Jump to content

Talk:Mandatory Palestine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag is wrong

[edit]

Sorrý í didn’t Specify earlier, but this is án edit request. Mandatory Palestine had a diffrent flag. It had a red backround, the Union Jack on the töp left, and a White circle sáning “Palestine” with blavk letters. The Union Jack was not the flag. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, that one was only for ships. See Flag of Mandatory Palestine. Zerotalk 07:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

[edit]

@מתיאל: Eugene Rogan is not a "partisan" source, he is one of the most preeminent historians and scholars in the field of Middle East studies. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogan is not the only historian of this period and there is no reason to have this weird quote to justify Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by מתיאל (talkcontribs) 10:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the least weird about it. It is a simple and correct explanation of the reasons. However, it should be attributed, not just sourced. Zerotalk 11:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there is more support for the quote's restoration than against it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. It's a really bad quote and completely unnecessary. First of all, the Arabs rejected ANY form of partition regardless of the territory allocated to each state. Second, it wasn't "their country" as Rogan puts it, but a British Mandate. Third, I'm pretty sure the Arabs didn't own 94% of the land, which is contradicted by many other sources.מתיאל (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen; Bakan, Abigail B. (July 2022). "Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting". The Political Quarterly. 93 (3): 508–516. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.13166. S2CID 250507449. p.511 "the Arabs, who in 1948 owned 90 per cent of the land"
[https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story573.html#Share "According to the above table scanned directly from the Survey of Palestine, Arab land ownership was 94.22%".
I'm pretty sure the Arabs didn't own 94% of the land, which is contradicted by many other sources Let's see them, then. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies on reliable sources provided by prominent scholars such as Eugene Rogan, and not the personal opinion of editors who disagree with them. A "bad quote" in your opinion is not a legitimate reason for removal. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a really bad quote, it sounds totally dubious. The very use of "their country" here totally raises concerns of bias, and the figure of 94% also sounds totally dubious, probably overlooking the fact that a substantive portion of lands were classified as public or state land, owned by the Ottoman and later British authorities, not privately owned by local Arabs. O.maximov (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again WP relies on RS, of which Eugene Rogan is certainly one, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with them. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the land ownership section of this article it seems the Arabs did own over 90% of lands, which is surprising given that they were only two thirds of the total population and most of the Negev was uninhabited (they owned desertic lands as well?). In any case, the quote is still undue and unnecessary for the other two reasons I gave, specifically the fact that they rejected ANY form of partition, so making this into a land-ownership issue gives the false impression they would accept the partition plan if only gave the proposed Arab state more territory. Also transforming the article's body into long direct quotes is bad editing policy.מתיאל (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Is the arguments you're making sourced in any RS? Rogan's book was named one of the best books of 2009 by the Economist, the Financial Times, and the Atlantic Monthly. His credentials are unparalleled in the field so the quote is definitely due. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I would do is keep the quote within a ref and instead add a prose para summarizing it and other relevant refs. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate why you prefer this course of action instead of the full quote? Many WP article have quotes by scholars cited in full. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I think the blockquote would sit better at the partition plan article but the % ownership is the key thing and we can include that without losing the quote by simply including it with a ref and if we add other supporting cites, we don't need to attribute it to Rogan but can state it as a fact. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I would go with your suggestion as middle ground. Which version did you have in mind? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, in a suitable place, a statement like
"By 1947 the Arabs of Palestine constituted a two-thirds majority with over 1.2 million people, compared to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Moreover, Arabs owned 94 percent of the total land area of Palestine. Therefore the Palestinians were not disposed to agree with partition.[1] (I added the full quote to the ref).
and add one or two other refs that back that up, although strictly not necessary, it's hardly controversial. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I would only add a small quote by Eugene that he wrote that the "Palestinian Arabs refused to confer on the United Nations the authority to split their country and give half away." I think that is a good middle ground for everyone. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Eugene Rogan (2012). The Arabs: A History – Third Edition. Penguin. p. 321. ISBN 978-0-7181-9683-7. It is not hard to understand the Palestinian Arab position. By 1947 the Arabs of Palestine constituted a two-thirds majority with over 1.2 million people, compared to 600,000 Jews in Palestine. Many towns and cities with Palestinian Arab majorities, like Haifa, were allotted to the Jewish state. Jaffa, though nominally part of the Arab state, was an isolated enclave surrounded by the Jewish state. Moreover, Arabs owned 94 percent of the total land area of Palestine and some 80 percent of the arable farmland of the country. Based on these facts, Palestinian Arabs refused to confer on the United Nations the authority to split their country and give half away.

"Land Ownership" Section is Misleading, Needs Clarification and Neutral Sources

[edit]

The information in this section is misleading and needs clarification as it often omits percentage calculations or relative comparative information for accurately distinguishing Arab-owned land, thereby reducing the overall perception of Jewish-owned land in comparison to Arab-owned land.

The article states "Official statistics show that Jews privately and collectively owned 1,393,531 dunams (1,393.53 km2), or 5.23% of Palestine's total in 1945" while failing to mention the Arab-owned land ownership percentage. This may potentially mislead the reader to believe approximately 95% of the non-Jewish land was solely Arab-owned. As it is, the entire section provides no ability to accurately determine the total Arab-owned land.

Following this, the figure entitled "Land Ownership of Palestine in 1945 by district" shows that approximately 85% of Beersheba is publicly owned. What isn't shown is that this area represents approximately 10,000 km2 of publicly owned land in that district and approximately 40% of the then total area of Palestine. This may potentially mislead the reader as there is no mention of public ownership under the "Land ownership" section, and accordingly, no mention of the total square kilometres of public land to which the reader may conceptualize the percentages and relative ownership.

Epstein-Truman and Epstein-Shertok letters

[edit]

@User:Onceinawhile: I've made a short addition to the "Termination of the mandate" section. It still mentions both the communication to the US and the request for recognition, without giving the reader any false impressions of the nature of the request. Dotyoyo (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that, it was fine the way it was and the material in the Easter egg does give a false impression, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original letter conveyed (1) Israel's geographical limits and (2) a request for recognition. I interpret the current wording as saying "Israel asked for recognition of the State and its geographical limits". I see that as a significant difference, hence a misrepresentation, but I won't make further attempts to resolve this. (Re: Easter egg: If you find mention of "Israel's willingness to cooperate" with the UN Partition Plan objectionable as is, you might want to also remove it from Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence#Borders, or find a supporting RS.) Dotyoyo (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]