Talk:Balfour Declaration/Archive 4

Allied Commitments new Section by E M Gregory

This edit has some problems:

1)Mosaic is a collaboratively created website so not RS (for an exception the content needs to be authored by and credited to credentialed members of the site's editorial staff, not the case here). If RS can be found containing these viewpoints we might try again, perhaps, although we will need multiple viewpoint sourcing to avoid the bias).

2) If I understand the nature of the "commitments" mentioned, whatever they were, they were supposedly obtained by Sokolow from the French and from the Pope. This has nothing to do with the British (who anyway dealt with the French issue in another manner much as the Vatican did with the French directly) and so Balfour Declaration is not affected by these. If sourcing can be found perhaps something could be included in the early Zionism section.

3) Whether or not the Declaration (even after it was incorporated in a LoN Mandate) has a legal standing in International Law is a subject of debate. Balfour himself thought not, that a Mandate was simply a self-imposed obligation, nothing more. (A section in the article covering legal aspects specifically might perhaps be useful).

4) The given url is not that of Kramer but of Rostow responding to Kramer.

5) Pope's consent in 2017 I assume is just a typo.

6) Given the above, I would suggest self-reverting the above edits. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I added some context and proper sourcing at the new article Cambon letter on exactly this - Friedman says that the British had encouraged the French letter. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's OK as far as it goes (I think it has to do with the Sykes Picot negotiation), it doesn't address the primary concerns about this edit in general which is not RS and biased in its intent, this looks like some sort of drive by edit, the editor in question does not appear to have any interest in this sort of matter until now. I am going to revert it if no response from himSelfstudier (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I had a proper look at the new page and as well the linked out bio of Gambon; although further evidence of bias is not needed, suffice to note that in the bio he has taken the Gambon letter (a primary source) to mean "the assent of France to the creation of a Jewish nation" (which is OR, of his own making, par excellence) and in the article itself, the only slightly less OR "French support for a Jewish homeland". Are people in general completely unable to divorce their personal positions and POV from things they edit?

Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Martin Kremer is a historian specializing in this field. The material was attributed to him. That's RS.

2. Sourcing for this was found. It's Martin Kremer.

3. Indeed it is a subject of debate. This material is attributed to Kremer. Feel free to add other POVs.

4. I will check that, but I gave a link to Kermer above, and here it is again.

5. Probably.

6. I disagree and restored the edit.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable, I have now got the complete English translation from Sokolow's book and I can see that it has as well been completely misrepresented by the editor, here it is:

"Paris,June 4,1917.

"You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine.You consider that,circumstances permitting,and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand,it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist,by the protection of the Allied Powers,in the renaissance of the Jewish nationahty in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.

"The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause,the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies.

"I am happy to give you herewith such assurance.

This is nothing but a letter of sympathy for the cause, no promises, pledges, nothing at all, it is even more weak than the already weak Balfour Declaration.

So now we have misstated and misleading use of primary material, to create wrong and misleading OR, does it get any worse than that? Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted what he did on the bio and have marked him as OR/misleading primary on the Gambon letter page, will wait a bit longer and then get rid of this on here, it's completely wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Same with the stuff about the Pope, Sokolow says he met the Pope on the 10th of May not the 4th and does not quote the Pope or anything just saying it was a satisfactory audience, so that is unsourced OR as well by the look of it.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I made a new section, Zionist Discussions with Third Parties and transferred the minimal verifiable information into it, removing the below:

Historian Martin Kramer argues that securing the assent of Britain's French and American Allies, and of the Vatican, which controlled many Christian Holy Sites in the Land of Israel, was a necessary precondition of the Balfour Declaration. Zionist diplomat Nahum Sokolow secured the support of Pope Benedict XV on 4 May 2017. Pope Benedict described the return of the Jews to Palestine as "providential; God has willed it.".<ref name="KramerInternationalLaw"{cite news|last1=Kramer|first1=Martin|title=How the Balfour Declaration Became Part of International Law|url=https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2017/06/how-the-balfour-declaration-became-part-of-international-law/%7Caccessdate=14 June 2017|publisher=Mosaic (magazine)|date=12 June 2017}}</ref> Sokolow secured the assent of the France in the Cambon letter of 4 June 1917, signed by Jules Cambon, head of the political section of the French foreign ministry.ref name="KramerInternationalLaw"/>

This material is sourced to a historian. Are you seriously trying to remove it based on your personal reading of a primary source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the material is fine, but needs rephrasing and should not imply more than the sources warrant. First one should cite this source, which is actually written by Martin Kramer and discusses Sokolow's negotiations. Second, it's good to mention the Cambon letter as a precursor to the Balfour Declaration. But Kramer does not use the word "commitment", which is too strong a word. Kramer says that the letter is is an assurance of support towards the Zionist project, but the letter does not make any firm commitments to this or that measure. Elie Kedourie also characterizes it as "a letter of sympathy with Zionism". Looking at French policy more broadly, I quote from this source:

During the war the Allies accepted the notion that it was a necessity for the Jews to establish in Palestine a National Home as was defined in the Balfour Declaration. The Zionist demands were regarded by the French as a threat to French interests in Syria that should be resisted by every means. The French policy-makers framed principles and guidelines that would enable them to overcome the Zionist threat to those parts of Syria and the Lebanon which bordered upon Palestine.

First, France minimized the meaning of the term 'National Home', in order to remove any political-national connotation from it. 'The French Government has never admitted that Palestine might become a Zionist State'. The term 'National Home' meant giving the Jews, who would find a home in their ancient fatherland, facilities to establish and develop the economy, agriculture, industry and commerce in parts of Palestine, without letting them attain any superiority over the then existing Christian and Moslem communities.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the letter was not published, but just deposited at the Foreign Office to influence the discussions in Britain. Its influence on the later Balfour declaration should be mentioned.

I have rephrased the paragraph according to the comments above and added the source as to the broad French and Zionist policy in Palestine in the period. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. (WP policy) Mosaic is not a reliable secondary source (also WP policy explained above), unsourced statements from a non editorial contributer to a non rs group blog don’t count for diddly, I don’t care who Kramer is, if he is claiming (which I don't think he is, it is the editors who are claiming that) this as scholarly work, then he should get it published in a proper journal (which will require that material be properly sourced, which it isn't at the moment, it's just him saying the Pope said x and y according to Sokolov with no evidence whatever). I have Sokolow's book (out of copyright added as ref) covering his visits in Rome and France and there is nothing of what Kramer is attributing to the Pope in it, Sokolow does not give any quotes at all from the Pope or even any indication of any discussion at all. If we want to include these quotes, we need a reputable RS with sources (if Sokolov copied something down verbatim, where is it?) If this is not agreeable then I intend to introduce all kinds of unsourced material from say, balfourproject.org (also non rs blog used by Gregory), using exactly the same arguments that you are putting forward for inclusion ie they are historians, it doesn't matter whether they have sourced the material or if they just made it up for a good blog article.)

Selfstudier (talk) 11 32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mosaic is reliable source there is a editorial control and as noted before Kramer is professional in the field So I don't see any problem here -- Shrike (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC).

WP policy is clear,"Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." which it isn't here.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mosaic is not wiki.There is only one author to the essay. Shrike (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Have you looked at the way I phrased the matter in the WP article? Do you find anything to disagree with the phrasing there? If so, please list it here. If not, what are we arguing about? This goes for all the people here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have listed my objections above, I note that you have not addressed them.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I did not change anything about the Pope; it is the same as what you wrote earlier. I only rewrote the stuff about the dealings with France and the negotiations between Cambon and Sokolow. So I have no idea of what is it that you are objecting about, if anything. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

Permit me to come at this from a different direction, is it your considered view that (by way of example only) http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine/ may be used as a support for statements in this article? (provided that the author is a reputable someone or other). I had already indicated to NMMNG a while ago when he menmtioned Mosaic (further up the talk page)that I considered both it and Mosaic not to be suitable RS. Was i wrong to so state? If you say yes, then I will leave the matter be and feel free in the future to add material emanating from such sources.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What is sourced to balfourproject? I didn't found this in article. Shrike (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambon_letter Gregory uses balfourproject as a source and built everything up from there.

Then go argue this in the relevant article where its used.In this article this source is not used so I don't understand why you discussing it here. Shrike (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Because I had already discussed the site(s) with NMMNG on this page, this is all irrelevant, I don't know why you are making such a fuss about nothing at all.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Yes, the balfourproject link is not WP:RS. Martin Kramer, writing in Mosaic, may or may not be reliable. Reliability is always in context. Kramer being a well-respected historian does confer some reliability on the Mosaic source. I quote from WP:RS: Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. But, it is of course preferable to source stuff from academic journals/books. Since, on this matter so much is written, it's a good idea to look at other sources and look for corroboration. Therefore, I used Kramer in conjunction with two other sources. I looked at all of them and summarized the dealings between Sokolow and the French diplomats. I am only responsible for what I write, not what other people write. If you have any problems with what I wrote, you can tell me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, now we come nearer to the crux of the thing, you are now stating that balfourproject.org is not rs, yet Mosaic is rs, how can that be? I see no difference between the two. Do you know something I do not? Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In case it is the author of the example I gave that caused the problem, then http://www.balfourproject.org/the-mcmahon-hussein-correspondence-revisited/(a reputable and published historian)

Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Ok, now I understand where you're coming from. I am not saying that anything written in Mosaic is RS, nor the reverse about the Balfour project. I'll tell you my thought process.

What happened is that EMG read an article in Mosaic and discovered that there is no article on the Cambon letter. They then created the article, and to not make it an orphan linked it to this one while copy-pasting it here. In this article, I generally agree with you that one should generally use sources in books/journals and avoid general-purpose magazines. This is why I double-checked with two other sources and summarized them together with Kramer. Perhaps one can remove the Mosaic source altogether; if you want to insist on that I do not really oppose it but I feel it's rather beside the point. Again: one should not be looking at reliable sources in a black and white manner. On this matter, so much is written that it's not really a matter of reliability per se, but rather summarizing sources in a fair manner, taking into account WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and so on. This is why I keep asking: what, if anything, in the text I wrote are you objecting to? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a good explanation. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If the Mosaic source is removed as non rs, then I am satisfied. At this point, after all the editing and discussion, I am not objecting to anything other than using Wikipedia's neutral voice to propagate non rs. As you can see I had already agreed with NMMNG earlier to have some such sections as these on the diplomacy leading up to the Declaration, that does not mean that we need then include non rs material, particularly when there is as you say a wealth of rs available.

Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand how RS works. Even if Mosaic was a blog, material published on that blog by a well known historian who's an expert in the field would be RS. And Mosaic is not a blog, it's a respected publication with an editorial board. You can ask about this at RS/N if you want. You repeatedly said we discussed Mosaic, implying I agreed it's not RS. That is false.

Also, could you please try to indent your responses properly? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

KI says it is not RS, I say it is not RS. That's 2 to 1 at the moment.

Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

KI didn't say it's not RS, and this isn't a vote. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added another source by Isaiah Friedman about the meeting with the Pope. He gives the date as 4 May. From what I can see, Kramer was simply quoting Friedman. If this account is inconsistent with Sokolow's own memoirs, I don't know what's going on. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Schneer at 216-7 has an account of the meeting with the Pope and claims it was on the 6th! He also provides yet another account (equally unsourced) of things that Sokolow supposedly said that the Pope is supposed to have said and not including the "providential; God has willed it." blather.

Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen reference to this "providential" quote in other works (for example in Minerbi, Sergio I. (1990). The Vatican and Zionism: Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505892-5.). Friedman sources it to "CZA, A 18/26, Report, dated 4 May 1917, on an interview with the Pope". I don't think it's in Sokolow's memoirs. Minerb quotes as follows:

His holiness: I am sure you did not come only as a matter of ceremony but as a representative of the Zionist idea. That has great significance. It refers to the rebuilding of Judea by the Jewish people — is that not so? What a historical turnabout. Nineteen hundred years ago Rome destroyed your country, and now, wanting to rebuilt it, you come to Rome.
Sokolow: I am deeply moved by these historical memories, which are so apt. Allow me the liberty to add that the Rome that destroyed Judea was duly punished. It vanished, whereas not only do the Jewish people live on, they still have sufficient vitality to reclaim their land.
His holiness: Yes, yes, it is providential; God has willed it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I found another that gave a reference "File A 18/25 in the Main Archive of Yad Vashem" but a search there gives nothing. Selfstudier (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I just reread Kramer in this context. Kramer writes: "Yet Sokolow had an amiable meeting with Benedict, in which the pontiff described the return of the Jews to Palestine as “providential; God has willed it.”". It is not at all clear from the verbatim notes that the Pope's comment referred to the "return of the Jews to Palestine". Onceinawhile (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear to me. And to Kramer, who is an expert in the field. And several other sources, if I'm not mistaken. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A search on CZA (http://www.zionistarchives.org.il/en/Pages/ArchiveSearchResults.aspx?k=CZA%20A%2018/26&t=T3&v=&p=2)throws up Hebrew documents I can't read all ending with 18-26 but all begin with A(some number). Perhaps one of our erstwhile brethren can dig out the source from the Zionist Archives otherwise I think it's just one of those stories that gets greater with each retelling.

Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "erstwhile brethern"? And are you not indenting properly on purpose? Threading properly is part of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. See WP:TOPPOST. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have multiple rs accounts that contradict each other I am going to add them all in so as to make it clear to readers that there is zero scholarly consensus on this (they cannot even agree on when the meeting took place), then I think we will also have an RFC to boot on getting rid of the non RS material Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not really whether Kramer is WP:RS: Kramer is simply quoting Friedman for the meeting with the Pope, and the Friedman source would anyway clearly satisfy WP:RS in any way Kramer in Mosaic would not. If there's any issue with the account, it's in Friedman. If sources disagree, we can mention the disagreement, of course. But the argument about the WP:RS stuff is needlessly distracting. Historical sources sometimes conflict, especially when they're just based on personal accounts. The WP:RS guideline is not capable of handling such issues well; it's just a quick and dirty way of eliminating obviously bad sources. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

With respect, it is the issue, Kramer does not cite Friedman, it is yourself, after my objection to the original material, who has sought out a source to support the non RS Kramer essay, which amounts to ..Kramer claims that Sokolow wrote that the Pope said (all unsourced)...which is directly contradicted as to date by Sokolow himself (I note that NMMNG incorrectly reverted this oppposing POV and I have restored it)and indirectly contradicted as to content since Sokolow makes no mention of the other matters. Friedman cite is a document in the CZA (which I can't locate at CZA inclusive of which I note that Friedman has been criticized before for source misrepresentation which hardly adds to the confidence level here)referring to a meeting with the Pope on the 4th when Sokolow himself (and other RS) says it was on the 10th. If you (or anyone else) want to introduce the Kramer "quote" attributed to the Pope, then why not introduce it directly and quote Friedman as RS then we have no need of Kramer and will be left then with the problem of establishing the date on which the meeting took place (as well as whether Mosaic and their equivalents are RS or not)

Selfstudier (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Kramer does not cite Friedman in-text for the Pope story. But he does mention at the start the work which he relies on for the Sokolow negotiations. He gives three names: Leonard Stein, Isaiah Friedman and Jonathan Schneer. I have checked the Leonard Stein source, it has the same story about the Pope. See here for the snippet on page 408. I haven't checked the Schneer source.

Let me make my point of view clear. Nothing that Kramer wrote is wrong as such; indeed, it can be independently verified. The article is in a general-purpose magazine, so it does not have direct footnotes. If you want to investigate and/or give different sources about what happened with the Pope, by all means do so. But if you want to argue with NMMNG as to whether Kramer is reliable or whether it should be cited, I don't want to get involved in this pointless issue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have already given Schneer above, it does not contain the quote and gives the date of the meeting as the 6th. Unfortunately, you are already involved since you have averred that balfourproject.org is not RS and implied that Mosaic is RS (or at least avoided directly stating what you think about it). I remain of the view that both are not RS (In fact, Mosaic is not only a user generated blog, it is a content farm designed specifically for groups to spread their stories around on social media sites in order to generate clickthrough, certainly not something Wikipedia should associate itself with IMO).

Selfstudier (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If the only reason you added the Sokolow stuff was for the date discrepancy, we can solve that like it's usually done with "the meeting happened on May 4th{{source A}} or May 10th{{source B}}". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuing:

According to Vatican Policy on the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: the Struggle for the Holy Land at page 51:

'The French translation of Sokolow’s report is published in Minerbi, L’Italie, 63-64. The report was originally dictated by Sokolow in Italian because he wanted to present his interviews as accurately as possible. He described his meeting with both Cardinal Gasparri and the Pope in dialogue form, but it ”is not, of course, to be taken as a verbatim record“ (Stein, Declaration, 407).'

This is pretty clear so do we think we might now put some proper sourcing in this article? It seems this (and others I have come across) all derive from this dictated note of Sokolow and which ”is not, of course, to be taken as a verbatim record“ (Stein, Declaration, 407). Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The above makes it clear that Kramer is wrong to state as a fact that Sokolow wrote down something verbatim (he clearly didn’t do it at the audience, he did it later and from memory (an hours worth of memory apparently) and Stein (the acknowledged number one expert on this matter) points out that it should not be used in order to recall things that might or might not have been said and incorrectly recalled, omitted etc so that’s wrong as well. This possibly explains why Sokolow saw fit to make no mention of it whatever in his account. It seems a case of a story being told once, repeated often, losing Stein’s admonition en route and perhaps gilded at every turn, hard to know without the original document which apparently cannot be found anywhere, else that could be quoted directly as Sokolow’s recollection of what was said at the meeting, rather than 5th hand as a fact. So, at a minimum, it's ...Kramer claims that Sokolow wrote "blah" (Stein advising that what Sokolow wrote not be taken as verbatim record) rather than stating that as a fact in our article.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"Kramer says Sokolow wrote down the exchange verbatim, Stein says Sokolow's record is not verbatim" should satisfy NPOV. We have several sources saying this is what the Pope said, and not a single one that says he didn't say it, so it does not need to be attributed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Kramer is making his own interpretation of the following exchange (this is the English translation of the French handwritten original, there is a later typewritten Italian version relied on by Stein) :

...... Sokolow: I am deeply moved by these historical memories, which are so apt. Allow me the liberty to add that the Rome that destroyed Judea was duly punished. It vanished, whereas not only do the Jewish people live on, they still have sufficient vitality to reclaim their land.

His Holiness: Yes, yes, it is providential; God has willed it. .....

plus (reinforcing stein view about not taking things on their face)

“The Vatican archives relating to this period do not contain any documents on these conversations, and as a result we are forced to rely solely on Sokolow’s account of his talks at the Vatican. These reports are necessarily subjective and more than once, contradict the policy adopted by the Holy See. It is not unlikely that on occasion Sokolow heard what he wanted to hear”

The Vatican and Zionism:Conflict in the Holy Land, 1895-1925 Sergio Minerbi

Also noteworthy is the fact that whatever sympathy there was rapidly evaporated by the time of the Balfour Declaration. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have separated Kramers POV into two parts, the part relating to obtaining support for the Balfour Declaration as a lead in to the Zionist Discussions with Third Parties Section and then the Popes "quotation" (which has nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration) can stay under the Holy See since it only has to do with that. I have applied the Kramer reference to both so the change is only presentational. Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Accounts about the Pope and the French

About the recent expansion of the "Third parties" stuff. While it's fine that Selfstudier has tried to read all kinds of accounts on the topic to get to the truth, the section as it stands is too much. The Pope and the French discussion altogether should be dealt with in at most two to four paragraphs. Do the historians even think the meeting with the Pope was relevant to the Balfour declaration? It's probably enough to say that the Pope expressed sympathy with the Zionist cause, and its importance (if any) to the negotations leading up to the Balfour Declaration -- I vaguely recall that the issue of Christian sites in Palestine was raised in some article I read; I don't remember what it was. Long quotations can be hived off to the notes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If we lose the "quote" about providence, Jews returning, etc which is completely irrelevant in any case, then we can lose the stuff put in to counter that. The Holy Places discussion is relevant however, it impacted with the French, the Vatican, everyone and was (still is) an ongoing problem. If we are to accept the thesis put forth by Kramer that all these "supports" were critical and "indispensable" and so on, then we need to examine that contention. There are different schools of thought by historians on these matters. We haven't even covered Sokolow's discussions with Gasparri and Pacelli which were preparatory to the meeting with the Pope. "We will be good neighbours", also frequently (and as usual, selectively) quoted is considered by many historians to mean the Vatican (and perhaps the French and the Arabs) in Jerusalem and the Holy Places with Zionist colonies in some peripheral area.

It is certainly true that the period from say end 1916 and Lloyd George taking over up to the time of the Declaration is mainly where everything that was finally relevant happened. It's the who, the why, the how that noone is too clear about. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to condense the meeting with the Pope to two sentences. I have glossed the differences over the date of the meeting by writing "early May". I have reduced all the different versions to a "general sympathy and support for the Zionist position". I have moved all the rest of the material to a footnote. See if you find it ok. The French part will be dealt with later. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little. To be truthful, I had not really finished when you thought to summarize things, lol. Please leave the rest alone for the moment, I have not finished those either.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

@No More Mr Nice Guy: stylistic proposals like [1] are better discussed at this article's ongoing peer review. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a "stylistic proposal", it was an edit. Specifically, removing irrelevant crud from the article. You haven't even bothered to give a reason for your revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The section is called Background, the subsection Early Zionism, and the five sentences you deleted describe (1) the Haskalah or "Jewish Enlightenment", (2) the Hovevei Zion and Autoemancipation, (3) Der Judenstaat, (4) the proposed measures in the Basel program, and (5) Herzl's death.

These are standard foundational topics for any basic description of Early Zionism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How are they relevant to this article? You can't be suggesting that any article that wants some background on early Zionism must have these 5 large paragraphs? It's UNDUE. I left anything that could possibly construed as relevant to this article in there, and removed the rest. I think it should even be cut down more, to be honest. Right now it's 3 times the size of the "long term impact" section. That can't be right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You deleted five sentences, not five paragraphs. If I understand your concern correctly, it is not with those five sentences, nor with their accuracy, but a general sense that we should have less on Early Zionism in the article.

That is a purely stylistic question, so the peer review would be the best place for it.

As to the Long Term Impact section, the peer review has identified that that section needs to be longer.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's not a "stylistic question", but even if it was, this would still be the correct place to discuss changes to the article, not some esoteric archive page few editors will even know about.

I did not say I deleted 5 paragraphs. Please read carefully before replying.

Would you like to explain why you think the sentences I removed are relevant to this article, or shall I just remove them again? You know where the ONUS lies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is part of WP:V. You are not disputing verifiability here, so your reference to ONUS is wholly irrelevant.

There's no point arguing about 5 sentences when your concern doesn't appear to relate to those sentences specifically, but rather to a much broader point about how much weight the background should have.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That was hilarious and positive proof you're just wasting time, as usual. Did you even read ONUS?

I will note for the record you have still not explained why you think these sentences are relevant to this article, despite repeated requests. I'm done wasting my time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: the text your proposed edit removed has been in this high profile article for more than one year. In that time the article has reached WP:GA, and has been through WP:PR. Consensus for inclusion of this is therefore clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

And as to their relevance, I have explained above. They are foundational points of Early Zionism. The Balfour Declaration resulted from the confluence of Early Zionism and British wartime interests. One cannot understand the Balfour Declaration properly without understanding the foundational events in Zionism which took place in the preceding half century. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: interesting point of view. Unfortunately none of the sources that deal with the Balfour Declaration that I have seen give this much weight to stuff like Hovevei Zion or Autoemancipation or Haskalah, so your assertion rings false. I did leave in the stuff that's relevant like the Basel Program and Uganda Scheme, etc.

Apropos GA, did you know it requires a stable article? This article doesn't seem very stable. Shall we start a GAR process? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do - the more sensible editors here, the better.

Your unspecific musings about sources you have seen are not clear enough to allow this discussion to progress. If you feel strongly about this point, I suggest you try to build consensus by widening the discussion out to attract other editors, and base your argument on actual sources that can be assessed by others. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a specific musing, one which you supposedly read - Kedourie does not even mention Hovevi Zion or Autoemancipation or Haskalah. Not even in passing. Now kindly provide some sources that explicitly tie these things to the Balfour Declaration. Good luck on your fishing expedition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The full title of Kedouri's book is In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: The McMahon-Husayn Correspondence and Its Interpretations 1914-1939. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How much background to include and in what detail, obviously depends on subjective factors. There's no "right" and "wrong" here. Overall, I feel the article size is fine: readable prose size is 38 kB, which is pretty good. If NMMNG feels strongly about the matter, I suggest opening an RfC with the two versions explicitly stated, and asking people to choose between them. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Really? You think sources saying this is actually background for the topic of the article are not required? Can I put whatever I like in any article and call it background? This is probably an NPOV issue, since the proportional representation of this view in relation to the topic of the article is somewhere close to zero.

You feel it's OK for this article to have an "early Zionism" section with material that sources don't even directly tie into the Balfour Declaration, which is 3-4 times the size of the of the "long term impact" section? This is an obvious WEIGHT violation.

Fairly premature for an RfC, too, but that's beside the point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Zionism was obviously important to the Balfour Declaration. If you look at Rhett 2015, pages 104-107, it discusses the roots of Zionism leading up to Herzl, especially the use of nationalist rhetoric and the emergence of political Zionism. Therefore, the one paragraph summary in the section of the roots of Zionism hardly seems excessive to me. Regarding the compression of the second paragraph, the idea that Herzl's Der Judenstaat is not worth a mention as part of the background sounds too weird a position to me to argue against. I don't see any violation, WP:WEIGHT or otherwise. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources should tie specifically between the topic of the article and whatever information you want to include per WP:OR published sources that aredirectly related to the topic of the article, Shrike (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Chapter 5 (p98-137) of Maryanne A. Rhett's The Global History of the Balfour Declaration: Declared Nation covers the exact contents under discussion here. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Another source which covers the same is chapter 2 "Zionism and the Balfour Declaration" (page 29 onwards) of Cohen's The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict.

I have added a few of these as refs with page numbers in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Rhett doesn't mention Autoemancipation and mentions Hovevei Zion once in passing. You guys are just proving my point. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any background, just that it should be relevant and proportional (these aren't rules I invented, as you know). Right now this section is almost 10% of the article. You can't seriously claim this stuff appears as 10% of the relevant sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Rhett does mention Autoemancipation. It is on p.106. Just as sourced in this article.

This almost as embarrassing as your comment above where you complained that these topics are not in Kedouri, not realizing that Kedouri's book is about the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, not the Balfour Declaration.

And the scope of your comment keeps changing. First it's five sentences, then five paragraphs, then five sentences again, and now "10%". It is incredibly confusing.

Your claim here appears to be very poorly constructed.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're confused. Let me try and use simpler words - 5 paragraphs (almost 10% of article size) is too big for this article. I try to make the section smaller by taking away 5 sentences. You don't like. We try something else. Clearer?

Did I miss the one time she mentioned Autoemancipation in passing as well? Well that changes everything. My point about WEIGHT still stands, but if this is the way you guys want it, then we're missing a large section about British imperialism. I will add that as time permits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Rhett has a page and a half on Pinsker (inc Autoemancipation) and his contemporary Birnbaum. We have a single sentence. Rhett also has numerous pages on Herzl. We have two sentences. Cohen's weighting is similar to Rhett's.

You haven't shown any evidence of a holistic understanding of the dozens of sources on this topic (which have been added to this article by me and others over the past couple of years), so it's difficult to take these vague and incohesive assertions about weight particularly seriously.

As to your suggestion re British Imperialism, I would welcome that. I look forward to continuing our track record of constructive collaboration.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I not infrequently have reason to disagee with NMMNG, I do not disagree that "British imperialism" should figure somewhere. Asquith was more of the Wilson "peace without victory" sort whereas DLG upended everything and went for the destruction and partition/annex route plus Palestine as bulwark for the Canal ie Imperialism.(plus he was a sort of then commonplace antiSemitic romantic Christian type Zionist sympathizer in addition).Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Which section are you talking about when you say it's 10% of the article? The Early Zionism section? I did a rough word/line count; it's about 5-7% of the article, depending on how one counts. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that of the five paragraphs, para 3 and para 4 are about how Weizmann met Balfour and how Weizmann met the Rothschilds - i.e. how the man credited with making the declaration happen first connected with the two counterparties to the letter. And para 5 is a single sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we could for now still focus on getting stuff INTO the article rather than taking it out (then later on, summarizing and what not if appropriate). This page does not seem too long right now (to me at least), some pages I have seen in Wikipedia are very long.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Some Presentational Changes

I am just moving stuff around a bit to see if we can't get the article to "flow" better, it's easy to put it back if there is a problem. All this Zionist/British activity in 1917 is really a part of the Motivation Section (part of it is already in there eg it has some stuff about the USA and it mentions (but not by name) the Cambon letter being read out by Balfour). Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

K, this seems to be working out OK, there are a couple loose Zionist related paras sitting at the end of the War Cabinet Discussions Section, they don't really fit there. Not sure what to do with them. Also, the Zionist Discussions with Third Parties, do we want to take these in as part of "Motivation" somewhere? Or keep them outside of that? Thoughts? Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Good questions. I have struggled with the flow in my mind, as many of the key components of the build up took place in parallel. The Third Party discussions is a good example, as clearly the Zionist-British discussions were taking place at the same time, as were the British-American discussions. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking those couple loose paras are more about the reaction to the Declaration than anything else I will slot them in there for now and we can tidy it up later if needs be.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

After some thought, I put the Holy See stuff into Reaction section and expanded it a little there because whatever sympathy there was turned into outright hostility following the Declaration and occupation of Jerusalem. The France and Italy Zionist/third Party I moved into Motivation and the USA is already in there anyway so that puts all that Third Party stuff in better spots now.Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

War Cabinet Discussions

Going to concentrate on this section for a while now as this seems to be the critical period leading to the Declaration.

I think the Danny Gutwein material (similar to Kramer) can perhaps go into the historiography section as a new and novel theory not put forward by any other historian of any note up to now.(is he a historian or just a history prof?). Most accounts of the 7 Feb meeting (including Weizmann's) are nothing at all like Gutwein is suggesting so I think it is misleading to source directly to him unless you want to also add the multiplicity of others Stein, Schneer etc for that meeting. Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I finally managed to put together a "story" (sourced mainly from Schneer's account which seems well focused and well researched on 1917), a first go at it, anyway. My own reading is that the main focus of all the activity was the Brits trying to find a way to get around Sykes-Picot and the French resisting at every turn. DLG seems to have decided early on, imperialist style, to make Sykes-Picot a target as well as homing in on a "British" Palestine one way or other. After that, it seems just a question of getting the rest on board with this, particularly the US. It seems that was the principal use of the Zionists by the Brits, however the Zionists also got what they wanted. (both the Arabs and the Zionists started to get wind of Sykes Picot around the same time in March and April, I haven't put this in anywhere yet). Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Rfc in reference to the discussions immediately above this request

with regard to those discussions , are the urls

[url=https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/]

& (for comparison)

[url=http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/] acceptable RS?

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources refers. Thank you for your comments. Selfstudier (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

In my opinion, neither of these sources qualify as RS.Selfstudier (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is missing a brief description of the question: Reliable sources for what? On first glance, I would suggest that they are both reliable sources for the opinions of their (well-known and highly regarded) authors, Martin Kramer and Charles Glass. Are they reliable sources for facts? It depends what assertions they're being used to support. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I mostly agree with what Malik says the only fact that I disagree that Glass is not academic and we can't equate it with Kramer. Shrike (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The second source isn't even used in this article, and this is not a "religion and philosophy" issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As the others have said, RS for what statement? The Mosaic article is an essay by a historian which does not cite its sources. It would not be sufficient for any novel information it contains: the author presumably would present the information, citing its sources, in a more academic work. It could be used to show a historian's opinion on the topic, but this would first require evidence that this particular historian's opinion is notable. The LRB review can be used for the reviewer's opinions, but gain, not for any novel information it mentions (which presumably derives eitehr from the books under review or from the reviewer's knowledge). Neither sources should be used for the historical narrative.Martinlc (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Aaronson

I have removed this paragraph, as it is unsourced and doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to the overall article.

“ After finishing his work on the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Sykes was moved to the Secretariat of the Committee of Imperial Defense as a liaison officer for Middle Eastern Affairs between the War, Foreign and India Offices, something of a change for him. Still, in late October and early November 1916, he met Aaron Aaronsohn, a Zionist, several times and was sufficiently impressed by him to seek him out the following year in Cairo where Aaronsohn had gone to work for British military intelligence. ”

Any objections? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's from Lieshout, you are right it's not really of any import. I think Sykes just got "parked" for a while until Lloyd Goerge came on board, then he was off again, haha.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

April to June: Allied Discussions

@Selfstudier: when you have time would you mind condensing the six paragraphs under "April to June: Allied Discussions"? I believe you added these interesting pieces to the article. Some of the sentences are unsourced, and six paragraphs seems quite overweight vs. other sections in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Weizmann involvement - detailed choreography

This article includes useful references highlight the contradictions between the various primary sources as to who-met-who and when in the lead up to the declaration. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting as far as it goes (not exactly historiography, I think), I don't like the way she starts off, I would not characterize Schneer as a proponent of the propaganda tool idea (that would be more Renton, or Segev). In any case, I don't find the the propagandist argument very convincing, for me, its more (French and British mainly, the Italians and Russians as well) imperialism (the dying embers thereof). Many people mix up the motives for the Declaration and then the motivation for what happened through 1922 (Churchill) and 1923 (some second thoughts, tho we are stuck with it now:). In the final analysis it is rather difficult to get to the bottom of the "why" (I have to say I am slowly coming round to the view it might just have been nothing more than a fortuitous combination of circumstances).Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

More "who met who when" :) https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/British_Imperial_Connexions_to_the_Arab_National_MovementSelfstudier (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Samuel

Doesn't need a new section really, I can see from the edits we have been making that Sykes apparently told Samuel about Sykes-Picot before he left for Petrograd. It seems then that he kept this information to himself since all other accounts say that Wiezmann only found out about it later on.Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

1939 (again)

(Move this up here out of the way) As for the tag that has been added, I am perfectly content that positive long term effects be added there, however, beyond the creation of the State of Israel which is already mentioned there I know of none myself and can find none in my sources so perhaps we might just leave that job to the editor that added the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Once, when I put 1939 in before , you said we couldn't put in everything and I took it out and now you are putting some back in (but only a part and a pretty irrelevant part at that A) because the 1939 paper became the policy until the British left (ironic since Churchill did the same thing in reverse in 1922) and B)It's all very well for Churchill to say it, he is completely wrong tho both legally and even by his own words he contradicts himself for what he said in 1922 plus C) Churchill's opinion is not a long term impact, lol (except maybe on him, haha).

If you want to put this in then you need to put in the "official" position of the government as well, which you can date from 1937 in practice and find here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Mandates_Commission_(Palestine):

1937 - The obligation proved to be untenable; as James Renton described it in 2007: "The attempt to create different messages for different audiences regarding the future of the same place, as had been attempted since the fall of Jerusalem, was untenable."[7] and fifteen years after the Mandate had been confirmed, the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission report, the first official proposal for partition of the region, referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations",[8] whilst the 1937 Peel Commission used the term "dual obligation".[9][10] 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".

1939 - The Minutes of the 36th Session that ran from June 8 to 29, 1939, including the Report of the Commission to the Council, were not considered by the Council of the League owing to the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939. Of seven members present, four "did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors" and three "were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided that the Council did not oppose it". The Commission as a whole concluded that "the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation, which in agreement with the Mandatory Power, the Commission had alaways placed upon the Palestine Mandate". In reply to the Commission's conclusions by way of a letter of August 5, 1939 to the Council of the League, the UK explained why it disagreed with the conclusions reached by the Commission. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Self, fair comments. What I am trying to say is that 1939 in many ways marked the end of the British attempts to implement the Balfour Declaration. This is a subjective point of course, but it is a view that was held strongly by the Zionists, and Churchill's HoC speech on the matter was very widely quoted and is arguably the most well known of the speeches against the policy. Please edit as you see fit.

As to my earlier comments, the objective I am trying to get to is to ensure we cover everything but with the minimum amount of text that we can.

On the 1937 pieces above, I think most of that is already in the article? On the 1939 pieces, I agree that could fit will in the Long Term Impact section summarised in one sentence, with the rest in an efn.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, however you raise another in its place. The UK position (if you read their submission to the League) was that they HAVE (had) implemented the Declaration (one side of it, being a "national home" in Palestine) and that it was time for the long delayed other side (an obligation of "equal weight") to be implemented. This is not a case like 1922 where one House voted the government down and a vote was only procured in the other House by way of procedurals. The 1939 White Paper was not defeated in either House. I think we could simply link out to the Wikipedia article on the 1939 White Paper (where all this is dealt with) together with some simple commentary.

Agreed. Please feel free to add this if you have time. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have linked out to the White Paper and added a summary of the official positions (with links to detailed sources), these carry significantly more weight than the opinion of a single cabinet member (I could just as well find a speech to the contrary from the other side, that of Sir Ralph Glyn for example).

Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - agreed. The only point left is that the text added to the long term impact section feels overweight, and also is not clear how some of the perspectives are connected to the subject of this article. I think we need to be more concise, and also not lose the point about it being seen as the end of the BD (the key point about the 1939WP in this article). Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, we can slim it down or footnote it or something, however those are the three relevant perspectives (to the White Paper). Considering only one (or even two) of them would be nonNPOV. This idea about it being "the end" of the BD is not correct, the Mandate continued in force, the ongoing interpretation of it by the Mandatory changed; the Zionists did not like that interpretation and the source I gave (their official response) makes that clear. We should also remember that the government changed shortly thereafter and the new government (headed by a sympathetic Churchill) maintained the changed policy.

Perhaps the difficulty here is that you seem intent on seeing the Zionist reaction to the 1939 White paper as a long term reaction to the Balfour Declaration, I don't see that as being true myself, the Zionist reaction to the Passfield Paper was just as "noisy" except that there the thing was reversed. We all know the truth of it, the long term reaction is that neither Jew nor Arab was ever going to be happy with the Mandate, each for their own reasons. In this sense I think the 1939 White paper is rather a symptom and not the cause of the problem.

Let me try to put it together in the article and see if it might satisfy you?

Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Very fair comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

How does that seem now? Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Palestine prior to World War I

Schneer's first chapter is an introduction to Palestine before WWI. It makes logical sense - the declaration is from Balfour / the British government to Rothschild / the Zionists during WWI and about Palestine and the Jews, and we have background sections on Balfour / the British government, Rothschild / the Zionists, WWI and the Jews / Zionists - so we are just missing this one component. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea, although I think we might usefully stay clear of trying to analyze the origin of the conflict via this route as that might lead to disagreements. If we confine it to broad strokes, demographics and such, then that should be OK? Perhaps things that feed directly into our article, the arrival of the Zionists, for instance.Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Schneer's little bit of prewar Palestine is (I'm guessing) intended as just enough so as to allow the final sentences relating it (indirectly) to the Declaration:

"The Balfour Declaration was not, in and of itself, the source of trouble in a land that previously had been more or less at peace, but nor was it a mere signpost on a road heading undivertibly toward a cliff. No one can say what the course of events in Palestine might have been without it. What did come was the product of forces and factors entirely unforeseen."

Usually sources

The latest issue of Israel Studies has some interesting articles on the BD. Zero^talk 21:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit re Notability

Um, this is not right for a couple of reasons: a) The Balfour Declaration is the statement in the letter not a press release.It says later on that it was released to the press a week later. b) By linking to Homeland for Jewish people you are implying a meaning to the term national home when no-one actually knows what it means, even today. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I edited the lead a bit to reflect the above and just tighten it up/flow a bit better (I hope).

Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, happy with both of those points. I made a couple of further changes [2] to wikify (the main subject name is normally as far to the left as possible) and to follow the declaration more closely (of British support for the Jewish people => support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish people in Palestine). Onceinawhile (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Safeguard clauses

Per [3], the term "safeguard clauses" is used regularly to describe the second part; we use it currently in the "Terms" section of the article and it is sourced to Kattan. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I missed that, if it is in the article then of course its fine in the lead as well. Selfstudier (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement

This was raised before I think and we let it go on the basis that it ended up being a dead letter. On reflection (and because someone hassled me about it on my talk page:), since it was an Agreement of some sort, even if only for a short time, and since it does actually refer to the Balfour Declaration (as a dated document of the British, not by actual name) then I think we should have a small reference to it somewhere.(The FW page needs a little bit of work as well, I might do that too.) Not quite sure where to put it, I guess it ought to be in the Broader Arab Response section even tho it was more than a year after the Declaration. I will try to work something up and put it in shortly. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, in the broader Arab response section, and a sentence may be enough if the context can be communicated appropriately. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I just copied the para about it on McMahon Correspondence page.(It is good enough for now while I finish fixing up the WZ page).Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for attending to my unprofessionally-posed comments, and apologies for the hassle. I’ll explain with greater detail my concerns regarding the minimal discussion of the FWA in the BD article of Wikipedia:

In the section on “Broader Arab response” and more prominently in the lead section, the BD is contrasted with the Hussein–McMahon correspondence. Although the article emphasizes that the intentions of the British, as well as the interpretation through objective reading of the HMC today, may not be unquestionably determined, the article also leaves no doubt that the Sharif of Mecca saw the BD as totally conflicting with the HMC, up to seeing the BD as betrayal. However, this description is seemed to be supported only by indirect refs (allegedly the Palin report and ref 171 (Tim Watts 2008)). At the same time the FWA proves that this is not at all accurate. The FWA – signed by Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi, son of Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca – plainly accepts the BD and its consequences in terms of Jewish immigration to Palestine, it (Palestine) being distinct from the Arab State. The first four articles of the Agreement read:

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

The Agreement was not something obtained from Faisal by deceit, forgery or extortion, as he seems to be truly convinced of good-will cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. In a letter (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/feisal-frankfurter-correspondence-march-1919) to Felix Frankfurter he wrote from the Paris Peace Conference on March 3, 1919:

…The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home…

To understand Faisal’s beliefs, it should be realized that the main interests of the Sharif and his son Faisal following the war were far from being centered in Palestine, but were rather focused on Syria and Damascus. Thus, not the BD was their main concern but rather the Sykes–Picot Agreement which – in undeniable and clear contrast to the HMC – put Syria and Damascus under French influence. It was therefore the SPA that was seen as betrayal by Faisal, and he was thus more than ready to go along with the BD in a hope to turn the table by gaining more support for his rule over Syria. The fact that the FWA was eventually “short lived” should accordingly be attributed to the French deportation of Faisal from Damascus following the Franco-Syrian war in July 1920 and his resulting detachment from Palestine, and not to some alleged hostility to Zionism. And regardless, no matter how short-lived the Agreement eventually was, it evidences that Faisal’s reaction (and his father’s presumed reaction as well) to the BD can not be described other than being relevant, important and positive.

In passing it should be further commented that even the Palestinians’ reaction to the BD was at least partially influenced by Faisal’s attitude, hence as long as the SPA was not enforced by the San Remo Conference (in the spring of 1920), Palestinian objection to the BD throughout the year between November 1917 and April 1920, was very minor.

In summary may I suggest for an appropriate phrasing of the subject an excerpt from the Faisal I of Iraq Wiki article, saying

On 4 January 1919, Emir Faisal I bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashimi, (son of Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca), and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organization, signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement for Arab-Jewish Cooperation, in which Faisal conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration.

77.125.67.89 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed your questions about this on my talk page where you had initiated this discussion previously and the article now contains a suitable commentary as requested by you. As I explained there and here, having looked into it all and edited the FW page so that it is not POV (there is no mention of forgery for example even though a minority of scholars maintain that view), interested parties can simply go to the FW page for more information (the Faisal page is POV and I will get around to editing it at some point). The main thing here is to try and avoid minority opinions that are POV for this article which is mainly about the Balfour Declaration and not about whether Faisal "accepted" it for a month or two.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Note the Frankfurter letter is considered either a forgery or a letter written by Lawrence and signed without Faisal's understanding. See Ali A. Allawi (11 March 2014). Faisal I of Iraq. Yale University Press. pp. 216–. ISBN 978-0-300-19936-9. for details. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The power of Google allows us to see that the letter was written in T.E. Lawrence's handwriting

• The letter: [4]
• An excerpt of another Lawrence letter: [5]

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Another good source for the period: Caplan, Neil (5 September 2013). Early Arab-Zionist Negotiation Attempts, 1913-1931: Early Arab Zionist Negotiation Attempts 1913-31. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-136-28237-9. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather than get into the issue of forgery which will simply lead to useless argument without conclusion, I dealt with this by evidencing Faisal views both soon before and soon after this letter (I have read Allawi's book). It is interesting that the reason for the letter is often omitted and I have remedied that in the article.Then readers can make up their own mind what they want to believe in regards the letter. In any case, the subject should be discussed at the article page, it's not really relevant here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A couple of lines here are adequate. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What we really want to avoid is turning a thing that had no consequences at all and is almost completely irrelevant into something which will cause arguments to no useful purpose; Allawi's book is a decent piece of work but it wouldn't take very long to put together contrary arguments if one was minded so to do:) A lot of the claims being made sound like something McMahon would have said!(Intended,recollection,no memory, etc).Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding expanding on the subject, but I object to the phrasing “Zionist and Arab representatives…” because it obscures the facts. Faisal and Weizmann were not some second-grade delegates to the peace conference but were rather nation leaders, hence they should be explicitly named. Further, the relevance of the FWA to the BD is not in its (non-existing) fulfillment, but in directly revealing some “broader Arab response” to the Declaration. It explicitly raises a question mark on whether Faisal (and the Sharif of Mecca) sensed being betrayed by the British because of the BD or, perhaps, because of the SPA. 77.125.67.89 (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the superfluous phrasing you objected to as it is not needed, the persona being named in the Agreement title. Just so you are aware, Weizmann was in charge of no nation at all, I believe he was head of the UK Zionist Organization at the time and that's all. No "broader Arab response" was revealed by this agreement, in fact the agreement could be (and was) interpreted as flying in the face of both Palestinian and Syrian Arab opinion at the time. I believe we have reached the limit of any useful discussion about this agreement unless you have reputable secondary sources to recommend in support of or against what is presently in this article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Once, you cannot have it both ways, you have edited here to say that Faisal in his codicil relies on a PRIOR note and you have edited in the FW article that there is no such document known (dated 4th) (in fact there was a document submitted (to Balfour) as described by Faisal except it was on the first and not on the fourth and intended as a preparatory statement for the Peace Conference). At the risk of repetition, none of these things change the outcome ie there wasn't one and the agreement lapsed in a short time. Everything else is just irrelevant.Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I edited in FW to clarify the business about the date possibly being a mistake and I edited it a bit here to keep it balanced.Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks now like a fair account of this episode. Thanks! 77.125.67.89 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Meinertzhagen

I have edited to indicate that this source may not (in fact, is likely not) reliable. An alternative might be to remove material attributed to him, a quick Google will unearth multiple instances of criticism, including proven fabrication.Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think your caveat makes sense; personally I would retain his remarks as they are well known. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As you prefer, now that the article is nominated for featured, I note that the criteria require "content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." which is somewhat more strict than the good article criteria.(not really sure what "significant" means).Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

FAC - verbatim text in lead

At the FAC review it has been proposed to remove the verbatim text in the lead. This was discussed 18 months ago at this talk thread with Hertz1888 and Rjensen, and consensus was for keeping. However, the article and lead have developed a lot since then, so consensus may have changed. In particular, when this was last discussed, we had a lower quality lead image on the page ([6]). Now we have a much clearer lead image with the words on it. Does anyone object to removing the verbatim text from the lead? It is already in the body of the article in the "Drafting" section under "Final version". Onceinawhile (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Per Kingsindian, please post thought on this question at the FAC review page, not here. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Language nitpick

I believe when writing about governments and countries, it is wrong to use plurals such as "they." For example, it should be "British government public statement made during World War I, to announce its support" and "and Russia were distracted by internal upheaval" ImTheIP (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Depends..http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv358.shtml. (English response, I can't speak for Americans:)Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wehwalt's comment at the FAC review [7]. He rightly points out that the declaration itself uses "their" to refer to the British government. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If you say "a British Government" then it should be "its" because "a" is a singular identifier for a collective noun.Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Replace "to announce their support" with "in support of" :)Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Self determination"?

(Moving the convo about this from FAC review to here):- (BTW, I don't think we can say that the declaration aimed to provide self determination...., I don't think it does, did someone say that?)Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Re self determination, I have added this into the article. Balfour said it in a couple of speeches, and Avi Shlaim considers it the declaration's "greatest contradiction". Onceinawhile (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I found Shlaim (I couldn't find directly related quotes from Balfour) "The greatest contradiction lay in supporting, however vaguely, a right to national self-determination of a minority of the inhabitants of Palestine, while implicitly denying it to the majority." (Shlaim). Note he says "however vaguely" and this is right, it is so vague as to not be there, haha. It depends I think whether you want to be very “legalistic” about the thing, there is a difference between “political rights” (a general thing) and “self determination”( deciding your own statehood/govmt) (note recent British Government statement also distinguishes between these two things). Anyway, its up to you, I think it is not really accurate myself (you could perhaps attribute directly to Shlaim and include the words "however vaguely").Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this on the main talk page rather than here (I think this page is not meant for detailed content discussions). In the meantime, see Balfour [8] and Samuel [9] on self-determination for Jews. There are many others. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure tho I am not myself going to make any amendments to main page while it is under review (unless I see something which is clearly in error). You can read this for a sensible discussion of the issue http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5897&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Self-Determination and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict).Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (end of move).

"Self-determination" wasn't even a thing in 1917 and didn't really become anything until the Peace Conference in 1919 (Wilson) and even then it was still more of a political principle (there was no "rule of self determination") rather than a thing so how can the Declaration promote a thing that didn't even exist at the time as a recognizable concept (it wasn't till much later that this developed as a real idea the way it is understood now), I think one could refer to "political rights", that was more or less understood at the time. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See page 118 in Jörg Fisch (9 December 2015). A History of the Self-Determination of Peoples: The Domestication of an Illusion. Cambridge University Press. p. 118. ISBN 978-1-107-03796-0.

The concept came into use in the 1860s.

Also see [10]

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the introduction on page 8 and 9 of your first ref, explaining it as a principle, axiom or demand which remained just a watchword “in particular in the final phase of the First World War”….(where it was honoured only in the breach of the right). This is far from what an average reader will understand by the expression “self-determination”.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In any case, self-determination implies a majority (amusing Curzon tried to explain at one point that "civil" in the English language included "political" haha).Selfstudier (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally.."Whilst the declaration aimed to provide self-determination in Palestine for Jews worldwide" ie aimed to provide a State contradicts what it says earlier, that the Declaration "was intentionally unclear as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated". Which one is it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a very interesting question. The literature on self determination appears to be vast.

Tomis Kapitan (11 June 2015). Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Routledge. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-317-46286-6. defines the term in both a general sense and a technical sense. The former is the way it is being used in the current text.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, that doesn't address the contradiction tho, the Zionist claim for a "Jewish Commonwealth" made at the Peace Conference was specifically rejected when the Mandate was created, this suggests that a Jewish State was NOT contemplated, which is the reverse of what we are implying in the article at the moment. Later Balfour, Churchill and many others clarified what was intended, namely that a State was neither contemplated nor was it not contemplated, it would simply depend on what occurred (nor was the Mandate ever intended to go on and on UNTIL there was a majority)and more specifically whether or not immigration would be sufficient to bring about a majority in the normal course (which never happened, Weizmann's projection of 70 to 80K Jews annually proved way too optimistic). To be honest I don't know why you suddenly decided after all this time to insert the material about self determination, it gives a wholly wrong impression of the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to edit the main page, hopefully you can see it as satisfactory. Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 literature

I firstly apologise for being so late in becoming aware of @Onceinawhile:'s initiative on this important topic. I am not sure if/how this will/might impact on the article, but two books on the topic were published in 2017, namely "Beyond the Balfour Declaration: The 100-Year Quest for Israeli–Palestinian Peace" by Leslie Turnberg and "The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine" by Bernard Regan, both of which I have on order. In addition Regan's PhD thesis is available at http://research.stmarys.ac.uk/1009/7/BRPhD2.pdf. The first book purports to fill the gap between opinion and evidence, which, if true, could be useful from an encyclopaedic point of view. It received praise from the Israeli ambassador to the U.K. In his thesis summary Regan writes: "The Balfour Declaration constituted an agreement between British imperialism and organised Zionism" thereby potentially offering a piquant (balancing?) POV which might find different favour. As another thought, I am a bit surprised that Doreen Ingram's book "Palestine Papers", in which she evaluates original documents, merits being the source for only two pieces of minor text, especially given that one of her main conclusions was that "during and after the First World War British Government ministers and officials had intentionally rather than accidentally laid the groundwork for a Jewish state in Palestine, while deliberately keeping this from the Arabs," something which I believe is notable information on the BD, and which I cannot recall seeing in the current text. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an historiography section in the article for notable contributions (there are so many, it is a matter of some difficulty to achieve notability). Your quote from Ingrams is used by both sides quite freely, Nuttings Review in 1975, http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine/ Balfour and Palestine, a legacy of deceit, by Anthony Nutting. If memory serves, I believe Smith refers to that work as a "useful counterpoint".

Thanks for the thesis link, seems interesting at first glance, a new twist on things is always worth a look.

I glanced at google books (https://books.google.es/books?id=dNKlDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=%22Balfour+Declaration%22+%2B+Centenary&source=bl&ots=BxAtRvMioc&sig=2kc3Du_BhNFRywo3yqiueu304GA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNi-vQtKXVAhVDuhQKHWcbAnkQ6AEIjwQwWQ#v=onepage&q=shlaim&f=false) for Turnberg's effort, seems on first inspection to be a fairly standard pro-Israeli affair (revisionist bashing, mandate map including transjordan, etc etc).

Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Eric and Self, this is helpful.

There is a third recently published book: Cronin, David (5 June 2017). Balfour's Shadow: British Support for Zionism and Israel (1917-2017). Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-9943-0.

My thoughts on each of these:

• Leslie Turnberg's book: Turnberg has no history-based qualifications, and his work appears not to be based on any new research. The only scholarly review out there is this nonsense from Geoffrey Alderman, whose own scholarly works have (clearly) not focused in the same arena. My read of Turnberg's work is that it is aimed at a popular audience, rather than trying to really bring something new to the table.
• Regan's work is scholarly, and having read the summary in his PhD thesis, appears to use a reasonable amount of new archival material, but his angles around the declaration itself appear interpretive and theoretical rather than bringing any new objective understandings. It seems his new archival material is primarily focused on the implementation of the mandate from 1917 to 1936, and the "Balfour" in the title is perhaps more marketing focused (given the centennial) than reflective of the work itself
• Cronin's work was reviewed by Fisk and in the Palestine Chronicle. Again, the work is not so much focused on the declaration as on the subsequent (100) years.

So all in all I struggle to see how any of these three books will add meaningfully to our article. Lay readers who want to understand the declaration will do better to come here and read our article than to buy any of these books...

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As to Ingrams, I agree her work is a crucial resource. Many of the quotes she brought are included in this article in one form or another, but usually these are sourced in our article to other scholarly works providing more secondary commentary rather than to Ingrams, since Ingrams's work is closer to a list of primary sources than an interpretative analysis. I have just added a short quote from her introduction in the Long Term Impact section. By the way, the statement that "during and after the First World War British Government ministers and officials had intentionally rather than accidentally laid the groundwork for a Jewish state in Palestine, while deliberately keeping this from the Arabs" appears to be the interpretation of the writer of the linked article here [11] rather than from Ingrams herself. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree about Ingrams, its a resource for the scholar rather than something you would try and read. It's concentrated mainly on British official records and it does that job very well.There is a small mention in the historiography although one wouldn't notice it unless looking carefully.Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Jewish national home vs. Jewish state Section

Looking through this, I could not find mention of Curzon's last minute memorandum in late October entitled (confusingly) "The Future of Palestine" (free download here http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7640914) where he addressed the following question:

What is the meaning of the phrase "a National Home for the Jewish Race in Palestine," and what is the nature of the obligation that we shall assume if we accept this as a principle of British policy?

Since he was an author (albeit an opposed one) and this was a cabinet memorandum (one of only a few covering the declaration preparation) related to the drafting I would have thought this was notable. He discusses the range of opinion from Rothschild's view on one side " a home where the Jews could speak their own language, have their own education, their own civilisation, and religious institutions under the protection of Allied Governments," to that of Sir A. Mond at the other "an autonomous Jewish State". Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Good idea - it's a useful summary of the range of views. I would also suggest that the section notes that the word "Homeland" was taken from the Basel Program's "Heimstätte", of which its author Max Nordau wrote "It was equivocal, but we all understood what it meant. To us it signified 'Judenstaat' then and it signifies the same now" and Herzl wrote "No need to worry [about the phraseology]. The people will read it as 'Jewish State' anyhow". [I suspect these statements were both written in German; I am looking for the original sources]

Heimstatte is "homestead", something like a ranch or a farm, heimatstaat would be home state or heimat for homeland, probably some dodgy translations.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Could I suggest we hold off on making changes to the article while the FAC review is ongoing, but perhaps agree the drafting here on talk in the meantime?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that everyone, inclusive of the Zionists themselves, realized that immigration (and presumably a majority) were necessary before there could be any serious consideration of statehood. In that sense, it doesn't really matter what anyone meant or intended by the expression "national home".Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice also that he appears to be writing the memorandum in response to the so called Milner Amery draft, the "Jewish race" version.Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have inserted a sourced sentence including a link to the cabinet document.