Talk:Mandatory Palestine

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^talk 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^talk 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2024

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^talk 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^talk 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)