Talk:The Future of Palestine

issues

• What's the source for calling this article "Future of Palestine"? As far as I can see, that term is not used as a noun anywhere in the sources or article itself.
• The lead says It was the first time in an official record that enlisting the support of Zionist Jews as a war measure was proposed. First of all where does the source say "Zionist Jews"? Second, the source directly attributes this to Samuel, why is it stated as fact in the encyclopedia's neutral voice?
• The "The memorandum" section is completely unsourced except for the bit from an 1833 speech, which is getting undue weight.
• The "Reactions" section is also completely unsourced. I suspect both these sections come from a primary source? Why is it not noted?

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I am pleased to say that these are all very constructive comments. I will sort in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

All sorted. On your second bullet, the source does not attribute the statement to Samuel - I had just missed a closing quotation mark. Also on your second bullet, I removed "Zionist" to appease you, but do you have any actual objection to it? Clearly this related to enlisting the support of Zionists, not anti-Zionist or non-Zionist Jews. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My actual objection is that the source doesn't specify "Zionist" so putting it there is OR.

Upon further reflection I don't think this should be an article at all. All the coverage seems to be passing mention of a document. It could be a paragraph or two in the background of the Balfour Deceleration article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You either have a highly unusual definition of "passing mention", or you haven't read the sources properly. Many scholars have dedicated numerous pages to this topic. Friedman, for example, dedicated the entire second chapter in his major 1973 book to this topic ("Chapter 2: The Samuel Proposal and British Policy in Turkey-in-Asia") Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You have yet to substantiate the "The Future of Palestine" is the name used for this memorandum rather than just its title (see COMMONNAME).

Also, do you happen to know what Norman Rose's credentials are? I'm drawing a blank. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the name of the memo, and it's used in various secondary sources as referenced in the article. In the absence of an alternative suggestion, this is the obvious choice.

Rose's credentials are here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not the name of the memo and is not referenced as such anywhere that I could see, including the sources you added (which are footnotes noting the title of the memorandum, not calling it by that name).

That Norman Anthony Rose looks like he has the expertise to write such a book, but how do you know it's him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems we agree that the Title of the memo was "The Future of Palestine". What makes you think that the "Name" of the memo would be any different from its title. Unless you have sources saying any different, you are just whilstling in the wind.

Re Rose, because it gives a short bio in the book. You shouldn't need me to spoon-feed you.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please show some sources referring to this memo by the title you gave this page. As a noun like you make it seem here, that is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already linked to them above. This conversation is a waste of time unless you have an alternative name to propose. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote from John Bowle: “Viscount Samuel. A biography”. London, Victor Gollancz, 1957, page 171:

On January 28th Asquith wrote: “I have just received from Herbert Samuel a memorandum headed ‘The Future of Palestine’. He goes on to argue, at considerable length and with some vehemence, in favour of the British annexation of Palestine, a country the size of Wales, much of it barren mountain and part of it waterless. He thinks we might plant in this not very promising territory about three or four million European Jews, and that this would have a good effect upon those left behind.

BTW, I was about to publish the whole memorandum in its final, March 1915 version, as it is published in full in above quoted biography, but found out that Samuel died only in 1963, less than the necessary 70 years ago. Too bad... --L.Willms (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge

This article will never be much bigger than it is now. Without the extended quotes used as filler and without the background section we are left with two medium sized paragraphs. This memorandum is mentioned as background for the Balfour Deceleration in several places, but it is not historically significant enough to warrant more than a few paragraphs in any source as far as I can see. This should be merged into the Balfour Deceleration article, or maybe Sykes-Picot.

Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Of course the history of this memorandum is not just a part of the Balfour Declaration. It is part of the history of Zionism and of the British Mandate for Palestine. And the government and cabinet at the time of each document were different.

The memorandum has extremely wide and detailed scholarly coverage, more than adequate for a standalone article. As mentioned above, Friedman, for example, dedicated the entire second chapter in his major 1973 book to this topic ("Chapter 2: The Samuel Proposal and British Policy in Turkey-in-Asia").

It is highly notable for being the first time such a plan was discussed in an official setting.

If you don't like it, please follow due process and open a deletion discussion. I look forward to seeing you waste your time.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Less than half of that chapter actually deals with this memorandum. So in a ~400 page book that deals with only 4 years, less than 10 pages are dedicated to the topic of this article. That doesn't seem like a lot of coverage, does it?

Why do you think due process is to nominate this for deletion? I think it should be merged, as I quite clearly state above. If you think it doesn't belong in the Balfour Declaration page, feel free to suggest alternatives. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't read the chapter properly. It is 17 pages long. Pages 8 to 15 (eight pages) are all about the build up to and discussions around the memorandum. Page 18 discusses Samuel's memorandum in the context of Grey's position. Pages 19-21 (three pages) discuss the De Bunsen Committee (which has its own article). Then pages 21-24 (four pages) return to the memorandum.

So out of a 17 page chapter, 13 pages discuss the memorandum, and 3 pages discuss a parallel piece of history which also has its own article.

And what about all the other scholarly works that discuss this memorandum in detail?! There are more than enough good sources in the article for you to consider as well.

I believe your proposal has no merit. I don't think we will get any further in a one-on-one discussion here. You may hereby have the WP:LASTWORD.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your reading of that chapter is incorrect but let's say you're right, that's 17 pages out of 400 in a book dealing with only 4 years. That's not a lot. I agree that the De Bunsen Committee article is also about as big as it will ever get and thus should be folded into an article the deals with something more substantial.

What other sources discuss this memorandum "in detail"? I mean more than a few paragraphs?

I gather from your withdrawing so soon that my proposal has merit and it's obvious to you you won't be able to provide the sourcing required. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Just read the sources in the article please. You don't need me to do that for you. You appear to be filibustering. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Filibustering what exactly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly comments like this. Prolonging the conversation but without any substance. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

NMMNG appears to want to keep the merge tag here ad infinitum. I will not be drawn into an edit war over this tag, but personally I think its time has already expired. When it was first put up NMMNG canvassed other pages for comments here, but none came. I propose this tag stays for two more weeks, and if the discussion hasn't progressed, we then remove it. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Kindly substantiate your accusation of canvassing, and provide a quote from a relevant policy or guideline that says merge proposals should be limited to two weeks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Balfour_Declaration#The_Future_of_Palestine. You asked for comments, none came.

It's been a month already. The tag has already expired.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting needed

The article confuses the first draft of January 1915, and the revised version of March. This final version which Samuel used throughout the war years should be presented. In it, Samuel discusses in light of the necessity to protect the Suez Canal as the life line of the British Empire five possible outcomes of a redivision of the Asian parts of the Ottoman Empire concenring Egypt's direct neighbour Palestine, how annexation by France would be a danger to British control of the Canal, how an internationalization would finally lead to German domination -- even worse -- how leaving it in Turkish hands would be no option and that a "Jewish State" of a minority rule of the settler communities would be unable to dominate and pacify the Arab natives of the land. Finally that only an annexation of Palestine into the British Empire as a protectorate and with giving way to the colonization efforts of European Jews would be the only solution for protecting the Suez Canal.
The article in its present form also claims wrongly that Samuel's paper had been discussed in a cabinet meeting of the British Government. Neither Samuel's adulating biographer Bowles nor Ronald Sanders in his very very detailed and thoroughly researched "High Walls of Jerusalem" (1983) mention anything to that effect. I'll remove that claim right away. --L.Willms (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)