Talk:Arab Revolt

Bias

Seems biased and NPOV

Why? You changed the name to "Arab Uprising", but this is the name that everybody, including the government of Jordan, uses for this war. There is another event called the Arab Uprising or Great Uprising. Changing names of wars because you don't like them is original research. But please provide some information on the material you would like to change. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This article could be better

This item would present a more accurate view of the Arab Revolt if it conveyed more of the sense of profound betrayal and dissatisfaction which arose among the Arabs when forced to accept the Western Allies' postwar arrangements for the newly "liberated" Ottoman territories.

I don't know how this can be done without abandoning a neutral point of view, but perhaps a more complete listing of the explicit official promises made repeatedly by the British and French to their Arab allies during World War I - and more detail concerning who those allies were (besides the Sharif's family) - along with a more detailed and complete description of the substance of the promises made (which can be summed up in five words: Arab unity and immediate independence), would go a long way towards correcting the deficiency.

The documentary record should include the Damascus Protocol of May 1915, which presented the conditions under which the underground Arab nationalist societies of greater Syria would join a pro-British alliance with Sharif Hussein of the Hejaz, a more complete description of the July 1915-Jan 1916 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and Agreement, the Wingate Telegram of December 1917, which denied the substance of the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide Arab territory between France, Britain, and other Allies after the war, the Hogarth Message of January 1918, stating that the Balfour Declaration would not infringe upon Arab political or economic rights, or upon Arab independence and sovreignty in Palestine, the Basset Communique of Feb 8, 1918, reiterating the Wingate telegram while adding a restatement of British pledges to support Arab unity and immediate independence, June 16, 1918's Declaration to the Seven Syrians of Cairo translating the Allies' promises to support Arab unity and independence into Wilsonian terms through the inclusion of phrases like "consent of the governed" and "self-determination", and Nov 7, 1918's Anglo-French Declaration, a very explicit French endorsement of the promises of Arab independence and unity that the British had included them in all along - when talking to the Arabs. General Maude's official public statement to the people of Baghdad upon the liberation of that city also essentially includes Iraq in the terms of the Hussein-McMahon Agreements.

Sharif Feisal's attempts to uphold the Arab cause in the diplomatic manouverings at the Paris Peace Conference, leading up to the creation of what became the King-Crane Commission, and that Commission's findings (which were ignored and suppressed), are essential to the story. The history of the short-lived democratic Kingdom of (united) Syria and the documents produced by its National Congress should not be neglected, nor should Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations be ignored.

In contrast to all of this, the postwar partition and imposition of various neo-colonial schemes upon the Arabs which occured under the terms of the San Remo and Cairo Conferences, as well as by the terms of the Treaty of Sevres should be described. (Sharif Hussein's Mar 10, 1921 Memorandum to the Conference of the Allied Powers, protesting the Treaty of Sevres is one of the most succinct and eloquent restatements of the Arab case).

The presentation of all this material should allow the reader to understand how the Allies left the leaders of the Arab states they created with such a legacy of powerlessness and illegitimacy, the bitterness and problems arising from it, and an inkling of what might have been if the Allies had been true to their word.

In The Seven Pillars Lawrence describes his first meeting with Feisal:

"I felt at first glance that this was the man I had come to Arabia to seek - the leader who would bring the ARAB REVOLT to full glory. Feisal looked very tall and pillar like, very slender, in his long white silk robes and his brown head cloth... His eyelids were dropped; and his black beard and colourless face were like a mask against the strange, still watchfulness of his body."

I tried to make this article closer to neutral. Did not quite know what to do about the adjective "stunning."

This article seems to me, rather biased against the Arab Revolt. So because tens of thousands of people didn't die in the Arab Revolt, it wasn't important? Please explain that reasoning. --4.68.249.1 13:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry into Damascus

I removed the fact tag on the date and manner of the entry into Damascus; waiting until the next day to enter is discussed by Lawrence in chapter CXIX, around page 644 in my edition. The date is evident from Appendix II, where he gives a list of locations and dates; Damascus is listed as October 1st. Brianyoumans 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I modified this passage, mentioning the arrival of Nuri Sha'lan and Sharif Naser prior to the Australian cavalry's entry. My authority for this is "The Arab Awakaning" by George Antonius. His personal acquaintance with, and extensive research of the events and persons supporting and opposing (Arabs, British, French, Turks and Germans), the Arab Revolt make him the best and most important source. This timeline of 'who got there first' is reiterated in former British SAS officer Michael Asher's Lawrence biography "T E Lawrence, the Uncrowned King of Arabia". I wouldn't be surprised if the recent authorized Lawrence biography by Wilson documents this sequence of events as well. For the Asher and Antonius books I only have my notes which don't include page numbers.But I will find the publisher and date of "The Arab Awakening" and add it to "Recommended Reading".75.117.17.4 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman's view of their own significance to Islam

I think the article could be improved by giving some discussion of how the Ottoman's viewed themselves as protectors of Islam. The way the article currently reads, with statements like this, "The dethroned Sultan attempted to regain the Caliphate by putting an end to the secular policies of the Young Turks, but was in turn driven away to exile in Selanik by the 31 March Incident and was eventually replaced by his brother Mehmed V Reşad." you almost get the feeling that the new government was more indifferent to Islam than the Sultan, though it seems the Young Turks saw the war as a jihad [1] and even withdrew quality troops from strategic locations in their creation of an 'Army of Islam' Does anyone have more insight into Turkish or Arab views of Islam and their respective relationship to it during this period? Brando130 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To try to answer to the basic import of "Brando"'s questions by referring to Antonius's account: Early in the war - in the 1914-15 period - both the Turkish and the British sides exploited Islam in their propaganda. The Shaikh al Islam in Istanbul issued a 'fatwa' authorizing all Muslims to fight the Allies and support the German/Austrian side. The anti-European stuggles of the Sanussis in Libya and the Sultan of Darfur received the of the Ottoman imprimatur as "jihads". Ottoman and German agents appealed to Islamic sentiment while inciting unrest among Britain's Muslim colonial subjects in India and Afghanistan as well as in British influenced Persia.

On the British side, Secretary of War Kitchener urged the Sharif of Mecca to claim the title of Caliph for himself, and distribution of Arab nationalist leaflets with an Islamist slant was done by the British and French in early 1915. The idea of being Caliph had some appeal to Sharif Hussein. However, once the alliance between the Hashemites and the Arab nationalists of Greater Syria and Iraq was formalized by the Damascus Protocol, the Islamist aspect of the Arab Revolt was dropped due to the fact that the Syrian/Iraqi branch of Arab nationalism had been influenced by European concepts of nationalism, as well as by that of the Young Turk movement, and hence was essentially secular. Also, many of the Arab nationalists of Greater Syria were Christians or from minority sects of Islam, and their goal was that the future Arab state be secular or at least non-sectarian.75.117.17.4 (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

casualties section

what the hell? why is the casualties talking about the number of troops instead of casualties?162.83.137.114 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing. Crazy. Somebody fix it, please. Lou Sander (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

I just cleaned up a wrong use of a word and replaced with the correct one. --Huss4in (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bravo mi amigo. The grammar police comes to the rescue again! Happy birthday and I shall reward you with a fish without air.

Emirate of Jabal Shammar

I think the Rashidans had been absorbed by Ibn Saud at this point. Also, the commander listed in the infographic died in 1906. I also recall that Rashidans were pro Ottoman and were fierce enemies of Ibn Saud. Can someone referee this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.70.64 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Ibn Saud didn't conquer the Hali until 1921, so the Rashidans were very much around at this point. The Kingdom by Ronald Lacey has some detail about the Saud and the Arab Revolt. Yes, the Rashid family were the archenemies of the al-Saud and tended to be pro-Ottoman --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)-

Ibn Saud

Ibn Saud shouldn't be listed as co-belligerent of Arab Revolt. Indeed Ibn Saud was pro-British and fought a battle against pro-Ottoman Rashids in 1915. But this battle happened before the Arab Revolt. Ibn Saud didn't joined the Hashemite-lead revolt. Actually they fight each other from 1917 to 1919.

Ibn Rashid's role claimed by Murphey should be crosschecked with other sources. I doubt that the Rashids had in this time the military power to do any actions against the Arab revolt. --Arturius001 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The nominator did not make his or her case with the use of reliable sources, and other editors who commented on his or her proposal did not see merit in the usage of "Great" on the basis of Arabic usage or as a disambiguator. As the proposal has run for fourteen days, it is clear that there is no consensus to move this page. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Arab Revolt → Great Arab Revolt – This is the name used by Arabs and has been used by English sources too. There were several other revolts under the "Arab Revolt" name. Also, "Great Arab Revolt" redirects here, so this shouldn't be a problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. RGloucester — ☎ 04:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Question why not Arab Revolt (1916)? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It lasted till 1917.. Great Arab Revolt is better in any case. --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both terms are used, yes, but in general "Arab Revolt" unqualified means this one, so disambiguation isn't a concern, and if it was, "Great Arab Revolt" isn't much clearer for the uninitiated. The redirect argument goes both ways; isn't there already not a problem since GAR redirects here? Do you have any usage statistics that show a majority of sources prefer "Great"?

• Additionally... and this isn't a super-serious argument so please don't assume it's the basis of it... "Great" is a bit of an old-fashioned disambiguator. I wouldn't be surprised if sources that use it tend on the older, sensationalistic side, e.g. newspaper coverage of the time rather than scholarly books written later. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually no, when in, for example in Arabic, "Great" is mentioned, in the context of size, as it was the largest and most influential Arab Revolt Makeandtoss (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• The Arabic term doesn't matter when there's well-attested English sources we can use instead. (e.g. "Germany" not "Deutschland"). This was the most important Arab Revolt, hence my support for keeping it at "Arab Revolt" rather than "Arab Revolt of 1916-18", but that doesn't affect the issue of what the WP:COMMONNAME is. If you want to prove your case, show that most reliable English sources uses "Great Arab Revolt." SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very biased

The article, specifically the lead, tries to portray the revolt to be completely orchestrated by the Sherif of Mecca, rather than a collective resentment towards Ottoman authoritarian rule over Arab lands. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

But... it kind of was? Lots of populations have some collective resentment. Most of them don't rise in revolt. It was the Sherif who specifically did revolt (w/ some British inducement), and it was under his leadership that some of the other Arab groups were convinced/bribed to join in. Additionally, the amount of actual discontent with the Ottomans (especially with the alternative being rule by European Christians) was greatly, greatly overstated in the Western media. To put things another way, there was probably some discontent in 1941 Malaysia / Hong Kong / Singapore / etc. with British rule, but that doesn't mean the citizens were eager to be conquered by Japan. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, the causes of the Arab revolt was to gain Arab independence from any empire. It was not known, at the time, that Britain and France were planning to divide the region between themselves. Plus the western sources sound very close to Arabic sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the future, which was indeed unknown in the era, the Arab Revolt asked Muslims of the Middle East to take up arms and ally with Christian powers against a Muslim government. There were lots of Arabs who were hesitant about this. An important leader like Hussein, backed by a pile of British money, helped turn "discontent with Ottoman rule" into "armed revolt." (Cards on the table: I am largely citing Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" here.)

What sources are you citing for this? You seem to want to say that in the alternate history where the Sherif stayed content with being an Ottoman official and the British ignored the region, this "collective resentment" would have still blossomed into a revolt. Well, maybe, but let's see some reliable sources first. SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the rise of Arab nationalism... For example this page discusses how there were several other unsuccessful revolts against the Ottomans [2]. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So answering your question, yes. There was a large chance that a revolt would end up being successful, especially as time passes by and "resentment" grows. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's a solid source! I'd have no objects to including Tauber's "The Arab Movements in World War I" some. However... and correct me if I'm wrong... the impression I get from reading up on it is that it describes some failed revolts that were eventually eclipsed in importance by Hussein's (which had British backing). Adding some info on them would be fine, but also shouldn't obscure the importance of Hussein's revolt. Seems like it might be relevant to add to "Background" or "Prelude." Just make sure it's sourced with page numbers & all in proper fashion, and the citations back it up. SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to be eclipsed because they failed? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I have read about the revolt in reliable Arabic sources and I am trying to match what I read with some English sources. But I haven't been able to find a source that mentions all Ottoman wrongdoings against the Arab population; heavy taxes, Impalement as execution, conscription, no developments, no involvement of Arabs in any leading positions, etc... ? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Tauber only mentioned Syria and Lebanon, here's a source mentioning Transjordan and Hejaz [3]. Anyway, I still can't find what I am looking for. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

[4] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

p207 Makeandtoss (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab Revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216073709/http://gazi.edu.tr/posts/download?id=115391 to http://gazi.edu.tr/posts/download?id=115391

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Opening para, subsection "Prelude"

This para is problematic:

"Because of repression by the Ottoman Empire and their Central Powers allies, Grand Sharif Hussein, as the guardian of the holy city of Mecca, entered into an alliance with the United Kingdom and France against the Ottomans sometime around 8 June 1916, the actual date being somewhat uncertain. This alliance was facilitated by the services of a mysterious young Arab officer in the Ottoman army named Muhammed Sharif al-Faruqi.[23]"

Hussein made no alliance with France, the British supported him with arms, money and other assistance pursuant to the McMahon correspondence (10 letters in all between July 1915 and March 1916). I think it is not correct to say that this support was facilitated by...more correct would be to say that a key letter in the correspondence was sent in a hurry because of statements made by him. (Fromkin is a decent enough source, unfortunately this material is not in it.) The prelude could be expanded to good effect, I think (more explanation is needed).

If noone wants to fix it up properly, I will do it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

POV clean-up

There are many negative perspectives on the revolt itself mentioned in the article, which mostly come from particular authors such as Efraim Karsh (whose obvious pro-Israeli stance should be mentioned, but maybe later), so I moved them to particular section (Views). I don’t think we should remove these views altogether (but still require clean up) but instead we should put more perspectives from the Arab side. JahlilMA (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Turkey wanna assert itself as some type of Islamic Arab defender. That it was somehow the West that orchestrated the rise of Saud and that the Arabs were only used... When in reality by objective standards the Turkish nationalists viewed the Arabs as inferior and different. They did not like the Arab language at the time and Turks constituted all soldiers. Leaving Arabs as essentially Dhimmis/infidels in their own Islamic lands. They could not even join the Ottoman army... The Turkish nationalists wanted no Arabs in leading positions and obviously, the Arabs were discontent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.143.7 (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 

Unreasonable removal of sourced content ?

For some reason @Skitash removed a major and very important sourced content regarding the revolt from the lead stating in the summary "Badly written unexplained changes” . Can you elaborate exactly how the major points and context i added is “unexplained changes” and can you propose to us how should we write this (new) information ? In a way that is not “badly written”, according to your opinion of course. Stephan rostie (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize essential points. I'm uncertain why you added such a lengthy chunk of text there, as it should be in the main body of the article, particularly under the background section. Moreover, the content you added appears to be one-sided and needs to be proofread for grammatical errors. Skitash (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize essential points.

Then i can write in the lead that the vast majority of Arabs didnt participate in the revolt and kept fighting against the invaders until the very end, and that the revolt didn’t go beyond few hejaz tribesmen. And the detailed information can be written in the background section.

Moreover, the content you added appears to be one-sided

define “one-sided” ?

needs to be proofread for grammatical errors.

no problem, you can correct any grammatical error if you found any, thats why wikipedia is based on collaborative work where anyone can write and edit to improve such things and add more knowledge if others missed ! Stephan rostie (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have restored some of your content and placed it in the appropriate sections (under #Forces). However, I did not include WP:OR content you added that was not supported by the sources, such as "By the beginning of the First World War. Britain seeked to initiate a division between Turks and Arabs in ottoman lines hoping to turn the Arabs on their side". Skitash (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Skitash. I did remove what you considered WP:OR ("By the beginning of the First World War. Britain seeked to initiate a division between Turks and Arabs") and corrected it to what the reliable sources say, which is that britain wanted to turn the arabs against turks in the war

why did you remove this crucial and very significant part about the revolt from the lead again ? Stephan rostie (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The question we should be asking here is why do you persist in adding that chunk of text to where it does not belong? This is already covered in Arab Revolt#Forces, and whatever you wrote is not in accordance with WP:NPOV. Skitash (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The question we should be asking here is why do you persist in adding that chunk of text to where it does not belong?

@Skitash may i ask how exactly does the context of the entire revolt doesn’t belong to the lead ?

The current lead is incredibly misleading, it gives an impression that it was a “large revolution by the Arab peoples” when in reality (as per tons of reliable sources) it was just British-backed rebellion by Hijazi local king that only gained support by some bedouin and arabian tribes in Hijaz, whereas arab peoples themselves (the vast majority of them) neither participated in it nor gave it any support but kept fighting the invaders in the ottoman ranks until the very end.

can you tell how doesn’t this belong to the lead and how the existing very misleading lead is fine ?

whatever you wrote is not in accordance with WP:NPOV

There is not even any POV to begin with, its all documented numbers and historical incidents coming directly from reliable sources. There is no POV in writting that the revolt didn’t gain support beyond hijaz or saying The british goals from the revolt or saying that arabs remained loyal to the to the ottoman empire until the end such that some even fought in the turkish war of independence after WWI, all of which from numerous specialized reliable sources. There is no POV to begin with. These facts are the core of the revolt itself, I don’t know why are you trying to omit it Stephan rostie (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Give me one sentence, not too long, that you think should definitely be in the lead and I may put it in. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier this would be sufficient:

The British and Hussein expectations to gain public Arab support failed and no visible support for the revolt existed beyond Hejaz and its tribal neighbors and they were only able to gather few thousands tribesmen subsidized by British money, while most Arabs remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire and fighting in ottoman ranks until the very end.

that would be fine (every word is backed by a reliable source, you can check the sources yourself).

i also think that the language of the lead that gives the impression that it was a “revolt and uprising by the arab nation” should be completely changed by the actual historical context and reality in historical sources, that is, it was mainly a British backed rebellion led by a Hijazi local king that only had the support of several hijazi and bedouin tribes subsidized by British money. Which i already did in my last edit that skitash blocked. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for "few thousand tribesmen"?

Cf. "The Hashemite Army that instigated the Arab Revolt was composed of tribesmen from both the settled and nomadic Arab tribes. It is difficult to get an accurate assessment of how large this army was. Some estimates suggest 30,000 tribesmen who took part in the initial actions around Mecca, Medina

and Ta’if." 2008 The Arab Revolt 1916-18 by David Murphy, Peter Dennis

Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the source for "few thousand tribesmen"?

@Selfstudier this is what is literally written in sources: "The powerful secret military organization that al - Faruqi had promised would rally to Hussein failed to make itself known . A few thousand tribesmen , subsidized by British money , constituted Hussein's troops . He had no regular army . Outside the Hejaz and its tribal neighbors , there was no visible support for the revolt in any part of the Arabic-speaking world"

another source: "In June Hussein , who was receiving money from the Turks and the British , announced an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire , although he had only a few thousand tribesmen and no army with which to fight . The British would pour some £ 11 million into subsidizing the revolt , while Sykes began popularizing the concept of the " Middle East . " …. In November Lawrence , with the money to buy an army of tribesmen , joined Feisal , but the new year arrived with nothing to show for the British investment. "

note that the source you quoted doesn’t contradict the others

Stephan rostie (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Still having some trouble with this, per the Forces section in the article, which explains the variations in force, also mentions the 30,000. In the lead we have to give an accurate picture of the whole revolt not just at some arbitrary point in time.

The sentence ....most Arabs remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire and fighting in ottoman ranks until the very end might perhaps convey the point you are trying to make? Rather than focusing on specific force numbers. Is that the main idea, that the scale of the revolt was not as large as could have been expected? Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier okay fair enough, we can just write:

The British and Hussein expectations to gain public Arab support failed and no visible support for the revolt existed beyond Hejaz and its Bedouin tribal neighbors subsidized by British money, while most Arabs remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire and fighting in ottoman ranks until the very end.

Still having some trouble with this, per the Forces section in the article, which explains the variations in force, also mentions the 30,000.

Regarding the estimated number in the info box, i think it would be more reasonable and complying with all sources to change it from a defined number (e.g 30,000) to a range (e.g 10,000-30,000), since even the source that gives the high 30,000 estimation itself state that it is difficult to give an accurate assessment of how large the army was and other sources with other estimations exist. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see how that could possibly belong in the lead. Arab countries were mostly under European occupation, so taking about Arab support against the Ottomans is misleading at best. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The context of the article is obviously about the arabs of Mashreq who were part of the ottoman empire and constituted 30% of the ottoman army, those who were in the course of WWI, not the Mauritanian arabs or malaysian arabs.

you think mentioning that the british goals and expectations from their subsidized sharifian revolt to attract and gain the support of ottoman arab citizens and army men (third of the ottoman army in WWI) failed and didn’t get support beyond hijaz and neighboring bedouin tribes is irrelevant to the lead of the article about this revolt itself ? Stephan rostie (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The estimated count of 10,000 troops appears to be a serious undercount, and I have not come across any other reliable sources supporting a similar figure (see WP:UNDUE). There are sources suggesting that the number of Arab rebels could be have been as high as 70,000. Skitash (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your source [5] is not even a WP:RS (neither the publisher nor the author). Source [4] is an obsolete unspecialized outdated source that talks about (as per its own description) "geology, geography, the coasts, climate, vegetation, history, administration, people, public health, agriculture, economy, ports and towns" of west arabia produced during WWII by Naval intelligence Division. Source [6] is passing but is obviously not as specialized as all the other sources above and largely WP:UNDUE.

All reliable specialized sources estimates ranges from few thousands to 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000 maximum, i came across all. thats why i proposed making it a range rather than a definite number. Anyway regardless, this (if we’d have a debate/talk about) should better be discussed in another talks section, not here. Stephan rostie (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you have mentioned WP:UNDUE, could you present any other reliable sources supporting your claimed figure? It is inconceivable that the total number of rebels would amount to 10,000 considering that Medina alone was besieged by 50,000. Skitash (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, if you're uncertain about the intended purpose of a lead, I suggest you read MOS:LEAD. The lead should only summarize key points, explain why the topic is notable and be limited to "no more than four well-composed paragraphs", and certainly not your point of view on the conflict. It seems that there is a bias in your version of the lead, with an WP:UNDUE emphasis on your perspective. Given that Arab Revolt#Forces already explains that "The Arab Bureau of the British Empire in Cairo believed that the revolt would draw the support of all Arabs throughout the Ottoman Empire and Arab lands. Faisal and Sharif Hussein reportedly expected to be joined by 100,000 Arab troops. However, the large desertions predicted British Arab Bureau never materialized as the majority of Arab officers remained loyal to the Ottomans until the end" and "By the beginning of the First World War, Arab conscripts constituted about 30% of the wartime Ottoman military of 3 million" (which aligns with your argument), I would like to understand the rationale behind duplicating and reiterating this information in the lead where it does not belong. Skitash (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This is too much to read for a minor problem. There is no such thing as Hashemite Arabs. The Hashemites are a clan not an ethnic group. Why are you edit warring this back into the article despite the objections? The burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie: Makeandtoss (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edit not because it argued and generalized “levantine arabs”. I have no problem with the rest of your edit.

i personally would propose to make it: “Revolt by several Hijaz Arab and Bedouin tribes led by the Hashemites and Britain” Stephan rostie (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

"Hashemite Arabs"

@M.Bitton: Hashemite is a clan, the revolt leaders were the sons of Sharif Hussein, meanwhile the bulk of the fighting force came from Hejazi tribes. Overwhelming majority of RS do not describe it as being carried out by "Hashemite Arabs". I find it disturbing that we even have to spend this much time discussing basic historical facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hashemite is a clan the Hashemites instigated and led the revolt.

the revolt leaders were the sons of Sharif Hussein the revolt's leader is their father, and besides, what's that got to do with the fact that his sons are also Hashemites (Arabs) from the Hejaz?

the bulk of the fighting force came from Hejazi tribes so? the Carthaginian forces were mainly foreign, but that never stopped us from describing them as "Carthaginian forces".

As for the "overwhelming majority of RS": how many sources describe the Arab revolt as an armed uprising by the Hashemite-led Arabs of the Levant? M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of Arabs participated in the revolt. They were led by Sharif Hussein and his four sons whose family's name is Hashemite. How does that mean that the tens of thousands of Arabs are now "Hashemite Arabs"? They don't belong to the Hashemite family. They were simply participating in a revolt that was led by Hashemite figures; i.e. Sharif Hussein and his four sons. Historians have called this fighting force: Hashemite forces/Arab Army/Sharifian Army, they didn't call the members "Arab Hashemite", just as we don't call the Jewish rebels "Jewish Kochbians" at the Bar Kokhba revolt; we say simply "Jews of Judea", and here we should simply say "Arabs of the Levant and the Hejaz". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Will be restored to original version given no consensus for this recently added addition, and no logic behind it. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

1) At least two editors agree with it. 2) The fact that you don't agree with the logic of what is easily sourced doesn't mean that the logic behind it is flawed. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Consensus is not a voting procedure of two editors vs one (one of whom that did not even bother responding); consensus is reached by taking all editor's legitimate concerns into consideration. The concern is the implication that the Arab rebels belonged to the Hashemite clan by saying "Hashemite Arabs" as if they were a social group like the Yemeni Houthis is factually false and misleading. The fact that you ignored my last response here, already a sign of disruptive behavior, and edit warred your preferred version twice (citing one source instead of looking at the entire literature), whilst also ignoring that the burden of verifiability is on you, is not looking good at all. Please self-revert and discuss first. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a voting procedure of two editors vs one consensus is not a voting procedure of one (making baseless claims such as no such thing as Hashemite Arabs) against two (one of whom provided the needed RS).

consensus is reached by taking all editor's legitimate concerns into consideration that's what I did by responding to every single point that you raised. What did you do? You ignored the only question that I asked.

The fact that.. what does the fact that you ignored my question make you?

ignoring that the burden of verifiability this makes no sense since the needed RS was provided and acknowledged by yourself (citing one source).

If you want to replace "Hashemite Arabs of the Hejaz" (A) with "Arabs of the Hejaz" (B}, say so, but don't make yet another false claim by pretending to restore long-standing version. The so-called long-standing version said Arabs, which is grossly misleading, if not factually incorrect.

Anyway, given that we know what you're after and that there are other editors that are involved in this, I will ping them and see which one they prefer. I will also include another (part of what you tried to add previously).

@Skitash, Stephan rostie, and Makeandtoss: which of these makes the most sense to you? These refer to the part that goes between "was an armed uprising by the" and "against the Ottoman Empire".

A. Hashemite Arabs of the Hejaz.

B. Arabs of the Hejaz

C. Hashemite-led Arabs of the Hejaz.

I'm happy with either A or C because the Hashemites were the instigators and the leaders of the revolt (as per RS and the the article's body) and as such, mentioning them in the lead is very important. M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm content with option C. Undoubtedly, the Hashemites played a significant role and are crucial to the lead, although it's important to note that they were merely the leaders rather than representatives of the entire rebel force. Skitash (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The RS you provided is undue, per same guideline WP:BURDEN. Consensus is reached after discussion; meanwhile you edit warred your preferred version while discussion was still ongoing. The long-standing version said Arabs, which is miles less misleading than "Hashemite Arabs". Now that we have three "votes" for C, waiting for yourself revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Since C is a new proposal, there will be no reverting to B (the other new option that has no consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

C says it all in the most precise way. Zero^talk 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done option C it is. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)