Revision as of 12:40, 23 June 2024 editMakeandtoss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions31,079 edits →Quote: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:14, 23 June 2024 edit undoמתיאל (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users771 edits →QuoteNext edit → | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
::::::I agree this is a really bad quote, it sounds totally dubious. The very use of "their country" here totally raises concerns of bias, and the figure of 94% also sounds totally dubious, probably overlooking the fact that a substantive portion of lands were classified as public or state land, owned by the Ottoman and later British authorities, not privately owned by local Arabs. ] (]) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | ::::::I agree this is a really bad quote, it sounds totally dubious. The very use of "their country" here totally raises concerns of bias, and the figure of 94% also sounds totally dubious, probably overlooking the fact that a substantive portion of lands were classified as public or state land, owned by the Ottoman and later British authorities, not privately owned by local Arabs. ] (]) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Again WP relies on RS, of which Eugene Rogan is certainly one, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. ] (]) 12:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | :::::::Again WP relies on RS, of which Eugene Rogan is certainly one, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. ] (]) 12:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC) | ||
::::::After reviewing the land ownership section of this article it seems the Arabs did own over 90% of lands, which is surprising given that they were only two thirds of the total population and most of the Negev was uninhabited (they owned desertic lands as well?). In any case, the quote is still undue and unnecessary for the other two reasons I gave, specifically the fact that they rejected ANY form of partition, so making this into a land-ownership issue gives the false impression they would accept the partition plan if only gave the proposed Arab state more territory. Also transforming the article's body into long direct quotes is bad editing policy.] (]) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל |
Revision as of 13:14, 23 June 2024
view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why doesn't this article include Transjordan in its scope? Why isn't Transjordan shown as part of Mandatory Palestine on the map? A1: This article is about the British administrative unit in Palestine. There is a separate article covering the entity of the Emirate of Transjordan, and the Mandate legal instrument which acted as the constitution for both of these administrations. Q2: What was the status of Transjordan in the Mandate for Palestine? A2: This question is answered in the article dealing with the legal aspects of the British Mandate for Palestine. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mandatory Palestine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mandatory Palestine at the Reference desk. |
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, November 29, 2004, September 11, 2005, and September 11, 2006. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
1920 Mandate map missing
The one including Trans-Jordan. The separation came soon after, by the will of the British - but afterwards nevertheless. Arminden (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Before the Cairo conference of 1921 there was no decision whether Transjordan would be included in the mandate. And there were no eastern or southern boundaries to put on a map. At that conference it was decided to add Transjordan so as to avoid having to go back to the Principle Powers to confirm British control. Maps you see with Palestine and Transjordan inside a single neat boundary dated 1920 are just made up. Anyway, this article is about Mandatory Palestine as the phrase meant during the mandate period (1923-1948). It is not about the Mandate for Palestine. Zero 08:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The boundary between TJ and Iraq wasn't set until December 22. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- According to the sources I have, the first formal agreement on a TJ-Iraq boundary didn't come until 1932. (US Department of State, International Boundary Study, No. 98, 1970, Iraq–Jordan). Zero 05:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is formally correct but there was an implicit setting of it according to Iraq–Jordan border#History, second para.Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- According to the sources I have, the first formal agreement on a TJ-Iraq boundary didn't come until 1932. (US Department of State, International Boundary Study, No. 98, 1970, Iraq–Jordan). Zero 05:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- The boundary between TJ and Iraq wasn't set until December 22. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No Background (Palestine Seal).png Replace the current seal with this one. Ayunipear (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not done for now: the version that you uploaded is not properly sourced. Please have a look at the one you copied to see how it's done. Better still, I suggest you overwrite the stable version (there should no issue as the change is minor). M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Flag is wrong
Sorrý í didn’t Specify earlier, but this is án edit request. Mandatory Palestine had a diffrent flag. It had a red backround, the Union Jack on the töp left, and a White circle sáning “Palestine” with blavk letters. The Union Jack was not the flag. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wrong, that one was only for ships. See Flag of Mandatory Palestine. Zero 07:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Quote
@מתיאל: Eugene Rogan is not a "partisan" source, he is one of the most preeminent historians and scholars in the field of Middle East studies. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rogan is not the only historian of this period and there is no reason to have this weird quote to justify Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by מתיאל (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the least weird about it. It is a simple and correct explanation of the reasons. However, it should be attributed, not just sourced. Zero 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seems there is more support for the quote's restoration than against it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, sorry. It's a really bad quote and completely unnecessary. First of all, the Arabs rejected ANY form of partition regardless of the territory allocated to each state. Second, it wasn't "their country" as Rogan puts it, but a British Mandate. Third, I'm pretty sure the Arabs didn't own 94% of the land, which is contradicted by many other sources.מתיאל (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
- Abu-Laban, Yasmeen; Bakan, Abigail B. (July 2022). "Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting". The Political Quarterly. 93 (3): 508–516. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13166. S2CID 250507449. p.511 "the Arabs, who in 1948 owned 90 per cent of the land"
- [https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html#Share "According to the above table scanned directly from the Survey of Palestine, Arab land ownership was 94.22%".
I'm pretty sure the Arabs didn't own 94% of the land, which is contradicted by many other sources
Let's see them, then. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)- Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources provided by prominent scholars such as Eugene Rogan, and not the personal opinion of editors who disagree with them. A "bad quote" in your opinion is not a legitimate reason for removal. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree this is a really bad quote, it sounds totally dubious. The very use of "their country" here totally raises concerns of bias, and the figure of 94% also sounds totally dubious, probably overlooking the fact that a substantive portion of lands were classified as public or state land, owned by the Ottoman and later British authorities, not privately owned by local Arabs. O.maximov (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again WP relies on RS, of which Eugene Rogan is certainly one, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- After reviewing the land ownership section of this article it seems the Arabs did own over 90% of lands, which is surprising given that they were only two thirds of the total population and most of the Negev was uninhabited (they owned desertic lands as well?). In any case, the quote is still undue and unnecessary for the other two reasons I gave, specifically the fact that they rejected ANY form of partition, so making this into a land-ownership issue gives the false impression they would accept the partition plan if only gave the proposed Arab state more territory. Also transforming the article's body into long direct quotes is bad editing policy.מתיאל (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
- I agree this is a really bad quote, it sounds totally dubious. The very use of "their country" here totally raises concerns of bias, and the figure of 94% also sounds totally dubious, probably overlooking the fact that a substantive portion of lands were classified as public or state land, owned by the Ottoman and later British authorities, not privately owned by local Arabs. O.maximov (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, sorry. It's a really bad quote and completely unnecessary. First of all, the Arabs rejected ANY form of partition regardless of the territory allocated to each state. Second, it wasn't "their country" as Rogan puts it, but a British Mandate. Third, I'm pretty sure the Arabs didn't own 94% of the land, which is contradicted by many other sources.מתיאל (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל
- Seems there is more support for the quote's restoration than against it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the least weird about it. It is a simple and correct explanation of the reasons. However, it should be attributed, not just sourced. Zero 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (November 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- High-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class former country articles
- Former country articles requiring a coat of arms
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- B-Class International law articles
- Mid-importance International law articles
- WikiProject International law articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class British Empire articles
- High-importance British Empire articles
- All WikiProject British Empire pages