Talk:Mandatory Palestine

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 Wikipedia'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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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.

Palestine High‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	An editor has requested that a coat of arms image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.

International relations: Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

British Empire High‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2004 – Feb 2007)
Archive 2 (April 2007 – May 2009)
Archive 3 (Nov 2009 – May 2010)
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Flag is wrong

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

Wrong, that one was only for ships. See Flag of Mandatory Palestine. Zero^talk 07:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Quote

Latest comment: 5 months ago17 comments5 people in discussion

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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^talk 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems there is more support for the quote's restoration than against it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)מתיאלReply

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)Reply

Wikipedia 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)מתיאלReply

Is the arguments you're making sourced in any RS? Rogan's book was named one of the best books of 2009 by the Economist, the Financial Times, and the Atlantic Monthly. His credentials are unparalleled in the field so the quote is definitely due. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I would do is keep the quote within a ref and instead add a prose para summarizing it and other relevant refs. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you elaborate why you prefer this course of action instead of the full quote? Many WP article have quotes by scholars cited in full. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fwiw, I think the blockquote would sit better at the partition plan article but the % ownership is the key thing and we can include that without losing the quote by simply including it with a ref and if we add other supporting cites, we don't need to attribute it to Rogan but can state it as a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Selfstudier: I would go with your suggestion as middle ground. Which version did you have in mind? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Idk, in a suitable place, a statement like

"By 1947 the Arabs of Palestine constituted a two-thirds majority with over 1.2 million people, compared to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Moreover, Arabs owned 94 percent of the total land area of Palestine. Therefore the Palestinians were not disposed to agree with partition.^[1] (I added the full quote to the ref).

and add one or two other refs that back that up, although strictly not necessary, it's hardly controversial. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I would only add a small quote by Eugene that he wrote that the "Palestinian Arabs refused to confer on the United Nations the authority to split their country and give half away." I think that is a good middle ground for everyone. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Eugene Rogan (2012). The Arabs: A History – Third Edition. Penguin. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-7181-9683-7. It is not hard to understand the Palestinian Arab position. By 1947 the Arabs of Palestine constituted a two-thirds majority with over 1.2 million people, compared to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Many towns and cities with Palestinian Arab majorities, like Haifa, were allotted to the Jewish state. Jaffa, though nominally part of the Arab state, was an isolated enclave surrounded by the Jewish state. Moreover, Arabs owned 94 percent of the total land area of Palestine and some 80 percent of the arable farmland of the country. Based on these facts, Palestinian Arabs refused to confer on the United Nations the authority to split their country and give half away.

"Land Ownership" Section is Misleading, Needs Clarification and Neutral Sources

The information in this section is misleading and needs clarification as it often omits percentage calculations or relative comparative information for accurately distinguishing Arab-owned land, thereby reducing the overall perception of Jewish-owned land in comparison to Arab-owned land.

The article states "Official statistics show that Jews privately and collectively owned 1,393,531 dunams (1,393.53 km2), or 5.23% of Palestine's total in 1945" while failing to mention the Arab-owned land ownership percentage. This may potentially mislead the reader to believe approximately 95% of the non-Jewish land was solely Arab-owned. As it is, the entire section provides no ability to accurately determine the total Arab-owned land.

Following this, the figure entitled "Land Ownership of Palestine in 1945 by district" shows that approximately 85% of Beersheba is publicly owned. What isn't shown is that this area represents approximately 10,000 km2 of publicly owned land in that district and approximately 40% of the then total area of Palestine. This may potentially mislead the reader as there is no mention of public ownership under the "Land ownership" section, and accordingly, no mention of the total square kilometres of public land to which the reader may conceptualize the percentages and relative ownership.

Epstein-Truman and Epstein-Shertok letters

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@User:Onceinawhile: I've made a short addition to the "Termination of the mandate" section. It still mentions both the communication to the US and the request for recognition, without giving the reader any false impressions of the nature of the request. Dotyoyo (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I reverted that, it was fine the way it was and the material in the Easter egg does give a false impression, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The original letter conveyed (1) Israel's geographical limits and (2) a request for recognition. I interpret the current wording as saying "Israel asked for recognition of the State and its geographical limits". I see that as a significant difference, hence a misrepresentation, but I won't make further attempts to resolve this. (Re: Easter egg: If you find mention of "Israel's willingness to cooperate" with the UN Partition Plan objectionable as is, you might want to also remove it from Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Borders, or find a supporting RS.) Dotyoyo (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[1] Eugene Rogan (2012). The Arabs: A History – Third Edition. Penguin. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-7181-9683-7. It is not hard to understand the Palestinian Arab position. By 1947 the Arabs of Palestine constituted a two-thirds majority with over 1.2 million people, compared to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Many towns and cities with Palestinian Arab majorities, like Haifa, were allotted to the Jewish state. Jaffa, though nominally part of the Arab state, was an isolated enclave surrounded by the Jewish state. Moreover, Arabs owned 94 percent of the total land area of Palestine and some 80 percent of the arable farmland of the country. Based on these facts, Palestinian Arabs refused to confer on the United Nations the authority to split their country and give half away.

[1]