policy is to create dissension by luring the Arabs into believing that the Allied Powers have designs on the Arab countries, and by represent to the Allies that the Arabs might be made to re- nounce their aspirations. But such intrigues cannot succeed in sowing dissension among those whose minds are directed by a common purpose to a common end. His Majesty's Government and their allies stand steadfastly by every cause aiming at the liberation of the oppressed nations, and they are determined to stand by the Arab peoples in their struggle for the establishment of an Arab world in which law shall replace Ottoman injustice, and in which unity shall prevail over the rivalries artificially provoked by the policy of Turkish officials. His Majesty's Government re-affirm their former pledge in regard to the liberation of the Arab peoples. His Majesty's Government have hitherto made it their policy to ensure that liberation, and it remains the policy they are determined unflinchingly to pursue by protecting such Arabs as are already liberated from all dangers and perils, and by assisting those who are still under the yoke of the tyrants to obtain their freedom. Ends. Compliments. J. R. Bassett, Lt.-Col. Acting British Agent, Jedda. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I shuffled the material around to put in the correct order timewise, do you want to mention the Basset letter? I don't think it's crucial in this article myself, no more than the telegrams at any rate, although the Arabs did mention it quite a bit in the day.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI I added a link to the Bassett Letter. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of quoted material

Following up on the listing of this page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 April 29, I've removed a good deal of quoted material from the Notes section here. The edit history seems to show that that content was more than 25% of the whole page, and I've not removed it all; in my opinion, that's an excessive proportion. It's to be expected that an article such as this will need to rely quite heavily on quotation, as indeed it still does; but there is – in my view – absolutely no value in reproducing great chunks of text from the references. Indeed, I believe the article as a whole is improved by lightening that section.

Quotation is acceptable in Wikipedia, but within narrow limits. Our policy says "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts …". Our guideline says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. […] Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited". I accept that some of the content I removed may perhaps by now be out of copyright. We have sister projects – Wikiquote and Wikisource – where some of this material could perhaps appropriately be hosted. I apologise if I messed anything up – I did try not to! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: thanks for going through this. I am keen to discuss this before putting the article up for WP:FA. There are two categories of quotes in here:

(1) Out of copyright quotes from involved parties: The majority of the quotes, and all the larger ones, fall into this category. These same quotes are quoted frequently in the same manner by the primary scholars of the Declaration, and are key to understanding the subject fully.

(2) Scholarly quotes: these quotes provide further context or description. Having removed or reduced a number of quotes in the past, I have reviewed the remaining scholarly quotes in light of the Berne Convention's Right to Quote, and am confident that these quotes represent the minimum required and are therefore fair use. Given the controversial nature of this topic, I consider these excerpt quotes serve a very important purpose, providing real clarity as to the direct views of these scholars, strengthening a reader's confidence in the veracity of the article as a whole.

I would appreciate further discussion of this, as it will likely be very important in the WP:FA review. Perhaps the best way to proceed is to review each of the quotes themselves on a case-by-case basis.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That edit has now been reverted by Oncenawhile. Part of the edit summary reads "All are either fair use or out of copyright". Where is our fair-use policy for text, Oncenawhile? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile re copyright policy. Most of the material is out of copyright or complies with Wikipedia:Non-free content. As for their role in the article: the great majority of the quotes are designed to show subtle changes in the multiple drafts--that is quite impossible to do with paraphrases--the original wording is needed. That is appropriate for an encyclopedia and not excessive. Rjensen (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree with Justlettersandnumbers that the amount of quotation far exceeds what is usual within citations. That's what was removed, not quotations from within the body of the article. The removed material was 25% of the article by bytes. This problem was mentioned at Peer Review but was never completely resolved. My opinion is that a short quotation should only be included for material that is likely to be challenged. Paragraph-long excerpts from a book published in 1983 (for example) are not okay in my opinion. The material should be removed (but it would still be visible in the page history if anyone needs to refer back). Quotations from material that is in the public domain are okay from a copyright point of view. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The 1983 work, which falls in to category (1) above, is a second or third edition publication of Weizmann's letters. The letters were written prior to 1931 and Weizmann died in 1952. The letters are not in copyright. Many scholars have quoted these exact same quotes when discussing the topic of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. What we have here is excerpts from non-free works of historians. For example,

• Note A: "James Renton described this as follows:" followed by a paragraph from a 2007 book
• Note B: "Donald Lewis writes that:" followed by a paragraph from a 2014 book
• Note D: "LeVine and Mossberg describe this as follows:" followed by a paragraph from a 2014 book
• Note E: "Gelvin wrote:" followed by a paragraph from a 2014 book
• Note F: " Defries wrote that:" followed by a paragraph from a 2014 book
• Note G: "According to Weizmann's memoir, the conversation went as follows:" followed by a paragraph from a 1949 book. The author died in 1952
• Note H: "Rovner wrote that:" followed by a paragraph from a 2014 book

And so on. The only one that is PD so far is the quotation in Note C. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Notes C and G both fall into category (1) in my post above. For G, as you mention, Weizmann died in 1952. That publication was in the US, and its copyright would have expired in 1980 unless renewed (a search at the US copyright office shows no evidence of renewal). Numerous other organizations have reprinted the work without claiming copyright (e.g. [7], [8], [9])

As I said above, most of the quotes in the article fall under category (1).

Looking at quotes A, B, D, E, F and H, these all fall under category (2) in my post above. They are important in clarifying key nuances, are kept reasonably short, and are fair use under the Berne Convention's right to quote.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In all, there's more than 6,000 words of quotations in these explanatory notes, and almost all of it is copyright material. This is in an article that has a "readable prose size" (which excludes the table and block quotes in the body and the notes) of 6090 words. Our non-free content policy does not permit this amount of non-free content without a very good reason for each quote. It's excessive and unnecessary and in my opinion it needs to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is plainly false to state that "almost all of it is copyright material". Most of the quotes are out of copyright. Also, the 6,000 number is the total words in the notes, not the quotations themselves. There is a lot of text in the notes that are not quotations.

I can do an analysis of this to illustrate this on the talk page if helpful? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I am preparing a summary of the notes on Talk:Balfour Declaration/Sources. Then we can discuss on a case by case basis. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa asserts: our non-free content policy does not permit this amount of non-free content without a very good reason for each quote. that is a mis-statement and is not the rule. It actually says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used It says Extensive quotation of copyrighted TEXT is prohibited. -- the word 'text' is singular referring to one text. We do not have extensive quotation from one source. -- what we have are numerous brief quotations from different sources, each of which is explicitly allowed. the terminology "very good reason" is nowhere in the rule-- and in my opinion there is no very good reason to follow this non-rule that was just now invented. (for the record I did not add the quotes under discussion here.) Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I've already stated my position twice, which is that I think these quotes are excessive and a violation of our non-free content policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa: I apologize in advance, but I consider it impossible to find a route to consensus in the face of such a broad statement. We are "talking past each other". Are you willing to engage in discussion on the detail of considering each quote one-by-one? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Soory but I don't have time to do that. The policy violation seems to me so obvious that to do so would not be a good use of my time, as I am one of the only people looking after the copyvio reports at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en. This consumes essentially all my editing time, and takes anywhere from four to eight hours per day to complete. That work has to take priority. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime I have split the footnote quotes in the article into two groups which follow my points (1) and (2) above:

(1) "Primary source quotes", of which almost all, if not all, are definitely out of copyright,

(2) "Secondary source quotes", which are a small number of short excerpts from scholarly works, being used to clarify important nuances throughout this article on a controversial subject, and consistent with WP:NFC and the right to quote.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a start at Talk:Balfour Declaration/Sources. Before I continue this laborious task, could editors interested in this discussion let me know if the information provided in the tables is useful to resolving this discussion, and provide any ideas for improvement? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• I voiced my concern about this issue at the peer review, but as stated above, quoting public domain texts shouldn't be a problem. Copyrighted ones should be kept at a minimum, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel pretty much the same as Diannaa – the answer is so obvious that there's nothing to discuss. However, since I chose to pick up the listing at WP:CP and to make the necessary changes here, I feel some responsibility to follow through a bit. I'm certainly not prepared to discuss anything on a case-by-case basis until and unless the bulk restoration of the unacceptable material, first by Oncenawhile and then by Rjensen, has been undone. I suggest that one of you self-reverts that as a first step. Meanwhile, some more or less random thoughts:

• I won't be closing that listing until this has been resolved
• Diannaa is pretty much our top person to go to on copyright questions these days, and her opinion carries a lot of weight; however, if you wish, I can invite comment from other administrators active in copyright cleanup (I won't do that unless I'm asked to)
• We've just recently had essentially the same discussion, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 February 5; it ended with removal of the excessive quotations
• You might want to evaluate what effect a prolonged dispute here will have on any planned attempt at FA
• If you absolutely insist on making it possible to actually verify that the sources say what you say they say without going to the library to look at them (against our standard Wikipedia practice which is to cite the sources with care, and let anyone who wants to check up do so in their own way), you could consider using (and linking to) the sister projects that exist for this purpose, as I've already suggested
• The mass of quoted material I removed and you restored adds nothing but verbiage to the article, and the wall of small print (all seven screenfuls of it) between the text and the references merely makes the discourse harder to follow (as do the tooth-pasting of the text between left and right images, and the squeezing of the table in #Drafting by the image to the right of it, by the way).

Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justlettersandnumbers,

It is not reasonable to expect a reversion to your version, because more than half of what you removed were out-of-copyright quotes of great importance to understanding this topic and quoted frequently by all major scholars of this topic in their explanations of the history.

It is also not reasonable to compare this high quality article on a high profile and controversial topic to a talk page of a draft about a low profile individual - the situations are completely different. This article uses quotations to help illustrate complex concepts and particular points of view, whereas that draft talk page was a list of quotes.

Please don't take this resitance as stubbornness. Avoiding copyright infringement is one of the cardinal rules of editing our encyclopedia, and your involvement here is crucial to help us get to the right place. I simply ask that we avoid using blunt instruments to get there, as you will end up ruining a very good article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have posted at ANI to get further input on this question. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Balfour Declaration. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion from ANI. I haven't had any real chance to review the article yet (and may not today) but there are a couple of points I think need to be spelled out immediately.

First, when considering whether text is to be included, the standard to be applied is not the Berne Convention but Wikipedia's policies. Any attempt to assess individual quotes against the right to quote is a waste of time; Wikipedia's copyright policy is deliberately more restrictive than the law.

Second, the attempt to wikilawyer the text of that policy to mean extensive quotation from any single text is absurd. By that reading, any article could be entirely composed of copyright violations, so long as they were many and short. If the drafter of that policy had meant to say, extensive quotation of a copyrighted text is prohibited, they would have done so. The attempt to read it as though they did is contrary both to good English style and common English usage. The fact is that that is not what the policy says. GoldenRing (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The wiki rule is clear: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used. Note that "quotations" is plural--that means if the goalkeepers wanted to limit the number of quotations to "no more than 10" they would have said so. There is no Wiki rule about number of quotations. I wrote this on the ANI site: [Diannaa] seems not to have read the article carefully and does not ask why quotes from scholars are needed in validating one of the most controversial topics in 20th century history. Diannaa asserted: our non-free content policy does not permit this amount of non-free content without a very good reason for each quote. In my opinion she has misread and mis-paraphrased the rule. It actually says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used " . Yes indeed. The rule also says "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. " -- the word 'text' is singular and refers to one text. We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long. The article is 140,000 bytes long or about 20,000 words. My counting shows there are 33 brief quotations under copyright from 28 different scholars. The average length is 109 words. I have read them all and in my judgment each quote is appropriate and helps validate a highly controversial issue. That is, I judge that it meets Diannaa's rule that there be "a very good reason for each quote." GoldenRing perhaps disagrees with Diannaa on this point. He does not say what HIS personal cutoff point is when quoting experts on controversial points or how he arrived at it. Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Another point. Arab-Israeli issues, such as the Balfour Declaration, are highly controversial in a historical sense of the word and in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. See Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict for the strong warnings. The WP:QUOTE rule is: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be "from Wikipedia". In other words, Wiki rules strongly recommend quotations for high-octane disputes, and I think many of the 33 quotes under discussion here fall under that policy. (Here are two examples of this controversial POV rhetoric: 1) quoting Renton: "The myth of British 'proto-Zionism’, which has had such a longstanding influence on the historiography of the Balfour Declaration, was thus produced, so as to serve the needs of Zionist propagandists working for the British Government."; 2) another example: quoting Gelvin: "Zionism itself was also defined by its opposition to the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the region. Both the 'conquest of land' and the 'conquest of labor' slogans that became central to the dominant strain of Zionism in the Yishuv originated as a result of the Zionist confrontation with the Palestinian 'other'. ") Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

the word 'text' is singular and refers to one text - That is still just as absurd as last time you said it, and for all the same reasons. A case of IDHT is developing here. GoldenRing (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

what is absurd is not reading the actual rules and guidelines. The actual Wiki guideline is this WP:QUOTEFARM "Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article." Rjensen (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct. WP:NFC is about copyright, not about style. GoldenRing's statement that "By that reading, any article could be entirely composed of copyright violations, so long as they were many and short" cannot be correct because (a) an article of that nature would conflict with so many other rules that it doesn't need spelling out, and (b) it conflicts with the guidance in the same paragraph in WP:NFC that such quotes can only be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" which is impossible without proper content in an article. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is best to look at each case separately and see if the quotation is appropriate. Perhaps I can start in the section below? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Having reflected on the discussion above, I hope that the following will satsify the concerns of @Justlettersandnumbers: and @Diannaa: (and possibly @GoldenRing: who has yet to opine):

(1) For all the "primary" quotes, i.e. those crucially important quotes from involved parties which are needed to properly illustrate this subject, we both (a) prove the original publications are out of copyright and (b) add secondary references to show where these same quotes have been used by scholars of the Balfour Declaration. If any are deemed to be still in copyright, which will be very few if any, we apply a higher standard in terms of ensuring the quotes are as short as possible and ensuring that it is quoted frequently in scholarship in the same way as we do here.

(2) For all the "secondary" quotes, i.e. those from copyrighted scholarly works, we narrow them down per KingsIndian's suggestions below (and still to come). I agree with the direction that KingsIndian's comments are going in, and can see scope for reducing or even replacing a number of the more descriptive and less "particular viewpoint / interpretation"-type quotes. This is on the basis that whilst WP:NFC allows quotes which "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea", we can live without quotes which just illustrate a point or establish context, but would do a disservice to readers to remove those quotes which communicate a particularly nuanced position.

It would be appreciated if those editors pinged above could comment as to whether this sounds like a reasonable way forward. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, you've had advice and then more advice. Instead of ignoring it and continuing to ask for approval of your own ideas, how would it be if you gave some consideration to the suggestions above? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers this discussion has to work both ways. I want to work with you to resolve this, as I have repeated above, but I need you to listen to what the editors are saying here. Rather than ignoring your comments, I have responded directly to them. It is you who has been ignoring mine. I am not sure what else to say. I really need you to also be open minded here if we are going to progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers stated above I'm certainly not prepared to discuss anything on a case-by-case basis until and unless the bulk restoration of the unacceptable material, first by Oncenawhile and then by Rjensen, has been undone. In other words, they want a procedure where everything is out by default, and the parts which are agreed-to are included. Keeping in mind WP:DEADLINE, I propose a half-way compromise as a starting point, modeled on the proposal above by Oncenawhile:

Keep all the quotes in (1), which are definitely out of copyright, in the article. Move all the quotes in (2) to the talk page (or the copyright page or wherever it's convenient). Then we can discuss (2) one by one.

How does that sound? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Kingsindian. We need to separate the two issues, one which is copyright (and does not apply to the PD text), the other which is over-quoting (a much more subjective matter). FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am supportive of this. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Overquoting" is a stylistic issue. It can be solved--as the article does--by putting them in notes where onkly highly interested readers will read them. In terms of policy Wiki rules strongly recommend quotes to validate points in a major controversy. The WP:QUOTE rule is: When dealing with a controversial subject. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. " Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd have seen this sooner if you'd pinged me, Kingsindian – I'm not watching this page closely. My thoughts:

• at ANI there's not a lot of agreement with the position I (and, more importantly, Diannaa) have taken on this
• I've asked people there to explain how they think the usage here respects the principles of transformation and de minimis
• I don't want to be obstinate/pig-headed/whatever, or to interfere with any plans people may have for this article
• I believe that getting all the quoted material out of the notes is probably the best first step
• but if there's consensus for what Kingsindian suggests, please do that.

I made an alternative suggestion above (use the sister-projects). Did anyone respond to that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, understood. There are some interesting points being discussed at the WP:ANI - it'll be interesting to assess consensus there once the discussion is closed.

On the sister project suggestion, I guess you were referring to Wikisource and Wikiquote. Re Wikisource, we already have some material there linked in this article, but wikisource is for housing the full detailed documents - we simply take a paragraph here to illustrate the narrow relevant bits. Wikiquote doesn't work because the manner of quotation here fails the Wikiquote:Quotability guideline. We are quoting in a particular scholarly manner here, following the treatment by most scholars who have written on the subject of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to comment/discuss

On reading through the page (again) in relation to the question of "twice promised" and all the other real or apparent contradictions, the relevant material appears in two sections. First, in "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (ie the Declaration text) there is a discussion about some aspects of UK policy and some discussion about the Mandate as well. Second, under "Effects of related British commitments during WWI" we have more discussion of what amounts to the same basic question.

It seems to me that the first section should confine itself to simply the meaning of the text and perhaps how it was to be given effect for purposes of the Mandate.

Then the second can be devoted to the vexed question of the inconsistencies and contradictions etc. and a suitable introduction to it could be simply to lift Balfours 1919 from the first section

"What I have never been able to understand is how [our policy] can be harmonised with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instructions to the Commission of Enquiry... "

Thoughts? Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I will try to write here what I am doing as I go to try and minimize any confusion; as a first step, I will move all except the first 2 paragraphs of the material in "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" to the beginning (for now) of the section "Effects of related British commitments during WWI". Afterwards,we can examine how to didy up the resultant.Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Selfstudier, thanks for the above and your proposed edit. I think we need to retain the chonology in the article where possible - the background section should therefore not discuss the effects of the Declaration that has yet to be described. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, you reverted it, no problem; still, there is something not right about the article, all of that stuff that I moved does not belong where it is, the section "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine" (discussing the Declaration text)should be only about that. So if not there, where should it go? Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Mandate itself is also a British policy (and as well subject to the Covenant of the League of Nations) and one which impacted on the Declaration directly yet I cannot see that the effects and results of this policy have been properly addressed although there is a discussion about it in primary source w (1930 interpretation of UK policy). For instance Churchill gave an interpretation of UK policy in 1922 and more controversially, in 1939, the British gave yet another interpretation in relation to Hogarth message. I guess what I am trying to say here is that if you are going to follow a timeline, then one needs to point up changes in British policy (or interpretations of British policy for the Mandates Commission)as you go along, alternatively deal with all the changes in policy in one section devoted only to that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea that might solve all the problems and respect your desire for a timeline; 1939 is critical to the whole affair, the point where the whole sorry mess starts to implode. In that year, as well as the White Paper, they reviewed all of these British policies I have been talking about and made some conclusions about them (Cmd 5974) and the resultant British policy (which the Mandates Commission was not entirely happy about)lasted from there till end of the Mandate. How about we have a section "1939"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 12:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

To further elucidate, here are places where 1939 matters come up in the existing article

Related British commitments during WWI ...

...and by the time of the 1939 committee set up to consider the correspondence, it avoided taking a position on the matter altogether.

and

Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine ... A 1939 British Government committee led by the Lord Chancellor, Frederic Maugham, concluded that the government had not been "free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine"

On the face of it there is a contradiction there, nor is it clear why one conclusion should be under a WW1 heading and the other under a Declaration text heading. Apart from that, the weight that has been given to 1939 is insufficient, given the importance of those events and the events set in motion then.

Finally, lest I talk myself to death, can we agree that there is a problem? Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Selfstudier, I am still to be convinced but am keen to get to the bottom of this to find out. The way I view the current article structure is as follows:

• The focus of the article is (a) the genesis of the Declaration and related scholarly debates, (b) the contents of the Declaration and their nuances, and (c) the impact of the Declaration.

I consider that the 1939 references you point about above fit neatly into categories (a) and (b) above. Happy to explain how and why if not clear.

The problem with putting a big 1939 section into category (c) is that it is one of many impacts of the Declaration. Frankly the last 100 years of conflict are results of the Declaration, so we have to be very strict about what we cover on the future.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As I reread some of these sections in the article, there are clearly areas where the structure can be made more clear in light of your observations. I think we can do this via copyediting within the existing structure rather than making major structural shifts or large moves. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand your a,b,c structure and that you would like to maintain it if at all possible (my edit did not alter it at all, I just shuffled some stuff around within it as I am somewhat disagreeing as to what is content and what is impact). Let me try to explain some more; one way of viewing this (all of it) is simply as a series of UK policies (in response to whatever) and the first problem we have is that the "first" policy predates the subject matter of the article as does the second (McMahon and SykesPicot). So to deal with that you have shuffled these two items together under a heading "Related British commitments during WWI" (UK policies)and I have no real problem with that except it is not any of your a, b or c.(I'm just using "you" generically here, I do not know if you are the original author). Many people have a misconception about the Declaration, they see it and they believe they understand it and I am sure they do up to that point. I am not sure it strictly qualifies as a "policy" (Palestine did not exist then except on paper), it certainly became one once it was included in the Mandate and the Mandate also acted so as to alter the effect of the Declaration in some respects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)#Legal_basis_and_drafting_of_the_mandate here and subseq by way of example and a bit as well for the "nonJews"). Now what about these other policies, we have AnglFrench, the Covenant, Hogarth, Basset (I cant find a copy of this), Declaration to 7, Allenby/Faisal. Some would say Hogarth is pretty important ("political") however it was not until 1939 that UK policy was interpreted this way to the Mandates Commission. OK, the sum total effect of most (but not all)of these things was looked into in 1939 and we know the conclusions (I do not agree with the the way those conclusions are represented in the article). In any case, they were the 1939 conclusions of the British and were somewhat different from conclusions that they had reached earlier. OK, I get the 100 years thing (that is why I am taking an interest and so will many others no doubt)I am simply taking a narrower view of things, much happened in 1939 (not least another War), the Jews decided that the UK was no longer "on it's side" regardless of whether that was true or not and crossed the pond. It set the stage for the end of the Mandate (and the "death" (purpose fulfilled) of the Declaration) I have tried to paint a picture of what I "miss" when I read the article, not sure if I have succeeded.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just another little bit,the way I look at it, it's not that 1939 is an impact of the Declaration, it's that 1939 impacts ON the Declaration (alters its effect) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Selfstudier, to comment on your various points:

• Agree with your general direction here
• On the first two policies, they are both important parts of the "background" to the Balfour Declaration (my category a). The 1915 M-H correspondence was ignored during the Balfour Declaration negotiations, but the 1916 S-P agreement was a core component of the BD negotiations, not least because it was Sykes who was the primary British negotiator for both documents.
• As you have observed I agree that the last paragraph of the background on subsequent views and statements does not fit the choreography and should be moved to later
• On policy, it absolutely is appropriately described as such. As soon as LG and Balfour took over the reins from Asquith and Grey in December 1916, they shifted Britain's war policy to dissolution of the Ottoman Empire through the creation of Arab, Armenian and Jewish territories (the is the "reformist" vs "radical" or "Westerner" vs "Easterner" political divide)
• On 1939 and the conclusions in the article, can you clarify what you disagree with and provide quotes from sources to confirm your position? It would be good to improve the wording, but we need to be rock solid.
• I agree 1939 was important in terms of evolving British policy, and impact on the Declaration, but so were many other dates such as 1922 (Churchill's first policy), 1930 (significant restrictions on immigration) and 1931 (the reversal of those), 1937 (recommendation of partition), and 1947 (decision to end the mandate). This article cannot include a detailed history of all of this.
• The clearer we can be about the structure, the better, so I am keen to keep discussing.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe this move should address some of your concerns.

I will also have a go at fixing the "civil and religious rights" point. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

These edits [10] address your point re the "civil and religious rights" section. It is now no longer a chronological narrative, but simply a short examination of what the rights were, how they tied with the other obligations in the Declaration, and what was not protected. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I still think that you are trying to make the section "Civil and religious rights..." work too hard, in the structure of the article it's not really supposed to be more than a brief examination of the text of the Declaration. Nor is there much 1939, haha.

How about a new section after that one called something like "Evolution of the mandate in practice" and filling that up with much of what is now in "Civil and religious rights.." (especially para 2)? Plus expand it a little to take in 1939 more fully. (Just as an aside, the dual obligation stuff is all very interesting, do we really need the whole timeline of that? Isn't the 1930 conclusion about it sufficient?) Tell you what, let me have a go at it and if you don't like it we can revert, edit it or whatever.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed my mind, I'll suggest in here first:- 1)Delete Para 2 of "Civil and Religious Rights.." 2)New Content after 4. The Declaration put 3)5. Evolution of the Mandate with following outline (not finished yet)

Although the British Mandate for Palestine as the vehicle for delivering the promises of the Declaration[111] was not finally confirmed until 1922 the British had in fact already switched from military to civilian rule with the appointment of Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner as of 1 July 1920. The civil Mandate administration was formalized with the League of Nations' consent in 1923.

Because of these delays, the PMM did not have it's first review of the mandate operation until 1924 and used the term "twofold duty" [106] to refer to the pair of obligations to Jew and nonJew. In 1930 the Permanent Mandates Commission and the British Government in the Passfield white paper[w] confirmed that these obligations were of equal weight.

For an account of how the dual obligation was dealt with and the problems that were presented thereby see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

Fifteen years after the Mandate was confirmed, the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission report, the first official proposal for partition of the region, referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations"[112][113] and with respect to the wider situation that had arisen in Palestine noted that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation".[114] The continuing intercommunal conflict had proven to the British that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences.[xviii][x]

The partition proposal was not taken up and just 2 years later in 1939 as WW2 loomed large and following the failure of the Arab Zionist London Conference and the report of the Committee set up to investigate Mcmahon and other UK policy documents, UK policy was substantively changed....

....End of Mandate

It's not intended to be a total history just key points relating to the Declaration. What do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am ok with this proposal with the following caveats:

• I would turn paragraph 2 of section 4 into an "efn" footnote rather than deleting it, and leave a sentence at the end of paragraph 1. The dual role is an importance concept, and the fact that different names were used for this concept at different times is worth maintaining. We then don't need references to this in the new section
• Put the new mandate section as a new first subsection under "Longer term impact". The current "reaction" section is about the initial reaction, so chronologically comes before the mandate
• If you are going to draft this in the article, please could you use consistent "sfn" sourcing references to match the rest of the article

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

K, sounds good to me, not 100% sure bout the sources thing, I'll try figure it out, I get stuck, will have to leave that part to the expert :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So far I have done the efn thing I notice that this results in footnotes within a footnote, is that what you intended? Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

K, set up the new subsections and started it off, bear with me while I finish it, bit complicated.Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Why does the new "evolution" section not have any sources? Every paragraph of the article body should be followed by a citation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I am still writing it up, that just the beginning, I will add sources after (feel free to add stuff if you think it useful); I am also trying quite hard to keep this as factual as possible, of course its quite difficult to entirely avoid opinions. Just to reiterate this section is mainly about the relationship between the Declaration and the Mandate as given by UK policy and additionally interpreted by the MMC and the League until the end of the Mandate.Hopefully it should not give rise to any serious dispute, I would rather remove material than get into thatSelfstudier (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's mainly done now, section probably needs some tidying up and adding few more sources, will keep doing that,welcome any comments suggestions, is it a bit long? Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Evolution of Mandate section

Hi @Selfstudier: Some initial comments:

• Please use the Template:sfn style for footnotes, to be consistent with the rest of the article. Every sentence should have a source and page number.
• We should remove all detail that aren't directly relevant to understanding the impact that the BD had or how its impact was modified. There is quite a lot of detail in there which is unexplained - it would be better to keep it higher level.
• The intro paragraph should explain the Permanent Mandates Commission - what it was and why it was relevant, particularly since the whole section appears to be written through the perspective of the PMC
• Many scholars wouldn't agree with "The Mandate included terms that altered the effect of the Balfour Declaration in a number of ways", because the BD was not a legally binding document and so had no "effect" to be altered. You may mean "intention", but that is a tricky subject given there were many conflicting intentions.
• It should end with the British decision to drop the mandate and the subsequent UN resolution and war.
• It could do with more defined paragraph structuring, shoehorning it into four paragraphs. Perhaps: (Para 1) incorporation into British Mandate and establishment of, (Para 2) internationalisation and relevance of PMC, (Para 3) intercommunal conflict from 1920 until 1937 partition proposal, (Para 4) 1937 until 1947/8

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

That's quite a bit of work there, I think I will just remove the section for now, maybe I will put it back in later when I find some free time to fix it up as you want. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to clear up one point, I was a bit loose with some of my statements altho it becomes clear when anyone reads the sources. The Declaration gets "included" in the Mandate by way of terms and any obligations are created (if they are created at all) in that way, along with articles of the Covenant. It was those that had to be "interpreted" by the Government, the Commission and the League; if there had ever been a full blown disagreement (very nearly the case in 1939 but for the war) then it would have required a trip to the ICJ predecessor for a ruling. (the whole thing is not that dissimilar to the way things work now at the UN, where "decisions" are intended to be binding but its not entirely clear what a decision is and only the ICJ can determine it in the event of a disagreement). So when I said that the Declaration was changed, I was referring to various things that were added in to the mandate like the "historic connection" for example.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

One other quick point. The paragraph on the 1922 White Paper that you added in this edit [11] doesn't seem to fit well in the "evolution of British opinion" section and might be better incorporated with this new mandate section. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I removed that as well.Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

After some thought I picked up the Permanent Mandates Commission stub and have started to expand that and from there a new page Permanent_Mandates_Commission_(Palestine) and I have started to put the Evolution stuff in there. That seems to fit better with the Wikipedia bureaucracy than trying to fit it in here and as well having to compromise the content.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Date

It appears that every mention of 1917 in the article was changed to 1918 without reference in a possible act of vandalism, but I do not have the privileges to edit this page, if someone could change it back to 1917 it would be helpful. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

boxed quotes

We currently have two quotes from the Palin Commission report in blue backgrounded boxes. This seems UNDUE. Is there a particular reason we need this much text quoted directly from this document? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to the amount of material per se, I don't particularly like the large blue boxes, would they not look better going across the page? For choice, I would also be inclined to put the second Palin box where the King Crane box is now and the King Crane near to Zionism sections, maybe that's just me tho.Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sahar Huneidi

A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians does not seem to be published by an academic press or even I.B Tauris' "academic" imprint. A google search for Sahar Heneidi doesn't seem to return any relevant results about her bio (I'm assuming she's not the holistic therapist). Does anyone have any information on her credentials/expertise that would make her and by extension the book she wrote RS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty decent work to me. Not sure I get the criticism exactly, which bit of RS is the problem? Walid Khalidi wrote the foreword, I guess that is some sort of endorsement.

Maybe this review will help you decide? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13531040312331287674 Some brief details on this page too http://www.balfourproject.org/healing-the-wounds-of-history-looking-at-the-balfour-declaration-with-new-eyes/ Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Research done at the University of Manchester, copious citation of primary sources, reviewed in academic journals. Searching for the book at Scholar finds that lots of scholars consider it worthy of citation. I don't see a problem with this book. Zero^talk 13:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Her most recent work, including her bio: [12]

Her PhD thesis at Manchester [13], supervised by Clifford Edmund Bosworth.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I just asked for a bio, no need to get all defensive. So this book is an extension of her PhD thesis. Seems legit. Reading the review supplied by Selfstudier above, I may attribute anything contentious she says about Samuel, though. I don't have much time nowadays, so might take a while. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

IP edits

The IP edits reverted by Hertz raised a good point - that the article is missing a mention of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it so important? The Palestine Arabs had nothing to do with it and it never really was in effect I think. If there was any effect, it was in relation to the McMahon correspondence not the BD.Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about SYNTH moved here for continuity

In my opinion, the statement ("The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded.") qualifies in the sense of high quality primary sources and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully ie Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.

In this case then, we do not actually need secondary sources to support the statement.Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The statement does not come from a primary source. Juxtaposing two primary sources to lead a reader to some conclusion neither of the sources says is SYNTH. See the beginning of this long discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Which statement? I gave you direct quotes and you objected to that. I have proposed in line with WP policy a short factual conclusion of what the documents say and you have objected to that as well. It is becoming clear that you have no legitimate answer to the points being put forward; we have 2 high quality primary sources with contradictory conclusions obvious to anyone that can read and the simple fact is that because you dislike the conclusion (NPOV problem) you are making objections in all directions and to every suggestion in the hopes of knocking down a conclusion that has been reached on other related pages without difficulty (because it is noncontroversial and well known to scholars). The first document says that Palestine is included in the pledge and the second says that Palestine is excluded. Since you have not disputed this (other than to allege SYNTH where there is none) and you have not replied to the WP policy argument I made, nor have you come up with any sources that contradict the obvious conclusion I am going to go ahead and add the "straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." per WP policy.Selfstudier (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is what it says on Churchill White Paper page, it is not as if the conclusion we are attempting to write is not well known to scholars -

Subsequent revelations

A committee established by the British in 1939 to clarify the various arguments observed that many commitments had been made during and after the Great War—and that all of them would have to be studied together. The Arab representatives submitted a statement to the committee from Sir Michael McDonnell[5] which explained that whatever McMahon had intended to mean was of no legal consequence, since it was his actual statements that constituted the pledge from His Majesty's Government. They also pointed out that McMahon had been acting as an intermediary for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, Lord Grey had made it clear that, for his part, he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the Churchill White Paper's interpretation of the pledges which he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915.[6]

Years later, scholars searching through the declassified files in the National Archives discovered evidence that Palestine had been pledged to Hussein. The Eastern Committee of the Cabinet, previously known as the Middle Eastern Committee, had met on 5 December 1918 to discuss the government's commitments regarding Palestine. Lord Curzon chaired the meeting. General Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended. According to the minutes Lord Curzon explained the Hussein, Sykes-Picot, and Balfour commitments:

   "The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . Great Britain and France—Italy subsequently agreeing—committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, [and the Sharif of Mecca] who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine 'should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done—and this, of course, was a most important proviso—to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine."[7]

On the Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement page it says with no sourcing whatever (the author probably thought it was obvious):

Between 1916-20, the British government interpreted these commitments as including Palestine in the Arab area. However, in the 1922 Churchill White Paper they argued instead that Palestine had been excluded.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, could you please cut down on the huge walls of text and overlong quotes from Wikipedia articles? It makes the discussion hard to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Red herring, noone is proposing Wikipedia as a source. The problem remains as above, you have not achieved any consensus whatsoever for your positionSelfstudier (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)