Talk:Mandatory Palestine/Archive 7

'British Mandate of Palestine'
The Lead kicks off: "Mandatory Palestine or the British Mandate of Palestine ..." The name 'British Mandate of Palestine' has been shown to be a less used name than others. I suggest that either the other more commonly used terms are listed as well, or that 'British Mandate of Palestine' is removed.    ←   ZScarpia  19:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Arabs have not accepted any form of partition and insisted on unitary state
you deleted my edit. the Diff page.

your reason is: "there is still a disagreement between Zero0000 and you about this".

It is a pity that the discussion has not continued since I have offered a compromise, more than a 3 weeks ago.

The deleted sentences, are accurate and well supported. Please un-delete it. Ykantor (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Inline references?
Is there any reason why we are alternating between inline and normal references across the article? Most notably in the #The Arab revolt section, for example:
 * " fled to safer areas.(Gilbert 1998, p. 80) The violence abated for about a year while the British sent the Peel Commission to investigate.(Khalidi 2006, pp. 87–90)"

--PLNR (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake. Inline references should not be used. The contributor who added these was not aware of this or maybe he just lacked time to introduce the code.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong map
As a user above me has noted, the the map currently 'associated with the article is incorrect, since it shows only the part of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River. It should be changed to a map showing the full Palestine,' as shown in the version I added which was then reverted for no reason. Mandatory Palestine did include what is now Jordan. What's going on here? Shalom11111 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The explanation is at:
 * British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
 * British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about Palestine during the mandate period. There is a separate article (Transjordan) which covers Transjordan during the same period. There is a third article that covers the the legal instrument which formalised the administration of the two entities. If you look at the links above you will see there was never any existing geopolitical entity corresponding to your map. Dlv999 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The map of Mandatory Palestine must not comprise Transjordan, as explained in the links provided by Oncenawhile and Dlv999. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dlv999, this article should present information about the Mandate of Palestine, not Palestine. Here's the section that covers Palestine during the mandate period - Palestine. See this source and this map, which shows it best. Also, if you look at the articles parallel to this one in Wikipedia in other languages, over 90% of them use the map I'm suggesting, see for yourselves. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Mandate of Palestine was established West of Jordan River as explained in the links that were provided to you. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article is about what was referred to as Palestine during the Mandate period, which was bounded in the east by the Jordan. The area referred to as Palestine during the Mandate and the area covered by the Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations were not the same. Is the underlying dispute here about whether the area east of the Jordan was excluded from the terms of the Mandate relating to Jewish settlement before or after the Mandate was finalised?     ←   ZScarpia  11:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I fear it is... Pluto2012 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, "the reason that map is not shown is that there was no region of that shape and name at the time of the San Remo conference or any later time." At the time of the San Remo conference it wasn't even decided if Transjordan would be covered by the Mandate for Palestine. Zerotalk 22:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'ZScarpia', the underlying dispute here is about whether the area east of the Jordan was excluded from the terms of the Mandate relating to Jewish settlement before or after the Mandate was finalized.
 * To 'Zero', as the link I attached says: "The Origin and Nature of the 'Mandate for Palestine' - The 'Mandate for Palestine,' an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations, which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5"
 * That map must be included in the article, if not instead of the current one. 90% of the other Wikipedias are probably not wrong, and I don't think I am either. I'm going to wait patiently until someone who is knowledgeable and objective about the subject intervenes. Shalom11111 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Shalom11111, the links I posted above make this clear. The other wikipedias are wrong. Transjordan was already separate at the time the mandate was finalised, and the british government was very clear regarding its status. All of this is clear in the links I posted. I suggest you review the underlying sources on those pages too.
 * What you are describing is a remant of a bogus Revisionist negotiating position during the partition discussions. The revisionist position is represented in, for example, the crest of Irgun. But it was simply bogus, was not taken seriously at the time and is not taken seriously now. Albeit it has found its way into modern propaganda.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thing. The consensus position here was arrived at after lots of discussion, reading and learning by a large group of us. Much of the discussion is at Talk:Mandatory_Palestine/Archive_5. The thread is not straightforward to follow, but it led to a clear conclusion in the end. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This quote from Bernard Wasserstein, Israel and Palestine, should clarify: "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarising the conclusions of the [San Remo] conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there. Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement."
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably, Shalom11111's case rests on the outcome of the San Remo Conference which, according to him, conferred the Mandate in April 1920. However, the borders of the Mandate territory, which is what the map is concerned with, weren't finalised until later. It's probably worth remembering that the maximal demand submitted by the Zionists prior to the conference extended east of the River Jordan, but not by far. If I remember correctly, the main support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine came from three senior government figures, including Lloyd George and Balfour, but Curzon himself thought that the policy was mistaken. The Arab Bureau and Army were also opposed, partly because they saw the policy as a betrayal of promises given to the Hashemites, which is why military rule of Palestine was terminated and Samuel, a pivotal figure in producing government support for the Zionists, was brought in.    ←   ZScarpia  15:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Shalom11111, This article, and in fact everything in the Myths and Facts propaganda book/website, is below par for us and can't be cited, but did you notice that the passage you quoted actually excludes Transjordan? Another able demolition of "Jordan is Palestine" is in this article. Zerotalk 15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Article mislead information
Hey everyone, here some issues need your attention:

1) there was no country in the geographicael area called mandatory palestine, so it should remove or to be changed
 * country = Palestine

2) the article is not about "mandatory palestinee" and not about the term "palestine" alone - therefore is there no need to add the name "palestine" in different languages but to add the term "mandatory palestine" in different language

3) mandatory palestine main goal was the establishment in Palestine or Eretz Israel "a national home for the Jewish people in its homeland".

all of this i fixed and done but been reverted, please your help to fix the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by roniblr (talk • contribs)


 * (1) Please read country. You are probably confusing "country" with "independent state" but that is not the same thing. (2) The other languages should state the common name in that language of the entity called Mandatory Palestine, even if that common name was "Palestine". (3) A national home for the Jewish people was one of the aims of the mandate but stating it as the main aim is an opinion and not a fact. Zerotalk 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the Mandate goal, it is stated clearly :"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.".[ article 2 (and in the header), http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB ].


 * The Arab community is not specifically mentioned at all. The word ARAB appears 4 times: one, "Arabia" as the former name of previous Arab territories under Turkish control, and 3 more times as ARABIC, the language.


 * It seems that the only purpose of the mandate is establishment of a Jewish national home. While I understand that the Arabs were deeply disappointed, this is a fact.


 * As such, this goal should appear in the leader, in my opinion. Ykantor (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "It seems that the only purpose of the mandate is establishment of a Jewish national home." In the extract on the responsibilities of the Mandatory you quoted, I, personally, count three "goals", the second of which is the "development of self-governing institutions" and the last of which is "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." I think that Zero was making a point about the inadmissibility of reading things into sources which they don't state.      ←   ZScarpia  22:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the definition of a goal is extended, then this is a goal too: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights". How do we know what is a goal and what is a secondary demand? . Anyway, it is better to avoid Philology. So, would you accept this slight modification:"It seems that the main purpose of the mandate is establishment of a Jewish national home." ? Ykantor (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, and I'll also note that attempting to gauge the "main goal" from the mandate document alone is an abuse of WP:PRIMARY. The question is actually a complex one that many historians have written about.  The motivations of great powers are not necessarily accurately presented in their public documents.  Also, other sources like the Churchill White Paper, which was an official statement of British policy from the same time-frame, attempted to play down the Jewish homeland aspect.  We should describe these things in the article, but we shouldn't present our own interpretations as fact. Zerotalk 03:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems as a clear one. I wonder what was the complex issue found by those historians. Will you please refer to such a source?
 * The Churchill White Paper is not legally authorized by the league of nations. It is a component in the British application of the Mandate. Anyway, It is oriented to achieve a Jewish home land too.
 * Would you accept that the Mandate main goal was a Jewish homeland, but the British application has deviated? Ykantor (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the stated aims of the Mandate was the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. More than that is opinion.  It is wrong to separate the LofN from British policy.  In fact Britain got almost everything it sought from the LofN.  You can't ask what the purpose of the Mandate was without asking why Britain conquered Palestine from the Turks, why the Balfour Declaration was issued, and why it was repeated in the Sevres treaty and in the mandate text.  All of those things only happened because Britain wanted them to. Nobody forced them and their only problem in the LofN was to placate the French.  Theories about what the real purpose was range from British long-term strategic plans for the Middle East to one theory (Mark Levene) that it was all due to British antisemitism.  Even if you only look at LofN documents (a mistake), you can't ignore key documents like the Covenant, whose contradictions with the mandate have been argued about ad nauseum. Zerotalk 11:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing is ignored here. According to the legally binding document, the Mandate main goal was a Jewish homeland, but practically..." and here come all the mentioned agreements and covenants . Would you accept that? Ykantor (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Zero,
 * Nishidani will never forgive you : ad nauseam, not ad nauseum !
 * (Unless you bring the khazars article to FA, of course)
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blush, cringe, hanging my head in shame... Zerotalk 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ykantor, no, the claim "the Mandate main goal was a Jewish homeland" is a certain Zionist viewpoint and cannot be stated as a fact. It also ignores the fact that the Jewish homeland was to be "in Palestine", not comprising all of Palestine, and this distinction was very deliberate. Zerotalk 00:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * zero:"the claim "the Mandate main goal was a Jewish homeland" is a certain Zionist viewpoint and cannot be stated as a fact". How can you call it "certain Zionist viewpoint" ? it is written in the League of Nations legally binding document?
 * zero:"It also ignores the fact that the Jewish homeland was to be "in Palestine", not comprising all of Palestine". So, we can write:  the Mandate main goal was a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but practically..."
 * zero:"The question is actually a complex one that many historians have written about". I ask again, if you can provide the names of those historians. I have not found anyone who denies the that the Mandate main goal was a Jewish homeland. Ykantor (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to repeat myself. You are doing original research.  The mandate text does not say "main purpose" anywhere.  I already explained my other points. Zerotalk 13:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * About the mandate document, why are you ignoring the first sentence "for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"? Did you look at Article 22 of the Covenant?  Do you see Zionism there?  In fact, can you see anything there that is even compatible with Zionism?  Regard references, your request is bizarre since practically every book and article on the subject of the origins of the mandates considers the question of motivation. You can find dozens with a simple search. Zerotalk 09:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is more accurate to say that the main purpose of the Palestine Mandate was of broader scope, because the mandated area of Palestine covered three separate territories - Israel, Mesopotamia (today's Iraq)and Transjordan, (today's Jordan). Subsequently, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that its purpose was to enable the progression of these territories to self-determination with the ultimate aim of each proclaiming a sovereign State? Both the [Remo Agreement] and the legal document styled [British Mandate for Palestine"] refer to all three and include the "Transjordan Memorandum". Perhaps some background history might help resolve your argument by reading this paper and this CBN news report. --Intelcap (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Transjordan FAQ
Please note the new yellow box at the top of the page, linking to an FAQ providing the sources supporting the consensus here regarding Transjordan. Please feel free to add or amend as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration and Transjordan
I feel like this article starts at 1948 when it should really start after WWI. Why not talk about the Balfour declaration? The mandate was originally meant for Jews including both Transjordan and Palestine, in 1922 Churchill gave Transjordan to the Hashemites. Why not include this? I feel like it makes the history of the region much more confusing than it should be. --monochrome _ monitor  23:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say is simply untrue. Zerotalk 03:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it untrue? "The British Mandate for Palestine, or simply the Mandate for Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of the territory that had formerly constituted the Ottoman Empire sanjaks of Nablus, Acre, the Southern portion of the Beirut Vilayet, and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, prior to the Armistice of Mudros. The draft of the Mandate was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, amended via the 16 September 1922 Transjordan memorandum"—The Transjordan memorandum took Transjordan out. --monochrome _ monitor  23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is how the article on the Transjordan Memorandum describes it: "The memorandum described how the British government planned to implement the article of the Mandate for Palestine which allowed exclusion of Transjordan from the provisions regarding Jewish settlement." It is inaccurate to say that the Transjordan Memorandum "took Transjordan out" or "amended the Mandate." The Mandate was specifically written with the intention that Transjordan would be excluded from the provisions regarding 'Jewish settlement' and the Transjordan Memorandum merely explained how the article of the Mandate which was written to that effect would be implemented ("He then told the council that the British government now proposed to carry out this article as had always been intended by the League of Nations and the British government"). And note again that this article is about the area defined as Palestine during the Mandate period, not about the whole territory covered by the Mandate for Palestine.    ←   ZScarpia  00:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing incorrect map
The current is from 1922, while the Mandate was founded two years earlier. is better because includes what later became the Emirate of Transjordan.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually there was no official British mandate until September 1923. Zerotalk 03:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the mandate was assigned in 1920 as the lead and the infobox show. It was only ratified in 1923. It's more appropriate a map showing also Transjordan, which was an integral part of the Mandate until the split in 1921. Don't you think?--AmirSurfLera (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hardly any of the borders shown in the "1920" map existed then. Not even the border with Lebanon looked like that.  In 1920 it was unknown whether Transjordan would be included in the mandate or not. The map you prefer is a rewriting of history. Zerotalk 03:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The borders with Lebanon and other countries or mandates are exactly the same than in the current 1922 map. Therefore such a discussion doesn't belong here, or both maps have to be deleted. Transjordan was an integral part of the British Mandate at least for one year. In fact, one of the reasons why the Irgun had this logo is because they considered that all the original British Mandate belonged to the Jewish people, including Transjordan, which was removed by Churchill a few years later. I'm only setting the facts straight. Why do you think Transjordan is included here?--AmirSurfLera (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Please don't comment further until you have read the previous discussion on this page and in the archives. For example:
 * "What you are describing is a remant of a bogus Revisionist negotiating position during the partition discussions. The revisionist position is represented in, for example, the crest of Irgun. But it was simply bogus, was not taken seriously at the time and is not taken seriously now. Albeit it has found its way into modern propaganda."
 * "One more thing. The consensus position here was arrived at after lots of discussion, reading and learning by a large group of us. Much of the discussion is at Talk:Mandatory_Palestine/Archive_5. The thread is not straightforward to follow, but it led to a clear conclusion in the end."
 * "This quote from Bernard Wasserstein, Israel and Palestine, should clarify: "In a telegram to the Foreign Office summarising the conclusions of the [San Remo] conference, the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, stated: 'The boundaries will not be defined in Peace Treaty but are to be determined at a later date by principal Allied Powers.' When Samuel set up the civil mandatory government in mid-1920 he was explicitly instructed by Curzon that his jurisdiction did not include Transjordan. Following the French occupation in Damascus in July 1920, the French, acting in accordance with their wartime agreements with Britain refrained from extending their rule south into Transjordan. That autumn Emir Faisal's brother, Abdullah, led a band of armed men north from the Hedjaz into Transjordan and threatened to attack Syria and vindicate the Hashemites' right to overlordship there. Samuel seized the opportunity to press the case for British control. He succeeded. In March 1921 the Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, visited the Middle East and endorsed an arrangement whereby Transjordan would be added to the Palestine mandate, with Abdullah as the emir under the authority of the High Commissioner, and with the condition that the Jewish National Home provisions of the Palestine mandate would not apply there. Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there – but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' has become part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement.""
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quotes and link. They make a more helpful and collaborative response than "to the archives", as the ones who participated are in a better position to track the consensus and main points in all that hay, than the newcomers. I made an attempt a few days a ago with the Transjordan map (as a second one), not knowing of AmirSurfLera's recent one. I'm still not convinced by the above but will take the time. trespassers william (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Land ownership by type
The table titled "Land ownership of Palestine (in square kilometres) on 1 April 1943" is misleading. It compares Jewish owned lands with Arab+Non-Jewish owned lands but seems to include all the public / government owned lands under the column of "Arab / non-Jewish ownership". That this is so, is quite evident from the following facts:

1. The total territory of Mandatory Palestine was 26,625.6 km2, according to the Land Ownership section in the article.

2. According to the table in question, the total territory owned by Arabs and non-Jews in 1943 was 24,670.46 km2. Basically the entire territory minus the lands owned by Jews and possibly the large water bodies - the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee.

3. The majority of the territory of Mandatory Palestine was in fact public / government owned. I could not find a direct source for this claim, but from looking at the "Land ownership of Palestine in 1945 by district" table and the map on which it was based, it appears that 85% of the Beersheba sub-district was public / government owned. The Beersheba sub-district comprised almost the entire Negev desert, which in turn comprised the majority of Mandatory Palestine's territory. Therefore, it is quite likely that the majority of the territory in Mandatory Palestine was public / government owned, especially when bringing into consideration the additional government owned land outside the Beersheba district.

Since the majority of the 26,625.6 km2 territory of Mandatory Palestine was public / government owned, it is impossible that "Arab / non-Jewish ownership" could comprise 24,670.46 km2, unless "non-Jewish ownership" includes public / government owned. If the "Arab / non-Jewish ownership" column doesn't include government ownership, than the table is obviously erroneous. If it does include it, than the table is very misleading, since it treats Arabs, non-Jews and the British mandatory government a homogeneous group of land owners. One could obviously create a similar table, this time lumping Jewish and government ownership together, and thus showing that Arabs owned a minority share of the lands.

The table in question seems to be taken without reference from a Palestinian website with a clear political agenda: Palestine Remembered That is why I believe it is not accidentally inaccurate but intentionally misleading, in order to make the Arab share in land ownership appear larger than it actually was and the Jewish share smaller.

In light of this, and unless thereare any suggestions for a source that will allow us to correct this misleading table and/or any objections, I will delete the table and it's subsection "Land ownership by type". Yunis (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The source for the map on Palestine remembered is : A Survey of Palestine prepared by the British Mandate for the UN, p. 566.The map also appears on the UN website. Not seeing a problem with it myself.Your claims for most of the land being government owned is not true either. GGranddad (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a source for the table. Unfortunately, the issue remains, even though the table did appear in a certain UN report. It lumps together public / government owned land with Arab owned land, despite the two being distinct categories. I could find no hint in the 1946 Survey of Palestine as to why is the table arranged in this fashion. As I pointed out, we could just as well present a table lumping together government owned and Jewish owned land, making the Jewish owned land the majority of the total land area. Hence this table should no be considered as information but as disinformation in the context of this article, and if an explanation for the lumping together of government and Arab owned lands cannot be given, it should be removed. Yunis (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why delete it when you can just explain the way the table categories are defined in the introductory sentence? That's what the UN did, so surely that's good enough for us. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We can't just delete properly sourced content because we think that there is something wrong with it. That would violate WP:NOR.  But in any case there is less wrong with it than you think.  The bulk of the land (excluding the Negev) was the village land of Arab villages.  In some sense it was public land because much of it was held under the Ottoman system of indefinite lease, but just to call it state land without qualification would be a serious distortion.  It was land on which Arabs had a legal right to long-term possession.  Probably that is why on p563 it says "land held by Arabs" rather than "land owned by Arabs".  The "other non-Jews" in the table caption is meant to include the small number of other categories of owners and does not include "public fixed assets" (as it says on page 563). Zerotalk 02:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Section: Termination of the Mandate
The section has paramilitary Zionists organisations beginning to clear Arab communities at the same time as the State of Israel was declared (that is, at the termination of the Mandate). In fact, those organisations were actively clearing Arab communities from outside the area designated for a Jewish State in the Partition Plan even before the end of the Mandate in places like Jaffa.    ←   ZScarpia  02:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; I believe much of these events are covered in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, but per the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34 caution must be taken when using that work. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Zionist paramilitary organisations started clearing Arab communities before the end of the mandate. This occured both inside the area allocated to the Jewish State by the Partition Plan (such as in the cities of Beisean, Safed, Haifa, Tiberiade and the coastal plain and Eastern Galilee) and outside that area (such as in the cities of Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre and in Western Galilee and along the Jerusalem road). This is decribed in the 1948 Palestinian exodus but there are too many information. The best source for this is Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Nb: at the contrary of what the articles states, the Haganah didn't take distance with these operations but was the main actor of these operation with the Palmach. IZL only operated at the time at Jaffa and Jerusalem Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how mentioning the Partition plan in relation to the areas which had violent outbursts at that time is relevant at all, since the plan was rejected by the Arab leaders and hence never had any basis that someone needs to act according to it with the borders it suggested. Yuvn86 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Map
The map associated with the article is incorrect, since it shows only the part of the British Mandate west of the Jordan River. It should be changed to a map showing the full Palestine, like this one  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.92.125 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason that map is not shown is that there was no region of that shape and name at the time of the San Remo conference or any later time. Zerotalk 09:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the San Remo Conference wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference), there were 3 mandates granted: 1) Syria. 2) Mesopotamia (Iraq), and 3) Palestine. Unless you are claiming that Transjordan was somehow forgotten, to say that "there was no region of that shape and name" is dishonest in the extreme. Given that the Syrian mandate went to France, and the Mesopotamian mandate to the UK, the Mandate of Palestine was essentially the UK zone south of the French zone, apart from Mesopotamia. Unless you want to claim Transjordan as part of Mesopotamia rather than Palestine - and every map of the era included areas east of the Jordan as part of Palestine, you are in error. The best case you can make is that the far eastern bulge of Transjordan was never considered part of Palestine, but then neither was Cisjordan south of Beersheba, yet that is included as part of the Mandate because everybody knows the Palestinian Mandate was Levant-Syria=Palestine. This map is utterly incorrect. ebrawer  (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I wrote, and you are making the mistake of assuming Transjordan had to belong to some mandate at all. Zerotalk 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Transjordan belonged to the mandate. Just read the text of the mandate :
 * ARTICLE 25.In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
 * Now what territories would that be east of the Jordan, if not Transjordan? The UK decided on the basis of this article to not allow a Jewish state east of the Jordan because of the "local conditions".79.231.80.183 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should switch to the other map. The mandate included Jordan in 1920 and then was given to the Hasemites in 1922. --monochrome _ monitor  23:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement "The mandate included Jordan in 1920" is untrue. Please read British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) and all the previous discussion on this talk page, before commenting further. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I have here with me some old encyclopaedias (an edition of the Britannica from the 80s, and two copies of MS Encarta) and they all point out that the British Mandate of Palestine included Transjordan. Seems to me that the user is letting his personal opinion/bias distort the veracity of this article. --Pinnecco (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Pluto2012 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I second what Pluto has written: there is a difference between the territory covered by the legal instrument known as the 'Mandate for Palestine' and the subject of this article, Palestine during the British mandate. You might like to look back through the archives of this talkpage, to read the previous discussions about the map, too.     ←   ZScarpia  11:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the legal instrument and it mentions the exclusion of Transjordan in 1922 (I thought it was 1920). It should be included on the map saying "until 1922" or something of the sort. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">monitor  23:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC) - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandato_Brit%C3%A2nico_da_Palestina
 * You're proposing to display a map of something at a date when it didn't have formal borders? Exactly what borders are you going to show? The area under British occupation? But, the area which came to be known as Transjordan wasn't under British occupation at the time.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  00:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty nuts. The Mandate included what is now Jordan. The British installed the Hashemites there after they were ejected from Arabia by the Saudis. The map should reflect the full and proper extent of the Mandate.Woodahbase (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The territory covered by the League of Nations Mandate included what is now referred to as Mandatory Palestine and what is now called Jordan. The subject of this article is Mandatory Palestine only, not the whole territory covered by the Mandate. King Abdullah became king of Transjordan in 1921. The Saudis displaced King Hussein from the Hejaz in 1924.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  03:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Daoxan's comments on the FAQ
An FAQ response for those editors who would like to remove "Transjordan" from the article or map on Mandatory Palestine (You relying solely on Wikipedia articles, that can be written by people who dont understand law, or has reason to ignore this part of history or articles that support what you say) - I attach the broader vision:

The Mandate for Palestine is not just what was meant for the Jewish national state, but also the definition of the territories under mandate and it's objectives.

The mandat for Palestine in Princeton Law School website:https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Mandate_of_Palestine.htm https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Mandate_of_Palestine.html The first draft of 1920 of the mandat for Palestine was the Covenant of the League of Nations where the whole area that was called "Palestin"e at that time, referred to the whole are of Palestine and Jordan. Only in 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory of Palestine into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from Hijaz Saudi Arabia. Transjordan was exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home. https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Mandate_of_Palestine.html

The mandat for Palestine in Yale law school websitehttp://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp - The word Muslim / Islam is not mentioned once The word Arab is mentioned 4 times The word Jew is mentioned 15 times "the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;" (Israel's Declaration of Independence declared it in the exact same way: "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will... be based on freedom]], justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.)

Comments to the FAQ below:
 * British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument) - Irrelevant in any way to the display of the mandate area.
 * British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument) & Cairo Conference - Just support what was said above, the British awarded Transjordan self-control in 1922, as Transjordan was excluded from the original Palestine Mandate of 1920 territory (that was intended for the jewish home). The British fixed legally and by law, the promisings for the territory that they made to both sides. The Arab leaders were promised the whole region of the Middle East and Palestine, but Palestine was also promised to the Jews. So they did a very smart thing, they changed the definition of the territory of Palestine by law and in the maps, and cuted a part of the original mandat for Palestine off - Transjordan. Thinking that they have solved the problem, the Jews were left with 33% of Palestine and the Arabs with 77% of the original land.

Again it's support the thing that was mentioned above, Transjordan was added to the mandatory area under britain (after changing the definition in the british law and maps)
 * Explanation from Bernard Wasserstein - The begining support the above. the second part is oral promise, therefore it is not valid or binding by the British law. Winston Churchill was known for his false promises, that he gave in order to get what he wanted/need (like most politicians). At that time he needed the Arabs support for the war (or at list that they would not disturbed by resistance) - At that time the arabs that were under the role of britain were many and they could really cause harm to it. That was also the reason why jews were forbidden from going to Palestina at that time; the Arabs were against it, Britain was needed for their help (or lack of causing problems), so they acted against their own laws and band the Jews from Immigrating to palestine. See Also: Churchill White Paper, Passfield white paper, White Paper of 1939. There is no fear of Jabotinsky's theory on the Jewish right to the territory of Transjordan, the British were smart enough and changed the definition of the mandat for Palestine, it could be true only before 1922.


 * Gideon Biger - Let's start with it that he's not a lawyer and don't realy understand the legal nuances. Then it is true that the exact borders of the Mandat of Palestine weren't precisely defined (like all the other Mandats that were given at that time) but (all of them) had general borders, the general borders of the Mandate for Palestine were Transjordan of today and Palestine. Again he's talking possible outcomes, not actually decisions, So it is not relevant to determine the actual areas.


 * Read it, what was said above answers it, not relevant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoXan (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 January 2015‎ ‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaoXan (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 January 2015‎ ‎
 * Read also: The Case for Israel.


 * The fact that the Covenant of the League of Nations does not mention Jews, or a Jewish homeland, or even Palestine by name, makes claims like "The first draft of 1920 of the mandat for Palestine was the Covenant of the League of Nations" into nonsense. The fact that Article 22 actually contradicts the Palestine mandate that was written later is well known and much written about.  The rest of this is no better. Zerotalk 14:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It would help if your 'facts' were factual (but, if they were, you'd cease to have an argument).  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Transjordan flag
, can you please explain what you mean in this edit summary, and provide a source to substantiate?

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Transjordan was created when the British removed the eastern part of the Jordan river from the territory of Mandatory Palestine in 1921 (one year after the Mandate was formed), therefore it should be included in the infobox.--Averysoda (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand both the scope of this article, and the historical facts themselves. Please see: FAQ: Transjordan. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG's comments on the FAQ
NMMNG noted above that he thinks the FAQ is "so one sided it's not even funny".

The only funny part is that after three weeks discussing at Talk:British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument), NMMNG almost accepted that he was wrong but was too proud to admit it.

I look forward to a constructive and efficient discussion. NMMNG?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above is an example of a "constructive and efficient discussion"? That's hilarious. You fool nobody with these little lies. Anyone can go read that page.
 * In our discussion at the page you linked to, I provided several RS that explicitly say Transjordan was severed from Palestine. Where does that appear in your so-called FAQ? How about the several sources that specifically say Palestine included lands east of the Jordan, including the one source you said was the best? You know, the one from which you told us to read a bunch of pages you never read? How about those? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I worry for you, genuinely. I like you and so am happy to help - just email me.
 * But back to this question. On the other talk page, consensus was as follows:
 * The specific question is whether the mandate included Transjordan during the period 1920-23. In other words, was it part of the mandate awarded in San Remo in 1920
 * The sources you brought touch on this question in a very cursory fashion, and therefore are not comparable to the scholars who explain their position in great detail on the subject.
 * Biger is an expert on the subject
 * From Biger we know that at the 1919 conference, the Zionists proposed a line about 60km from the river, the British proposed just a 10km sliver, and the French proposed the Sykes-Picot line
 * Therefore at best by the time we get to the award of the mandate in 1920, it is impossible to imagine that all of Transjordan was in anyone's mind other than the ZO
 * The land was "ownerless" during 1920, which corresponds with the clear interpretation of the British at the 1920 Cairo Conference
 * The evidence is overwhelming yet you continue to push.
 * Can you please explain what you believe the Eastern border of the mandate was between 1920-23? We need to find a way to progress.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Awww, you want to help me? That's adorable.
 * The sources are in that discussion. That you don't like the ones that condradict your POV push is unsurprising. You can link to that discussion, where at least more than one POV is presented, rather than your POV pushing "FAQ". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please propose any proposed amendments to the FAQ here on this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

FAQ banner
The FAQ banner, which has been at the top of this talk page since more than a year ago, is now subject to an attack by NMMNG. Instead of working to improve the FAQ on one of the major recurring themes faced by this talk page, NMMNG decides to vandalise it. NMMNG, the reason the banner has been on this article for so long is because it helps us editors avoid a whole lot of wasted time. It is not about one POV or the other. If you think the FAQ is not right, don't take it out on the banner. Just edit the FAQ. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is completely unacceptable for you to use the same kind of yellow banner official notices and archives are presented in, to link to a POV page you wrote that is so one sided it's not even funny. Even if that page was perfect, it would still be unacceptable for you to try to masquerade it as something official. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the 250 other Talk Page FAQs across wikipedia. You are wasting your time fighting a banner. If you disagree with what is written in the FAQ, then open a new thread and explain. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, inclusion of an FAQ on this topic gained consensus, because this topic comes up again and again. Note I say "an" FAQ - the contents of the FAQ should reflect consensus on the question on this page, and so can change at any time. The thread below should confirm whether the content needs changing. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag
Why don't I see this flag from the 1939 Larousse? Debresser (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I was only able to find it on web pages (mostly run by idiots) whose sole source was the Larousse encyclopedia or each other.  It is 101% impossible that the British authorities would have established an official flag of Palestine containing only Zionist symbolism, so that possibility should be discounted immediately.  It is some variety of Zionist flag, of which there were many variations.  According to an answer given to the Permanent Mandates Commission in 1939, the Jewish shipping companies established in Palestine used "the Red Ensign defaced with the name 'Palestine' in a circle", which I assume is this. Zerotalk 01:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's hard to search, but the only mention I can find of a Palestine flag with blue, white, yellow/gold and no other color is a flag described as the "official Jewish flag" by the Jewish Agency in 1945 (Pal. Post, May 21). It had "blue strips and a blue Shield of David on a white field with a fringe of gold and blue", which is not this flag. Zerotalk 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, plus the Jewish Brigade flag, which sometimes had a gold Mogen David, but the blue stripes were vertical. Zerotalk 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On this unreliable twitter feed, someone supposedly a "senior research analyst at CAMERA" says it is "a flag of a jewish Palestinian exhibit in Paris in 1933". Zerotalk 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed this meme on the web a few weeks ago. As Zero says, it is historically impossible. Amazing that there are so many ignorant people sharing it online with suggestions that it proves something.
 * I looked in many places but could not find the same flag in any reliable source. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody have access to the 1933 or 1939 Larousse? That is surely a reliable source in itself. Debresser (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment is beneath you. I am embarrassed for you! Oncenawhile (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oncenawhile, please explain why you think so. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Flag should be the Union Jack
According to the article "Flag of Mandatory Palestine", the de-facto flag of Mandatory Palestine was the Union Jack while the "Palestine Ensign" (current used in the page) was only in maritime use and had limited use on land. Please comment with support and oppose. --Bolter21 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support or Oppose what?
 * I support replacing the "Palestine Ensign" by the Union Jack. Especially since the Flag of Mandatory Palestine article shows a third flag as well, so to stay on the safe and neutral side, the Union Jack is the ideal option. Debresser (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose until both of you make a research among all WP:RS in order to find what scholars say about the flag of Mandatory Palestine at the time so that we can understand what was the precise situation about this at the time.
 * I would personnally accept pictures taken during official events at the time as primary WP:RS
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pluto2012, "both of us"? Since when is editing on Wikipedia a personal obligation? Please don't get personal, this is just an editorial issue. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What flags were used at events, might have been influenced by the political opinions of the people organizing those historical events. We should therefore be very careful to use pictures as sources. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a question to vote on, but a question of what the facts were. Here is what I can uncover in a quick search.
 * Segev, "One Palestine Complete", p161:
 * The country did not have its own flag only because Samuel's efforts to come up with a design that would represent all the country's inhabitants were for nought. He realized that the flag's symbol could not be a Star of David, a cross, or a crescent, and a combination of all three was not acceptable either. Perhaps, he thought, it would be best to choose one of the country's native animals; then he thought of a torch within a circle-the torch would symbolize enlightenment, the circle eternity. In the end, the administration simply used the British Union Jack.
 * Peel Commission report, 1937, p138:
 * There are three national flags flown in Palestine-the Union Jack; the red, white, green and black Arab flag; and the blue and white banner of Zionism. Nobody wants a Palestinian flag.
 * I also searched the Palestine Gazette for regulations, though I don't have every issue handy. I did not find anything about the Union Jack or other national flag. I did find the Palestine Red Ensign several times, always in relation to shipping. In Gazette 1511 (5 Aug 1946) Suppl. 3 there are regulations for its use.  The ensign is described as "the Red Ensign of His Majesty's Fleet defaced on the fly thereof by the word "PALESTINE" in a white circular field". The regulations say, inter alia, "The Palestine Red Ensign is hereby declared to be the proper colours for (a) all registered ships owned wholly by persons qualified to be owners of Palestinian ships; and (b) all other vessels which are for the time being authorised in pursuance of a warrant from His Majesty or the Admiralty to use the Palestine Red Ensign."
 * I suggest that we show the Union Jack and also (because it is specifically Palestinian) the Red Ensign with "(maritime)" under it. Zerotalk 09:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the Union Jack. The Red Ensign is unacceptable, and as far as I am concerned should be removed forthwith, since there is no material to support it, unless we would state specifically that it was used as a shipping flag. The argument of Zero0000 that it is "specifically Palestinian" (where I interpret "Palestinian" to mean "related to the British Mandate") is not enough reason to have it, because the Jewish flag mentioned above was also specifically Palestinian (in the same sense). Debresser (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By "specifically Palestinian" I meant that it was a official flag of the government of Palestine. That was not true of either the Zionist or Arab flags, so the comparison is not good. Zerotalk 10:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand you, but, as I said, the Union Jack and the Red Ensign with "maritime" are fine with me too. Debresser (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "The Red Ensign is unacceptable, and as far as I am concerned should be removed forthwith". Pluto2012 (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems we all agree that the ensign should be replaced with Mr. Jack or I am wrong? It's also seems to have enough RS. --Bolter21 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is written:
 * "I suggest that we show the Union Jack and also (because it is specifically Palestinian) the Red Ensign with "(maritime)" under it"
 * "I am not sure I understand you, but, as I said, the Union Jack and the Red Ensign with "maritime" are fine with me too"
 * Personnally, I still oppose to any modification until you and Debresser brings some wp:rs on the topic.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bolter21 Yes, I think all agree. Zero0000 already provided sources. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not compulsory to show a flag and, since the sources quoted say that there wasn't an official flag for the mandate, it might be worth considering opting not to here.
 * For any flags that are shown, the captions should indicate their usage, which should avoid giving the impression that they are 'the official flag' for Mandatory Palestine. If the Union Flag is shown, it could be described as something like the de-facto flag or the flag of the British authorities.

Discussion relevant to this topic
It is proposed to rename Jewish insurgency in Palestine → Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Please discuss it on Jewish insurgency in Palestine talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 15:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits to the FAQ
, please discuss your proposed addition of an alternative point of view here. There is no consensus for this, and your sources are not relevant to the question that the FAQ is trying to answer.

There is clear consensus from prior discussions that Mandatory Palestine, defined to act as a Jewish National Home, never included TransJordan. The British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) did include TransJordan, with an administrative separation from Palestine.

We have discussed this ad nauseum, and your argument has no leg to stand on. This British Government memorandum from just before the Paris Peace Conference is another cast iron piece of evidence.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I need consensus to add sources to a discussion? That's a new one.
 * It's called NPOV. It's a Wikipedia editing policy. You should try it sometime. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. An FAQ is supposed to reflect consensus. It is not a discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly quote the policy/guideline you are basing that on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the banner in the FAQ page. It says clearly: "These FAQ answers reflect the decisions found in the talk page archives. Please feel free to change them in light of new discussion". Not before new discussion! Oncenawhile (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was literally copying from the discussion on the talk page, so not sure what you want exactly. Unless I missed an explicit discussion that only your POV may be included in the FAQ? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to totally misunderstand what these FAQs are for. Please see a list of other similar pages at Category:Wikipedia article FAQs. They all present summaries of talk page consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What "talk page consensus" was this FAQ summarizing before I edited it? It was just a list of sources you like that present your POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * NMMNG, if you are going to add stuff you can at least apply some minimal standards. Comments like "This book is very often cited by other scholars." are obviously SYNTH; you know that.  Also  "Again on August..." is worthless.  Did you notice that the second quotation continues with confirmation that Transjordan was not intended as part of the Jewish homeland?  The quotation of Quigley is similarly cherry-picked; what is your excuse for not including the remainder of the sentence? Zerotalk 13:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I copy/pasted all the sources and quotes from a previous discussion on the legal instrument page, so there may be some problems with them, although I note you had no problem whatsoever with the previous editorializing and patronizing tone. I'll try to fix any concerns. Shall we open a talk page on the FAQ? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The FAQ should reflect discussions on this talk page. It will be too confusing to have a second parallel talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I do think the FAQ could / should be improved. A good style to follow would be Talk:Jesus/FAQ or Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to have lost access to Sicker p. 158. Could you supply the full quote? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The subsequent sentence is: "Indeed, there appears to have been a British plan, never advanced to the point of being formulated on paper, to use the territory as a reserve for Arabs to relocate to as the Zionist program in Palestine began to be achieved and the country was transformed into a Jewish dominated and ruled entity"
 * Sicker is saying that the British and French never saw Transjordan as being part of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the application of Jewish National Home is not the topic of the FAQ (and not a subject I'm interested in or ever commented on AFAIR), I find the insinuation I was trying to hide it or something unwarranted.
 * Thanks for the quote, I'll add it to the FAQ. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed all the concerns raised here (except the one that only Oncenawhile's POV is allowed. Can't help with that one). Please let me know if I missed anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits, wholly without consensus, have effectively vandalised the FAQ. FAQs are supposed to summarise and reflect a consensus position. Instead, you have made it into a bizarre list of sources which purport to explain two opposing sides to an argument, but in fact do nothing of the sort. There is no opposing POV, there is not an "other side to the story". If there was, we would find a scholar who summarised the opposing views, not your WP:SYNTH.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I revert your bizarre edits, perhaps you can try to explain three key questions:

1. Your attack on the FAQ has gone so far as to change the purpose of it:
 * The intro to the consensus FAQ was "An FAQ response for those editors who would like to add "Transjordan" to the article or map on Mandatory Palestine"
 * The intro to your edited version is "An FAQ containing sources relating to the issue of "Transjordan" and Mandatory Palestine"
 * Can you explain why you have changed the scope of this?

2. What evidence do you have that the sources provided actually have opposing views? And on what are they specifically opposing?

3. Do you disagree with the previous consensus that Transjordan should not be added to this article or to this map? That has always been the primary reason for the existence of the FAQ.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get the facts straight. What you call the FAQ wasn't an actual list of frequently asked questions with answers, it was a list of sources you thought supported a certain POV, strung together with commentary that looked like a giddy 15 year old wrote it, calculated to answer a single question phrased to fit the above mentioned POV.
 * NPOV is a pillar of wikipedia. If you think you get to present only the sources you like you are very much mistaken.
 * While you seem to strongly object to me adding sources, Zero doesn't, so your claim of some kind of consensus to revert is false.
 * What policy/guideline do you think allows you to remove a bunch of sources you don't like?
 * I don't mind returning the intro into how it was (pending discussion), but the issue is much more nuanced as I'm sure you know. The intro you like basically amounts to "is Transjordan within the scope of this article". Explain why you think the sources I added are not relevant to that question, when they specifically talk about Transjordan and its relationship to the Mandate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. What you wrote in 1. above are not facts, but your personal and emotional interpretation
 * 2. Correct. This is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.
 * 3. You need to actually gain consensus for your changes, not speculate about another editor's views
 * 4. (a) the banner of the FAQ re the purpose of the FAQ (see comments above), and (b) WP:SYNTH re your claim that the sources oppose each other. Please answer my question 2. in my comment at 19:17.
 * 5. We can and should discuss this. But you need to explain what your position on the fundamental question is first. That is question 3. in my comment at 19:17
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My position on the fundamental question is that we need to weigh what all the reliable sources say, and write an NPOV article. We can't do that when you try to censor sources you don't like. And I don't need to speculate on Zero's position. He didn't revert and asked for improvements. You're alone in clamoring for censorship. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right so you don't even have a view on the subject of the FAQ. Why on earth are you wasting so much of your own time?
 * Unless you can come up with a coherent explanation of what you are doing here, your edits will be reverted.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you go ahead and remove a bunch of eminently RS just because they don't support your POV or you think you OWN that page or whatever it is that's going through your head right now. I'll report you and we'll let the admins sort it out. You're alone in objecting to me putting that stuff there, which I'm sure will also go down well when we have this sorted out by some outside parties. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remain calm. I will move your sources here. The FAQ is not an article, and is not supposed to act like one.
 * You said your position is that "we need to weigh..." Instead of charging in here like a bull in a china shop, you would have been better to raise the question calmly in a reasoned discussion. Let's have that discussion in a different thread. But we will be returning to the status quo before then. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the only one objecting to my balancing that page. You don't OWN it. Zero participated in this discussion and did not indicate he wanted the changes removed. I told you what my next step will be if you unilaterally restore it to its blatant POV state. Your choice how to proceed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't use my lack of writing something like that. Often it just means I haven't had time to think about it, and it could also mean that I don't care to state my opinion.  I'll state one opinion though: in principle sources making contrary arguments can be included, but what you included has overall far lower quality than what was there before. Zerotalk 00:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the FAQ is that it doesn't define its purpose. It jumps straight into quotations with misleading section titles. The first title is "Sources that support the POV Transjordan was not included in the Mandate"; it is misleading because there is no dispute whatever that Transjordan was covered by the Mandate for Palestine legal instrument that was approved by the LoN in 1922 and came into force in 1923. Nor is there any dispute that Britain had decided by the aftermath of the Cairo conference of 1921 at the latest that Transjordan was going to be included. The question that might be the subject of the FAQ is whether Transjordan was included in the mandate before the Cairo conference of 1921. If that is what the FAQ is about, we should change it to make that clear. It isn't clear at the moment. Then sources that refer to the post-1921 situation become irrelevant (eg. the Quigley quote that NMMNG reinserted). Zerotalk 00:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to discuss how to improve it, but restoring it to that blatantly POV state is unacceptable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mind you, we all know what the issue is really about: the Jewish homeland. Nobody would care about this arcane bit of historical trivia if it wasn't for the claim that Transjordan was originally included in what was "promised to the Jews" but then removed from it. The only way that claim can be justified (given that no explicit contemporary statement that Transjordan was offered to the Jews has ever been found) is to argue that (1) the Jews were promised all of "Palestine" and (2) that "Palestine" included Transjordan. So a lot of noise is made for and against (2), forgetting that (1) is false anyway. Zerotalk 00:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you got it backwards, some people here care so much about not helping the Jewish homeland thing that they're willing to obfuscate pretty straightforward historical facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Zero here for helping bring us back down to earth. NMMNG and I have quite similar personalities it seems, so we sometimes find ourselves running off on tangents until one of us is worn out. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We have nothing like similar personalities but thanks for admitting it is your tactic to wear other editors out. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we are very different after all. I am not incredibly aggressive, consistently rude, and fond of creating strawman representations of other people's views. I also care about this encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Onceawhile, that was not necessary. Perhaps you want to remove that edit (and mine)? Debresser (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your intervention, and you may well be right. I have recently been described as a funny little guy, a funny little dude, and a douche and an ass. This kind of treatment makes me feel small. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those pages are not on my watchlist. In any case, report the guy, don't escalate. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of the FAQ
Per above, the previous version of the FAQ stated its purpose as "An FAQ response for those editors who would like to add "Transjordan" to the article or map on Mandatory Palestine".

To be consistent with other talk page FAQs, I propose we change it to:

Agreed? If so, we can begin discussing how to amend the answer to the question to a version we are all happy with. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, a FAQ shouldn't be a "response to editors who would like to" do something. It should address specific questions that come up often. I suggest the scope should be the whole issue of the relationship between the Transjordan and the Palestine mandate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please propose the exact question that you think needs answering.
 * Are you suggesting that the questions in Q1 above are not "frequently asked" on this talk page? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that could be one of the questions, but with a wider scope other questions would lead to that. It would probably be the last or one of the last ones. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK great. At the moment it is the only question that has been proposed so will be the only question in the Q&A. If you would like others, please suggest them. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

, would you mind proposing drafting for an answer A1 for Q1 above? There is now consensus to include the question, but I worry that if I propose a draft NMMNG will immediately assume that there is something contrived in there and we'll never end this discussion. Since you command the respect of both me and NMMNG, there's a good chance your proposal will stick. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this:

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're going for the complete OR version, where what you think is presented as fact, are you? That was funny. Thanks. Good try. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what you disagree with. We can then open it to wider discussion. Please be as specific as possible so that we can get other people's views. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the avoidance of doubt, in the absence of any specific comments, I will be updating the FAQ. If some specific comments are forthcoming, we can open an RFC. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the avoidance of doubt, you should give other editors a reasonable amount of time to reply and stop threatening with immediate changes as if there's some kind of deadline. You waited all of two hours? Sheesh. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree and that is my intention. In wikipedia there is no deadline. But comments with no actionable substance must be ignored within a reasonable amount of time, to avoid filbustering. How much time will you require to provide your thoughts? A couple of days? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

1. What "certain authors" do we have here that suggest that Transjordan would have been a part of the Jewish national home? That's a strawman. 2. Your assertion that "at no point from the assignment of the mandate at the San Remo conference were the two entities governed under the same administration" is another strawman. Transjordan was included in the Mandate but administered separately. These two should do for starters. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Here's one of those certain authors. This is the type of thing that is read by inexperienced editors before coming here and asking for the map to be changed.
 * 2. "TransJordan was severed" (or similar) from Palestine is a common theme.
 * I don't think we disagree on the facts.
 * Please make a proposed edit to the FAQ question and answer.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Could you post a link to something someone put on wikipedia, not "mythsandfacts.org"? I don't click these kinds of links and I asked specifically about sources used for the so called FAQ.
 * 2. Awesome. So why are you wording your questions so misleadingly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is not supposed to be a discussion of opposing WP:RS. It is supposed to be a simple tool to help avoid unnecessary debates with editors who come here with low quality information and need help to understand what consensus is without having to read the archives. So our FAQ questions do not need to be written from the point of view of a visiting scholar. In fact, it is more helpful for them to be written from the point of view of someone who has just read mythsandfacts or some other propaganda site. If you are not sure whether you agree with this, please look at the precedent FAQs linked in the discussion above. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, we could have a question along the lines of "Was Transjordan ever part of the Jewish National Home" or something along those lines, instead of pushing the issue into a different question. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's another attempt below - I have broken it in to two parts, the first being the reasonable question, and the second being the propaganda based question.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * are you ok with this? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, unfortunately I can't agree to this. "This contradicts all available primary sources" is your personal belief, unless you have an expert saying it? Not to mention article 25 (see here, particularly the Balfour quote). Referring readers to the timeline you manufactured without an explicit source (and I have to say, I don't think anyone without a pretty deep interest in the subject could make anything out of that timeline) also doesn't seem to be too FAQy. The fact they weren't administered under the same administration is a strawman, as you know. Again, see article 25.
 * The first question I think could work, although like I said I think this FAQ should be for the whole topic of the relationship between Tansjordan and Palestine and the mandates. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

, OK, sounds like we are agreed on Q1 above. So new question 2 proposed below. I'm not sure I understand your last point - do you want to propose additional questions?

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Style of the FAQ
I am not aware of any other talk page FAQs which just put a bunch of sources side by side. I propose we amend the style to be a clear and simple paragraph explanation of the answer to the question above. We can then include a short reference section. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple questions and answers sounds better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, we are agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Opposing sources
In principle I am not opposed to showing sources which appear to give the opposite point of view. But we need to explain that consensus here has decided that they are of lower quality than other much more detailed secondary sources, and also that they directly contradict the primary sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How lovely of you not to oppose showing sources you don't agree with. If and when consensus decides they are of lower quality, we should formulate our FAQ answers to give DUE weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, we are agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is relevant, but the part concerning Jewish settlement in Transjordan was discussed in the Transjordan memorandum, if you would want to include that in the FAQ... Makeandtoss (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote
A quote is eating up the lead, why is this still here?Makeandtoss (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

recent addition
, there is an unfinished sentence "By 14 May 1948, the only British forces..." in your recent addition. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The head picture is misrepresenting
I found a better picture:



--77.179.209.226 (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have the wrong article, see Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Zerotalk 06:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And see the FAQ above. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
Should we include the fact that Saudi Arabia had a territorial exchange with Jordan, meaning that what was once -for a short period of time- considered Mandatory Palestine, included Saudi Arabian territories? As seen in the picture.Makeandtoss (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Because Jordan was never included in Mandatory Palestine. Not even for a short period of time. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Jordan was 78% of the Palestine Mandate territory as determined by Balfour and ratified by the League of Nation. It was given to the Hashemites in 1922 as a bribe to Arabia for access to their recently discovered oil which Churchill wanted for the British navy. The Arabians expelled the Hashemites as they were the only Arab tribe to side with the British in WW1. Britain was pressured into giving them the greater part of that which was to become the Jewish National Home. But this gift to the Arabs did not satisfy their lust for Jewish land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.76 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is drivel. I suggest you forget everything you think you know about this conflict, as you have been infected with a large dose of poor quality propaganda.
 * Regarding this question's relevance to this article, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)