Talk:Balfour Declaration/Archive 5

Community reassessment

Balfour Declaration

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. No support for nominator's assertion that the article fails the GA criteria, and no response from nom in more than two weeks. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the article is not stable, which is a major GA requirement. While there is no actual edit warring, probably since the article falls under ARBPIA, the article has had hundreds if not thousands of edits since receiving GA, and there is talk page agreement that it's missing large amounts of information in both the Background and the Long-term impact sections. I think the article should be delisted until it stabilizes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The requesting editor has just added a neutrality tag (without contributing any useful edit himself) to a section of the article so as to support this reassessment request which otherwise would likely fail for lack of any good reason to suspend the listing. The claim that the article is missing large amounts of information is false. The editor is recommended to follow the Wikipedia article reassessment guidelines (reproduced here for ease of reference):-

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

   Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
   Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
   Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
   Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also disagree. The nominator's concern appears to be re WP:GA? number 5: "Stable". The footnote attached to that criteria says "... good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion". Since reaching GA status, the article has been undergoing a peer review over more than a year, including a GOCE Copy Edit, with considerable improvements being made, with the intention to reach WP:FA status.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those comments addresses the issue I have raised. This article has gone through substantial changes since being listed, not just copyediting or "changes based on reviewers' suggestions". It is likely to receive more substantial changes in the near future.

I hope some uninvolved editors will show up here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For ease of reference, here's a diff that contains all the changes to this article in the last 3 months [1]. Those are not just copyedits and this is not a stable article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - it is common, if not the norm, that GAs evolve a lot on their way to FA (which is the purpose here), due to the higher standards there. Articles are required to be stable before being GA nominated, not necessarily after, as long as the instability is leading to improvements. The next step here would simply be to improve the article further, which is already happening, until everyone is happy. But yes, this article should be stabilised before an eventual FA nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: this reassessment request seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Stability means for a Good Article. To quote from the GA criteria: Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. (Footnote adds: Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.) There appear to have been extensive revisions—good faith improvements, I'm guessing—but as the nominator points out, no edit warring. Without a major and extended edit war/content disagreement, there are no grounds for delisting that I can see. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the preceding comment. There has been no recent instability, so what is the complaint? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It's not clear to me what "Good Article" status means. Does it refer to a point in time, or to the article itself? I would think the latter is much more consistent and coherent. Therefore, if an article has had major changes since its assessment, it should automatically be given a reassessment. I don't know how the GA process works, so I can't really say if this is common practice. But it seems sensible to me (modulo the effort required to actually assess the article). To that extent, I agree with NMMNG. However, do we really need a GA reassessment now, since other procedures (for FA) are already in the works? If the latter succeeds, the former is moot. Perhaps, just wait for the latter to be finished and then worry about the former. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)ç
• Comment: Good Article Status is defined at WP:Good article criteria. To propose a delist (which in addition assumes that a fix is not possible), it is enough to show that the criteria are not met. A large number of changes since listing does not by itself affect good article status per the criteria.Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sykes' Actual Job

The section on the beginning of formal negotiations between Sykes and the Zionist leadership could do with more specificity on Sykes's actual role. The lead calls him a War Cabinet secretary, whereas the body describes him as being in the War Office. It turns out both are true. The best secondary source on the matter appears to be: Roger Adelson (1995). London and the Invention of the Middle East: Money, Power, and War, 1902-1922. Yale University Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-300-06094-2., and the best primary source on the matter appears to be: HC Deb 14 March 1917 vol 91 cc1098-9W. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I think it was earlier, in 1916?, when the Zionists were given preferred access to British communications facilities, I had meant to look further into that and forgot.Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't find much about the comms facilities except in somewhat dubious sources (Samuel Landman and Two Studies in Virtue). If it happened, which it may not have, it was supposedly in October 1916 (I don't really believe this myself).Still looking for anything about Sykes being authorized by anybody at all (I wouldn't have authorized him to make the tea, haha).Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Lieshout says access to comms facilities was granted after the Feb 1917 meeting and sources that to "Stein, The Balfour Declaration, 377; Reinharz, Chaim Weizmann, 147; Letter to Alfred Read, May 10, 1917, in Weizmann, The Letters and Papers, 405–6." so I would go with that as likely being correct.

Hmm.

As to his title, "senior member of the British War Cabinet secretariat" is definitely accurate and is an understandable and most relevant way of comminicating his position to readers. I agree we need to cover this in the main body - we can do so based on the two sources I linked to earlier in this thread.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As for the title I don't see anywhere in your sources that it says "senior member", what is your source for that? What does it even mean? Why cannot you call him by his actual title instead of something made up? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In multiple sources (including yours), Sykes is called "assistant secretary to the War cabinet". If you want to puff him up a bit, then you could say something like "promoted to the position of assistant secretary to the War cabinet in charge of Middle Eastern affairs (the nearest translation to a modern day job title would be something like expert or consultant ie not a decision maker per se). Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to puff him up, it's just that "assistant secretary" requires too much explanation for the lead to ensure readers understand that this was an important role.

On a related point, the description in the body of the article was added here: [2]. I couldn't find a source for this so wondered whether "War Office Secretariat" might be mistake for War Cabinet Secretariat? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a mistake, can just correct it; you don't decide whether someone's job is important just based on their title (Hankey, Sykes' boss, was also a "secretary", doesn't mean he was a typist).Assistant_Secretary#United_Kingdom

Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

To borrow from something you wrote below, and from the Adelson source I linked above, how about "the member of the War Cabinet Secretariat responsible for Eastern affairs"? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Authorized?

I will make a new section here and move the stuff about whether he was authorized into it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(Moved)

The political role is the secretary position, although it would have been usual for the Cabinet to issue an instruction for him to initiate discussions with the Zionists, I didn't find a reference for it, did you?; it is difficult to imagine that he was not authorised, it may have been informally, perhaps by Lloyd George directly, that is only my opinion however. These sorts of appointments were quite common in those days, certain people were appointed to roles for which they were not strictly qualified on the basis of family connections and wealth, the so called "amateurs" (holding down a "real" job was beneath them).Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I have been wondering the same. I read somewhere that when Sykes attended the 7 February 1917 meeting which started the negotiations, he claimed to be technically unauthorized. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have got this right yet. I cannot find any evidence that the government had a pro Zionist policy at the time nor any evidence that Sykes was acting in accordance with any such policy (I don't think there was any such policy myself). Also sentences in the lead need to be in the body and at the moment what we have there is "“Following the change in government, Sykes was transferred to the War Office Secretariat as political secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, and charged with reopening discussions with the Zionists.” (unsourced)

Re 7 February meeting, Stein has on page 370 ( I can only get snippets)

"...on February 7th. Sykes explained that he was attending the conference in his private capacity. He was bound to make this clear since he had no authority to bind the government by any promises to the..."

I think that clears it up, don't you? Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As to whether he was doing it in accordance with policy, we have a pretty clear statement in the main body that says "Following the change in government, Sykes was transferred to the War Office Secretariat as political secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, and charged with reopening discussions with the Zionists." He may not have had explicit approval for the meeting on 7 February, but his attendence was definitely in line with his official mission. He may have said the piece about "private capacity" in order to ensure that the audience understood that he could not (yet) agree anything on behalf of the government and did not try to negotiate with him. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

What "official mission"? Sourced statement from the recognized expert on the subject trumps unsourced opinion (yours and mine). So he (said that he) had no authorization and was not acting officially (btw, this makes perfect sense to me). So we need to amend the lead (and the body) so as not to include incorrect unsourced material.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

(End of Move)

Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East Scott Anderson

"what made this gathering extraordinary was Sykes’ opening announcement that he was there without the knowledge of either the Foreign Office or the War cabinet and therefore their discussions had to remain secret" Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of anything official earlier than this? (from Lieshout)

On 3 April 1917, Weizmann, in the company of Scott, breakfasted with Lloyd George and discussed the question of Palestine. Scott recorded in his diary that the Prime Minister said that the Palestine campaign was ‘the one really interesting part of the war,' and that he ‘was altogether opposed to a condominium with France.' He also wanted to know Weizmann’s position on an internationalised Palestine. The latter replied that this was ‘even a shade worse’ than an Anglo–French condominium. That same afternoon Sir Mark had an interview with Lloyd George and Curzon. Both impressed on Sykes ‘the importance of not prejudicing the Zionist movement and the possibility of its development under British auspices’. Lloyd George ‘suggested that the Jews might be able to render us more assistance than the Arabs’. Sykes agreed, but also pointed out that ‘it was important not to stir up any movement in rear of Turkish lines which might lead to a Turkish massacre of the Jews’. Although the Prime Minister had not referred to a British protectorate over Palestine in his interview with Weizmann, he now was emphatic ‘on the importance, if possible, of securing the addition of Palestine to the British area’. Sir Mark, therefore, should ‘not […] enter into any political pledges to the Arabs, and particularly none in regard to Palestine’.(Notes of a Conference, G.T.–372, 3 April 1917, Cab 24/9) Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

http://erenow.com/ww/the-balfour-declaration-the-origins-of-the-arab-israeli-conflict/16.html (this and next page is Schneer) Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have found the answer, and have drafted a footnote ready to go into the article. In order to minimise edits while the FAC is ongoing, perhaps we agree how to amend the article for this topic and the job title one at the same time, then put in an agreed version all at once?

[Footnote]: Geoffrey Lewis describes the evidence as follows: "It seems that Sykes wanted to keep what he was doing to himself. The entry in Scott's diary for 27 January reads: 'Saw Weizmann in morning about Palestine question - Sir Mark Sykes deputed by the FO to deal with it - he and Ld. Rothschild and James Rothschild to see him - Memorial was being prepared on whole question." This is the only evidence that Sykes had official backing for what he did; but whatever the truth of the matter, he intended it to be understood by the Zionists that he was meeting them as a private person."

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting as far as it goes, it is information given by Weizmann to Scott a week earlier? This may be nothing more than an assumption by Weizmann in that case, Sykes was not working for the FO. I don't think that's evidence that Sykes was authorized especially when we have source saying that Sykes himself claims not to be authorized and is acting privately. Nor is it evidence of a pro Zionist policy. We may want a footnote somewhere, sure, the article as it stands is wrong though (unsourced and probably incorrect material)and needs correcting not just footnoting. Let me think about it a little.

Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Lieshout also quotes this 27 January diary entry as follows:

Saw Weizmann in morning about Palestine question ... Very important to obtain American Jews’ support. It would be unanimous if they could be assured that in the event of British occupation of Palestine the Zionist Scheme would be considered favourably. Now was the moment for pressing the matter when British troops were actually on Palestinian soil.

which is exactly how it shows up in the book, Political Diaries of C.P.Scott. So perhaps Lewis is getting the info from somewhere else?

Also, Lewis, later on page 130, discussing the meeting of 7th:

"Sykes might insist, as he did, that he was acting privately, but the Zionists knew at this juncture he was the man, the British expert advising the cabinet on the Middle East, on whom their hopes hung, Although the government might not have specifically authorized the negotiations, it could not afterwards forswear them”

So Lewis also agrees about "privately" and "unauthorised" (although he seems to be trying to spin it a little bit).

OK, how about we finesse it and say something like this in the lead:

"Most historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a meeting that took place on the 7th February that included Sir Mark Sykes and (...) which resulted in Balfour requesting on 19 June that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration."

and then expand and/or footnote the statement in the body of the article.?

Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest writing the body first, then summarizing it in the lead. It would be simpler and more concrete; and that's the usual way these thing are done anyway. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Of course, we are only talking about it in here because we are trying to figure out how to fix the errors in the most economical way. Its not as if we are starting out fresh, if we can agree where we want to end up, then writing the body should be straightforward.Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We could alter the body something like this:

Following the change in government, Sykes was promoted to the War Cabinet Secretariat with responsibility for Middle East Affairs. In early 1917, despite having previously built a relationship with leading British Zionist Moses Gaster,[ix] he began looking to meet other Zionist leaders and was introduced to Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow at the end of January 1917. On 7 February 1917, ?????....

I have put ?? at the end because I think one problem about this meeting is that we are short on detail about what was actually discussed (we know about the private capacity/unathorised stuff from Sykes, what did the Zionists say? I recall reading somewhere that the Zionists had prepared a statement of aims or something like that and I also remember reading that they pressed Sykes (and Samuel?) about whether commitments had been made to the French (Sykes-Picot), anything else? In this way we can clarify that the meeting had importance without just relying on people saying it was important eg Sokolow says "the deliberations yielded a favourable result" so what was it?)

If we jump forward a little, not long afterwards, at the beginning of April, Sykes is dispatched to the East(officially as CPO to GoCIC,EEF,like Picot)though he stops enroute to shepherd Sokolow (who has been introduced to Picot by Sykes) through France, Italy and the Vatican. Same problem here, one can only assume that Sykes has been authorised to do this, tho there are some indirect references to the Zionists in the minutes authorising Sykes as CPO).

Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Save trawling through a large CAB file, I extracted the Sykes CPO approval https://www.dropbox.com/s/hbnas5r1tqdwmy2/cab-24-9_GT327.pdf?dl=0 for those interested.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating - many thanks. The ignorance demonstrated in this document is staggering. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Lieshout re meeting 7th

During the meeting of 7 February, the Zionist delegation made sure that Sykes did get the right impression. One after the other, the Zionist representatives hammered at the absolute necessity of a British protectorate over Palestine, and their total rejection of a condominium. Gaster opened the meeting by proclaiming that ‘there must be no condominium or internationalization in Palestine, as that would be fatal. What Zionists in England and everywhere desired was a British protectorate with full rights to the Jews to develop a national life.’ Lord Rothschild followed up by emphasizing that he was ‘irreconcilably opposed to any form of condominium. Great Britain must annex Palestine.’ Nahum Sokolow, representative of the World Zionist Organisation, claimed that ‘the Jews of the whole world […] all desired that England should annex Palestine’.

Sykes subsequently started to define the area in which the Jewish chartered company proposed by the Zionists could be active. The northern limit would be from Acre in a straight line to the Jordan, which meant that the Hauran and the greater part of Galilee were excluded. While the southern border ‘could be arranged with the British government’, Sir Mark also excluded the ‘islands’ of Jerusalem, Jaffa and ‘a belt from Jerusalem to the sea along the Jaffa railway […] because the Russian pilgrims came along this route’. The Zionists were appalled.

Maybe we should be referring to this (historic, crucial, pivotal, seminal, important...)meeting as a "frank exchange of views" with the "result" being that everybody had a clearer idea of the differences and difficulties.Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes that sounds fair. The crucial piece to my mind is that the meeting represented the start of the negotiations. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Originally, I had put the content of the section “1917 British Zionist formal negotiations” together with the first paragraph of “April to June Allied Discussions” (check the footnotes that refer to the day after the meeting of 7th February) and it has been split it into two pieces, losing the continuity. I think we could perhaps, put it back?Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Or the other way around, take the first para up, thats more correct and less messy,I will go ahead and do that.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Friedman has a reasonable account on pages 148 to 150 of QoP, Graham (to Hardinge) clearly believes that the CPO authorisation means “His Majesty’s Government are now committed to support Zionist aspirations” (he also refers to Paris and Rome) while having doubts abouts the whole thing (It looks like Lloyd George was just assuming, take Gaza, occupy Palestine, fait accompli for the French) . I think we can certainly say that Sykes is authorized at this point although its not particularly clear just how far the authorisation extends (because it is not spelled out in the minutes).

Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

So, here's what I have, what do you think? (we can add more refs/footnote it as well):

(Body)

Following the change in government, Sykes was promoted to the War Cabinet Secretariat with responsibility for Middle East Affairs. In early 1917, despite having previously built a relationship with leading British Zionist Moses Gaster,[ix] he began looking to meet other Zionist leaders and was introduced to Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow at the end of January 1917. On 7 February 1917, Sykes, claiming to be acting in a private capacity, entered into substantive discussions with the Zionist leadership; present at the meeting were.....(Rothschlds, Samuel, Weizmann Sokolow, etc)

(Lead)

"Historians agree that the first high level contacts between the British and the Zionists can be dated to a conference that took place on the 7th February that included Sir Mark Sykes and (Rothschilds, Zionist leadership) that eventually resulted in Balfour requesting on 19 June that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration." Selfstudier (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and made these amendments. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

San Remo 1920

I am wondering whether we ought not to have something about this in the article. That is, that the terms of the Declaration were included in the Mandate for Palestine (although it was some time before it was eventually ratified); that the omission of political rights ("the right to vote and take part in elections") was contested at San Remo by France and that it was agreed that France's objection be recorded formally in the minutes as part of the proces-verbal (the US ambassador in Rome was in attendance as an observer.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minutes_of_Meetings_of_the_Supreme_Council_of_the_Allied_Powers_in_San_Remo_at_the_Villa_Devachan,_April_24_and_April_25,_1920.djvu?page=11 The Italians wanted a clause about protecting the rights of Roman Catholics (on behalf of the Vatican; the French surrendered their protectorate rights) and it was agreed a clause in the mandate to set up a special commission (it's in the mandate and was never implemented). (Curzon referred to the Arabs as a "minority" at this meeting and the French referred to the Balfour Declaration as a "dead letter"!)Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a sentence in response section plus 2 refs Selfstudier (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: Proposed RfC

At the WP:FAC review we have received a number of views on the inclusion of the verbatim declaration in the lead paragraphs and/or infobox, from @Wehwalt, Hertz1888, Rjensen, Kingsindian, Selfstudier, and Brianboulton:. I propose to bring this to a close by opening an RfC on this talk page with numerous options. Before opening this, please could all interested editors take a look at the options in the link below and propose any additions you would like to add:

• Talk:Balfour Declaration/Lead alternatives

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks complicated. Are you comfortable this can be decided within the course of this FAC? Also, it might be useful to have a summary of the differences between the versions.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah - good idea. I will add diffs. It's actually very small and simple amendments. I am confident we can do this in a week. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Now with diffs:

• Alternative #1 vs. current version: [3]
• Alternative #2 vs. current version: [4]
• Alternative #3 vs. current version: [5]

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Of those three, the third is the clearest presentation and best suited to the article, placing readable text adjacent to the image of the letter, which can easily be enlarged for legibility by a single click. Qexigator (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, Hertz1888, Rjensen, Kingsindian, Selfstudier, and Brianboulton: since you have all expressed views on this topic in the past, please could you throw in your two cents below? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Location of verbatim text

Option 3 was implemented here. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the verbatim text of the declaration be in the lead and/or infobox, and if so, in which of these proposed forms? Please vote on the four options below:

• Current version (verbatim text as third para of lead, picture of letter in infobox)
• Alternative #1 (verbatim text not in lead, but in infobox below picture of letter): diff vs. current version: [6]
• Alternative #2 (verbatim text not in lead, but in infobox without picture of letter): diff vs. current version: [7]
• Alternative #3 (verbatim text at top of lead, after short first sentence, picture of letter in infobox): diff vs. current version: [8]

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support 3: Of those three, the third is the clearest presentation and best suited to the article, placing readable text adjacent to the image of the letter, which can easily be enlarged for legibility by a single click. Qexigator (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support 1: The verbatim text quote in the lead breaks its flow and simplicity. The quote fits comfortably in the infobox – I agree with Qexigator that it is optimal to have the quote adjacent to the image of the original letter. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support 3: This conservative alternative strikes me as a sufficient and desirable enhancement of the status quo. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply by selfstudier

Given a free choice, I prefer #3 and no infobox (the picture could go in the article later); I don't know how serious this issue is for FA status so will just go along with the majority opinion in any event. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I have removed the RFC template and implemented option 3. Limited interest was shown in the RFC, but a clear preference was shown for option 3.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did see the ping but forgot about this. I don't have any particular choice; #3 looks fine to me, however. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National home

Isn't the first sentence slightly inaccurate? It says:

announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine

I propose it be changed to

announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine

Because the declaration doesn't actually specify that the imagined "national home" be "Jewish." I was about to change it myself, but this article is so controversial. ImTheIP (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree that change should be made for accuracy. Qexigator (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it really that different?

Stylistically it’s better if we (a) avoid repeating the text verbatim in the first line, and (b) ensure the text is as short as possible.

Is there any other form of words which would deal with your concern whilst keeping the text short and not copying the declaration?

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The meanings are different, and here accuracy is all-important, as the drafting of the Declaration itself and later events exemplify. Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Replace the adjectives "Jewish" and "national" with "elderly" and "retirement." You get "establishment of an elderly retirement home in..." vs "establishment of a retirement home for the elderly people in..." In one way, a "national home for the Jewish people" is a stronger claim, in another way "a Jewish national home" is stronger. So in my non-native English ears, the phrases are not equivalent. I don't know what to do about the repetitiveness though. ImTheIP (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Zionism and Sykes-Picot

FYI discussion related to recent amendments on this topic at Talk:Sykes–Picot_Agreement#British_Zionist_discussions.3F. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Serbia

@23 editor: thanks for your edits on Serbia’s interest in the declaration.

I assume the reference does not refer to the actual governing body of Serbia at the time (Imperial and Royal Military Administration in Serbia) but rather Nikola Pašić’s Serbian government in exile in Corfu? If so, we should explain that.

Can you also provide the context for their early recognition of the declaration? In other words, was early recognition expected to have some indirect benefit for the position of their government-in-exile?

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I see there is quite a lot of context in the article on David Albala. Also pinging @Rosiestep:.

FYI the article is currently a Featured Article Candidate, so i’d be grateful if further changes could be agreed here on talk in order to avoid too many changes to the article whilst the review is ongoing.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

How about:

The declaration was first endorsed by a foreign government on 27 December 1917, when local Zionist leader and diplomat David Albala announced the support of Serbia’s government in exile during a trip to the United States.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that would be more accurate. Just change "local" to "Serbian" for precision and "trip" to "visit" so it doesn't sound so informal. 23 editor (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Declaration and the Conflict

Per a comment at the FAC, I have been mulling over options to replace “the origin” in the phrase “was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. For reference, below are excerpts from a few of the sources in the bibliography:

• ...the cause...: Ingrams: “Probably no other scrap of paper in history has had the effect of this brief letter, the cause of a conflict that has lasted half a century and still shows no sign of settlement.”
• ...gave rise to...: Shlaim: “I can only agree with Sir John Chancellor that the Balfour Declaration was a colossal blunder - it has proved to be a catastrophe for the Palestinians and it gave rise to one of the most intense, bitter, and protracted conflicts of modern times.”
• ...produced...: Schneer: “produced a murderous harvest, and we go on harvesting even today”
• ...indirectly led to...: Watts: “Indirectly, the Balfour Declaration led to the creation of the State of Israel and to ongoing conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East.”

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Cause looks god to me. "Catalyst" might be fitting, but not if it is not used by any sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong with origin? Nothing is wrong with substituting prose for source if the meaning is clear.Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"Cause" is not synonymous with "origin" in this context, at least not entirely. In history, there are few monocausal events, so "cause" is typically used for the main event or factor which gave rise to a particular phenomenon. Thus, "cause" can differ from "origin". One should probably go with "cause", since that is the general phrasing used in sources. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just found another source, published just two weeks ago: Tucker, Spencer C. (2017). "35. Is the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to Blame for the Long-Running Arab-Israeli Conflict?". Enduring Controversies in Military History: Critical Analyses and Context. ABC-CLIO. pp. 469–482. ISBN 978-1-4408-4120-0.

The source gives three perspectives on the question, with all acknowledging the declaration and the conflict are related, and the open question being being whether the declaration is either partially or fully responsible for the conflict:

• Lawrence Davidson: "The Balfour Declaration, which was announced by Great Britain's war cabinet in November 1917, was indeed responsible for the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict... Since the moment of its conception, the State of Israel has seen nearly constant turmoil. The reason for this is not complicated. The ill will established by the Balfour Declaration and the ensuing takeover of a non-European land via the mass migration of European people continues to persist. Indeed, the only way Israel could and can justify itself both in the broader region of the Middle East and among its own Arab population is through the use of force. The many wars and other conflicts in which Israel has engaged since its founding testify to this fact."
• Jennifer Jefferis: "In conclusion, the Balfour Declaration was a product of the swirling dynamics of an important time in human history. The growing strength of the Zionist movement as new state boundaries were being created gave a prospect of feasibility to its cause. The competitive interests of Britain, France, Russia, and eventually the United States meant that the states that were eventually created would go to the groups that would prove most useful to the war effort. And the impact that the creation of the State of Israel had on the indigenous Palestinian population ensured that proximate and ideological neighbors would define the Arab-Israeli conflict long into the future. The Balfour Declaration was certainly significant but less for what it can be credited as having caused and more as a harbinger of conflict to come."
• Spencer C. Tucker: "This outcome was the result not solely of the Balfour Declaration but also of a long-standing convoluted and opportunistic British Middle Eastern policy often at odds with itself. The British government proved unable to bridge the animosity between Arab and Jew and then simply gave up. The result of the overly hasty British exit would be a number of costly Arab-Israeli wars and animosity that extends to the present."

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I can find you a source saying whatever you would like it to say, opinion in general is "no Balfour Declaration = no Israel = no conflict". I don't really care if its "cause" or "origin" it will mean exactly the same thing to most people (including me) Selfstudier (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I am ok with "cause", as it has consensus here.

Per KingsIndian, saying it caused the conflict is not the same as saying that the conflict had only one cause. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Balfour Declaration, which was announced by Great Britain's war cabinet in November 1917, was indeed responsible for the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict." - I think you'll find that it was the behaviour of the Jewish immigrants after the British withdrawal from Palestine that was "responsible for the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict."

Prior to their withdrawal in 1948 the British had spent the previous years trying to prevent an influx of Jewish immigrants into Palestine for reasons that will now appear obvious, as the presence of these immigrants in increasingly large numbers threatened the autonomy of the Palestinians and threatened to usurp them from the control of their own country - which is what subsequently happened.

The idea behind the Balfour Declaration was for an area of Palestine to be donated to the Jews with the consent of the Palestinians so that the Jewish people could live on their own land, under their own government, without fear of persecution by others. It did not propose that the Jews take it all.

... nor did it propose the eviction of the 'natives' from their own homes and land, the bulldozing of these homes, and the subsequent building of new homes for immigrants only on the now-razed vacant sites, and the making of the displaced 'natives' effectively stateless persons condemned to live in squalid refugee camps in Jordan and elsewhere.

The people "responsible for the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict" are the Israelis, whose behaviour towards other peoples and surrounding states since 1948 has made them unpopular in the area.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.54 (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"The Israelis" are not to blame – it’s wrong to tar an entire people. Many are and were idealists who wanted the best for everyone; and most people don’t care about these political things and just want to live in peace. The conflict was caused by an extremist interpretation of Zionism, an ideology. Unfornately it proved to be very seductive, and coupled with a century of propaganda dehumanizing and delegitimizing the Palestinian people, it allowed for and encouraged amoral and inhumane behavior – both by the holders of that extreme ideology and those on the other side who reacted to it. And the fact is that the Balfour Declaration, through incompetence and naivety, legitimized that ideology. As many scholars sourced in the article explain, the British thought they were legitimizing one thing, but got another. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You may well be right, but Israel is supposedly a democracy, and one would suspect that if the majority of Israelis were not supportive of their government's policies then the populace would not vote for them. If the Israelis want peace then whether they like it or not they will have to stop voting for the same political parties that have caused all the trouble. They will also have to come to some sort of accommodation with the Palestinians, although it may well be too late for that, although I hope it is not.

Unfortunately, in a democracy, as in some other forms of government, there is a tendency for crooks and thieves to seek office and power, and it is the job and duty of an electorate to recognise these people, and to stop them. Otherwise Bad Things Happen.

And the non-partisan outsider could be forgiven for thinking that after what the Jews went through in the period 1933-45 they of all people would be the least likely to be prone to the effects of "propaganda dehumanizing and delegitimizing" other peoples. At least one would hope so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Need for verbatim text in lede

As Selfstudier pointed out here, we now have a higher res version of the letter from Verbcatcher. As a result, we may no longer need the paragraph in the lead. Before the new high res letter we had an RFC (above) on this question - please could interested editors comment as to whether their views have changed? Also pinging @Qexigator, Kingsindian, and Hertz1888: Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I was not involved in the earlier discussion. An image of the letter is not an adequate replacement for the plain text, partly because only plain text will be accessible to visually-impaired users using text-to-speech software. Also, placing the declaration in the main text gives it the appropriate emphasis, and the declaration is short enough to quote in full. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like the plain text to be part of the lead as well, because the lead discusses the specific wording. Is there some problem with having it in the lead? The lead is a bit on the longer side, but still ok, in my opinion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

ORES

Is clearly a very powerful tool... It has calculated that this article is FA status:

https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/805801416

(FYI the "https://ores.wmflabs.org/v2/scores/enwiki/wp10/" can be used across all wikipedia pages, whilst the 9-digit number at the end is just the edit number of the latest version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declaration&oldid=805801416)

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Early Zionism

This chapter in the article is partial, to say the least, because it gives very little – to none at all – direct and clear account of the Jewish immigration to Palestine during the time period the chapter discusses. As a matter of fact, this immigration, and the Jews that settled in Palestine as a result, were not only an inherent part of “early Zionism”, but also happened to play a dominant role in the history of the Balfour declaration. In contrast to the impression the chapter gives, early Zionism did not start with Theodore Herzl, and did not exploit itself in pamphlets like “Autoemancipation” of Pinsker. In parallel to the Zionist ideological groups and political activities that emerged in Europe until the Balfour Declaration, several tens of thousands of Jews actually emigrated to Ottoman Palestine, mainly from Europe but also from Yemen, due to pure Zionist emotions. By 1897, the time when Herzl convened the First Zionist Congress, Ottoman Palestine has already witnessed some 15 years of relatively intense Jewish immigration that resulted in nearly 20 new Jewish settlements, mostly based on agriculture and clearly distinct from the hundreds-years-old traditional Jewish communities in the country (e.g. in Jerusalem, Hebron etc.). By 1900, Jewish population in Palestine has doubled, compared to twenty years earlier. Soon after the beginning of the 20th century a new wave of immigration to Israel started, and by the beginning of WWI in 1914, the population has more than tripled (compared to the population in 1880), with an estimated 59,000 Jewish inhabitants (the data are taken from Justin McCarthy, “The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate”, Columbia University Press (1990) , as quoted in Wikipedia “Demographic history of Palestine”). Although the chapter “Ottoman Palestine” briefly mentions the First Alliya and the Second Alliya, these terms remain vague, and most importantly, they remain disengaged from the ideology that drove them, namely from “early Zionism”. What important in this sense is that not only the Jewish population in Palestine grew quickly during that period, but that this growth was the very manifestation of Zionism by tens of thousands of Jews, beginning even prior to any organized political movement endorsing it, not to mention prior to gaining international support. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the Balfour Declaration did not create Jewish immigration to Palestine, but rather opened the door to international legitimization to a national movement (and demographic displacement) that has been on-going for about 35 years by that time. 77.126.7.102 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

NILI, Zionism, Aliyah and so on all have their own articles on Wikipedia, I think most of this commentary (and any sources for it) should be taken up at the relevant talk pages rather than here where the interest is primarily with the Declaration. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to agree. The question is not whether these or other topics have their own articles, but whether this article provides a fair and complete description of the matter. “Early Zionism” exists as a chapter in this article, in spite of the fact that there is an extensive article on Zionism per se. The same is true for Herzl, and so on. The reason is of course the need to provide a relevant background to the topic in question.

What I’m saying is that the description of “Early Zionism” without the explicit mention of the actual Zionist immigration to Palestine prior to the Declaration is lacking and biased. It leaves the wrong impression that Early Zionism was focused and limited to Europe, as it overlooks the effects Zionism had during that early period on Palestine itself. Such immigration, and the resulting Zionist settlement in Palestine, must be explicitly described, at least for the sake of completeness alone, as it adds to the Declaration the aspect of a support for a phenomenon that has been on-going, and strengthening, for a few tens of years earlier to it.

Of course, the fact that a fraction of the Jewish settlers in Palestine were active in assisting (or at the very least attempting to assist) the war effort of the British against the Turks, in the explicit desire to obtain some type of national liberation, only adds to this matter. 77.126.7.102 (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Early Zionism in two places: “... Hovevei Zion pioneer organizations...” and “...the Jewish agricultural colonies of the first major wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1880s – retrospectively named the "First Aliyah"...”

In addition you already acknowledged that it is mentioned again in other places throughout the article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

These quotes only strengthen my point: Hovevei Zion and Pinsker operated in Europe, and so the text conceals what happened in Palestine at the same time. At the very least, such a sentence should say something like:

“The 1881–84 anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire encouraged the growth of the latter identity, resulting in the formation of the Hovevei Zion pioneer organizations, and the publication of Leon Pinsker's Autoemancipation and the emergence of the first wave of Zionist immigration to Palestine, later to be termed the first Aliyah.”

The second quote is a marginal mention of that first wave of immigration, being secondary to the main topic of the sentence, Baron Edmond de Rothschild (again, a figure operating in Europe). Moreover, it does not seem reasonable, for instance, that the plain reader going through the third paragraph in this chapter may not immediately realize that by 1904 Palestine have experienced more than 20 years of relatively intense Jewish immigration, while Uganda did not witness at the time even a single Jew. 77.126.7.102 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a sensible solution. I will make the change, with a couple of small tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

World War I

This chapter, while describing in some length the discussions between Zionist and British politicians in London over the future possible fate of Palestine, avoids any mention of the contribution of Jewish residents of Palestine to the British war effort. However during 1917, the NILI spy network in Palestine, headed by Aaron Aaronson, established with British intelligence a routine – yet extremely risky – link for delivering information for assisting the British campaign into Palestine. This contribution won the recognition of both the highest British commanders in the field, up to Allenby, as well as the highest British officials, up to Lloyd George, and should be accounted for in the article. The following description is based on Scott Anderson’s “Lawrence in Arabia” (ISBN 038553292X), “Lawrence and Aaronsohn“ by Ronald Florence, “The Aaronsohn Saga” by Shmuel Katz (2007, ISBN-10: 9652294160) and several additional sources listed below.

Aaronson was very active not only in running the spy network, but also in collecting the political fruits of these pro-British efforts, by promoting the Zionist idea within British intelligence officers and diplomats. In 1916 Aaronson visited London, and circulated a memorandum which argued the case for a sovereign Jewish state. He met Mark Sykes three times within the 10 days of his visit, and the two discussed potential British-Jewish collaboration in Palestine, once Britain would push the Turks out. Sykes, who was trying to secure exclusive British control over Palestine vis. a vis. France and Russia in view of the SP Agreement that had just been signed, has evidently seen Aaronson as a representative of a Jewish community in Palestine that could be supportive of British interests, in return for gaining political national rights. In 1922 William Ormsby-Gore (who met Aaronson as an intelligence officer, together with Sykes, in Cairo in 1916 and later served as an assistant secretary in the War Cabinet of Lloyd George) said:

“the matter was first breached by Sir Mark Sykes in 1916 speaking to Dr Gaster and Sir Herbert Samuel. Dr Weizmann was then unknown. Sykes was furthered by General Macdunagh DMI (Director of Military Intelligence) as all the most useful and helpful intelligence from Palestine (then still occupied by Turkey) was got through and given with zeal by Zionist Jews who were from the first pro British”

(taken from “A Broken Trust: Sir Hebert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians” by Sahar Huneidi, as quoted in “‘Mack’: Aaron Aaronsohn, the NILI intelligence network and the Balfour Declaration” by Efraim Halevy (http://fathomjournal.org/balfour-100-mack-aaron-aaronsohn-the-nili-intelligence-network-and-the-balfour-declaration/).

The detailed story of NILI can be found in many sources (a concise summary on the internet can be found for example in encyclopedia.com http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nili). The contribution of NILI’s espionage efforts to Allenby’s Sinai and Palestine Campaign is highly praised by some sources, less by others, but it may not be considered as non-existing. In July 1917 Aaronson met Allenby in person. According to Florence, Aaronson supplied Allenby the maps with the routs and locations of oases in the desert that allowed Allenby, after two failing attempts to concur Gaza (with some 10,000 casualties – dead, wounded or missing), to bypass it and attack Beersheba. As is well known, the successful concur of Beersheba was the key to taking Palestine. According to the “Encyclopedia of Intelligence and Counterintelligence” (Editor Rodney P. Carlisle, 2004, ISBN 10: 0765680688, under “reconnaissance”),

“As soon as Allenby took over British intelligence operations in Cairo, he had Aaronsohn and the NILI ring focus its attention on the Beersheba region. The reconnaissance trips that the NILI member – all amateur spies – made to the Beersheba area had a major impact on British war plans… Using information supplied by the NILI agents, Allenby took the Turks completely by surprise and smashed through their defensive lines at Beersheba.”

Aaronson’s death in a plane crash in 1919

“deprived me of a valued friend and of a staff officer impossible to replace”

wrote Allenby posthumously (taken from Douglas Feith, “The Jewish Spies Who Helped the British Defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I”, https://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2017/09/the-jewish-spies-who-helped-the-british-defeat-the-ottoman-empire-in-world-war-i/). The Chief of British Military intelligence at the War Office Major General George Macdonogh was quoted as saying in his lecture in 1919 at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich:

“You will no doubt remember the great campaign of Lord Allenby in Palestine and perhaps you are surprised at the daring of his actions. Someone who is looking from the side lines, lacking knowledge about the situation, is likely to think that Allenby took unwarranted risks. That is not true. For Allenby knew with certainty from his intelligence (in Palestine) of all the preparations and all the movements of his enemy. All the cards of his enemy were revealed to him, and so he could play his hand with complete confidence. Under these conditions, victory was certain before he began.”

A few years later, Raymond Savage, Deputy Military Secretary to Allenby, told a New York press conference:

“It was very largely the daring work of young spies, most of them natives of Palestine, which enabled the Field-Marshal to accomplish his undertaking effectively.”

(quoted in “Unsung Heroes, https://web.archive.org/web/20090611041943/http://doctor-horsefeathers.com/archives2/000437.php).

British appreciation to Aaronson’s group efforts was not limited only to words. In September and October 1917, in the midst of Allenby’s campaign, the Turks exposed the group and arrested it’s main members including Aaronson’s father, sister and colleagues. According to the “Historical Dictionary of World War I Intelligence“ (Nigel West, 2013, ISBN-10: 0810880016, under “NILI”), Aaronson pleaded with MI1 for 5,000 pounds to bribe the Turks for his colleagues release, and Mansfield Smith-Cumming, (the director of what would become the Secret Intelligence Service) authorized payment of 4,000 in appreciation of the organization’s service, although asserted that he was opposed in principle to the practice of paying ransoms (eventually the payment could not be settled and the group members were hanged; Aaronson’s sister, Sara, was interrogated and brutalized in her home for three days until she managed to get a pistol and shoot herself to avoid hanging). In November 1917, Aaronson’s brother, Samuel, was handed an advance copy of the Balfour Declaration to circulate it within the local Jewish community to gain support for Allenby’s advance towards Jerusalem. According to Halevy, on 31 October 1917 when the British cabinet assembled for its final discussion over the Jewish issue in post-Ottoman Palestine, two Zionist leaders were invited to be on hand in an anteroom –Weizmann and Aaronson. As the door to the inner sanctum opened, Sir Sykes announced ‘It is a boy,’ and the two were invited into the cabinet room to shake hands with Lloyd George, Balfour, and other cabinet ministers. 77.126.7.102 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Both Shmuel Katz and Douglas Feith are better known as polemicists than as historians. Regarding NILI, this tiny group existed for a brief time and made a very minor contribution to the war effort. To suggest they played a major part in the decision to issue the BD is going way beyond what can be supported by evidence. Zero^talk 23:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems very speculative, possibly WP:fringe. If it had any significance in regard to the various motivations, you would imagine the key players having mentioned it at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

http://fathomjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/FINAL-Balfour-100-the-Fathom-essays-ebook-version.pdf just out, including a contribution from Schneer and another re NILI (fathom is BICOM so expect some bias, might be some points of interest in it tho)Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The Aaronson spy network has nothing to do with the Balfour declaration, besides both being just tactical moves in the interimperialist war of 1914-1918. It might merit an article by itself, just like this Balfour Declaration which was also just a tactical move in the British-French war against the Central Powers - Balfour introduced the topic in the October 31 cabinet meeting with pointing towards German support for Zionism under German imperial domination instead of British one. --L.Willms (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Aaronsohn's group Nili has an article already. Incidentally, the article Selfstudier linked to is notable for the revelation that Chaim Weizmann's sister was a spy for the Germans. The author gives Nili partial credit for the BD but doesn't actually say why it deserves credit apart from being a small part of the British war effort. Zero^talk 09:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats to Once

Nice job, article is promoted. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you Self. Your 230+ edits over 5+ months were a big part of the effort here. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And right in time for the date, that last race to the finish was pretty exhilarating for a FAC! FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! I made a mistake leaving it so late. I looked at the FAC for the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Ninety Five Theses – the nominator submitted it to FAC in January! Just one of the many many things I’ve learnt through this process.

And Funk, thanks again for your support and mentoring throughout. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy to have been of any help with this important work, and I hope we'll see more like it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Congrats to Onceinawhile and all others who helped. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"During the lead up to the declaration" in the lead

This phrasing is a bit weird. First, the "declaration" here refers to the Balfour Declaration, not the declaration of war, with which it can be easily confused (the latter comes at the end of the previous sentence). Secondly, it should probably be "In the lead-up". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I agree with you, thanks for pointing these out. How about “By late 1917, in the lead up”?

The addition of “By late 1917” should help differentiate the BD from the declaration of war. Some quick googling seems to suggest that “lead-up” is usually hyphenated but “lead up to” is not. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"By late 1917, in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration", might be fine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I have made the change suggested above. However, the paragraph has a bit of a problem with the chronology. The succeeding sentence talks about early 1917 now. I am wondering: do we actually need this sentence at all about the US and Russia? We could simply remove it altogether. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kingsindian. The purpose of the sentence is to explain the background to the motivation for the decision to pursue a propaganda strategy. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Flaws

Serious flaws in the lede (and some ended up in the TFA):

• Better add percentage: "with a minority (10%) Jewish population", to add perspective. The number of 10% is from this lede, and could be more precise.

To my mind that level of precision is unnecessary for the lead sentence. It would make the first sentence in the whole article read awkwardly, which would be a shame. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A factual precisioning making something "awkward" (your opinion)? Must be a first sentence-issue then, not the 10% fact. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Need to rephrase "prejudice the position of the local population in Palestine": this reads as including local Jews (10%?), but the Balfour Declaration writes "... existing non-Jewish communities".

I consider this to be implied from the context, so spelling it out in the lede in unnecessary and clunky. It is fully explained in the Terms section of the main article. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"implied from"? No need to 'implicate'. Just write it plain face. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• "encourage antisemitism against Jews worldwide." - scolars have pointed out that the declaration itself is antisemitic (sending Jews out of Europe).

Perhaps, but that is debatable. What is objectively true is that the second proviso was added to placate opponents who thought it would foster antisemitism. This is explained in the Terms section. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is debatable (and sourced). The point is that this page became FA without anyone pointing to this. (And it did not end up in the lede). -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• "led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine" -- How was this declaration the cause for that? -

This is explained in the Reactions section, which discusses the Allied San Remo conference awarding the mandate to Britain explicitly on the basis of the Balfour Declaration, which was subsequently incorporated into the Mandate as its defining factor. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not good enough to be in the lede. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

DePiep (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparent misstating of Churchill

In a sentence within the section Jewish "national home" vs. Jewish state, looking at the source given, this statement seems incorrect and should be fixed:

Some within the British government devoted efforts to denying that a state was the intention over the following decades, including in Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper – the first in a series of statements on British policy in Palestine during the mandate period.

However, Churchill, from the sourced quotation, denied only that Palestine in its entirety would become a Jewish state:

They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.

While not exactly the opposite of the original sentence, a subsequent statement about his quote stated: "... there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended." --Light show (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a point to discuss here, but you are confusing the issue by yourself confounding "National Home" with "State". As the source given for that sentence says, the neologism "National Home" was invented in order to avoid the word "State". This is a different issue than the issue of "in all of Palestine" versus "in Palestine". Zero^talk 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm only referring to the sentence given, not the Home vs. State issue, which I realize is different. --Light show (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You are misreading it. The meaning of "denying that a state was the intention" is "denying that a state rather than some lesser structure was the intention". It is precisely a sentence about Home versus State. Zero^talk 08:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is that second quote from? I didn't see it in the source (UNSCOP) given. --Light show (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of things in that White Paper (and in all the White Papers and Submissions to the League thereafter). It is difficult to find convincing explanation for inherent contradiction. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Like this bit "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammar in Lead

The third paragraph in the lead begins with "The British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine...". The word began implies a continuing and on-going motion and thus makes the third paragraph a partial continuation of the second about the publishing of the text.

Wouldn't it better to revise the first sentence to read "The British War Cabinet had begun to consider the future of Palestine..."? In this way it is clearer that the continuation of the lead has more to do with the background of the subject and we are placing the third paragraph's action in the past, relative to the second. I'm new to the article and didn't want to disturb whatever talks that had gone on previously for today's feature article. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Idk, since it is a still continuing thing (ie it continued even after the declaration of war), I think I prefer began; had begun implies that they had finished considering it by the time of the declaration of war; my 2 cents. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

More interesting (maybe) is that said consideration is in the section about initial Brit Zionist discussions; strictly, there was a period where the Gov considered it all by itself ie in Cabinet, Samuel memo to Cabinet, de Bunsen committee. Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just that I, reading the passage on the fly, got confused by the reference to an earlier period: November 1914 after 9 November 1917. I thought we were talking about 1917 or later until I reached the end of the sentence. I wouldn't bother about this except that it's a featured article. How about "Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine."? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I went with that.Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Added comma for grammar. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This whole article, and not one comment ...

...about how after the umpire makes the Balfour Declaration, the batter walks to first base. --M@rēino 19:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How an FA?

Unbelievable this article made WP:Featured Article status. For example, simple check: search for "colonial". Or Bund (instead if simplistic 'anti-Zionism'). -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede is 4000+ characters. Who is served by this? -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it, explain more?Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The lede has over 600(!) words. Why not crisp? The words "Bund" and "colonial" (both quite relevant wrt this) are not mentioned at all. In perspective, also missing is the then Jewish population number (10%), and the (ir)relevance of the Zionist movement. This 'FA' is not an advertisement for enwiki, I feel disappointed. Two clicks and one can discover a more complete story. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There are longer leads, there is no rule that says it must be crisp afaik :) The article overall was reviewed fairly intensively I would say and only made FA at second time of asking, you could leave messages on the pages of the FAC reviewers, ultimately its their decision to promote.

The exact percentage of Jews in the population varied from 3% early on to 7% in 1914 and then "roughly" 10% at time of Palin report, I am not really sure why we need to refer to any particular figure in the lead, it does say that Palestinian Arabs made up the vast majority and that the Jewish population was in a minority. What amendment did you have in mind, specifically?

Still not entirely clear what you are getting at with Bund and colonial, the article is about the Balfour Declaration, not Zionists (or antiZionists) per se. If the point is that Zionists represented only a small percentage of Jews at the time, that's in the article already. Again, it is difficult to comment exactly unless you specify a desired amendment.Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• None of these extremely minor issues would inhibit FAC, please don't be so over-dramatic. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Factual conflict

In paragraph 1 we read “Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population.” Later on we read “rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population.” Who was the majority in the area in 1917? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Foot (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a factual conflict as such, both things are true; I don't disagree that it looks a bit odd having the two facts separated in the text.Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Arabs were the majority ethnic group. The Ottomans were the ruling dynasty. Brutannica (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Again true, do you think the article should be amended? Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

German Kaiser's 1916 peace offer

A deliberately overlooked aspect of the Balfour declaration is that it confirmed the acceptance of British Zionists offer to the British government that the Zionists would involve America in the war in return for Britain seizing Palestine from Turkey and giving it to the Zionists.

As a consequence of the deal, Zionist Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed US President Woodrow Wilson (about his illicit affair with another Princeton Professor's wife) into appointing Lous Dembitz Brandeis as head of the US Supreme Court. Brandeis compelled Wilson into declaring war against Germany, using the bogus story that a German submarine had killed dozens of Americans aboard the steam ship Sussex, a ferry between England and France.

The 'overlooked aspect' is that America entered the war against Germany after the German Kaiser made the best peace offer in history in 1916. He stated that all belligerents should quit the war and return to the pre-war borders. Germany did not want territory or reparations. If that offer had been accepted then the war would have ceased at the end of 1916 and there would have been no Russian revolution, second world war or the numerous other subsequent wars. A hundred thousand Americans died as a consequence and millions of Germans died as a consequence of the Zionist machinations, before world war two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.106.247 (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

While all this might or might not be the case, you do need to supply some reputable secondary sources for these views.Selfstudier (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Amendments to section "Jewish "national home" vs. Jewish state"

A series of amendments were made to this section (not discussed here). Reviewing same, I find that they were copied almost verbatim from the initial pages of Friedman's 1973 QoP Chap 18 Meaning of the Declaration. The copying included several instances of representing Friedman's source as primary sources for the article (ie instead of giving the reference as being Friedman, the reference was given as being Friedman's source without ascribing it to Friedman.)

• There was no verbatim copying, as the material was reasonably paraphrased. And of course giving the primary source that's noted in the secondary source is logical. In fact both sources were given in a subsequent edit, which you again deleted with no logical reason.--Light show (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia article involves more than locating a source and then selectively copying out bits of it in order simply to push a POV, otherwise we might just set a bot to copy out the entirety of Friedman's text into the article inclusive of his sources and we could all go home. A Wikipedia article is not a book, much of what is included in a book is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

• Must you rely on pa and POV by others, when essentially all of your comments are your personal opinion?--Light show (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Friedman's proIsraeli/Jewish bias is not a secret and he has as well been accused by other historians of abuse of sources; although these things just by themselves do not mean that we cannot make use of his material where it is justified it does mean that we might more carefully scrutinize material from said source. As we all know, it would not be that difficult to find authors of the opposite persuasion and copy out their material into the article by way of counter POV push (this game has been played before in this article and it is a rather pointless game).

• Attacking a RS on a subject like this one as being biased, then saying you could go out and find "other historians" to agree with you, is itself POV pushing. It's also meaningless, since anyone can always find someone to disagree when it comes to politics or history.--Light show (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If we consider the material in the section prior to the edits made, it is a reasonably straightforward matter to draw the conclusion that whether or not there would be a Jewish State would depend on a Jewish majority, this was the position taken by all of the key players. Rewriting the material to try to imply that a Jewish State was intended in any event is a waste of effort as well as obvious POV push.

• Adding numerous RSs supporting "intentions" is not a "waste of effort" simply because it was "not the position taken by all of the key players," in your opinion, goes against RS and V guidelines and a disallowed personal opinion to boot.--Light show (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet finished my review but it would seem that some of this material, if it is of sufficient weight to be included at all, is rather more selectively detailing some reactions of various parties to the Declaration rather than having anything to do with whether or not a Jewish State was intended.

• Holding yourself out as a single reviewer whose opinion is critical to deciding what is to be included is a form of article ownership. --Light show (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the above we presently have the makings of an edit war as lightshow seems intent on reinserting material that I removed, he has just reverted my undo without initiating a talk discussion, instead inviting me to do so. I invite @Light show: to justify his actions to date and further to justify the edits made in the section for correctness, weight and other factors affecting their suitability for inclusion in the article.

• When some editor drives by and deletes well-sourced relevant material which is contrary to their own personal opinion, reverting it is acceptable and logical. Demanding that the original editor of the text prove to your satisfaction why it belongs is against all aspects of neutrality. As for weight and suitability, that's obvious: the section had 850 words, to which my edits added 53 words, all focused on the subject of the section. --Light show (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Contested edits

For those without access to the source, this is what Friedman says :

“The Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference recommended that ‘there be established a separate State in Palestine’ and ‘that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish State in fact”.

(At present Lightsource has reinserted this material leaving out the words “The Intelligence Section of ” thereby misrepresenting the source.

Friedman then sources this material to David Hunter Miller My Diary at the Conference of Paris (New York), Appeal Printing Co., (1924), vol 4 pp. 263-4 , (this being the source originally provided by lightsource in support of his edit). The author served on The Inquiry a group of 150 academics that assembled country and region recommendations for the American representatives at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference under the heading “Outline of Tentative Report and Recomendations Prepared by the Intelligence Section, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919”. (very similar things, the P-memos, were prepared for the British by their Foreign Office).

So Friedman selectively quotes from a tentative document of a recommendation/discussion nature ignoring the discussion in respect of the recommendation and implying that this was United States policy (https://archive.org/details/MyDiaryAtConferenceOfParis-Vol4). Shortly thereafter, it turned out that the US did not join the League and no-one knows whether or not this particular recommendation would have been taken up or even if it had been, whether it would ever have been pursued as a policy; in the actuality, no such recommendation was ever taken up nor is there any evidence that the USA even attempted to promote such a policy so the issue is in addition, moot.

One could also consult (by way of simple counterexample) Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967 By Matthew F. Jacobs on page 191 wherein the the Inquiry is heavily criticized, even by Miller ( “general absence of specialist knowledge about the region” and “like much of the rest of the Inquiry’s work on the Middle East, the reports on Palestine were deeply flawed” and “the Inquiry’s work on Palestine presupposed a particular outcome to the conflict” and “virtually all of the reports that dealt with Palestine in any meaningful way assumed that a Jewish State of some form would come into existence”).

I therefore suggest that this particular edit documents an event of little weight that had no effect and is being introduced simply to push a POV.

If despite my comments, other editors consider that this material should nevertheless be included then I submit that all of the rest of the material existing in the Miller source be also included so that readers are not left with the wrong impression. I would also suggest that the resultant material should be placed (at best as a note) in the section Reaction: Allies and Associated Powers where the actual US position is laid out namely the Lodge Fish resolution. Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The so-called misrepresentation by not including "Intelligence Section" has been expanded to include that fact. The rest of the comments here are essentially adversarial, a personal attack claiming POV, and not assuming good faith. So review the guidelines: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". And another guideline, "Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue." --Light show (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the previously reverted material pending discussion and agreement in Talk as required by the guidelines here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the removed material:

The Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 recommended that "there be established a separate state in Palestine," and that "it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state, as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact."

We may initially compare this to what it says at page The Inquiry (exactly the same source):

As for Palestine, it was advised that an independent Palestinian state under a British League of Nations mandate be created.[27] Jewish settlement would be allowed and encouraged in this state and this state's holy sites would be under the control of the League of Nations.[27] Indeed, the Inquiry spoke positively about the possibility of a Jewish state eventually being created in Palestine if the necessary demographics for this were to exist.[27]

Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Although there is some redundancy, both paragraphs above are now included. The first one includes actual quoted RS'd text, while the second one giving Miller's personal observations, but no actual quotes, is included also. --Light show (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Light show: Our usual procedure on this page in respect of reverted (ie contested or disputed) edits is to develop consensus among editors; IsPal guidelines do not permit the immediate restoration of reverted edits so as to avoid edit wars.

Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC).

You seem to have it backwards. If anyone could simply delete any RSd material they didn't like from any article for any reason and demand consensus to add it back, WP would become a war zone. In this case, the problem is worse, since you wrote you wanted "the material existing in the Miller source be also included so that readers are not left with the wrong impression," and it was included as your wish. Then you delete it also pending some consensus to add it back. --Light show (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Light show:I have nothing backwards, the editing guidelines are at the top of this page and are standard for all IsPal articles; in respect of this particular edit you improperly reintroduced the material without consensus (this is the procedure we have been following for many months to arrive at FA status and there has been no edit warring until just now. We need to await input from other editors.Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you've worked on the article for some months and I only just added some additional material a few days ago, I'll await other opinions. However, it would be helpful if you first explain the problem. I could only find three issues, none of which are in dispute:

1: You suggested that including "Intelligence Section" would not misrepresent a source, so it was then added in;

2: You wanted Miller's observations included, and the entire paragraph you gave was then included;

3: The rest of your comments are essentially adversarial: There is no valid reason to exclude a RSd quote by Miller simply because the U.S. did not join the League of Nations, so in your personal opinion his written observations are "moot," which of course is not possible. You also rely on another writer's subsequent opinion who felt that Miller's statements are flawed (although that person wasn't at the conference,) so you feel some of Miller's quoted statements shouldn't be mentioned, or in other words: censored. In fact, you diminish the validity of the original quotes because they were "selected," as if quotes are usually not selected, then proceed to add your own selected quotes.

Yet even after all the material you wanted in was included, you're still creating some imaginary dispute to keep out the portion you don't seem to like. So please state exactly what is in dispute and why RSd quotes should be excluded, since I at least see nothing in dispute. --Light show (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

To take your points in the order in which you made them:

“1: You suggested that including "Intelligence Section" would not misrepresent a source, so it was then added in;”

I did not suggest that, I said that you were misreprenting a source (which you were).

“2: You wanted Miller's observations included, and the entire paragraph you gave was then included; ”

I asked for no such thing (WP is not itself RS), I simply compared and contrasted what it says in WP elsewhere based on material from the same source that you originally provided.

You wrote "I submit that all of the rest of the material existing in the Miller source be also included so that readers are not left with the wrong impression."--Light show (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

“3. The rest of your comments are essentially adversarial: There is no valid reason to exclude a RSd quote by Miller simply because the U.S. did not join the League of Nations, so in your personal opinion his written observations are "moot," which of course is not possible. You also rely on another writer's subsequent opinion who felt that Miller's statements are flawed (although that person wasn't at the conference,) and thereby Miller's observations shouldn't be mentioned, or in other words: censored. In fact, you diminish the validity of the original quotes because they were "selected," as if quotes are usually not selected, then proceed to add your own selected quotes.”

Where to start? You keep talking about “quotes”. Miller is not quoting anything he has simply made up a compendium of documents prepared by others and included them in a printed volume (it isn’t a book, its just a printed collection of documents) . Second, I quoted RS for Miller himself criticizing the material in the compendium (he was not the author of the materials and has no axe to grind as far as I know). I provided the RS not because I want to include it in the article (although I may well include it as counterpoint if in the end the contested material ends up in the article) in order to buttress my argument that undue weight should not be attached to this document. I have also contested the location for the material, I believe that if it is to be included at all (my opinion is not) then it ought to be in the section where the official US position is laid out (as opposed to tentative recommendation/ discussion type documents for a US position that was never taken up anywhere).

You quoted Miller because he had no "axe to grind," in your opinion. He was an American, and after four years of a world war, the only ones unbiased during a peace conference would have been aliens. Nor have you ever "contested" the location of the material. --Light show (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

“Yet even after all the material you wanted in was included, you're still creating some imaginary dispute to keep out the portion you don't seem to like. So please state exactly what is in dispute and why RSd quotes should be excluded, since I at least see nothing in dispute. ”

This is not imaginary and has nothing to do with my liking the material or not; you originally presented this edit as having come from the Miller source and it was only at this point in my review (having already encountered errors and unnecessary duplication of material) that I came to realise that all the edits were in fact coming from a few pages in Friedman’s QoP (because you had misrepresented materials as coming from elsewhere). Given Friedman’s rep, I decided to take a closer look (and I haven’t finished yet, the French bit is next on my list, I have been somewhat distracted). Also note that if the material does end up in the article, I have requested that ALL of the relevant Miller material be included not just some of it.

"Given Friedman's rep"? So you want us to wait until your investigation is complete to see if he was a reliable source? --Light show (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Apart from all this, as I have stated consistently since the beginning , I would feel more comfortable if we had the views of other editors to hand; it is much easier to lose FA status than it is to gain it (someone tried to downgrade it when it was just GA status) and random additions to an article which has been gone over in an inordinate amount of detail by umpteen reviewers is not (imo) the right way to go, particularly if there are potentially POV issues.

You mean to imply that you personally hold no POV, and are therefore neutral? --Light show (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying edits

Suitably rested, I have taken the opportunity to reflect further on the issue of these latest edits.It seems to me that the present problem has arisen principally by virtue of the Section title, namely "Jewish national home vs. Jewish state". This straightforwardly implies that there was a debate about this. Let's assume there was. Who took part? What were the positions of the participants? What factors were considered? When did it take place? What was the result?

Now I have no objection if we rearrange and expand this section in an attempt to answer these questions (or some alternative set as may be). Of course, with reference to suitable secondary sources (for the avoidance of doubt, Friedman qualifies as would, say, Charles Glass for the other camp) for each and every line added (adding sentences such as "Political leaders and the press in other countries also took the position that the Declaration implied an intent to eventually create a Jewish state." without specification or citation would be inappropriate).

If that is thought a reasonable way to proceed then perhaps we might first agree on the questions we will attempt to answer (which would indirectly define what material ought perhaps to be elsewhere in the article). Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit is clearly sourced by WP:RS there is no reason not to include it except WP:IDONTLIKEIT--Shrike (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I added this extended material as a subsection to help editing new comments. Most of the material you revised seems fine, but I'd suggest doing some fairly insignificant (IMO) tightening. And the easiest way is to just do them myself as separate edits with a summary explanation, and if we need to we can discuss them or you can just add them back if you feel their that important.

One question that I'd also like to get opinions on is how best to source statements from secondary sources. For instance, if author A cites their source as coming from source B, is it reasonable to just cite source B? In other words, if someone repeats a quote from WP, would they say that WP says, or say that the author cited in WP says? --Light show (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You are supposed to source edits to the place where YOU read them. Shrike restored your expanded edit and I have made a start on the program I outlined above.I will not engage in further discussions, they appear to be pointless, I will simply edit as I see fit and others may add, subtract, revert, whatever, as they see fit.Selfstudier (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The restored cited text included mostly material that you said you wanted included, so it seems reasonable and balanced. --Light show (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Third-party speculations and hearsay trivia

Regarding the third-party speculations and opinions by Rustam Haidar, an aid with no notability but a stub, and Awni Abd al-Hadi, a secretary, both are giving their hearsay opinions about an event with which they were not involved. The article should stay on topic and not include trivial third-hand guesses by others. For example, Haidar, an aid, "had no recollection," and "finds it exceeding strange that....", while al-Hadi, a secretary, said "he was not aware..." and "I believe..." (twice). And the only source for those speculations is Allawi's book, where he himself is cited as giving his own speculations: "the most likely explanation..." and "He then may or may not have been...."

Most of the third-party guesses don't fit and go against the purpose of the article. Per guidelines, "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Nor is it "an indiscriminate collection of information... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion." Per more guidelines, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." --Light show (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Frankfurther letter

I haven’t been following all of the discussion here as I am on a mini-break, but you might want to look at:

• Faisal–Weizmann Agreement#Frankfurter correspondence

The letter being debated is shown there as an image (in Lawrence’s handwriting) and is discussed with well sourced text. It might be worth splitting out as a separate article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding boundaries and disposition of Palestine

I would like to edit the following sentence. Firstly, there is no reference to the claim re the British government below:

"The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine."

The boundaries were stipulated by the time Transjordan was severed from the whole in 1922 and the mandate took effect in 1923. A page documenting the Transjordan Memorandum: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Trans-Jordan_memorandum. The memorandum is here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Palestine_Mandate#Trans-Jordan_Memorandum,_16_September_1922 The boundaries were unspecified when the mandate was approved by the principal powers in San Remo on April 24, 1920. On September 16, 1922, the mandate was amended with an explicit definition of the boundary between Trans-Jordan (Palestine-east) and Cis-Jordan (Palestine-west).

I believe the reference to the boundary was probably inserted to contextualize or frame the point that "the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine".

Firstly, this is a strong statement regarding a concept that is very complicated because of many arguments made on each side of this point. It would be safest and easiest to remove the paragraph. If the comment is to remain, it most definitely requires an explicit reference. If that is done, I would say that other references/citations contradicting or contextualizing such a claim be added.

I don't believe I have the right to edit the page. Please give me an idea as to the direction I should go with this edit. If you would allow me to edit, let me know. Thank you. ElishevaZ (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, here I quote from British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument) (not as a source but for the sources it gives):-

"The boundaries of the mandated territories at San Remo were not precisely defined.[29] Chaim Weizmann subsequently reported to his WZO colleagues in London:

   "There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Faisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris."[33]

The reference 29 is Biger 2004 and 33 are Weizmann comments.

Do you wish to contradict these two sources or what is the the source (you didn't give any) of "many arguments on each side". The sentence that you speak about is a true statement as far as it goes although we could add in both of the references above in some form if that improves it from your perspective? If what you are speaking about is specifically the Transjordan, I believe that is sufficiently covered in the aforementioned article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

ElishevaZ, please read the FAQ at the top of Talk:Mandatory Palestine. Unfortunately you have been mislead by 70-year-old propaganda, which has been thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There are so many POV issues here I don't even know where to start. I think I'll start with two easy to grasp problems, and add more if/when these are solved.

1. The article hardly mentions British imperialism. And when it does, it's always vis-a-vis Zionists, as if the British didn't have plans of their own for the Middle East until they met a Zionist. The two main authors of this article acknowledged here that this is a problem, but didn't bother to correct it.
2. The article currently reads something like "The British were sitting in London minding their own business when the JewsZionists showed up and using the Brits' deeply held racist beliefs, tricked them into thinking that they will be able to tap into a worldwide conspiracy if they gave them Palestine. Everyone has been sad ever since". Now read this. That's an article by Ephraim Karsh, a historian who wrote a book titled "Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789–1922", published by Harvard University Press. So he's an obvious expert in the field (let's ignore just for now the fact that this specialist is not used in this article even once for some reason). Compare the two. Note how little if at all of the information Karsh presents appears in this article. Here's a piece by Martin Kramer, another expert on the Middle East that argues along the same lines. This is a serious NPOV violation.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Article was too POVed by Onceinawhile. Any ideas to fix those two specific problems you mentioned?--יניב הורון (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This is similar to other POV claims that have been put forward by this particular editor on multiple occasions in the past; the style of the claim is also the same, viz, sniping from the sidelines and the avoiding of constructive editing. I suggest that proper edits are made that can be discussed on their merits one by one and in the meantime I am deleting the NPOV tag for which insufficient evidence has been given. Note that this article has been reviewed in depth by multiple high level authors for its current FA status, merely asserting NPOV is not enough. Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You haven't edited it almost two months. How did you know to show up here just hours after I tagged the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

An FA article shouldn't need that much by way of editing; as for knowing, this article is on my watchlist. Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is also abuse of primary sources without any evidence in secondary sources to show the notability of cherry picked facts.--Shrike (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• If these are suddenly such big problems, how come all of you remained silent during the FAC and peer reviews? With controversial topics like this, there will always be disagreements between different sides, therefore it is better to simply suggest changes instead of just complaining about "abuse", "serious violations", and adding useless tags. Furthermore, before edit warring the tag back in, I suggest you read what it is actually for: "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public."[9] FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, I'm sorry you were tricked into promoting a slanted article. I think this is a flaw with the FA system, although you could have noticed there were only two editors with very strong views editing, and could have seen what they took out of the article and not only what they put in it. Anyhow, there is obviously a problem with the article since as soon as I tagged it two other editors agreed with the assessment there are POV issues. The tag is not useless and removing it is against what you yourself quoted.
• Do you disagree there are NPOV issues? It doesn't take much reading to find out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

All sources you list above are by Israeli writers, so of course, from a certain point of view, the article is not neutral if it does not fully reflect the Israeli narrative alone. But that will always be the case with controversial subjects, but let's see if we can work it out instead of plastering tags in places they do not belong. The tags are for attracting editors for discussion, not for "warning" readers, as the tag template itself explains (see the quote above), therefore it does not belong here, as there is already discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Reread what you just said. You acknowledge there's a NPOV issue. You are removing the tag on spurious grounds. There was obviously a problem with this article attracting editors since it was mainly written by only two guys who come from the same POV. We need more people here and I will restore the tag tomorrow if nobody beats me to it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm saying that as long as the article isn't entirely reflective of the Israeli POV, it will be considered biased by Israelis. That doesn't mean that it is not neutral. It can't be entirely reflective of the Arab view either, as most of those sources are in Arabic, none of which are used here. And if you add the tag again instead of discussing the actual issues here, it will simply be reverted again. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous statement. Not only sources in Arabic reflect the Arab view and nobody is trying to make the article "entirely reflective of the Israeli POV". NPOV is quite clear that articles need to "represent[ing] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". That should have been done here even if there wasn't anyone around to advocate for the POV the two authors of this article don't like but are aware of. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

”even if there wasn't anyone around to advocate for the POV...”

You were around, and you participated on this talk page throughout the period in question.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I managed to participate in the discussion a couple of times, but to say I was here "throughout the period in question" is a gross exaggeration. You acknowledged the problem while I was around, but did nothing to fix it. Why did you not fix an NPOV problem you agreed existed? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• While I agree the FA review and the peer review were mostly substance-less wordsmithing, as is typical on Wikipedia, I don't see any real bias in the article nor do I take issue with the sources cited. No More Mr Nice Guy eviscerates his own argument by pointing to an article in a free online magazine of Jewish thought. I would oppose accepting wholesale the views of New Historians like Karsh who seek to push a minority view of historical interpretation. No, you cannot put an NPOV tag on an article just because you don't like how it reads. If you want to start a discussion about the tilt of the article, by all means. I suspect this is an effort to revise history to fit political narratives and I won't participate but Wikipedia doesn't know how to handle content disputes until there is misbehavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Karsh is not a New Historian, but that's irrelevant. I am not suggesting his views should be "accept[ed] wholesale", but per NPOV they should appear in the article. He is a well known and respected expert in the exact field of this article, and his omission is unlikely an oversight. The fact experts in the field say that the international community at the time supported the deceleration seems quite important, don't you think? That other countries issued declarations based on Balfour might also warrant some mention, perhaps? NPOV requires these views to be included. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• @No More Mr Nice Guy: "Karsh is not a New Historian" You are correct (and I've struck my comment). Apparently I didn't read all the words in that sentence in the article about him. My mistake. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Over the past two years I have asked for input at WikiProject Israel on multiple occasions, and at WikiProject Palestine, and at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. We are striving for the ideal where everyone on all sides agrees that this article, representing the foundational moment of the Israel-Palestine conflict, is truly neutral.

That can only be achieved if those who disagree with any part of the article make the effort to provide specific, well-referenced proposals, and then stick around to discuss, refine and iterate as required.

The above proposal does not do that. Not only is is a replication of non-specific posturing previously made and which failed to achieve consensus, it is clear that the editor has not even read the article or the archives properly. The Kramer article discussing other countries’ positions was discussed at length and incorporated into the article in detail (the editor’s point that “the international community at the time supported the deceleration [sic] seems quite important...[and] That other countries issued declarations based on Balfour” are all in there in detail) and the Karsh argument about Faisal was discredited in detail in the same archives. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine words from someone who acknowledged NPOV violations during discussion but did not bother to fix them.

Perhaps you asked for input at those Wikiprojects. Somehow those requests didn't draw any new editors, but an NPOV tag that was up for a few hours did. I have to wonder why you guys are so insistent on removing it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do now is to stop commenting on other editors and start reading the article and archives in detail and then make specific proposals here. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The tags probably weren't what brought editors in, it was rather this talk page section (at least in my case). FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead paragraph proposed by No More Mr Nice Guy

There are a few problems with the proposal:

• The lead should reflect the body of the article. A logical place for this in the body would be Balfour_Declaration#Allies_and_Associated_Powers, after the description of San Remo, from which it elegantly follows
• The source used is Middle East Forum, a right-wing advocacy group. This is obviously not RS. A better source is required. The source should go into the main body, as the article does not duplicate sources in the lead
• There is a reference to the League of Nations “vote”. This is not in the source, and is also incorrect. It was not the whole LoN but the Council of the LoN, a group of 8 countries (the four Principal Allies plus three other Allies - Belgium, Greece and Brazil - plus Spain who had been neutral in the war)
• The Treaty of Sevres reference is confusing to the reader as the treaty was ultimately aborted
• There is a typo on “deceleration”
• We already have too many paragraphs in the lead, per MOSLEAD. This would be better incorporated in a summarized manner in the “many long-lasting consequences” paragraph.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable, will add as time permits.
• The source is Ephraim Karsh, an expert in the field.
• Will check the source and fix accordingly.
• I disagree that it is confusing. It shows, again, wider support for the Declaration.
• Will fix.
• I think the paragraph about the allies not yet fully engaged is unnecessary, and the fourth paragraph (about the drafts) is too detailed.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balfour_Declaration&action=edit&section=33

• The business about Sevres is an irrelevant historical detail, the treaty was superseded by a subsequent treaty that makes no mention of the Declaration.
• Given the long discussions during review about the length of the lead, adding things to it is not really desirable, these relatively minor points can be footnoted in somewhere else as has been done with rather more important details.

Selfstudier (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed the disputed paragraph pending agreement about the content and where it should go in the article; for instance the Sevres treaty matter is dealt with in the Central Powers section.

Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• (ec)Karsh thinks it's important. It's only "irrelevant" if you want hide the international support for the declaration.
• Could you please supply a policy based argument for your removal of sourced material? If the lead is too long, we can remove some stuff that's too detailed rather than removing stuff that adds balance. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Karsh has his opinion and others have theirs, I don't object to the inclusion of multiple sources per se, that's all it is though, just another source, we could add many more and add them all day long if needs be, seems unnecessary though. There is no good reason to start sourcing a single secondary source directly into the lead.
• Please supply a policy based argument that the lead prior to your edit was too detailed or lacked balance, this is simply another assertion on your part.You can treat the removal as a revert if you like, given that there is a dispute over its inclusion here on this talk page.

Selfstudier (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• NPOV is wikipedia policy. You can't reject every source you disagree with politically and say it's just another source. Karsh is an expert in the field. He and other sources say the international community supported the declaration. That should appear prominently in this article, rather that imply repeatedly that only Britain was involved. You just removed it again based on IDONTLIKEIT. That won't cut it.

• I have not rejected Karsh as a source so your premise is false. The article does not imply that only Britain was involved, I suggest you make a more careful reading. The argument made by Karsh is virtually identical to that made by Kramer so if you want to add it in with that material(already in the article at your request if I remember correctly) as further support of it, feel free to do so.

• Please articulate a policy based reason for your removal of this sourced material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Argument by repetition? Asked and answered above.

Selfstudier (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• You did not answer my question. Which specific policy/guideline are you basing your rejection of this sourced material on? I just reread your posts and still can't see it.
• Here are a couple more sources that support the international community angle. [10] [11]. Looking forward to the policy based reason to remove this material. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you are unable (or unwilling) to rework this material and properly locate it in the article as I have suggested, would you prefer that I did it for you?

Selfstudier (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• This material belongs in the lead per NPOV. If you want to write it yourself be my guest. But you can not omit the fact that the international community (as much as it was at the time) supported the contents of the declaration and incorporated it into various international instruments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, if we take the "international support" to which you (and Kramer/Karsh) are referring (and which is discussed in some detail in the article) we have the USA, France and the Vatican/Italy as the main "supporters" at the time of the Declaration. Later though, France and the Vatican did something of an about face on their support so if you want to include IN THE LEAD the fact of the support should you also not include their reversal of support shortly thereafter? (this material is also in the article). The US position is more complex as I am sure you are well aware, I would characterize it as one of subsequent non-involvement. In any event, it is not NPOV to focus only on the support and to ignore the later reversal of that support. Similar arguments apply for Sevres, yes it was in Sevres and you are making the argument that is an indication of support, does the fact that it was not in a superseding treaty mean that the support had gone away? These things are never as clear as we would like, I agree that we should not focus just on one side of the argument and I sincerely believe that the article does not do this. In any event we do not want references in the lead itself but in the article body in some appropriate place.

Selfstudier (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Some care needed re Karsh: Karsh attests in self-defence ([12]) that he has faced some severe criticism from a variety of respected academics:

• Omer Bartov "[Karsh began his] specialization in Middle Eastern affairs as an officer in Israeli army intelligence."
• Joel Beinin "I have reviewed a previous opus of Ephraim Karsh on the Israeli new historians which may give those interested an idea of what kind of person/scholar he is."
• Yezid Sayigh "He is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)."

If we are going to use him to strengthen what is already in the article about Allied support for the declaration, we should at least source his book (Efraim Karsh; Inari Karsh (2001). Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00541-9.) rather than a polemical article on a Daniel Pipes advocacy website. That will help us assess the question of appropriate WP:WEIGHT. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• That some anti-Zionists (in Beirut?) think Karsh is too Zionist is neither here nor there. If they have a relevant critique of something he said, we may be able to use that. Glad to see you are familiar with Karsh's book. Any particular reason you never use him in this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Two of the three quotes are by Jewish historians (including one Israeli), so to write them all off as "anti-Zionists in Beirut" is laughably tendentious, to put it mildly. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note to NMMNG I would genuinely like to amend the article to achieve a position where you agree it is neutral. If you engage with the above in good faith, I am sure we can agree some appropriate amendments. It will take effort from all involved, and we'll need to put emotion aside, but it will be worthwhile. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree. Don't worry, we'll make this article neutral. Some people do get a little emotional when someone tries to make changes to their precious, but I'm sure we can overcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest removing Renton he himself admits that his view is not a mainstream view why he used in Wikipedia Voice.--Shrike (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here's another book that supports the "international community" thing (I hope Yoram Dinstein and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers are ok?) and that the Mandate included the Declaration. I will be putting back that paragraph with a couple of changes soon. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please focus on the drafting in the main body first. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Memoirs - Please be careful!

Have just fixed a rather confusing piece of writing - a comment was attributed to Lloyd George's Memoirs. He actually wrote two works called Memoirs - his War Memoirs (which we had already met in the article), and his Memoirs of the Peace Conference, better known as The Truth About the Peace Treaties, to which the comment should have been attributed. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

Change X: Early British political support for an increased Jewish presence in the region of Palestine was based upon geopolitical calculations.

to Y: Early British political support for an increased Jewish presence in the region of Palestine was based upon geopolitical calculations. J.C. Hurewitz has written that one of the motives for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine during World War One was to secure a land bridge between Egypt and its Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, by annexing from the Turkish Ottoman Empire what are now the nations of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, thereby forming an alternative maritime link between The United Kingdom and its colony in India, in addition to the one which already existed via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. Suspended Time (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am fine to add another reference to Suez in the article, but this is the wrong place (the subsequent sentence is about the 1840s, yet the Canal was not built until the 1860s) the weighting should be much less (this is one of dozens of motivations stated by advocates over the decades prior to the Declaration, but it was not a relevant reason by 1917 and was not mentioned in the Cabinet discussions which led to the Declaration), and no need for in line attribution of Hurewitz or any other scholar's name (it is not controversial if weighted appropriately). Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Notes

References

 Partly done: An abbreviated version of the requested addition has been placed in proper context in the "First World War -- 1914–16: Initial Zionist–British Government discussions" subsection. Since this statement is attributed to a specific author the cite is necessary but it reflects British Imperial WWI objectives and belongs in the contemporary section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

Change X: Lloyd George described a total of nine factors motivating his decision as Prime Minister to release the declaration, including the additional reasons that a Jewish presence in Palestine would strengthen Britain's position on the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to their imperial dominion in India.

to Y: Lloyd George described a total of nine factors motivating his decision as Prime Minister to release the declaration, including the additional reasons that a Jewish presence in Palestine would strengthen Britain's position on the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to their imperial dominion in India.. J.C. Hurewitz has written that one of the motives for British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine during the immediate aftermath of World War One was to secure a land bridge between Egypt and its Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf, by annexing from the Turkish Ottoman Empire what are now the nations of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Iraq, thereby forming an alternative maritime link between The United Kingdom and its colony of India, as well as with its Persian Gulf protectorates of what are now in Kuwait, southern Iran, Bahrain, Qatar, and The United Arab Emirates, in addition to the one which already existed via the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. Suspended Time (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Redundant to the above request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)