Q1: Why doesn't this article include Transjordan in its scope? Why isn't Transjordan shown as part of Mandatory Palestine on the map?
A1: This article is about the British administrative unit in Palestine. There is a separate article covering the entity of the Emirate of Transjordan, and the Mandate legal instrument which acted as the constitution for both of these administrations.
Q2: What was the status of Transjordan in the Mandate for Palestine?
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Mandatory Palestine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mandatory Palestine at the Reference desk.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
An editor has requested that a coat of arms image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
The one including Trans-Jordan. The separation came soon after, by the will of the British - but afterwards nevertheless. Arminden (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Before the Cairo conference of 1921 there was no decision whether Transjordan would be included in the mandate. And there were no eastern or southern boundaries to put on a map. At that conference it was decided to add Transjordan so as to avoid having to go back to the Principle Powers to confirm British control. Maps you see with Palestine and Transjordan inside a single neat boundary dated 1920 are just made up. Anyway, this article is about Mandatory Palestine as the phrase meant during the mandate period (1923-1948). It is not about the Mandate for Palestine. Zerotalk 08:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The boundary between TJ and Iraq wasn't set until December 22. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the sources I have, the first formal agreement on a TJ-Iraq boundary didn't come until 1932. (US Department of State, International Boundary Study, No. 98, 1970, Iraq–Jordan). Zerotalk 05:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Background (Palestine Seal).png
Replace the current seal with this one. Ayunipear (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: the version that you uploaded is not properly sourced. Please have a look at the one you copied to see how it's done. Better still, I suggest you overwrite the stable version (there should no issue as the change is minor). M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@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 (talk • contribs) 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. S2CID250507449. p.511 "the Arabs, who in 1948 owned 90 per cent of the land"
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]
Not done for now: the version that you uploaded is not properly sourced. Please have a look at the one you copied to see how it's done. Better still, I suggest you overwrite the stable version (there should no issue as the change is minor). M.Bitton (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)