Talk:Balfour Declaration/Archive 3

Synthy images

Oncenawhile, could you kindly provide direct quotes from the sources you used to restore the image and caption you synthed from various stuff? I'm looking at the Ingrams book and can't see how it supports the caption, and unfortunately I don't have access to Huneidi (it's ridiculously expensive and doesn't seem to have a digital version). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hudeidi page 65 onwards "The McMahon Pledge: A New Interpretation" explains this very well.

But the most well known investigation into this is Kedouri's 1976 "Labyrinth", which is a 368 page book devoted to telling exactly this story. Page 246 gives the clear moment you are looking for: "...the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem, since in fact this argument was no older than Young's memorandum of November 1920"

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it really as clear as all that (me being suspicious now, (lol)? That CAB in the synth is foreign office stuff (ie might not necessarily reflect all gov positions), also was it available at the time? (CAB 24 159 6 is CO stuff later on in 1923 (Devonshire) and says Palestine not (supposed to be) in, haha) Or was this one of the later disclosures? (I see it marked secret). Of course I think all are aware of Churchill's geographical games but if the other was not really known about, then is it fair to say that the position changed between...." (even if it is in fact true). I really do not like this McMahon thing at all, whole lot reeks of trickery.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is clearly scholarly consensus that Britain's official position on the matter took a u-turn some time between Young's memo in 1920 and the White Paper in 1922. Kedouri is a very interesting read if you want to understand the details. I don't follow your logic above - are you referring to sources in another article? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the fact of the change, that's not quite what I am arguing about. Reading what I wrote, I have waffled on a bit, to make it more clear, did the sources cited use those 3 primary sources to reach the conclusion stated? (as I wrote before I quite like primary sources but I am not keen on conclusions being drawn from them altho I have to accept them if they are secondary RS) Even if they did, I still have some difficulty with the article text because it implies that the position that changed was known at the time? If that isn't so, then it should say "it was later discovered" or some such...(the other cab is from your Mcmahon summary of positions)Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question, and yes they did use exactly these documents in their descriptions of the evolution of the Government interpretation. The 1918 document / map were Toynbee's and the 1922 document is the White Paper. I could also swap Toynbee's 1918 memo for Curzon's cabinet minutes, but it's less detailed.

On your second point, I agree we should certainly not imply that this was a public u-turn. It was an internal shift. To my knowledge the White Paper was the first public proclamation of an official position on the matter. It's the internal u-turn that has so excised scholars since the documents became public in the 1960s and 1970s.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide a source that explicitly uses these two documents to reach the conclusion in the caption? Otherwise it's SYNTH. That's what both Selfstudier and I are saying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Kedouri's 1976 "Labyrinth". It is a 368 page book devoted to telling exactly this story, using these two sources and many others. Page 246 gives the clear quote showing the "change", as quoted above. If you wish to read the book and summarise it differently, you are very welcome to do so.

Selfstudier and I have already agreed that the text should not imply that the change was public, when it was unknown (and denied publicly). I am not clear on the right way to amend the text, but open to suggestion. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Does the source contrast these two specific documents explicitly? If yes, please provide a quote. If not, what you're doing here is SYNTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your question is based on a false premise. WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The conclusion from the images and the caption is that the British changed their position. That is stated explcitly by Kedouri and many other sources. So by definition there cannot be synth. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Continue reading: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". In this case, that these two documents demonstrate what the caption states. Reading reviews of Kadourie's book, it would seem he did not think the British made such sweeping promises to Hussein. I hope this is not another case of you claiming a source you haven't read and don't have access to, said something. Could you please provide the quote from Kadourie that you were basing the two images + caption on? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct - synth requires a conclusion to be implied or stated which is not stated by the source. I have shown above how the conclusion is explicitly stated by the source.

It seems from your third sentence ("Reading reviews...") that you have the wrong end of the stick. This is not a debate about what promises were made, as everything is written down. There are two scholarly debates - what was "intended" and the "correct interpretation" of the written documents. The article avoids the unanswerable quagmire of the former. As to the latter, in the 1922 White Paper the government stated they had always regarded the reservation (exclusion) to cover Palestine. As Kedouri, Huneidi, and many others attest, that was a false statement, as all documents prior to Young's memorandum in 1920 said the opposite. There are endless nuances around this story, which Kedouri spends 300+ pages discussing. Here we pick one of the few truly objective truths about the situation, to keep it simple. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I now have an electronic copy of Kadourie and you are either deliberately misrepresenting the source, or you haven't read it. If you continue to the end of the paragraph of the ref you added (to multiple articles), you see that he says that it was the first time this specific argument (vilayet of Beirut and Sanjak of Jerusalem) was made, but that McMahon meant to exclude Palestine from the get go, not that this was the first time the argument that Palestine was excluded was made.

Have you read this book beyond fishing for cherry-picked sentences? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What you just wrote is exactly the same as what I wrote in my post above. There is a difference between the "intention" debate and the "correct interpretation" debate. As Selfstudier points out below, Kedouri's view on what McMahon intended is inherantly unprovable and highly controversial. It is also of limited consequence. The "correct interpretation" debate is where the vast majority of ink has been spilled, and it is an objective fact (that Kedouri explains) that the British changed their position on this. This article is currently drafted to avoid the subjective (primarily because there is not enough space) and focus on the objective. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to understand where you are coming from, but it seems to have got lost in the mists of all the attempted wikilawyering. For the sake of cutting through all of this, do you - from a purely factual / real world position - dispute the statement that the British interpretation of Palestine's inclusion changed between 1918-22? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The only one wikilawyering here is you. SYNTH is very clear. You can't take pieces from one or more sources and draw a conclusion out if them if no source does so explicitly. Here the conclusion is that these two documents illustrate a change in the British Government's position. You also added a ref from Kedourie that doesn't even support the caption, and certainly doesn't mention either document. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The quote above from the Kedouri page referenced in the article is contrasting the British use of the word 'always' - a clear allusion to the 1922 White Paper usage which he describes a few pages earlier - against earlier British documents such as the 1918 paper which he also described a few pages earlier. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at this now, Kedourie kind of follows Friedman, both of those works have been attacked (fairly harshly) by Charles D Smith (par for the course, haha) so if we are going to start peddling the first two then I think we need to peddle him as well, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. For the avoidance of doubt, they all take the same view on the evolution of British positions on the matter, the difference in view is whether the resulting mess was down to incompetance or deceit. I haven't proposed to wade into that quagmire, as I consider it likely to be unprovable. The only thing we know for certain is that the interpretation changed. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Going by your table of British positions, changes with Young I think, rather than between (is that what Kedourie says? I will have to dig the thing up) then Churchill shows up and does his Cairo magic tricks to make everyone happy (for a while). Then after he's gone position begins to revert to same as before Churchill...hmm.:)Selfstudier (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I got page 246 of Google books (https://books.google.es/books?id=e8uHaYN_gk0C&q=page+246#v=onepage&q&f=false) you are saying, if I read it right, Young + Kedourie argument about "West of Damascus" = Churchill 1922 statement (although this strikes me as kind of arguing backwards from the White Paper to get to the desired). It's not precisely SYNTH (close to it tho); I have a different argument to make, that we anyway should not give so much prominence to this since we still finally end up in the same was it/wasn't it promised space that we were in anyway. I much prefer the way that your table approaches this question ie as a series of British interpretations of their own policies (the Young one does kind of stick out there), could we not produce something similar (including this business), better even, along the same lines? (btw there is a cite error of some description in that table).Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying your first couple of sentences? I can't fully understand it.

As to what we do on the topic in this article, it must be in summary form. Personally I think a paragraph and an image is enough, so long as the drafting and illustration captures the required nuancing.

PS - could you confirm where the cite error is so it can be fixed? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The error is note 54 invalid ref tag, lots of red, lol, I din't look to see what it was, too busy with kedourie, haha.Selfstudier (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks - I will fix. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I not being clear again? I am trying to match up the pic with the text of kedourie on pp246 and 7 so what i see is the reference to Young, then an argument from kedourie about "West of Damascus" which happens to be the way that Churchill also descibes it later on. Have i got it wrong?Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, I see, you are not worrying about Kedourie argument (so do we need the Kedourie ref?), now you are just showing the pics as evidence of the change in interpretation, silly me.... Yep, that's fine with me (except for the thing about it being internal)Selfstudier (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly it. Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly SYNTH. And you have been unable to show any source uses these two documents in this way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Selfstudier is right. The "conclusion" is the change in interpretation. We are allowed to post pictures evidencing a conclusion which is explicitly stated in a source. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I edited it so as to quote the primary sources and refer to the sources as background information, all in a footnote. I don't know the date that the fo doc became poublicly available. If you don't like it, tell me and I will revert it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not I think it was probably OK in the original (and there is no bad faith/intention to mislead), just a question is the new way any better?Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Found the date it was 17 April 1974 (excerpts including the key phrase) according to the UN DPR https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This a bit irritating, Kedourie says there were two articles both in 1964..duh. I also found this which is kinda interesting https://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/mec/MEChandlists/GB165-0025-Norman-Bentwich-Collection.pdf (page 4)Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the new version. First of all it looks weird, but more importantly, the note includes all sorts of editorializing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I undid it (altho as I have said before I prefer direct quotes from primaries, I can also live with the way it is). I will leave you to sort out the date problem.Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I finally figured out (I'm a bit slow) that one Times leak of 1964 (not 74) Light on Britain's Palestine Promise is Curzon (how it gets in bentwich's box I have no idea:) and the other leak that Kedourie mentions is that key sentence from the FO memo. For interest, also tried to traceback on the 22 changed interpretation and what Churchill was claiming, seems to have originated in some FO meetings with Faisal in arly 1921 where he apparently said something like he was "prepared to accept the statement that it had been the intention of HMG to exclude Palestine" (this was of course around the same time as they were setting him up in Iraq lol). World is full of good intentions, haha.Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the source for the FO meetings with Faisal in 1921? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Kedouri wrote about it (I don't have the page number to hand). It was a claim that Churchill made to Parliament, in the same statement where he lied about the Government's previous interpretations. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

break

"...the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem, since in fact this argument was no older than Young's memorandum of November 1920"

Kedouri

So, would it be possible to see some quotes from the sources used to substantiate the caption of those images? This is only the third time I've asked. Looking at Kedourie, he's not saying that "the British Government" changed its interpretation. Or at least not in the way Oncenawhile is trying to promote here. He's saying that the colonial office memorandum presented a new argument against the advice of the FO (and against McMahon's interpretation). Who is the "British Government" in this case? I'm going to tag that with a failed verification tag since it's pretty obvious. For the other two, rather than quotes there's some general hand waving towards chunks of 5+ pages. I've read those and can't see how they support the caption. So I will wait a little longer for some exact quotes that explicitly say what the caption says, and if those don't materialize in the next few days, I'll tag those as well. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have readded the Kedouri quote on the right to aide this discussion. When he says "this argument", he is referring to the argument that the "vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem" were covered by the exclusion - ie that Palestine was excluded. If you interpret those words differently, please explain.

As to a solution, it seems we have now read all the same material. There was a change, which all the scholars discuss. You have stated that you don't like the semantics of the current caption, but both Selfstudier and I believe it is a reasonable - if not perfect - description. So you don't have consensus for such tags. Selfstudier then proposed new language, which you also said you didn't like. The best way to move forward is if you would be bold enough to propose your own form of words.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Districts" according to the McMahon letter and their administrative category in the Ottoman Empire

He is indeed referring to the vilayet and sanjak, as I mentioned in the discussion above. He is saying that this specific argument - that McMahon meant these specific Ottoman administrative divisions - was new. He then goes on to say the McMahon meant to exclude Palestine, which means the interpretation of the letters did not change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added a map here to help resolve this confusion. It seems you are mixing up the famous argument over the "vilayet of damascus" (shown in this map) with what Kedouri is saying about the Vilayet of Beirut and Sanjak of Jerusalem, which in this context are effectively a synonym for Palestine. If you read the Kedouri quote again with this in mind, you will see it clearly. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Just read a couple more sentences after your quote.

Are you going to provide quotes from the other two sources you included? I have now read both and can't see how they support the sentence you're using them to support. I'll have to tag them or remove the sentence that fails verification, soon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to remove the sentence, which Selfstudier and I have both explicitly stated we consider to be reasonable. If you would like to gain consensus within this discussion, in the absence of additional editors joining the thread, I suggest you provide a proposal for alternative language, and (ideally) provide a stronger counterargument to my point above ("no" is not an argument). Oncenawhile (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to remove material that is not properly sourced. So kindly provide the quotes you think support your argument rather than a general hand wave towards 5+ pages in a book. Re-read my argument about Kedourie. You have not addressed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course you need consensus for that judgement.

I am not going to keep answering your questions and requests until I see something more than "no" in responses from you.

I don't understand your argument so I cannot respond to it. You have not provided enough detail.

I find it hard to believe we will resolve this between us unless you propose some alternative language. You don't like the current version, you don't like SelfStudier's version, so tell us what wording you think best reflects the scholarly description of reconciling the 1916-18 government documents to the 1922 white paper. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my objection in quite a bit of detail multiple times above. I will take your statement to mean you can't supply quotes that explicitly support the caption, which is no surprise since reading the refs I don't see how they support it. I will now tag them as failing verification. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no disagreement about it changing amongst scholars, we are only really looking at the mechanics of that change, not whether it occurred or not. Note we are not talking about intentions here only what the documents actually appear to say in all the circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This one http://www.balfourproject.org/the-mcmahon-hussein-correspondence-revisited/ in 1921, Feisal, at a Foreign Office meeting, was informed that Palestine was excluded because it lay “west of the Province of Damascus”. Feisal clearly explained the linguistic fallacy of the Foreign Office’s position, but to no avail.

https://books.google.es/books?id=xCLBAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA612&lpg=PA612&dq=1921+London++Faisal+Churchill+Foreign+Office&source=bl&ots=x_DD61GWLa&sig=eDWHr-T_poKi9ja2qqjjiXqmkb4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO4JSl94bUAhWMKJoKHX6GCQEQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q&f=false

talks about a meeting on 20 january (p323) Lindsay, Young and Cornwallis with Faisal, Haddad and Haidar This says that this meeting wrongly led to Churchill claim in parliament that Palestine was excluded and that the minutes (which I have no idea how to get) show that faisal “only accepted that this could be the British governments interpretation of the exchanges as they related to palestine, without necessarily agreeing with them”

Empires of the Sand https://books.google.es/books?id=TrY_nb-E3v8C&pg=PA393&lpg=PA393&dq=ibid+fols+366-367&source=bl&ots=UF44F4Mr0D&sig=QH18VIcv1-dNMGPqs4Avu48hJnM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz_67Mj4nUAhXCtBQKHbpQDIgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=ibid%20fols%20366-367&f=false

in the notes for pages 305-12 mentions a few meetings there including the above one and others on Jan 13 and December 23 but I can’t view those pages lol

Its in kedourie https://books.google.es/books?id=SNRQAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT382&lpg=PT382&dq=prepared+to+accept+the+statement+that+it+had+been+the+intention+of+HMG+to+exclude+Palestine&source=bl&ots=H1ADP70uEJ&sig=9D5uQMziJQxv_y6j2P6xyvZIXMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLkpqhkYnUAhUSU1AKHXCiBLIQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=prepared%20to%20accept%20the%20statement%20that%20it%20had%20been%20the%20intention%20of%20HMG%20to%20exclude%20Palestine&f=false

I can’t see a page number but it mentions the meeting and that expression i used “expressed himself as prepared to accept the statement...”

I can’t prove it with materials available to me , seems tho, coming so soon after Young memo/Churchill to CO etc this must be where this comes from (I see a lot of books (very proisrael sort) claiming that he had agreed to abandon all claims, doesn’t look like it tho.)Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The "always" is clearly not true, bit of a red herring tho, other matters are more important.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We can easily show a change if we also show the Young memo as well, then it's obvious where it comes from (it's more obvious on the actual McMahon pages itself for that reason).Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's Hansard, Churchill using the phrase and referring to the FO January meeting of 20 january so that would seem to settle where it came from initially.http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1922/jul/11/pledges-to-arabsSelfstudier (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. So history shows that Churchill lied multiple times on this topic... FYI the 20 January meeting is also described in Tibawi's "Anglo-Arab relations and the question of Palestine, 1914-1921". Unfortunately I don't have a copy, and only snippets are available online. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not go so far as to say he outright lied except for the "always" which I guess you could be kind and call hyperbole. What he did was quite devious tho, he got a hook from Young to hang a dodgy argument on (1923 and 1939 confirmed dodgy) and then got Faisal to say that he accepted a statement which Churchill then went on to use every time. Notice that McMahon also says "intention". They have to say it like that cos the documents don't actually support this supposed intention (so then Churchill does his geography trick to back it up, noone accepts it however).

What IS true and incontestably so is that the position of the UK government did change as you have described and that the public at large had no idea what was happening cos all the documentation was being kept hidden (we know this now). Only thing I don't get is why Childs gets into this in 1930 (again doesn't really matter cos 1939 overrules it) so I am going to have a look at that next just for interest.Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

IDEA- Looking at all this, couldn't we just put all the nitty gritty details on the McMahon page and then all we really need on here is a summary position (which I think we actually have even if not written out) together with a link out to the McMahon page to prove what is said in the summary. We are kind of doing the same work twice at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Selfstudier. Have you ever edited with another account? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Selfstudier, I agree with your proposal. This page should only have a summary, with the full detail on the McMahon page. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Further proposal for language

I propose the following amended language for the image caption:

The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered Palestine to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're sourcing that do Kadourie, it's a misrepresentation of the source, obviously. As usual, you should read a few sentences past the cherry picked lines. The "always" refers to the Ottoman administrate districts, as mentioned above. In fact, he says McMahon always intended to exclude Palestine, which makes your above discussed caption an NPOV violation, on top of everything else. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I also have no difficulty with that language for the caption, it is self evident from the documents. If we do move it over to Mcmahon, all this problem will go away anyway because when we look at it there, the whole position is very clear. (and I have never edited Wikipedia with another account, why would anyone ask that?)Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that's self evident from the documents is that different people within the British government told different interlocutors different things. They say nothing about "interpretation" and the fact Once is having difficulty supplying sources that explicitly support the caption is proof of that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not responding to your earlier questions and requests because they are irrelevant. This is an argument over semantics, so we need to get the wording to be tighter. That is all. Oncenawhile (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. As long as you don't provide the sourcing, the caption will remain tagged. After a while of being tagged, it will be removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Amended proposal following feedback:

The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain

Oncenawhile (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, you have gone too far the other way now...Churchill (or lawyers, more likely) being devious again, if you look what he said to the House three months before the White paper he is hanging his hat on the FO/Young position. Then the White paper says that the letter says "west of the District of Damascus" is reserved and that the governement has always regarded THAT expression as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independant Sanjak of Jerusalem (and the only way that makes any sense is if you take District to mean vilayet). Regardless, 'always' is just not correct, regardless of the interpretation you try to put on the expression in the document (which you can just as well argue about seperately). Why? Because the first document says "Palestine" (no interpretations needed because we can assume everyone on the British side knew what they meant by the word Palestine).

Let's not get hung up on the word "false" I suggest something like the following:

--The 1922 White Paper says that the government has always interpreted the pledge as meaning that Palestine has been excluded whereas the FO document contradicts this position--

(I would still like to know when it was that the FO document became public knowledge).Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I object both to Once's new caption and to Self's. Mainly because any attempt to say the British changed their mind or interpretation or whatever, clashes directly with our high quality source Kedourie who says it was their intention from the start to exclude Palestine. The most that can be said in the encyclopedia's neutral voice is that they said different things to different people. Otherwise we need to represent all POVs. This is basic stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You have not disputed what I said below about primary source use, are you going to disagree with that? Unless you do so and with good reasons, I am going to edit away the references and sub in a primary source synthesis (since you have also refused to accept primary source quotes).Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you think it clashes with Kedouri. Let's analyse this:

Step 1: Exact Kedouri quote:

• "the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem"

Step 2: Add contextual explanation for Kedouri's reference to the quoted word "always"

• "The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the sanjaq of Jerusalem"

Step 3: Replace "McMahon's reservation" with "excluded from the pledge to Hussain"

• "The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained the untruth that the government had 'always' regarded McMahon's reservation as covering the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain"

• Step 4: Minor stylistic amendments:

• "The British Government's 1922 White Paper contained a false statement that the Government had "always" considered the Vilayet of Beirut and the Sanjak of Jerusalem to have been excluded from the pledge to Hussain"

QED, the latest proposal follows Kedouri perfectly.

I still have a preference for the wording currently in the article, which SelfStudier and I are both happy with and consider appropriately verified, so it doesn't look like there is consensus for change to this Kedouri version. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the two documents, though? Anyway, to comply with V and NPOV, you should add the rest of Kadourie's argument, which is that a. the FO recommended against using these lines and b. McMahon always intended to exclude Palestine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

ALERT! There has been a major pivot. ALERT!

DON'T PANIC! DON'T PANIC!

ALERT! ALERT!

Very smooth though.

The answer to your first challenge is [1] and the reason we can't add your point b. is at [2].

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I see you added the text. I will remove it tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. Not only did you not apply all the relevant parts of Kedourie's argument (an NPOV violation), Kedourie is not talking about the 1922 White Paper (a V violation). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes Kedouri is talking about the White Paper. The first few pages of his chapter 9 are describing the contents of the White Paper. On page 245 (the page immediately prior to the one with the quote we are discussing on p.246) he explains that the "always" quote was in a "colonial office memorandum dated 3 June". This is the document published in the White Paper (see page 17, which shows the date 3 June). This is then stated explicitly in footnote 1 on page 247 which refers to "Cmd 1700" (being the White Paper).

Also your supposed requirement to "apply all the relevant parts of Kedourie's argument" is nonsense. The Kedouri quote which supports the text is not an "argument". It is an objective fact. And it is not altered in any way by providing Kedouri's point of view on other unrelated matters. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: you had four days to respond here, yet chose not to and instead unilaterally removed the caption with a nonsense claim of not NPOV. Please explain your claim that Kedouri's position here represents a particular POV. For your claim to hold water, there must be an opposing POV to his view that the British statement was false. Please provide a source for this counter-view. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I told you I'm going to remove that a few days ago. That it took me four days is irrelevant. You seem to have all day every day to edit here, but fortunately I have a family and friends and work that preclude me from doing the same. Sometimes it might take me a while to do something. There is no DEADLINE.

I think you are misunderstanding what NPOV means in this context. There doesn't need to be "an opposing POV to his view that the British statement was false". It's the fact, which I mentioned above, where he clarifies that he specifically means the Ottoman administrative areas, and not Palestine which was excluded. The way you worded the caption was misleading. Not to mention it had nothing to do with 2 of the 3 documents there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I set out exactly how the caption connects directly to the source in 4 steps above (see my edit at 15:39, 26 May 2017). You chose not to comment on that, responding instead with vague and unspecific statements. Unless you can explain exactly what you are referring to, I will assume that your accusation that the "caption was misleading" is nonsense and should be ignored.

As to your last claim, this has already been answered at [3], which you again chose to ignore despite me having brought it to your attention more than once. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

To tidy up this section and fix the continuity I moved the discussion about the alleged synth down the page. Nice, we have 2 editors in Agreement with where it stands now (Once version) and 3 editors in support of the other version (Selfstudier version) and you in disagreement with both (not having provided any version of your own). I suggest that you choose one or other in order that we can move on.(I see that you now have started to make potentially contentious edits (eg was it a treaty) on the McMahon page so it would in any event be just as well to leave off McMahon here and we will rehash the arguments, if need be, over there).Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Present Position re Alleged SYNTH

I have added the following footer to the pic-

"The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded."

This is in line with WP policy in regard to quality primary sources-

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.

Selfstudier (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is an additional primary source http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-24-72-GT-6506-2.pdf discussing the Ottoman settlement overall, wherein, apart from referring to the GT 6508 we already have in the pic, it again states, on page 8 "6. Palestine (west of Jordan) (a) We are pledged to King Husein that this territory shall be ”Arab“ and ”independant." (b)...“ Selfstudier (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a secondary source http://blog.afletcher.net/articles/McMahonHusseinCorrespondence.pdf (can be read online for free at JStor) whose value lies in the direct response to Friedman by Toynbee (who actually prepared the primary source above)and Friedman reply to him in return. This puts all of the declassified documents (all in 1964 as far as I can see) into play, ie GT6506, GT6508 (via the first) and Curzon memo (the Times in 1964).Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting read. Worth referring to Ottoman_Syria#Contemporary_maps.2C_showing_Vilayets_.28post-Tanzimat_reforms.29 to put into context. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The interpretations of the document and the meeting with Faisal, allowed the government to say that they never "intended" .. so the secondary sources are all trying to prove or disprove an intention. What we do have is government primary sources (the one in the pic and 2 others cabinet docs plus the white paper) in contradiction on their face, no interpretation required.Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Now, about the secondaries...the way to finish off the section that includes the pic is to have some content there by the pic clearly stating that there are sources that support the position in the foreign office document and that there are sources that support the position in the white paper and that a full discussion of them may be found in the McMahon article.Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed to juxtapose these documents like this without a source doing it first. I'm removing the caption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is now completely clear that you have no interest in developing any kind of consensus on this issue, it will have to be conflict resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. The fact you guys are unable to find reliable sources making the argument you're trying to make here should tell you something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

You repeat your incorrect allegation of synth where there is none, no argument was made in the pic it was simply a short simple statement of the content of 2 documents per WP policy as detailed above, this after you refused even to consider direct quotes. You have also now refused a proposed solution with primaries and secondaries.

Your position seems simply to be to revert without consensus and to snipe from the sidelines without contributing anything useful to the effort yourself. This pic and its commentary was there before I even came to this page as an active editor, it is not even about the Balfour Declaration but about the subject matter of a completely different page so you are as well making a mountain out of a molehill because any serious arguments should be dealt with there not here. Having said this I see that Once has added text to the pic which although not entirely to my liking I can live with so can we now move on with fixing up this article? If you revert again without consensus and without good reason I will take it to dispute resolution.Selfstudier (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No we shouldn't cherry pick primary sources without support of secondary WP:RS.That is exactly WP:SYNTH Shrike (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is a source saying one thing and a source saying something else, it is perfectly ok to present both and note the difference. Actually it is required by WP:BALANCE to do that. The caption "The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." is not SYNTH violation but just a presentation of two disagreeing sources. However the SYNTH boundary is pretty close and we would step over the line if we added our own conclusion from the disagreement. It comes down to a careful choice of wording. Zero^talk 04:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly ok to note differences between sources when they are secondary. Noting differences between primary sources is OR, namely SYNTH. It's really very simple. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Consult Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not Note this one in particular "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be."Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

NMMNG: Please don't make up rules. There is no primary/secondary distinction made at WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 23:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm fairly sure you understood I was talking about this specific case. Don't be a DICK.

You misquoted the rules and I called you on it. And keep your DICKS to yourself. Zero^talk 08:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting anything so couldn't "misquote" anything. I call DICKS as I see them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Noting the difference between two primary sources is OR par excellence, namely: "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Please explain how that isn't happening in this case. Is the conclusion stated by the sources? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh phooey. If I show a blue circle and a red circle, is it SYNTH to add a caption "the left circle is blue but the right circle is red"? This is the strength of your case. No, it's worse than that since the disagreement over whether the circle is blue or red is sourced in the text. (Incidentally, I have stated which caption I don't consider to be SYNTH and won't comment on any other captions without consideration of them.) Zero^talk 08:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If sources disagree whether the left circle was meant to be blue or not, of course it's SYNTH since you're trying to lead the reader to a certain conclusion. In fact, it's worse than that since Oncenawhile explicitly said he's ignoring the disagreement among academics and just focusing on these primary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem that no secondary source compare between White Paper and the Cabinet document.If any secondary source base their interpretation on of the primary documents then we should attribute each source and I don't think we should use any caption but rather attribute each view in the body of the article. Shrike (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually the journal article of Toynbee (who was the author of the Cabinet) document directly compares it with the contrary opinions made after 1920. Zero^talk 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Which article specifically are you talking about, and does it explicitly compare these two documents? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Another problem that McMahon discussion should be only with connection with Balfour declaration if the sources doesn't mention it in context of the topic of the article we shouldn't do it too. Shrike (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't seem to be English. You might like to rewrite it. Zero^talk 12:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You understood him perfectly. Don't be a DICK. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The essence of the SYNTH allegation is that an argument is being made (cherry picking implies the same thing); no argument is being made at all (that is why I first suggested direct quotes as appropriate). So then one may reasonably enquire why these two documents in particular? Well, they represent the source for the subsequent arguments that began in earnest once the White Paper became public even though at that point in time all of the documents even the correspondence itself was held secret. The correspondence was published in 1938 and there was an enquiry in 1939 and still documents were being kept secret; these, including the CAB, were declassified in 1964 (all this is now well known). So any of the declassified CABS (or the declassified Curzon minute) could serve as the first official reason for the subsequent argument Palestine was included (they actually say that) while the White Paper is the first official communication to conclude the opposite. As to the arguments themselves, they can be made in the McMahon article, this matter is only of relevance to the Balfour Declaration in the sense that Britain may or may not have made contradictory undertakings during this time period to various parties, including to the Jews and to the Arabs.Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This is spot on, and very well explained. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well explained, all that's missing is a reliable source making the same argument. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

You would do well to learn the difference between A + B -> C and A + notA -> nothing at allSelfstudier (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:What_SYNTH_is_not appears to be appropriate here once again, in particular "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception."

It was already explained to you why its synth "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" so the burden of proof on those who want to include.-- Shrike (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I am struggling to follow this conversation as there are multiple versions of the caption wording under discussion.

Shrike, can you please explain which wording you are objecting to and exactly what "conclusion not stated by the sources" you have identified? Otherwise it is impossible for anyone to respond to your challenge. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the usage and interpretation of primary source with no secondary source making the assertions. Shrike (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Which assertions? You must be specific. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Again any statement should be followed by secondary source.Primary source could be supplied too but secondary source is must. Shrike (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is that WP policy or your own policy? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of primary sources per WP policy as already quoted by me above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Primary_sources_should_be_used_carefully)Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the policy you must be referring to is this one "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If that is indeed the policy you are seeking to rely on, please explain where the "interpretation" is. (This is just another way of asking for justification of the alleged synth)Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Please answer Once's question. Explicitly which assertions are you referring to? Zero^talk 08:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I must give SelfStudier the credit for asking this question first. SelfStudier was the first to notice that this question had been consistently danced around throughout the 10 days of this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I must insist that we follow WP guidelines, the burden of proof (that something has been synthesized) initially rests with the person alleging the SYNTH. So as regards "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" I would like to know which "conclusion" is being allegedly reached by the following statement ""The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." SYNTH is part of no OR policy, where is the OR here?Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity in case there is some confusion about it, this section is in reference to the allegation of synth and reverting of this footer on the basis of that allegation "The Cabinet document states that Palestine is included in the McMahon pledge whereas the White Paper concludes that it is excluded." The existing footer is subject of a different discussion up aboveSelfstudier (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been no reply and I have restored the previous footer that was improperly removed by Nice. I am also adding relevant background sources that discuss the positions outlined in the images eg Posner (a pro Israeli source) specifically refers to the apparent contradiction between FO position of 1919 and the White Paper. This situation is also discussed in Kattan and the Toynbee materials, I will add these a little later on.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Re Declaration included in mandate

NMMNG, you have just introduced needless repetition into the lead, it already says that the Declaration was incorporated into the Mandate just above your newly introduced repetition of same. Kindly remove/amend one or other.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't notice it. I suggest we re-organize the lead chronologically. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

We could do that, I don't think you would much approve of the result tho since you would end up with a kind of back and forth Arab/Declaration thing rather than a concentration right up front on the key subject matter ie the Declaration itself (and its subsequent incorporation into a Mandate).Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you know what I would or wouldn't like. I also don't understand what you're trying to say I wouldn't like? I said "re-organize", not change any wording. Move the Sevres and Mandate stuff to the end of the lead and voila. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You said "reorganize the lead chronologically" and that is what I replied to. I see no good reason to move just the material on Sevres and the Mandate from where it is now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Any particular reason, or just your regular reflexive objection to anything I do? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Readability and continuity seem sufficient. I understood "reorganize the lead chronologically", I don't understand what you wish to achieve by moving the sentence (assuming that is your intent):

"The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire, and the Mandate for Palestine."

to the end of the lead. IMO, it simply serves to break up the text that relates to the DeclarationSelfstudier (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice Guy edit to Prior British commitments over Palestine

There have been added POV (secondary sourced) edits to the section. This is not helpful for the discussion of the Balfour Declaration, if we wish to add POV's re McMahon Corresppondence (and I could add 20 of them if needs be) then I think that ought to be done on the McMahon page, rather than trying to duplicate the entirety of the McMahon page here in the Balfour page. So I would ask the author to self revert these and perhaps add something along the lines of "See McMahon page for a discussion of many POVs as to whether Palestine was or was not included and as to whether McMahon intended or did not intend to include and whether a district is a vilayet and sundry other....blah" Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The full discussion should be at the correspondence page, but this page must be NPOV as well. You can't just show one POV and put it in the encyclopedia's neutral voice. I'm open to other wording, but I'm not going to self revert to an obvious NPOV violation. As usual, you can remove both POVs if you want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not right, before your edits, the article read "in....out....no position" ie neutral. Now you have made it read "in...out...no position...out" which is no longer neutral. So I would ask you once more to self revert. If you do not I will revert your edits and require that you obtain consensus (or I might add an ...in to rebalance, we'll see).Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. the British Government's interpretation of the what had been "intended" and the resulting nature of the contradictions evolved over the subsequent years is not a balanced representation of all major POVs. If you remove my balancing edits I will either remove the whole paragraph or tag the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with NNMG thier edit brought WP:NPOV balance to this section Shrike (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with NNMNG's edits here. He's misunderstood the dispute between scholars here and has written a nonsensical he-said-she-said version. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus and anyway this discussion is for McMahon page not for here so I have removed all the alleged non NPOV material as stated above. I will later add some clause along the lines of this in any case only being of relevance to Balfour in the sense of whether or not conflicting promises had been made.Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct. These changes have no consensus and need discussion here first. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment on NMMNG proposal

NMMNG's version is below (as now removed [4]):

According to Huneidi, the British Government's interpretation of the what had been "intended" and the resulting nature of the contradictions evolved over the subsequent years... According to Kedourie, McMahon had intended to exclude Palestine from the beginning.{{sfn|Kedourie|1976|p=247}} Biger states that Palestine was not included in the area discussed between McMahon and Hussein, and that "the British government constantly claimed that Palestine was never promised to Hussein".{{sfn|Biger|2004|p=48}}

The issues that I see are as follows:

1. Question of how did the Government interpret McMahon's letters: The fact that the Government's interpretation of McMahon's letters evolved does not need in line attribution. It is described by many scholars, plain to see in primary sources, and there is no dispute.
2. Question of what did McMahon intend: This should be attributed to McMahon's own statements, not Kedouri. We can then explain that some scholars (like Kedouri) take this at face value, whereas others note McMahon's motives for not being entirely straightforward
3. Question of whether it was actually included (irrespective of interpretations): Hundreds of scholars and involved parties have interpreted this. There is no justification for choosing only Biger's view to highlight here.
4. Question of whether the British government's claims on the matter changed: Biger's "constantly claimed" has no time period attached to it, so it could mean anything. It definitely doesn't apply to 1916-1920, and it definitely doesn't apply to 1939 onwards. It's utterly misleading to suggest that the British government's position did not change on this. We have all read the primary sources, so why try to be cute?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The main problem here is your consistent attempt to interpret anything anyone working for the British government in any capacity said about this issue as if it was the official position of the government, and basing that mainly on primary sources.

1. The idea the interpretation "evolved" needs in line attribution because not all sources say that. Some sources say the British government excluded or meant to exclude Palestine from the get-go.
2. We use secondary sources here for a reason. We should use what scholars say about what McMahon said, not try to interpret his words ourselves.
3. Indeed. That's why I used 3 different scholars with 3 different opinions.
4. Biger discusses this elsewhere in his book as well and it is clear that he says they excluded from the start. You are again failing to understand that your reading of the primary sources is worthless here. Using secondary sources is not "being cute". It's the preferred method of writing an encyclopedia.

In summary, none of the reasons given above justify excluding very qualified secondary sources, and anyway we can't use the encyclopedia's neutral voice to say stuff some scholars disagree with. Which is why I attributed the stuff inline. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Your two sentences are not congruent. Your first sentence refers to the government's interpretation, whereas your "some sources" refer to McMahon himself.
2. Sure but we don't need inline attribution to note what McMahon said. The face value vs skepticism point is the key scholarly debate here.
3. No, your 3 different scholars with 3 different opinions relate to three different questions. What you wrote was a confused mess.
4. This cannot be true as such a conclusion would be obviously nonsense. Kedouri is the most detailed source on this whole matter and the evolution is crystal clear.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

1. That's ridiculous. If McMahon intended to exclude Palestine from the start, then "the government" intended to exclude it from the start, as he was acting as an agent of the government when he wrote those letters.
2. I did not inline what McMahon said. I inlined Huneidi's conclusions, which someone put in the encyclopedia's neutral voice despite most likely knowing other POVs exist.
3. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty understanding the scholarly debate here. I will try to help. Some scholars think "the British government" (embodied in this case in McMahon) included Palestine in the Arab state from the start. Some think they intended to exclude it but were unclear in the wording. Some think they excluded it from the start. I used the source already there for the first opinion and added sources for the second and third. I hope everything is clearer to you now. Don't hesitate to ask if you need more help.
4. Read Biger pages 47-49. They have the helpful header "Negotiations between Britain and the Arabs: the Hussein–McMahon correspondence". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1. and 3. I finally understand where you have been coming from these past few weeks. You are including scholars' assessments of what McMahon's original 1915 interpretation might have been, in the "British interpretations". This is incredibly confusing and incredibly misleading. More importantly, it is your WP:OR as it is not how scholars approach the question.

2. There are no other POVs to the statement that "the British Government's interpretation of the what had been "intended" and the resulting nature of the contradictions evolved over the subsequent years". This is as plain as day. Perhaps you misunderstand what the word "evolve" means?

4. I have just read this. Sadly for your credibility, you will see that just three sentences before your "constantly claimed" quote (in the same paragraph), Biger's is time bound as he is clearly referring to "the discussion... during the years in which the British Government ruled Palestine" - i.e. from 1920 onwards (OETA was an Anglo-French joint venture). This is a nonsensical discussion anyway - McMahon sent a memo to the foreign office in 1916 which said Palestine was excluded, Curzon presented to the Cabinet in 1918 saying the same thing even more explicitly, and a Cabinet memo on the subject going in to the critical Paris Peace Conference said the same thing again. What you (and Biger) mean is "publically claimed". Oncenawhile (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1 & 3 - We create articles based on what secondary sources say. I see you are trying to avoid that in this case and use mainly primary sources, but that's not going to fly. What the experts say can and will be included in the article. If you find their words "confusing" as you say above, just let me know and I'll do my best to help you out.

2 - Perhaps you misunderstand what the word "intended" means.

4 - Did you really just read this and miss the explicit "Britain was considerate of the French demand to control the Christian region in Lebanon, and of its ally’s aspirations regarding Palestine, which is why the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea was excluded from the area that was promised to the Arabs"? It's right at the top of the page. Biger is not limiting this to the Mandate period as you mistakenly claim above. I hope this is not another case of you saying you've read a source you don't actually have access to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1&3 - it seems you ignored my point and made up an unrelated deflecting statement. You are trying to push a position here, so you need a source to back it up. I have called you out, so either step up to the plate or stop beating the dead horse. [I apologize for the poorly mixed metaphors]

2 - what are you trying to say. The 1916-19 memos were explicit that Palestine was included in the Arab area; they didn't comment on whether there might have been a different intention. Are you trying to be cute here too?

4 - this is clearly nonsense.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

1&3 - So we're back to square one, as usual. I provided you sources for this in the discussions above.

2 - Going by secondary sources is not "being cute", it's how we build this encyclopedia. You should know this by now. Your interpretation of primary sources does not interest me.

4 - What is "clearly nonsense"? I provided you a verbatim quote form a qualified secondary source. Please explain why you think we shouldn't use it. I will not ask you to explain how you missed it if you actually read the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies to Once if I jumped the gun on deletion, I did it because the "NPOV" (!) additions rather diminished the overall article quality. I have recorded the deleted materials over on the McMahon page if anyone wants to add things from it back in over on that page. In my view, the overall "feel" of the Balfour page is not materially altered by the deletion so I would suggest just letting it go here and arguing it over there instead.Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of good order, I will record here that what Biger actually says on page 48, the reference page given by NMMNG:

Palestine was never even mentioned in the letters exchange, but the discussion over its inclusion in the area promised by the British to the Arabs had become a central question in the relationship between the two sides during the years in which the British government ruled Palestine. The discussion over this historical-political question has yet to end. The expression ‘west of the districts of Aleppo, Hamma, Homs and Damascus’ was too general and it created a multitude of possible meanings about its territorial inclusions and about the promises about Palestine. The British government constantly claimed that Palestine was never promised to Hussein, and that the geographic description regarded the vilayets (provinces) of Aleppo, Hamma, Homs and mainly Damascus. Prior to the war, the Damascus (A-Sham) vilayet extended all the way to the Gulf of Aqaba. Palestine is situated to the west of this area, and therefore was not a part of the area that was promised to the Arabs in the letters. Britain also claimed that it could set aside only ‘areas in which it had freedom to do as it wished to with’, and Palestine was not an area of that kind because of the French demands. An expression of the geographic settlement situation that existed while these early discussions took place is the fact that they lack mention of any important town west of the Jordan river, because at that time there was no important town south of Damascus. The Arabs claimed later – and the Arabs and other historians continue arguing to this day – that the vilayet (province) of Damascus didn’t exist at all. Instead, there was a district (sanjak) under this name, and it only surrounded the city of Damascus. The vilayet was called ‘Syria A-Sham’ and this name was not mentioned in the letters exchange. Therefore, according to this explanation, Palestine was part of the area that was promised to the Arabs. The discussion over this historical-political-geographic question has not ended yet, but the influence of the unofficial understanding between Britain and the Arabs is already apparent in the Sykes–Picot agreement, which was signed later.

I trust that the above makes it clear that the edits made by NMMNG not only misrepresent the source, they are evidence of bad faith. Certainly editors need to be aware when considering edits by this individual that they are in all likelihood POV (at a minimum).Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please explain explicitly what you think is a misrepresentation of the source or I will report you for personal attacks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have made my position clear.Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You have made nothing clear. You have made several personal attacks and are refusing to substantiate you claims. I suggest you consult with an experienced editor you trust about your behavior here, before you find yourself blocked from editing. I also suggest you read one sentence before where you started quoting above, just to save some time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from Prior British commitments over Palestine

For ease of reference, I removed the below paragraph as it only (possibly) relates to the negotiations on Sykes-Picot and the material (in a slightly different form) already exists at the Sykes-Picot article:

Three months prior to the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sykes had been approached with a plan by Samuel in the form of a memorandum which Sykes claimed to have committed to memory.{refn|group=lower-alpha|In a 27 February 1916 letter, prior to his departure to Russia, Sykes wrote to Samuel: "I read the memorandum and have committed it to memory."{sfn|Kamel|2015|p=109}}}} Sykes wrote to Samuel about the boundaries marked on a map ^{Which map?} attached to the memorandum, noting that with the exclusion of Hebron and the "East of the Jordan" there would be less to discuss with the Muslim community.{refn|group=lower-alpha|Sanders quotes Sykes's letter as follows: "By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing centre of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd."{sfn|Sanders|1984|p=347}}}}

I don't have a problem with the removal of that particular paragraph, but I do think the background sections should be expanded to include the diplomacy that lead to the declaration (and focus less on "early Zionism", perhaps?). See for example this piece by Martin Kramer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been looking into that myself, although one would have thought it was all written by now, there is quite a lot of material showing up because of the centenary and even though much of it doesn't strictly qualify as RS, qualifying material can then be tracked down from it.(eg pro, celebratebalfour.org , balfour100 (org and com) anti, balfourproject.org)Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sykes

This fellow had his fingers in all 3 pies:) I am presently trying to piece together exactly what he did and when. It all seems to begin with De Bunsen Committee as mentioned in the article so I will add something over there first, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Motivation Section

I am not entirely happy with this section, I assume it is intended to cast light on the question of WHY the British decided on such a Declaration and why at that time in particular (it seems there is no scholarly agreement on the why/when).

It does now give some insight into those questions (is it intended to suggest that the progress of the war was a factor all by itself?); I am wondering whether we might not be able to rearrange the thing as a list of reasons (in order of time as far as possible) and then with respect to each reason sources backing up that interpretation or otherwise.

Reasons I have come across up to now include (maybe there are others too):

1) Different world views of Asquith and Lloyd George splitting the Governement views about the war.

2) DLG unhappiness with Sykes Picot

3) UK versus the French

4) The Zionists were masters of the art of persuasion and Weizmann was a wizard :)

5) PR, religious, guilt type things.

6) Luck, coincidence, confluence of events/The US relationship.

7) Mark Sykes did it (joke). Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, although it's not clear in my mind how we would do this. There are so many views out there.

Ultimately this was a Cabinet-approved letter, so the official reasons given in the Cabinet minutes are the primary ones to mention.

The second level reasons are those that encouraged DLG and Lord B to pull the strings to make this happen. Those will always be down to scholarly speculation. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, you are right; however, there are certain things which are of interest and can be pinned down as well, the communications with Wilson in the US in the months just before the Declaration, for example.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Lead

I think this edit is not correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declaration&diff=prev&oldid=785011258 The new text about "There is ongoing controversy" makes it seem like historians quibble over the interpretations of historical documents. That is perhaps correct, but it is also correct that Arab leaders at the time charged that the Balfour Declaration contradicted previous promises made. I think that the old text was better. ImTheIP (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that we could perhaps tweak the wording to read say something like "There is still even today" or similar so as not to give the impression that is only a recent thing, I think the prior was slightly overlong for the lead of this article which should be mainly about the Declaration-there is more down the page under Prior British Commitments and of course it is more fully addressed in the McMahon correspondence article, which is linked out.Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

How about "The Sharif of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, and other Arab leaders considered the declaration a violation of previous agreements made in the McMahon–Hussein correspondence. Palestine is not explicitly mentioned in the correspondence, and territories that were not purely Arab were excluded by McMahon and Hussein, although historically Palestine had long been included in historic Syria."? ImTheIP (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the "...and territories that were not purely Arab were excluded by McMahon and Hussein, although historically Palestine had long been included in historic Syria" because it reads like a poor attempt at summarizing some of the arguments and counterarguments. I don't think we should get into this in the lead, or even in the main body, of this article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit, copy pasting a sentence from the braoder arab response section, that do? (Does that sentence need a source, I don't think it's controversial, is it?)

Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement! In my opinion, Wikipedia articles should always begin with the what and the why. What is X and why is X worthy of a Wikipedia article? And we have a looong article about the BD precisely because of it's controversial status. ImTheIP (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy, wouldn't it be nicer of you to first discuss changes? ImTheIP (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

French position prior to the Balfour Declaration

I see that the account by Edy Kaufman has been added; I was planning to read it, but I haven't yet. The French position evolved over the years and perhaps could use a bit of elaboration. Somewhat simplified the story is as follows. At the time of WW1, the French had basically accepted sole British suzerainty in Palestine. Zionism was not much of a force in France, and the French aim was to not alienate the Arabs, while keeping good relations with the US and British diplomats where Zionism was more of a force. According to Picot, Sokolow negotiated with the French while making it clear that the Zionists considered that the British had sole suzerainty. Sokolow's aim was to get an assurance of sympathy from the French about the Zionist project. Clemenceau later confirmed to Lloyd George the position that Britain should have responsibility for Palestine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Bit too simplified that, "Brown zone" in Sykes Picot should clarify that the French certainly did NOT accept sole British suzerainty (not then at least); also the relationship between the French and the Vatican as to the Holy Places was an important factor in all the goings on (nor had the Vatican accepted the abandonment of their claims).

Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I oversimplified a bit. I will try to work a bit more on this as I get the time. See also my comment in the section above: It's not clear to me how important the negotiations with France and the Vatican were for the Balfour Declaration. I read a bit of the F. W. Brecher article; my feeling is that section as it stands might be too much detail. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)