Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Moved for discussion "Legal status of the Mandate"

The heading is not very descriptive. Someone stuck a WP:Synth editorial in here about the United States Government challenges to the validity of the Mandate. There is no supporting reference and there is no material in the cite on that subject.

The US Senate refused to recognize the validity of the system of Mandates and did not ratify the Versailles Treaty. When Great Britain, France, Italy, and Turkey did not ratify the Treaty of Sevres, the US Ambassador in London was instructed that the exercise of jurisdiction over American citizens by the local government and courts in Palestine contravened the rights of the United States under existing treaties and usages and could not be tolerated. That meant the Government of Palestine had no right to try Americans in its courts or collect taxes from them. The US continued to insist that the capitulations were valid until the Palestine Mandate Convention was ratified in 1925. It provided for their resumption when the temporary period of the Mandate was terminated. See for example D.P. O'Connell, H.Lauterpacht and A.D. McNair (eds), The Law of State Succession, Cambridge University, 1956, page 61. Here are examples from the FRUS:

• CONSULAR JURISDICTION IN PALESTINE: REFUSAL BY THE UNITED STATES TO ACQUIESCE IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL BRITISH COURTS OVER AMERICAN CITIZENS, 1920 [1]

• 1921 forgery conviction vacated [2] and handed over for trial in US consular courts [3]
• 1921 an American citizen named Abraham Chaikin was arrested in a military zone at the town of Ludd, Palestine, and charged with carrying a revolver contrary to local law. He was tried and sentenced by the District Governor at Ramleh to imprisonment. A week later when informed of the occurence, the Consul demanded that Mr. Chaikin be turned over to it for trial in the American Consular Court and he was released.[4]

The Italians held-up all of the A Mandates over similar concerns for Italians in the French Mandate.

The additional articles included in the US Mandate Conventions contained provisions that remained in effect after the dissolution of the League and stipulated that Great Britain and France could not alter the terms of the Mandates without US consent. The US was a signatory to the Treaty of Lausanne, so this snipped section is pretty much hogwash:

The United States, which was not a member of the League of Nations, and consequently was not required to officially state its position on the legality of the Palestinian Mandate. However, the US government accepted the de facto, if not de jure, status of the mandates and entered into individual treaties with the mandatory power to secure legal rights for its citizens and to protect property rights and business interests in the mandates. In the case of Palestine, in 1924, it entered into an understanding with Britain in the Palestine Mandate Convention, in which the United States "consents to the administration" (Article 1) and which dealt with eight issues of concern to the United States.

harlan (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This deserves maybe a sentence in the Practical and legal basis section. Maybe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Gulf of Aqaba - not necessarily in Transjordan

Saying that portions of Transjordan were suggested to become part of the 1947-proposed Jewish state based on references to "Aqaba" is very misleading, to say the least. "Aqaba" is a name of port city, but also a common name to the Gulf on which it lies (in Israeli documents known as Gulf of Eilat since the 1950s or so). Some 10km along the gulf shore, between the outskirts of the city of Aqaba and Wadi Taba were under the British Jerusalem-based administration, so there was nothing peculiar in suggesting it would become part of the Jewish state in the partition plan. Back then, only a few huts used by Bedouin nomads were located in this small location known to locals as "Umm Rashrash". Today it is the site of the Israeli town of Eilat. The sources are ambiguous on whether Weizmann, when telling Truman about the importance of Aqaba, was referring to the port-city or to access to the gulf in general, so no far-fetched conclusions can be drawn from these words of his. 79.177.45.157 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The FRUS and White House records said that the Ad Hoc Committee and Weizmann discussed the "Port of Aqaba", not "Aqaba". In Secretary Marshall's 12 November memo, he specifically noted that the area under discussion wasn't located in Palestine. [5] On page 326, Donovan actually cites Marshall's 12 November memo. Neither Marshall nor Donovan mention Umm Rashrash or Eilat. So your WP:Synth editorial is inappropriate. harlan (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying that "Port of Aqaba" is necessarily in Transjordan is your original research. Don't try to point the problems in your suggestions at others. A portion of the Gulf of Aqaba was in the area under direct British mandate, and the term Port of Aqaba can refer to this area, considering that the name Umm Rashrash was used locally and the name Eilat was introduced only about a decade later. 109.67.37.106 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The "port at Aqaba" was definitely in Transjordan

The Council of the League of Nations established the eastern border of Palestine when it approved a proposal from the the British government, dated September 16th, 1922 which said: "the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba [aka Aqaba] on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk ; thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian Frontier." See Mandate for Palestine together with a note by the Secretary-General relating to its application to the territory known as Trans-Jordan [6]

In 1947 the port was located at Aqaba in Transjordan, not at Um Rashrash in Palestine. You haven't mention any published sources which say that Um Rashrash was called "the port at Aqaba" in 1947.

• According to Clive Leatherdale, Commissioner Samuel had insisted that the Aqaba-Maan region be annexed to Transjordan during the Hedjaz-Nejd war. The Colonial Office had raised objections because the move increased British expenses and Transjordan's share of the Ottoman debt. See Britain and Saudi Arabia, 1925-1939: the Imperial Oasis, By Clive Leatherdale Routledge, 1983, ISBN 0714632201, page 39

• According to Betty Signe Anderson, Aqaba and Maan were annexed to Transjordan from Hedjaz in June of 1925. The 1928 Citizenship Law made everyone living in the territory prior to 1924 a citizen of Transjordan, because the originary date [based upon the Treaty of Lausanne] was 1923. See Nationalist voices in Jordan: the street and the state, By Betty Signe Anderson, University of Texas Press, 2005, ISBN 0292706251, page 41

John Snetsinger wrote that Chaim Weizmann visited President Truman on 19 November 1947 and discussed Jewish control of "the port at Aqaba". He said it was imperative that Aqaba be included in the Jewish state. In his 12 November 1947 memo, Secretary of State Marshall wrote that there had been frequent references about the desirability of including the "Port of Aqaba" in the Jewish state.[7]. In the same memo, Marshall pointed out that Aqaba was not located in Palestine.[8] You mentioned Donovan, but he actually cites Marshall's 12 November memo and does not mention Eilat or Um Rashrash at all. harlan (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues regarding the split of the Article

There is an on-going discussion about the post-war treaties. They contained terms that governed recognition by other states, delineation and demarcation of boundaries, nationality, and administration of the "newly-created States" that acquired territories from Turkey. Those treaties were not part of the League of Nations Mandate instrument. Some of them also resulted in municipal ordinances, like the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Ordinances of 1925-26.

If this article is going to be about the 28 articles of the League of Nations legal instrument, then the companion article should be about the Mandated State of Palestine. The introduction of the new Mandate Palestine article suggests that it was period of history in which the region became the territory of a legal instrument:

Mandate Palestine was a period in the history of the Middle East, roughly from 1917 until 14 May 1948, during which period Britain occupied and administered the region which in 1923 became the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine.

There is already an existing article about Transjordan. There is another about the region of Palestine which contained sections on its history:

• 3 History
• 3.7 British Mandate (1920–1948)

That article uses the main article template and links to this this one. It says the boundaries of two new states were laid down within the territory of the British Mandate, Palestine and Transjordan. After the suggested clean-up, the {{sync}} tag needs to be applied to harmonize the contents of the various articles. harlan (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Both articles now need to be tidied up as a result of the split. However, I would object to again introduce the word "State" in the title of the article. That would be to create the same issues as arise here.

I have one other observation. It seems to me that this article is again going off on a new tangent. This time it is in the termination of mandate section, with details of which territories is to be included in which entity. These are not things to do with the mandate, but with the post-mandate partition of the territory. This is covered already in numerous other articles. Those issues would be better dealt with in the partition plan article, for example. As I understand it, this article deals with the mandate document itself. Ewawer (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to create entries on the Palestine disambiguation page to the new article before you ask others to start using it.

The General Assembly partition plan called for the UN Palestine Commission to demarcate the new borders during the transition period, prior to the termination of the mandate. Some authors convey the impression that Great Britain's 1946 bilateral treaty with Transjordan terminated the mandate. During the UNSCOP and Ad Hoc Committee hearings, several members of the Security Council and the Jewish Agency said that: (i) Great Britain had not yet fulfilled the necessary legal criteria to terminate the joint mandate with Transjordan; (ii) that the international status of Transjordan would remain unchanged until the UN had addressed the question of Palestine in accordance with article 80 of the UN Charter; and (iii) that the Jewish people still had a secured legal interest in settling the territory of Transjordan. There are still published sources today which claim that one cannot exclude three-fourths of the historical Palestinian territory while the fate of Israel and the Palestinians is being negotiated, e.g. Raphael Israeli's "Is Jordan Palestine?" in Efraim Karsh's "Israel, the Hashemites, and the Palestinians" [9]. So, the fact that the UN did not do that happens to be very relevant. harlan (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. The use of the term "region" in the intro was done after some thought. There was no established boundary for what became the mandate territory, with the boundaries of the territory only being determined in 1923. Please provide a better term/wording, other than "state". Ewawer (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal opinions about the boundaries are not suitable for inclusion in the article. The Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December 1920 was the first in a series of international boundary agreements regarding Palestine. See the report of Great Britain to the League on the position of Palestine [10] Article 2 of the Convention established a Boundary Commission to delimit the agreed upon border on the ground. A subsequent report on their work was ratified by an exchange of notes in 1923. [11] You are certainly welcome to add sourced material that represents published views to the article, but you haven't been doing that. It isn't necessary to provide a better term than "state". The official published sources and analysis from secondary sources utilize that term. It is Wikipedia policy to let sources speak for themselves.

You've deleted citations and material which explain that the Principal Allied Powers laid down the boundaries of the newly-created states in accordance with the provisions of the post-war resolutions and treaties that they adopted in 1920. They authored multilateral international legal instruments which specifically dealt with the issues of disposition of territory, boundaries, nationality, and state succession to public debts, property, and archives.

• Howard Grief said that Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles established the Mandates System and that it was the result of the Smuts Resolution which had been officially endorsed by the Council of Ten on January 30, 1919: "in which Palestine as envisaged in the Balfour Declaration was named as one of the mandated states to be created." [12] He also wrote that Palestine was specifically created at the San Remo Peace Conference on 24-25 April 1920 as a mandated state. [13]
• Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, "and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down." The text of the treaty is available online [14]
• Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria contained identical stipulations. The text of the treaty is available online [15]
• Article 74 of the Treaty of Trianon with Hungary contained identical provisions. The text of the treaty is available online [16] harlan (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically what HW suggests is known in Wikipedia as "POV forking". It is a good idea to have a special article about Transjordan because it was an autonomous region that later developed into a new kingdom. What was then known as Palestine was under direct British rule according to the original mandate charter, so there is no need to treat it separately from the main article about the British Mandate. It seems to me that HW want the term "state" to be used so badly that he is willing to start a new article just for this purpose. 109.67.37.106 (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious who is desperate to avoid the inclusion of well sourced material. FYI, the United States government formally recognized Mandate Palestine as a foreign state. In 1932 the Executive branch applied the most favored nation provisions of various commerce treaties to Palestine. In Kletter v Dulles the United States District Court, District of Colombia ruled that Palestine was a foreign state and that naturalization under Palestinian law constituted an act of expatriation under United States law: "The contention of the plantiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations Mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit." and "Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nation provision in treaties of commerce." See Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [17]

The article already mentioned an unsuccessful attempt by the same plaintiff to establish that he was a British subject. See R v Ketter [1940] 1 King's Bench Division 787; T.L.R. 449; [1939] 1 All E.R. 729 - Annual Digest 1939-1940 and an advisory opinion by Lauterpacht which mentioned that the British government also had decided to treat Palestine as a third independent state under the terms of its most favored nation treaties. harlan (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason for this split of the article? Seems to me that there is quite a bit of overlap between the articles. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is still considerable overlap between the articles because they have not been split properly yet. The intention is for the Mandate for Palestine article to deal with the mandate document as well as a discussion of its legality, significance etc; while the Mandate Palestine article is intended to deal with the administration etc of the territory by Britain and the inter-communal issues that arose. Other peoples' assistance would help in the restructure. Ewawer (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a number of sources, including Zionist viewpoints from Norman Bentwich, Hersch Lauterpacht, and Howard Grief which explain that a variety of international treaty provisions created the mandated state of Palestine and were incorporated "verbatim" into the municipal laws that were used to administer the states of Palestine and Transjordan. The governments of Great Britain, the United States, and other countries recognized Palestine as a state under the terms of treaties of commerce and their own domestic laws.

• A US District Court noted that the Executive branch had determined that Palestine under the mandate had been a foreign state, and that arguments that it wasn't one had no merit.
• Gil-Har observed that the government of Great Britain had always treated the boundary between Palestine and Transjordan as a boundary between two states, and that arguments that it was only an administrative boundary were untenable. harlan (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, why bit around the bush? You shamelessly lying and not for the first time. You have a very sophisticated way of lying. You take words out of their context or give them a broad interpretation. For example, if a text say that a mandate administration somewhat resembles a state, you bring it as a source for the mandate being a state, while it is a actually the opposite (if someone says X resembles Y he means Y is not X). The broad interpretation you give to words goes as far as claiming that an apple and a ball are the same because both of them are (more-or-less) round. You also bring biased sources, e.g. of people who consulted one of the parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When confronted with articles that say the opposite, you "save" yourself by saying that the biased article you've brought is "objective" while others are "opinions". You often delete other people's remarks, and then claim - I bring sources and you don't. In many cases you bring sources that are not freely accessible, so no one can check whether you cited them accurately. In some cases, when I was able to find the source you mentioned, I saw you cited it very inaccurately, and introduced this citation into the article. Going through your edits there are endless war edits you are engaged in, but strangely avoid penalty, probably because admins are afraid of your aggressive conduct. After receiving objections to your ideas you know walk along the way of POV forking. Again no one dares to confront your aggression. Celshiqma (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You and a few other editors have ignored a multitude of sources cited in the discussions above and in the article which say the legal instrument was an international mandate adopted for the purpose of creating states and establishing new boundaries and nationalities in the former Ottoman territories. Ewawer suggested a fork to address legal questions,[18] and he created another copy of British Mandate for Palestine in article space without discussing its scope or content. He says Mandate Palestine was a "period in history". Many governments, including the US,[19] Italy,[20] Spain [21] and etc. explicitly stated that they considered Palestine to be a separate foreign state. They handled foreign relations, treaty agreements, immigration, and exports from the country on that basis. In any event, there are already several Wikipedia articles devoted to the "region" of Palestine or the so-called "Southern Levant" and its history that are badly out of sync.

Article 8 of the Mandate instrument provided that the capitulations or usages that other states enjoyed in the Ottoman Empire would be immediately reestablished at the expiration of the mandate. In 1948 the American Journal of International Law published an article Recent American Policy Concerning the Capitulations in the States of the Middle East which contained a detailed discussion about the proposed termination of the Palestine mandate; the sovereign equality of all the members of the world community; and US policy regarding revival of its rights in Palestine and Transjordan. [22].

That example illustrates the fact that an article about the instrument will have to cover both Palestine and Transjordan. Whiteman noted that the treaties between the Emirate of Transjordan and Great Britain did not effect Transjordan's status under the terms of the mandate instrument or Great Britain's responsibility as mandatory. In another example, the Sultan's heirs filed a lawsuit claiming that state land acquired under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne was actually their private property. Some of the land was located on the Transjordanian side of the Jordan valley. The case was handled through the appellate court and Supreme Court for Palestine between 1936 and 1946. See Michael R. Fischbach, "State, society, and land in Jordan, Brill, 2000, ISBN: 9004119124, page 116 (footnote 64)[23] harlan (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Copytopic1, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I'm requesting this change because the article suggests the League of Nations originated the Mandate for Palestine when in fact they ratified the agreement already reached by the victorious allies of WWI

Please change;

...June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalised British rule in Palestine from 1917–1948.

to;

...in June 1922, based on an agreement reached at the San Remo Conference by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.

I'm requesting this change because the Mandatory was referred to as 'Britain' not the UK and as trustee they were the ones who decided to invoke Article 25 of the mandate to split Palestine East and West of the Jordan, each of which were to become Israel (23% of Palestine) and Jordan (77% of Palestine)

and change;

...the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan,

to;

...Britain divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, West Palestine, designated Homeland for the Jewish people, which later became democratic Israel and East Palestine autonomous Transjordan,

Copytopic1 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You're autoconfirmed now, and can make the edit yourself, though as I said before, you should give a reason for the change or else it may be reversed by another editor. —Soap— 01:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain. The article explains that Transjordan and article 25 were added to the British mandate after the San Remo Conference.

Your suggested edits are contradicted by a number of reliable published sources. The notion that Great Britain unilaterally divided the territory is simply a myth. In 1915 the British government included the territory east of the Jordan river (i.e. Transjordan) in the area that Sir Henry McMahon pledged to the Arabs/Hussein. In 1916 the same area was included in a similar pledge included in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. France and Great Britain agreed to support the creation of an Arab state or confederation of Arab states in the region of Transjordan. In March of 1919 Lloyd George and Balfour attended the Council of Four meeting and advised the French Government that the League of Nations mandates could not be used for putting aside the treaty with the Arabs.[24]

In May of 1919, the Principal Allied powers approved a report which stated that the terms of the draft mandates which were to be adopted at the subsequent conferences were proposals.[25] In September of 1919 Lloyd George and Clemenceau presented an Aide Memoire to the peace conference which established the provisional boundaries of Palestine (from Dan to Beersheba) pending the decision on mandates. It divided the territory between the British, the French, and the Emir Feisal along the Sykes-Picot east-west line and provided for arbitration by President Wilson to resolve any disputes.[26] In December of 1919, Clemenceau and Feisal agreed to separate mandates for the Lebanon and Syria. The text of the San Remo draft mandate for Palestine was submitted to the League in 1921. Those terms were still the subject of on-going discussions between the British, French, and Italian governments. They were never adopted by the League of Nations. See Yearbook of the League of Nations. [27] harlan (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the info, i'm going to carefully put this together (with sources) to make sure it is reflective of the legally binding process. Your references are helpful, but i'd like this article to focus on that which was legally binding in accordance with the empowered parties at that time, the Allies who entered a legally binding agreement at San Remo, detailed the terms in the Treaty of Sevres and submitted to the League where it was unanimously approved by the 51 member nations at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copytopic1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Copytopic1 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You will still have to summarize the contents of the article in the lede and many of those sources are already cited together with analysis by Mary Wilson, Aaron Klieman, Lord Curzon's instructions to Vansittart, and etc.

Neither the draft mandate articles (as proposed at the San Remo Conference) nor the Treaty of Sèvres were ever ratified. The Yearbook of the League of Nations explains that the French and British governments chose not to reveal the details of the class A mandates or their Mesopotamian Oil Agreement after the San Remo Conference in 1920. See Mesopotamian Oil and Class A Mandates and item 14. Mandates In 1962, the ICJ noted that, with the exception of Iraq, all of the mandate instruments were in the form of resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations.

The UK National Archives assigned a Cabinet Paper file number CAB 24/117 (Former Reference: CP 2358) to a report authored by the Council of the League of Nations on 16 December 1920 and addressed to the Assembly of the League of Nations. It is entitled "RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LEAGUE ARISING OUT OF ARTICLE 22 (MANDATES)" and discusses the steps that were being contemplated to implement Article 22. Annex 6 of the paper (page 40) is a letter, dated October 16th, 1920, addressed to Mr. Leon Bourgeois, President of the Council of the League of Nations from the French Prime Minister:

"On August 5th, 1920, H.E. M. Quinones de Leon, acting (by virtue of his position) as President of the Council of the League of Nations, addressed to my predecessor a letter requesting information on the measures taken by the Allied Powers for the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant (territories and colonies which, in consequence of the war, have ceased to be under the rule of States which formerly governed them). With respect to certain territories of the former Ottoman Empire, the Supreme Council at its Meeting at San Remo decided to give the mandate for Syria and Lebanon to France, and the mandates for Mesopotamia and for Palestine to the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Declarations establishing these mandates have been drawn up as a result of an exchange of views between these two countries, and the French Government is ready to submit the Declaration concerning Syria and Lebanon to the Council of the League as soon as the British Government, on its side, shall be ready to submit its declarations. I understand that the British Government is awaiting the observations of the present administration of Mesopotamia, to whom the text of its declaration has been sent.

It may therefore be expected that the Council will shortly receive the declarations concerning these mandates. ... No doubt you will agree with me in thinking that it would be preferable that the question of mandates should not be finally dealt with in its essentials by the Council of the League, as long as conversations are being carried on between the interested Powers. On the other hand, it is desirable that the Council should organise at once the Commission provided for by Article 22 of the Covenant, so that this Commission may be able to proceed without delay to the examination of the drafts which will be submitted to it, some of which, such as those referring to Mandate A, will no doubt be communicated to it very shortly.

(Signed). G. LEYGUES.

harlan (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dual Obligation

Copytopic1, the statement that West Palestine was intended as a national home for the Jewish people does not adequately summarize the content of the Mandate or the contents of the article regarding the Churchill White Paper of 1922. The League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission took the position that the Mandate contained a dual obligation.

In 1932 the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission questioned the representative of the Mandatory on the demands made by the Arab population regarding the establishment of self-governing institutions, in accordance with various articles of the mandate, and in particular Article 2. The Chairman noted that "under the terms of the same article, the mandatory Power had long since set up the Jewish National Home." [28]

In March of 1930 Lord Passfield, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had authored a Cabinet Paper CAB/24/211, formerly C.P. 108 (30), titled "PALESTINE: HIGH COMMISSIONERS VIEWS ON POLICY" which said:

"In the Balfour Declaration there is no suggestion that the Jews should be accorded a special or favoured position in Palestine as compared with the Arab inhabitants of the country, or that the claims of Palestinians to enjoy self-government (subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory as foreshadowed in Article XXII of the Covenant) should be curtailed in order to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people."

He also noted:

"Zionist leaders have not concealed and do not conceal their opposition to the grant of any measure of self-government to the people of Palestine either now or for many years to come. Some of them even go so far as to claim that that provision of Article 2 of the Mandate constitutes a bar to compliance with the demand of the Arabs for any measure of self-government. In view of the provisions of Article XXII of the Covenant and of the promises made to the Arabs on several occasions that claim is inadmissible."

I'll add that material to the article. harlan (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Harlan - Article 4 of the Mandate is clear. The White Paper of 1922 is indicative, but in no way modifies the conditions of the Mandate including the dual obligations. Britain acted to meet this obligation when the Mandatory segmented Transjordan in August 1922. (The British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 12 August. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. In May 1923 Transjordan was granted a degree of independence with Abdullah as ruler and Harry St. John Philby as chief representative.

The history of the region unfolds from this point and along the lines represented by the Mandatory to the League of Nations.

I think the dual obligation is fairly represented by my modifications; " Transjordan, intended [1] for rule under the Hashemite family from Hijaz.[2] and West Palestine intended as a national home for the Jewish people. The preamble of the mandate declared:"

Copytopic1 (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The LoN Mandates Commission and Lord Passfield were discussing the dual obligation in connection with demands from the Arab community of western Palestine for the establishment of self-governing institutions in accordance with article 2 of the Mandate, e.g. "the demands of the Arab community for representative institutions had become more insistent since the establishment of representative Government in the politically less-advanced territory of Trans-Jordan." -- CAB/24/211 (C.P. 108 (30)) page 5.

In any event, the article contains a variety of sourced materials that provide a very different analysis of the Jewish Home undertaking than the one you are trying to advance in the lede. Soap advised you to provide a reason for the change. Zero noted your edit did not clarify the matter and that the source you are citing actually contradicts your analysis. I've provided published analysis from the Colonial Secretary and LoN Mandate Commision (which you promptly deleted). They contradict your unpublished personal analysis. You are certainly welcome to add properly sourced opposing viewpoints to the article, but you don't appear to be doing that. You are introducing unsupported arguments in the lede, and deleting sourced material that represents opposing viewpoints. harlan (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "West Palestine" is associated with the myths of Revisionist Zionism and is not acceptable here. Already from 1922 "Palestine" meant west of the Jordan and nothing else. Also there was no period of history during which the major part of Transjordan was considered Palestine; only the east side of the Jordan valley was. And one more thing, the Balfour Decl, Mandate text, etc, quite intentionally do not say that Palestine was intended as a National Home for the Jewish People. They only speak of a NHftJP in Palestine. This was not an accident but the result of careful deliberations that are well documented. Zero^talk 07:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The grandson of Lord Balfour made it clear at a talk at Balfour House in London (which I attended) that he knew from discussions with his grandfather that the creation of a Jewish state in the Biblical Land of Israel (Palestine/Judea) was the intention of the Balfour Declaration. By "in" he did not mean a part of it, but all of it! It's a pity he did not make this explicit in the Declaration and the Mandate documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.216.20 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Balfour and Lloyd George couldn't even get the other members of their own Cabinet to agree with the establishment of a Jewish state. Article 25 had been added to the draft mandate in 1921, but in June of 1922 Balfour lost the debate in the House of Lords on the statehood issue - even after he claimed that the establishment of a Jewish government was not a necessary consequence of establishing the Jewish home. See for example Palestine Mandate Discussed in the Lords

Lord Islington summed-up the statehood issues "I do not think it is unfair to say this: In 1915 we were certainly to have an Arab State. In 1917 we were to have a Jewish National Home. In 1918 we were to have a self-governing Arab State under British guidance; that is quite clear from the Declaration of General Allenby. But in 1922 we come back to a Jewish State under a Mandate. Is it possible to reconcile these various policies, wobbling from side to side, year by year? We have, and I do not think the noble Earl contradicted it, distinctly violated two formal undertakings."

The House of Lords adopted Islignton's motion, by a vote of 60 to 25, to postpone the acceptance by the Council of the League of Nations until the Mandate was modified to comply with pledges given to the people of Palestine in the Declaration of October, 1915, and again in the Declaration of November, 1918. See the HANSARD, PALESTINE MANDATE HL Deb 21 June 1922 vol 50 cc994-1033

The House of Commons approved the terms after Churchill authored the 1922 White Paper and provided assurances there would be limitations on Zionism's absolute development. He stipulated that there would be no Jewish state throughout Palestine, and British-controlled immigration. See for example PALESTINE MANDATE UPHELD IN COMMONS; Government Policy Is Sustained, 292 to 35, After Churchill's Explanation. The Permanent Court of International Justice overruled some of the concessions that had been granted to Rutenberg in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case harlan (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Harlan - thanks for the information it informs many facts, but denies a thorough review of the historical issue and therefore it lacks the integrity that this very sensitive subject requires. "Dual obligation" is a term introduced after the Allies established the Mandate. It's concept is embodied in the Mandate, but not specifically entitled "Dual obligation" so its easy to take this out of context.

Britain's engagement in the "Jewish national home" goes back to Chaim Weizmann [29] and one cannot ignore the Faisal-Weizmann agreement [30] that laid down the intentions of the parties. [31] - Surely you're not arguing that the others including Britain and the Allied Powers were blind to this agreement? It was referred to in the Paris Peace Conference [32] where it formed the basis on which the Mandate for Palestine was ultimately established. The intention of the Zionists were made very clear from the outset!

Ambiguity in the political process that crept into the execution of the intent to form a "Jewish national home" is introduced in Britain whose political leaders waiver throughout the period moving from the original understanding of intent that had been clearly established with the British origin political representatives and the basis on which the Allies formed the Mandate and Britain undertook to execute. The fact that Abdullah I [33] desired to alter that course occurs in the face of the foundation Weizmann-Faisal agreement, and the fact that Britain is complicit does not modify retrospective hindsight of the historical facts - and they can't and should not be ignored in this article.

We can't be blindsided when writing the history because we too become complicit, victims of the same innuendos that were introduced to divert Britain from its original Mandate.

I mean its very clear by 1947 that Britain has no idea how to handle the mess it got into, by its inability to carry out its Mandate. The conflict between the declared intention that it started out to achieve and the corrupted political reality, when Ernest Bevin makes his statement, says it all; [34]..." As far as Jewish development is concerned, everybody in this country, who has been associated with the affair, certainly up to 1931, assumed that it was a National Home for the Jews about which we were talking. I want to remind the House, however, that that is not the issue now. All that is over..."

In fact Bevin recognizes that because of the changed mood in Britain the Mandatory is effectively stripped of its power to do anything in the remainder of Palestine other than what the Mandate and the Allies intended and therefore he considers Britain to be impotent and he suggest that perhaps the United Nations now have the power to decide its fate - "...that, therefore, raises the issue which has got to be decided and we, as Mandatory Power, cannot solve that problem until the United Nations have recommended which of these three alternatives is to form the basis of the future organisation of Palestine. We, as Mandatory Power, have no power to make that decision. Nothing that I can find in any of the documents, either at the League of Nations, or in the discussions between the great Powers at Versailles and after, indicates that we have that power..."

Once Britain made the decision to segment Transjordon, West Palestine de facto became the Jewish National home. You can try and argue that any way you want, but it would be a denial of the facts.

This is supported by Bevin "...It has been suggested that we could do it by knitting in Transjordan, and it is argued that we carried out partition when we created Transjordan. That may be, but, if we try now, with Palestine as we know it today, to make it into two viable States, I say that we cannot do it..."

After Britain segmented Transjordan it attempted to change the Mandate in the remainder of Palestine, but they had no right to do so under the Mandate terms! "Dual obligation" was a politicized term.

"Mr. Davies Undoubtedly it was understood that in course of time such a state of affairs would come about that the Jews would be in control of their own affairs in Palestine. I cannot help feeling that a great part of this controversy would not have arisen today but for the fact that in the main those in charge of affairs in Palestine from 1922–39 never took that view Although they were advised by those who had more to do with it than anyone, namely, the present Leader of. the Opposition and Mr. Amery, they took. the other line entirely. I should say that their desire was to whittle down the Balfour Declaration as much as it could be whittled down. It ill becomes anybody to say now that there have not been changes of view, both in the Government and in this House."

There is no doubt inherent in the concept of a "Jewish national home" existed an obligation to all residents regardless of race or religion, therein lies the concept of "Dual Obligation". The obligation was placed on the Mandatory to ensure Jews empowered to govern the "Jewish national home" enacted a process that would respect the 'Dual obligations' of the Mandate. The correct meaning of "Dual obligation" cannot be taken out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copytopic1 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copytopic1, the article already cites the UNSCOP report which looked into those claims. It noted that the term Jewish National Home was not defined in either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, and that it had no definite meaning in international law. The article also cites Nahum Sokolow's published statement that a Jewish State in Palestine was not part of the Zionist program.

There was always a dual obligation. Long before the final draft of the Balfour Declaration was approved, two safeguarding clauses were added regarding the existing rights of the non-Jewish communities and the Jews who chose not to live in Palestine. The Arabists and anti-Zionist Jews in the British Cabinet demanded the inclusion of those two provisions. There are many highly detailed accounts of the draft declarations and the negotiations. See W. Thomas Mallison & Sally V. Mallison, "The Palestine Problem in International Law and World Order", Longman, 1986, ISBN: 0582783623, pages 18-78; and Leonard Stein, "Balfour Declaration", Magnes Press, 1983, ISBN: 9652234486. Montagu's Cabinet memo titled "Zionism" is also very informative in regard to anti-Zionist views. [35]

During the Paris Peace Conference, U.S. Secretary of State "Lansing asked Dr. Weizmann to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words "Jewish National Home". Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government? Dr. Weizmann replied in the negative. The Zionist organisation did not want an autonomous Jewish Government, but merely to establish in Palestine, under a mandatory Power, an administration, not necessarily Jewish, which would render it possible to send into Palestine 70 to 80,000 Jews annually. Weizmann said that later on a Jewish government might be a possibility, when the Jews formed the large majority. But the Jews were never a majority during the mandate period. [36] harlan (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Transjordan was not an integral part of Palestine

Transjordan never was "an integral part of Palestine". They were separate mandated states under a joint mandate. The case of Syria and Lebanon is analogous. The text of the Palestine Mandate itself said that the boundaries had not yet been determined.

According to British Foreign Policy documents the river Jordan was the frontier between Palestine and Transjordan for all practical purposes from the establishment of the first OETA. See J. P. Bannerman editor, Palestine and Transjordan: 1914-1923, Issue 83 of Foreign policy documents, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1982, page 27. Suzanne Lalonde says that no official maps of the OETAs were ever published. She suggests that it is likely that the British used a 1918 map of Palestine and cites Yitzak Gil-Har's descriptions. See Suzanne Lalonde, Determining boundaries in a conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis, McGill-Queen's Press, 2002, ISBN 077352424X, page 94

Yitzhak Gil-Har said that "Palestine and Trans-Jordan emerged as states; This was in consequence of British War commitments to its allies during the First World War." According to Gil-Har "Great Britain had always treated Trans-Jordan as a political entity completely separate from Palestine. Its inclusion within the framework of the Palestine Mandate was an outcome of the political events following the fall of Faisal's government in July 1920. The Palestine–Trans-Jordan boundary served as a political barrier separating two states. Therefore, the postulation by some writers that the boundary was merely administrative in its character, delineating two territories subjected to the one British rule within the British Empire has no foundation in reality." Boundaries Delimitation: Palestine and Trans-Jordan, Yitzhak Gil-Har, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 68–81: [37]

The Transjordan region was part of the territory pledged to Hussein in 1915. See "British Commitments to King Husein, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, November 1918, CAB 24/68 (formerly GT 6185)" Balfour wrote a memo in September of 1919 which indicated, at that time, that Palestine was the territory laying to the west of the Jordan river and that King Hussein of the Hedjaz was supposed to delineate the borders under the terms of the 1915 McMahon-Hussein agreement. See Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia' [132187/2117/44A], EL Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), pp 340-348. ISBN:0115915540

The Transjordan region had been allocated to an Arab State under the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement and by the Versailles Peace Conference. The first formal attempt to establish interim boundaries was an "Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919" It divided the territory between the British, French, and Arab administered OETAs. It was premised upon the "principles of the Sykes-Picot agreement" and "the Sykes-Picot line". It mentions "the Arab State" that the British and French governments had committed to support in Zones A and B under the terms of Sykes-Picot and stipulates that the area was to be administered by the Arab forces under the control of the Emir Faisal. The Aide-memoire is available in J. C. Hurewitz (ed), The Middle East and North Africa in world politics: a documentary record ... [38] No Official maps of the OETAs were ever published.

The text of the draft mandate, as of August 1920, after San Remo Conference mentions the Treaty of Sevres; British "sovereignty"; but does not contain article 25 or any mention of the territory east of the Jordan river. See the 1920 Yearbook of the League of nations, Volume 1, [39]

Aaron Klieman wrote that the French formed a new Damascus state after the San Remo Cconference and the battle of Maysalun. As a result, Curzon instructed Vansittart (Paris) to leave the eastern boundary of Palestine undefined. On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Palestine Mandate. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate, which includied Transjordan in the mandate for the first time, was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922. See Aaron S. Klieman, "Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921",Johns Hopkins, 1970, ISBN 0-8018-1125-2, pages 228–234

In 1925 an arbitration court established by the Council of the League of Nations ruled that Palestine and Transjordan were separate states with entirely separate organisation. The Supreme Court of Palestine ruled in 1945 that Transjordan was a foreign state. See States as international persons, International Law Reports, By H. Lauterpacht, Cambridge University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-521-46357-2, page 17. harlan (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For now I haved added both maps with sources, although I am not sure of how exact the second map is. I would appriciate more opinions on this matter by more people. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that up until that point in time the British, French, and Hashemites exchanged notes with verbal descriptions, but not maps. The Versailles Conference Aide-memoire established interim occupation boundaries pending the decision on Mandates. It strictly defined Palestine as the British occupied territory. Transjordan was not occupied by Allenby. It was under Fiesal's OETA administration. The Aide-memoire did reference some points on the map that had been attached to the Sykes-Picot agreement, e.g. "the Sykes-Picot line".

The San Remo Conference selected mandatory powers, but did not define the final terms of any mandates or their boundaries. The 1920 Franco-British boundary agreements with respect to the boundaries of the proposed Mandates did not go into effect until the Mandates themselves were approved. In the meantime, there were no OETA maps. The Council of the League agreed in the first clause of the Mandate instrument to permit the Principal Allied powers to apply the terms of the Mandate "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them".[40] Article 25 codified the existing interim river boundary between the OETAs. I mentioned above that the British Foreign Policy Documents contain a record which says the river Jordan was the frontier between Palestine and Transjordan for all practical purposes from the establishment of the first OETA. The British did not have enough money or forces to establish garrisons in Transjordan. That was Churchill's overriding concern in striking the deal with Abdullah. harlan (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Both maps have probems, but the 1920-1922 is the worst to the point of unacceptability. Many of the boundaries shown on the map did not exist at that time. The only definite section is the Palestine-Egypt boundary, which was defined in 1906. For the other boundaries:

• The north (British-French) boundary was specified in rough terms (a few sentences) in the convention of Dec 1920. It was modified in 1922 (in effect from 1923) and agreed formally in 1931. The 1920-22 map does not show the 1920 boundary correctly in the Golan region.
• The boundary with Iraq was not defined at all until 1932.
• The boundary with Arabia (Nejd, Hejaz, and other regions) was in dispute until well after 1922. In 1922 it was not even agreed that Palestine reached the Gulf of Aqaba. The eastern and central parts were agreed in 1925. The southern part was unilaterally defined by Britain in the late 1920s but there was no formal agreement until a 1965 agreement between Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

This information is from the US State Dept "International Boundary Study" series [41]. The book of Biger describes it all in even more detail. In summary, the 1923+ map shows "final" boundaries for the mandate, which will be acceptable with a minor caption change (since these boundaries did not all exist in 1923; recall that the Mandate document refers to the "eastern boundary as ultimately determined", also "Saudi Arabia" didn't exist until 1932). The 1920-1922 map is mostly fantasy contradicted by better sources and is not acceptable. Zero^talk 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

legally speaking, citing the same article 25, it refers to areas "east of the jordan river" as part (although having different status, but still) of "this mandate". Maybe not practically, but initially in the mandate text, transjordan was surely part of the mandate over palestine, and in the possibility that the option in article 25 was not used, all the area was supposed to be part of the Jewish Homeland. נלביא (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. There is no doubt that from the time of coming into effect of the mandate at least up to the moment of independence of Jordan, Transjordan was covered by this legal instrument. It is much less clear what the situation was in the period between the San Remo conference and the coming into effect of the mandate - as far as I know, nobody has shown that Transjordan was specified by the conference to be included (at most it was left open). On your last claim, nothing in the mandate document specifies the entire region with or without the eastern part as the Jewish national home. The wording is consistent with the Balfour Declaration which deliberately said "in Palestine" rather than "in all of Palestine". Zero^talk 06:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong redirection - when clicking the flag of the British Mandate for Palestine

Why in Wikipedia, clicking the flagicon of the British Mandate for Palestine redirects to "Palestinian Territories" and not "British Mandate for Palestine" ?
Live Example:

Good question. I don't know how to fix this, but I'll try to find someone who does. Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Because Template:Country data Palestine is defined that way? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Use {{flagicon|British Mandate for Palestine}} now. I will be replacing all instances of the Mandate variant of Country data Palestine, since that doesn't really make sense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Split of Mandate Palestine from British Mandate for Palestine

You guys spend time discussing a lot of issues above, but there's not all that much directly on the actual justifications for splitting the article. My view is that there needs to be a much clearer differentiation of the functions and names of the two articles, and a lower degree of duplicative redundancy between them, to truly justify splitting the artiicle... AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are two separate articles here for Mandate Palestine and the British Mandate for Palestine. JerryDavid89 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of "Demographics of Palestine" to "Demographics of the British Mandate for Palestine"

Reasons -

• Palestine is related as geographic region. For demographics of Palestinian territories there is a separate article, which technically also applies as Demographics of the State of Palestine (disputed state, related currently as Palestinian territories). So, there is no need for another article for Palestinian territories.
• Demographics of Palestine is focusing mainly on demographics during the period of the British Mandate for Palestine. Little information is provided on earlier Ottoman period and almost none about later demographics of Israel, Jordan, Palestinian territories.
• There are technically none (or almost none) articles on demographics of regions in wiki, like no articles on Demographics of America, Demographics of Caucasus, Demographics of Mesopotamia, Demographics of Levant, etc. Therefore, there is no reason for Palestine (region) to have a demography article, which overlaps the demgraphics sections of states (Jordan, Israel) and political entities (British Mandate for Palestine, Palestinian territories, Sanjak Jerusalem, Viayet of Aleppo, Vilayet of Beirut).

For the reasons stated above, I suggest renaming "Demographics of Palestine" to "Demographics of the British Mandate for Palestine". Please raise any relevant ideas and objections in the discussion.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If the title of the [[ article really was to be changed, I would suggest Demographics of Mandate Palestine (since the British Mandate for Palestine wasn't a place). The introduction of the article makes clear that the article is supposed to cover the current demographics of the Palestinian territories however, so you would have to get agreement on a change in the stated purpose of the article in order to change its title.     ←   ZScarpia   18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Timings of the end of the Mandate and the creation of Israel

There is a contradiction in sources I have about the official end time of the Mandate.

A. J. Sherman [in Mandate Days: British Lives in Palestine, 1918-1948. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801866200. (2001)] suggests that the Mandate ended at midnight London time on 14 May (that is, 12pm British Summer Time, 11pm Universal Time).

The Historama webpage Independence Day 1948 says that the Mandate ended at midnight Jerusalem time on the 14th, which I think would have been 9pm Universal Time or 10pm BST.

Overall, I think it is safer to go with the Historama page.

The meeting to announce Israeli independence occurred on the afternoon of the 14th at a time which allowed religiously observant attendees to be home by the start of the Sabbath. However, the declaration didn't come into effect until after the end of the Mandate. That is, right after midnight on the morning of the 15th. (see the Israeli Declaration of Independence document and the Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States)

    ←   ZScarpia   00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC) (expanded 02:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

Renaming of Mandate Palestine -> History of the Mandatory Palestine

The proposal is renaming Mandate Palestine into History of the Mandatory Palestine, due to lack of consistency with the lead. The lead says this article is a history article, yet it is presented as a clone of the British Mandate of Palestine, creating confusion. Please share your opinion on the talk page.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be a good idea to drop the 'the'. So we get 'History of Mandatory Palestine'. Then, I think that Mandate Palestine is the more common term for the entity. So we get 'History of Mandate Palestine'. Then, perhaps we should remove 'History of' because, as we are dealing with a historical entity, is is maybe a bit superfluous. So we end up back where we started: 'Mandate Palestine'.     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We need more detail about the debates (International and British) over the text of the Mandate.

I think this article needs more detail about the debates over the text of the mandate. Presently the Partition Plan article has more detail than this one does. I that is backwards (and not because the partition plan has too much detail).

A source for the British component: http://books.google.com/books?id=RLYqAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA1008&ots=YCmhyVyiY5&dq=islington%20motion%20palestine&pg=PA1008#v=onepage&q=islington%20motion%20palestine&f=false

Jsolinsky (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

[sentimental]

Regarding the use of "[sentimental]" in the quote. It appears to have been a Wikipedia addition. It is not present in the source. here is a link:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=HaDTTr6xBOj10gGso92oAw&ct=result&id=Lo0CAAAAMAAJ&dq=Palestine+Papers%2C+1917%E2%80%931922%2C+Doreen+Ingrams%2C+George+Braziller+1973+Edition&q=Whereas+recognition+has+thereby#search_anchor

I have also removed some related surrounding text, and an old citation needed that had been attached to the surrounding text.

I do recall seeing this construction before, but it may have been inside of Wikipedia (or even in this article).

Nonetheless, it is certainly the case that any Wikipedia quotes should be as close as possible to the original.

I'm sure the editor who recently restored the word to the quote never imagined that it had been inserted by another editor and did not originate in the quoted source. Unfortunately, the same is probably true of Wikipedia readers. Jsolinsky (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the word "sentimental" doesn't appear in the source.

Sometimes, in order to contextualize a quote, some more words can be added under brakets. That is why the contributor who added this wrote "[sentimental]".

The way historians contextualize the "grounds" of Jewish to Israel should be checked to see if the addition was pertinent or not.

81.247.32.45 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the more obvious reasons not to add our own bracketed phrase, there is the additional problem that the quoted source already DOES add a bracketed phrase, which is in turn quoted precisely in the article. This alone makes it unwise. Jsolinsky (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Jsolinsky. My apology for making the unfortunate revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. Jsolinsky (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Merge, later possibly rename and split one or more subarticles upon consensus.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---

In 2010, the article "Mandate Palestine" was forked out of "British Mandate for Palestine" article, becoming an identical article since. Due to the preceding converstations (renaming not within consensus), an almost complete overlap (technically both articles describe a former Mandatory geopolitical entiry of Palestine under British rule, which has only one article in other languages) and ongoing confusion (ZScarpia insists that "British Mandate for Palestine" is just the name of a document and not a country), i propose to merge this article "Mandate Palestine" into British Mandate for Palestine, and make an additional article named British Mandate for Palestine (document) to prevent confusion between the document and the geopolitical entity. Please vote Merge or Keep with a proper reasoning.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• 1st the title must be correct

A) It is the "Mandate for Palestine" [42]. Secondary Sources should accurately reflect the Primary Sources they cite.

B) The Mandate for Palestine, is a set of conditions for the administration of Palestine for Arab, Jew, Christian, Bedouin etc. Palestinians all.

Geographic Location: Palestine

Territory of: Palestine

There should be one article correctly titled. "Mandate for Palestine", the Lede for which can give the various other mis-labels, a la " otherwise known as the British Mandate" or whatever ... talknic (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually primary sources are not preferred if we have secondary, and thus I can bring numerous reliable secondary academic sources on titling it "British Mandate for Palestine", see here: [43],[44],[45]; also related as British Mandatory Palestine [46].Greyshark09 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Greyshark09 - Searched your Sources:

• 1) [47] Search: "British Mandate for Palestine" No results. It says at the top "British Mandate Palestine Police" however the Magazine it pictures says: Palestine Police Magazine
• 2) [48] Search: "British Mandate for Palestine" No results. At the top it says "Palestine The British Mandate". But when we check it against the actual Mandate document "British Mandate" doesn't exist.
• 3) [49] "British Mandate for Palestine" is nowhere on the page. It says "Palestine under the British Mandate 1923-48". When we check it against the actual Mandate document "British Mandate" doesn't exist.
• 4) [50] Search: "British Mandate for Palestine" No results. It says "British Mandatory Palestine" which is not an accurate representation of the Mandate document and; in the linked PDF [51]Search: "British Mandate for Palestine" No results. When we check it against the actual Mandate document "British Mandate for Palestine" doesn't exist.

A grand score of NIL, for "British Mandate for Palestine"

Using a Primary Source thus, // The Mandate for Palestine [52]. // is a valid use of a Primary Source. There is no interpretation what so ever.

Secondary Sources are required to accurately reflect the primary documents they refer to. In this instance the Mandate, the primary document for which is by the League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine. It does NOT contain "British Mandate" / "British Mandate for Palestine" / "Mandate Palestine" / "British Mandate Palestine" ... talknic (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reasonings are just enough to show that you want 2 articles about the same thing at any cost. There are about 7 different variations of how the Mandate was named and all titles are correct per WP:RS, however keeping an article on each term variation like "British Palestine", "Mandate Palestine", "Mandate for Palestine" or "British Mandate for Palestine" is rediculous and confusing.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand some of the claimed subtleties of semantics, but to me "Mandate Palestine" sounds more like a crude approximate abbreviation, rather than the correct and suitable name for anything, and so is a prime candidate for merger and redirection... AnonMoos (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

And how keeping both of them is contibuting to the case of clarity? Greyshark09 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Books: results for search term Mandate Palestine.    ←   ZScarpia   23:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually a good point to compare the use of the term in literature (Google books):

Results for searching "Mandate Palestine" - 28,800

Search for "British Mandate for Palestine" - 91,200

Search for "Mandatory Palestine" - 47,200

Search for "British Mandate of Palestine" - 8,510

Clearly there is a preference to use "British Mandate for Palestine".Greyshark09 (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Point 1: I've looked at the first 80 or so results returned by your Google search on the term British Mandate for Palestine. In all but one case, the term is referring to the the League of Nations instrument, not the geographical entity. The exception is The encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, edited by Spencer Tucker et al. Point 2: If you're going to do a Google search to establish usage of an expression, it's a good idea to to include the search term -Wikipedia to try to prevent the inclusion of sites which use Wikipedia content, including Wikipedia itself.     ←   ZScarpia   17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm sorry but i fail to understand the importance to differentiate instrument and entity. I have already told you we need to make an article named "British Mandate for Palestine (document)" or "British Mandate for Palestine (instrument)" if you would like to emphasize it, but there is no prescedent in wikipedia i know about, which does so: see French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon, British Mandate of Mesopotamia etc. 2. wikipedia is not really relevant for google-books.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes, it appears that you have failed to understand a number of things, including that I'm not arguing for separate articles and that there is a difference between the British Mandate for Palestine, an authorisation by the League of Nations, and the entities that were set up in the Middle East as a result of it. 2. If Wikipedia is not relevant to the Google search you performed, why is the first result that it returned, the Wikipedia English-language article on the British Mandate for Palestine?     ←   ZScarpia   17:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - apparently, the primary reason for keeping two articles (of which Mandate Palestine is WP:FORK) is simply because there is no consensus for etymology semantics, and not because the articles deserve to be merged. Frankly, it is like keeping two articles "USA" and "United States of America", just because half people prefer it "USA" and others disagree among "US", "The United States" and "United States of America", with someone also claiming "America" is enough to refer.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how you reached the conclusion that "apparently, the primary reason for keeping two articles (of which Mandate Palestine is WP:FORK) is simply because there is no consensus for etymology semantics, and not because the articles deserve to be merged." Presumably you meant "and not because the articles deserve to be separate" rather than "and not because the articles deserve to be merged?" Also, presumably you meant to refer to WP:CONTENTFORK rather than WP:FORK?

"British Mandate for Palestine" and "Mandate Palestine" are not different terms for the same thing. At the head of this section you say that I have insisted that "British Mandate for Palestine" is just the name of a document and not a country. The article on League of Nations mandates in the 2011 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says: a mandate was "an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony." The "British Mandate for Palestine" was a name given to the authorisation given to the UK to govern Palestine and Transjordan. The article with that title is supposed to be about that authorisation. "Mandate Palestine" is one of the terms used to describe the geographical and political entity that was set up in the wake of the British Mandate for Palestine being granted. The article with that title is supposed to be about that entity. Is it clear that the articles are not supposed to be about exactly the same subject matter? If there is a huge amount of overlapping material then I suggest that is because material that was supposed to be detailed in one of the articles and summarised or omitted in the other has been detailed in both. There are two obvious fixes for that. One would be to cut out or summarise detail from each article which was not supposed to be detailed there. The other would be to merge the articles. Whether that would be appropriate would partially depend on how long the resulting article would be.    ←   ZScarpia   00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The main issue is that "Mandate Palestine" is a forked article, technically cloned from "British Mandate for Palestine" in 2010. It is completely unclear that there are different meanings for the articles, on the contrary. The first priority is to merge them due to common meaning and overlap, the fact is "British Mandate for Palestine" is the most common term used in leterature and wikipedia to relate to the geopolitical entity under British jurisdiction, which existed in Palestine/ Land of Israel/ Southern Levant 1920/1922-1948.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to prove the latter assertion. Go through your search results and pick out the ones that actually do use the term British Mandate for Palestine to refer to the geopolitical entity rather than the League of Nations instrument.     ←   ZScarpia   17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC) (edited: 00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

You say: It is completely unclear that there are different meanings for the articles, on the contrary. Why did you remove the italicised explanation at the head of the British Mandate for Palestine article which explained the different purposes of the two articles?     ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge This seems like a blatant content fork. De jure and de facto aspects of the mandate are both addressed in the existing article, and that is as it should be. After the merge is completed, a discussion and then an RfC to rename British Mandate for Palestine to whatever would be in order. Jsolinsky (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about whether a merge should be carried out or not, only about the misuse of the term British Mandate for Palestine.     ←   ZScarpia   17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When you refer to "a blatant content fork", are you trying to say that there is something illegitimate here which differentiates it from a normal Wikipedia content fork?     ←   ZScarpia   17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Some content forks are both deliberate and obvious. Some are not. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• against merging - Instead of merging the articles should be written about the content they were intended to represent instead of trying to be the same article under different names. There is a difference between the Mandate and the Territory created as a result of said mandate. It's not a tough concept to understand and to fight for a merge after realizing this fact is worrisome as to the character of the one fighting for such. Beam 01:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be stupid, but for me it is hard to understand the difference between these concepts. You say there is "a difference between the Mandate and the Territory created as a result of said mandate". But both articles has the word "mandate" in their titles, so which is which? This confuses me. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine. The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.78.60 (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My attempt at explaining the terminology: the League of Nations gave mandates (authorisations to govern), namely the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, the British Mandate for Palestine and the British Mandate for Iraq, to the mandatories France and Britain to govern the newly created mandates (entities - also called mandate territories) Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, which were carved out of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. When talking about mandate-era Palestine, it is often referred to by names such as Mandate Palestine, Mandatory Palestine or British Palestine, much as names such as Weimar Germany, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco Spain, Tsarist Russia, Napoleonic France, Revolutionary France and Colonial America are used to refer to particular eras in the existence of other regions or countries. Refererences are also made to 'the mandate of Palestine' in the same way that they are made, for example, to 'the country of France', 'the kingdom of England' or 'the principality of Monaco'.     ←   ZScarpia   15:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That is basically correct (except for the fact there was no mandate for Transjordan). The problem is that sources don't necessarily make the correct distinction and we need to figure out a way to make it the easiest for a reader to understand. I think merging and explaining it in the article would probably be the best solution. I doubt that the instrument "Mandate for Palestine" will have enough material for its own article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There was no separate mandate for Transjordan, but as far as being a mandate territory (otherwise referred to as a mandate) was concerned, perhaps what the Transjordan article says of Palestine and Transjordan is relevant: "Technically they remained one mandate, but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates." Eugene Rogan, in The Arabs, A History, calls the Transjordan of the early 1920s a mandate, but also a colony and a state.     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of articles that cover multiple closely related topics. The question is not whether they are different topics. The question is whether or not separating them into two separate pages will make Wikipedia more useful for readers (and easier for editors). Jsolinsky (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge, bearing in mind WP:COMMONNAME. Any good content that we have on the document itself could subsequently be split into a child article whose title clearly indicates that it's a document. bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Merge self evidently appropriate here. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - the current status of opinions is the following:

Merge - Jsolinsky, GHCool, Bobrayner

Neutral - AnonMoos, ZScarpia

Opposing - Talknic (in favor of merge, but not within current proposal frame), Beamathan

No clear stance expressed - Frederico1234, 41.196.78.60

The discussion continues, please correct if i'm wrong.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I support a merge per Jsolinsky. If after the merge one of the aspects of the Mandate is large enough for its own article, that should become obvious. Also, talknic is topic banned so not sure how you should count him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the remark regarding Talknic, he is excluded then.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge (changed from Against merging articles) It seems to me that there are legitimately two separate topics, which are prone to confusion because of the same name is commonly used for each. One topic is the "mandate" given to Britain by the league of nations to adminster Palestine. Analogous to a treaty, this encompasses the history of how the mandate came about, what it says, how it was interpreted, and how it came to be terminated. The other topic, obviously related, but different, is the territory defined by the mandate as Palestine -- the political conflicts, demographics economy, government etc. of this territory from September 1923 through May 1948. I think the introductory clarifying paragraph at beginning of British_Mandate_for_Palestine

This article deals with the Mandate instrument passed by the League of Nations granting Britain a mandate over the area currently occupied by Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jordan. For a history of the period, see Mandate Palestine.

Similar clarification should probably be at top of Mandate Palestine article.

My conclusion is that, rather than merging the articles, editors should try to prune each back to cover its own topic. --Sjsilverman (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bare in mind, that this separation of de-facto and de-juro doesn't exist in any other article on wikipedia, thus here an exception is made. Take a look at the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and South Pacific Mandate. In addition, considering "Mandate Palestine" deals with the history and "British Mandate for Palestine" deals with the instrument, then we don't have an article on a geopolitical entity, and this might be a very confusing and unprecedented thing.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at other mandate articles was useful but these articles aren’t completely analogous. The Mesopotamia Mandate, the Syria Mandate and South Pacific Mandate articles are relatively short -- and neither the mandates themselves, nor the history of the territory subject to the mandate during the interwar period have gotten the kind of attention that the Palestine topics have.

That said, having looked at the articles you suggested and the two merger candidates again, I’m less confident that my initial view (don’t merge) was correct. Your point about having one "root" article on the geopolitical entity is a good one and the articles clearly could be merged without any great loss. But the merged article would be too long and would benefit from being broken into some new “main articles.” A logical candidate for one of these is History of Palestine under the Mandate, which is (or should be), I think, the concept of the existing Mandate_Palestine article. I wouldn't characterize these as de-facto and de-jure.

In any event, I'm open to the idea that there are better ways to organize break-out articles. Or maybe one really long article is the way to go, though I doubt it. --Sjsilverman (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue of splitting from the main article on Mandatory Palestine (whatever its unified name will eventually be) a section on history and perhaps some other section is no problem in case the article is too long. Yet, most sections of "Manadate Palestine" and "British Mandate for Palestine" are effectively identical. Regarding splitting a history section, then in fact i have already proposed renaming "Mandate Palestine" into "History of the Mandatory Palestine", as defined in the intro (see above), but there was no consensus for the proper naming of the article. As a consequence, the logical solution was to merge it with "British Mandate for Palestine", which is proposed here. Another thing to justify the merge is that in all other languages there is only one article on this Mandate.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on discussions, I've come around to position that articles should be merged. I continue to believe there are two distinct topics (which I would neither characterize as defacto/dejure nor document/everything else. Proponents of keeping the topic seperate seem to have a difficult time articulating what the topics are. User:Beamathan's distinction between the "Mandate and the Territory created as a result of said mandate" seems close, but has the practical difficulty of defining what the "Mandate" means. (Exampless: Only the initial league of nations grant of authority or subsequent developments relating to that authority. Governance decisions made pursuant to the Mandate?) Starting fresh with a merged article should enable editors to see whether forks are necessary and, if so, what they should be. --Sjsilverman (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the updated status of opinions is the following:

Merge - Jsolinsky, GHCool, Bobrayner, NMMNG

Neutral - AnonMoos, ZScarpia (tends to oppose)

Opposing - Beamathan, Sjsilverman (weak oppose)

More opinions still welcome.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Merge. Whilst I understand that there are two topics here -- the document and the entity(-ies) set up under it -- I don't believe it is necessary (or that there is sufficient non-duplicative content) to justify two articles. And neither do the Hebrew or Arabic Wikipedias. Almost none of the article about the document itself is about anything other than the entity created by it; I'd also suggest that the semantics involved are against the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. I could be convinced that there might be justification for a small article about the document, its genesis and its result, but I find it unlikely that such an article would contain much more than the appropriate section of the more-general article about the entity and the history of the geographic area in question. My preferred solution would be to Merge, but I would weakly favour a Merge-and-Fork solution to create a "History of Palestine under the Mandate" article, as per Sjsilverman's comments at 22:10 on 9 January. I do think, though, that the de jure / de facto split is somewhat contrived and not the best way of resolving the over-long nature of the merged article — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• My opinion is that we merge the articles, with a special section in the merged article being given over to a discussion of the legal instruments--the League of Nations Mandate--which allowed Britain to rule Palestine, and also the legal and procedural measures which Britain imposed on Palestine. Abedwayyad (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I would agree that, in the event of a merge, there should be a section in the merged article that highlights these details. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
• I now count six in favor of merging and two opposed. I'm not counting Greyshark at all although he appeared to be in favor. How many do we need to proceed with (or call off) the merge? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed my vote, so its now five to one. It looks like most of the recently active editors have weighed in. Not an expert on such things but I believe it is the weight of the arguments, rather than a strict counting of the votes that should control. Either way, the question has been open for two weeks, which seems like a reasonable time to solicit opinions on a relatively active topic. I suggest that whoever has the desire to do so go ahead and merge the articles. --Sjsilverman (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor not to be counted since i'm moderating the proposal and discussion. The updated opinion toll is hence the following:

Merge (7) - Jsolinsky, GHCool, Bobrayner, NMMNG, Sjsilverman (changed from oppose), Abedwayyad, Owenblacker.

Oppose (1) - Beamathan

Neutral (2) - AnonMoos, ZScarpia (tends to oppose)

I would say that numerically there is a solid majority for merge and the discussion was comprehensive enough, though i would like to hear final remarks from Zscarpia, since even though expressing neutral position showed strong opposition to the ideas raised here. Probably, the best ways to finilize this proposal are to reach a consensus or to turn to an uninvolved administrator to close it.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a consensus in favour of a merge. I assume that a merge would mean copying material into the Mandate Palestine article and removing the British Mandate for Palestine one.     ←   ZScarpia   20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• New proposal - Merge, demerge and rename. I think the logic for two articles is sound, but the names have caused mass confusion to everyone (including me). From reading the discussion, a better pair of names would be 1. [British] Mandate Palestine and 2. Establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine. Keeping two articles would require what is effectively a "merge and demerge", because there is so much overlapping information, and incorrect article linking. Would anyone be prepared to undertake this mammoth task? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Several editors above, myself included, support a "merge and split if necessary", which is basically the same thing you're proposing just without deciding on what to split to until we see if anything actually requires a split. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Any view on the proposed renaming? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that merged article should be renamed but don't know if we need an entirely new discussion about that. Merged article should, IMO, be named "Mandate Palestine" or "British Mandate Palestine"--Sjsilverman (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Either of those is fine by me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I go along with what everyone has said here.     ←   ZScarpia   20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge and demerge is technically what the proposal is about, so this is not new. Basically i understand you support the merge proposal that the current situation of identical articles is not desired. The question of what section to split from the merged article should be formalized after the merge is complete, because there are various ideas of what the split article should be (i.e. "History of Mandate Palestine", "Establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine", "British Mandate for Palestine (instrument)" and so on).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Adding the opinion of Oncenawhile and the following discussion, there is a solid majority in favor of the merge, in order to improve the existing situation. In addition, there is an understanding that another aticle may be split after the merge in order to describe a notable section of the Mandatory Palestine article. At this point, i would like everyone to bring closing remarks and i will finalize the merge. Later interested editors may propose splitting ("remerging") a suitable section into a new article.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Quoting myself from earlier: "I would weakly favour a Merge-and-Fork solution to create a "History of Palestine under the Mandate" article, as per Sjsilverman's comments at 22:10 on 9 January." I'm not entirely convinced there is enough content to merit the articles being separate, however. (Though, of course, that situation may well change with future edits :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak merge. The topics are sufficiently different to warrant two separate articles. But as of now the articles have too much overlap. A (possibly temporary) merge sounds like the best option. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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