Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence/Archive 2

Childs Interpretation
Does anyone have access to a source that specifies on what basis Childs says Palestine is excluded? My understanding is that it is based on what has come to be known as the French reservation argument but I would like to see something explanatory rather than just a flat statement in any event.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a quote from the memo into the table. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, great. You have the whole Kedourie book? (Labyrinth). (I have many books but not that one, I can only see what there is here and there on the web). If I understand it correctly, Kedourie did not argue that Palestine was excluded, is that right? Did he explicitly endorse Childs approach or just mention it as being among the documents he reviewed? Is there anywhere (or can you make it) a short synthesis of his position as regards Palestine exclusion or inclusion?Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still trying to develop some common ground on what Labyrinth does or does not say; I found a review of Labyrinth (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03612759.1976.9945508) that purports to summarize Labyrinth. Does it seem reasonable to you as a summary of the book? (I have his Chatham House Version which seems somewhat similar, I am trying to get a copy of Labyrinth from a colleague). According to this reviewer, in the matter of Palestine in/out, “not proven”. I will see if I can find some more reviews.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, we had some back and forth between a C Ernest Dawn (a respected specialist in Ottoman and Arab history) and Kedourie, following this review (http://www.jstor.org/stable/162638 ) and then a reply/counterreply (http://www.jstor.org/stable/162148 ). This seems like a fairly severe disagreement that attacks the foundational premises of Labyrinth.Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a great find - very interesting. It's similar in nature to the Toynbee-Friedman dialogue.
 * We might add a subsection on Academic Interpretations to explain the evolution of these discussions. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This essay by Charles D. Smith sets out the historiography very well. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's very good, this too, same author (http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/pdf/1914-1918-Online-historiography_1918-today_middle_eastarab_lands-2017-02-08.pdf)Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed a great find. You may have noticed that while Smith doesn't agree with their interpretation, he acknowledges that Kedourie and Friedman's opinions are popular and mainstream. It would be a serious NPOV violation to exclude them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Noone has suggested that they be excluded (Kedouries work is simultaneously criticized and admired, much like Antonius, Friedman perhaps more criticized than admired nowadays). We are simply attempting to establish a more complete and up to date historiography; scholarly opinion does change over time. For instance, it would seem now that that scholars in general have mostly given up on the Churchill/McMahon version of events (although it remains a version of events) and if seeking reasons why Palestine might have been excluded, are now relying on the French reservation idea instead.Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I share this interpretation - i.e. that Kedouri, being the leading proponent for the "excluded from the pledge" side of the debate, concluded that the "vilayet" argument did not hold water. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just came across this which is quite interesting from Barr "A Line in the Sand":

..a meeting in Whitehall in December 1920 at which the English and Arabic texts of McMahon’s correspondence with Sharif Husein were compared. In his crucial letter of 24 October 1915, McMahon had used an ambiguous phrase that hinged on the absence of a comma to make it look as if he accepted Husein’s exorbitant demands, when in fact he was preserving Britain’s room for maneuver with the French. For five years the British believed that he had successfully done so, until, to the horror of those present at the December 1920 meeting, it was revealed that this sleight of hand had then been lost in the Arabic translation. As one official, who was present, put it,

'In the Arabic version sent to King Husain this is so translated as to make it appear that Gt Britain is free to act without detriment to France in the whole of the limits mentioned. This passage of course had been our sheet anchor: it enabled us to tell the French that we had reserved their rights, and the Arabs that there were regions in which they wd have eventually to come to terms with the French. It is extremely awkward to have this piece of solid ground cut from under our feet. I think that HMG will probably jump at the opportunity of making a sort of amende by sending Feisal to Mesopotamia.' (MEC, Cox Papers, 5/27, Hirtzel to Cox, 29 Dec. 1920.)

You can see in the letter what happens when you "lose" the comma, (oops). I haven't seen this anywhere else,(anyone?) seems to blow a bit of a hole in the French reservation argument, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seems it is worth including in the article and I have done so, there might be some reference to this in Friedman's Palestine A Twice Promised Land, I can't figure out what it is from just looking at snippets, anyone has that source? Selfstudier (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to further confuse things :) Barr's Desert on Fire, also from 2011 has the same thing slightly differently:-

Quote Exactly what McMahon promised in his letters to Husein has never satisfactorily been made clear, just as McMahon intended. But his studied ambiguity, which seemed so suitable at the time, was counter-productive in the long run. British officials went to enormous lengths to interpret what McMahon had said, to try to exclude Palestine from the area the Arabs claimed was theirs. The problems mounted when, after being missing for nearly fifteen years, copies of the Arabic versions of the two most significant letters were found in a clear-out of Ronald Storrs’s office in Cairo. Their discovery only increased British discomfort. In his letter to Husein of 24 October, McMahon had tried to qualify his commitment with the proviso that he could give assurances in places ‘in which Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally France’. Designed to be ambiguous, the phrase as it was then translated into Arabic read as a confirmation that, except in the areas he had vaguely defined, Britain was able to confirm Husein’s demands, without affecting French interests. ‘This careless translation completely changes the meaning of the reservation, or at any rate makes the meaning exceedingly ambiguous,’ the Lord Chancellor admitted, in a secret legal opinion on the strength of the Arab claim

IOR, L/PS/12/3349, Memoranda respecting the McMahon–Husein correspondence of 1915 and 1916 and certain subsequent statements made on behalf of his Majesty’s Government in regard to the future status of Palestine. December 1939: Lord Chancellor’s opinion, circulated to Cabinet on 23 January 1939.

By the late 1930s, with war looming yet again, the British needed to maintain the Arabs’ support. In 1939, on the sidelines of a London conference on Palestine, the British agreed to a full examination of the correspondence by a committee comprising British and Arab representatives. A single sentence in their report summed up the story: ‘Both the Arab and the United Kingdom representatives have tried (as they hope with success) to understand the point of view of the other party, but they have been unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the Correspondence.

By then the British, recognising that basing their case on McMahon’s words was fruitless, had resorted to defending their argument that Palestine had not been included through a description of the context. This was a stronger argument, because it probably explained McMahon’s reluctance to go into detail in the first place, but it ultimately depended on the assertion that it was the French interest in Palestine which meant that Britain could not have ceded the region to the Arabs: an astonishing argument given that the thrust of British policy throughout the war had been to contain and undermine French influence. Unquote Have to see how or whether to include any of this..Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC
Is this table original research in general, and specifically SYNTH?

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The table presents on equal footing various statements from a wide variety of "British politicians and civil servants".
 * Some statements are from official documents, some are from debates, one is even from an autobiography.
 * No secondary source compares or even lists all these statements in such a way. Implying they are of equal weight and show "evolution of the debate" is SYNTH.

Survey

 * This RfC is INVALID as it presents the originator's viewpoint, thereby violating the key requirement of WP:RfC that statements must be brief and neutral. It should be closed on that basis. Zerotalk 01:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Original research that should be removed: as nom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it. I don't see how it's original research. The closest thing is referring to the list as an "evolution of the debate" but that merits a slight rewording at worst, not the exclusion of an interesting and helpful list.  I certainly don't see how anything is implying that each statement is of equal weight (whatever that even means).  I would note that the list is pretty long though.  Might it be better to move it into its own article and replace it here with a summary? Dbrote (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC) The user doesn't meet criteria to participate in this RFC per WP:ARBPIA3 -- Shrike (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike, can you please explain why I'm not allowed to participate in this RFC? WP:ARBPIA3 states that "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." I certainly feel that my comment was constructive. Dbrote (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the rest of the guideline ". This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." RFC is such "internal project discussion" Shrike (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike, I made a comment on a talk page. That it specifically covered by "may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments."  The sentence you cite cannot apply because it applies only to "other" internal project discussions.  This isn't an "other" discussion, its the type of discussion specifically excluded from the general ban. Please unstrike my comment or explain how my interpretation is wrong.  Dbrote (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please look here for similar case Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209. If you still have doubts you can ask any admin for the advice.Shrike (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike, that doesn't address my point at all. I'm in no way convinced that my comment was disallowed and will be unstriking my comment.  If you have any other evidence that could change my mind, I'd be happy to listen.  Feel free to take this up elsewhere, but I think you're overstepping and don't particularly appreciate it. Dbrote (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject to tweaking.  There is no rule-relevant difference between a chronological list of citable items presented in prose, and the same list presented in a table.  Presentation in table format does not imply equivalence between items; it only implies that the items belong in the list. However the word "evolution" is problematic as it suggests some single thread passing through these points, rather than multiple parallel threads. The description of the table should be adjusted to avoid that; for example, it could be described just as a list of opinions expressed at different times. Zerotalk 01:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have already explained above that I completely disagree with removal, this section is very helpful for a casual reader.I think it needs adding to, not removal.Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice Guy, you have been asked to explain the alleged conclusion been drawn by an alleged SYNTH and have not done so as required by WP policy. If I understand your argument now, you are alleging that it is a SYNTH with conclusion that the list incorrectly represents "evolution of the debate". Fine, what about "List of British Positions" instead? Or suggest something(other than removing the list, which is not helpful)Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It doesn't seem like SYNTH or any other sort of OR to me, but I think it may need to be edited with an eye toward WP: PROPORTION. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, with procedural comment This list reflects how all the primary scholars analyze this topic, i.e. by quoting and assessing the views of these British politicians and civil servants. My procedural comment is that the RFC has been written in a non-neutral manner. The nominator has been made aware on numerous occasions (in the discussion above and on another related talk page) that the fact that "Numerous secondary sources compare and analyze these statements" is true, yet he failed to mention this in the RFC request and instead wrote the misleading sentence "No secondary source compares or even lists all these statements in such a way". Perhaps he is hiding behind the words "in such a way", but this doesn't excuse omitting a crucial fact. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above statement is false. Not only has no source listing all these statements been provided, a quick glance at the table will easily show it uses at least 5 and probably closer to 10 different sources, not including primary ones. If Oncenawhile's claim were true it would be quite easy to use one source for all quotes in the table. This alone is strong evidence of SYNTH. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you wouldn't keep making up rules. There is no policy whatever that requires the existence of a single source that mentions all the sources we bring to a Wikipedia article.  Unfortunately there also doesn't seem to be a policy that improper RfCs like this one can be deleted immediately, otherwise I would have deleted it.  An RfC should consist of a neutrally worded question, then you are free to write your opinion as a response.  You aren't supposed to encode your opinion as the question itself in order to bias the response. You know that. Zerotalk 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd stop pouring water on my ducky back. The only uninvolved editor to comment on the issue, at NORN, agreed there's a SYNTH violation. I feel I'm well within reasonable interpretation of policy here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your NORN request grossly misrepresented the scholarly treatment of the matter. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is false. Here's the discussion. See where I said "all" and you said "most" (without supplying any evidence?). That might be the source of your confusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that after you spent a few days and put your best effort in, you still couldn't get more than half the quotes sourced to one source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * keep but balance and change presentation so as to not equally weigh items-- less emphasis on quotations and more on arguments and their validity - the table/timeline format strikes me as inappropriate for whole quotations. Without noting in some form the weight of each item (aka why it matters, not who said it and the circumstances they said it in)--- ie, how high in the government it was approved, how close to the source it was drafted, whether it is an interpretation or an official statement of policy... the earlier and lengthier quotes will seem more significant. I would not call it SYNTH because juxtaposition is not synth but the evolution of a debate shouldn't be conveyed as items in a list unless the list itself has some sourcing-- not the entire list necessarily-- but more than individual elements of it. I don't believe a table about British interpretations in a reliable secondary source would list this information as we do, which is prejudicially. I don't think this is an OR issue but a weight one as well as a proportionality one. This table, in emphasizing the chronology of published statements above their significance, seems to assert that the idea Palestine was excluded was a later innovation, rather than an intention (as Mcmahon, who is the most reliable interpretor of his own words and who is given far too little weight, says). The very reason Mcmahon published his statement was to "set the record straight". The analysis of his statement should reflect that purpose, and his initial statement should be set apart as well, with reactions to it stated below. The quotations should also be characterized with respect to their interpretations of the initial text. Ie, one interpretation, that Palestine would be Arab because it is "purely Arab" is clearly false, and that should be noted. Recent edits have basically taken existing information but spun it so that a misunderstanding becomes a betrayal.--Monochrome _ Monitor  00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For the most part I agree with the commentary just above, one needs to imagine the table content written as prose and sourced, it would be a terrible muddle for anyone to wade through. This problem arises principally by virtue of the total time elapsed since the primary position was established (100 years), the secrecy element and the fact that the argument continues today suggests that it is far from a clear cut thing and unlikely to be resolved (certainly not here in Wikipedia at any rate). In the matter of McMahon it my understanding that his statements are deemed unsatisfactory not only by many secondary sources, also by the British government itself, one needs to take care in stating that one thing has more weight than another. My own suggestion would be that we start adding in source material to the table and see where it goes from there. I have now researched quite a few sources on different sides of the argument and will start adding them in due course, others should consider doing the same.Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Not OR and above.  The RfC is valid, as there is no rule saying noms may not give their opinion in the request. The first sentence is what immediately pertains to all !Voters, and is clear and not obscured in that regard.  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  15:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule is Statement should be neutral and brief. Noms who put their opinion in the request are obviously violating the "neutral" part. Zerotalk 15:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I don't really mind if it just sits here(biased or not); its moot since the result is pretty clear cut, might as well just carry on with trying to make a good article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)