Talk:McMahon–Hussein correspondence
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theMcMahon–Hussein correspondence article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1,2Auto-archiving period:3 months  |
 | McMahon–Hussein correspondence has been listed as one of theHistory good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so.If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in the"On this day..." column onMarch 10, 2018,March 10, 2020,March 10, 2022, andMarch 10, 2023. | |||||||||
| This article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of yourcommon.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning{display:none;} Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related totheArab–Israeli conflict, which issubject to theextended-confirmed restriction. You are not anextended-confirmed user, soyou must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make anedit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates totheArab–Israeli conflict, a contentious topic.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, any expectedstandards of behaviour, or anynormal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Shame on Wikipedia for bowdlerizing the caption to say "assistant of Faisal" instead of earlier sources' correct and self-evident "SLAVE of Faisal".— Precedingunsigned comment added by45.30.128.137 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016
With all the study I have been making of Mcmahon and Balfour, I can see now that the Sykes-Picot article needs a bit of work as well; of course it's directly and indirectly related to the other two so if anyone wants to pitch in and edit a bit over there....:)— Precedingunsigned comment added bySelfstudier (talk •contribs)
"Britain" is "commonname" for UK ie it means the same thing and is used a lot by everyone (sometimes officialdom may make a difference between the two but no-one pays any attention to officials). "British" is the same thing as UK citizen except that virtually no-one would describe themselves as the latter.(Note British embassy, not UK embassy and British prime minister is just as common as UK prime minister, UK policy, British policy etc).Selfstudier (talk)11:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the following quotation box from the article; it clutters the section it was removed from, intrudes into later sections and seems to be unnecessary commentary on a minor point. It could be summarised and/or worked into the article, but to leave it in a quote box seems like dumping it there for the reader to deal with.Baffle☿gab00:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CC-By-SA Declaration: text in this section removed from the article be me,Baffle☿gab00:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The consequences of interpreting McMahon's 'wilayahs' as meaning 'Ottoman provinces' are so disconcerting that it was – and, to my mind, still is – difficult to believe that McMahon was intending to use the word in this sense in his letter. This interpretation would force on us a choice between the two following alternative conclusions:
(i) First alternative: McMahon was completely ignorant of Ottoman administrative geography. He did not know that the Ottoman vilayet of Aleppo extended westward to the coast, and he did not know that there were no Ottoman vilayets of Homs and Hama. It seems to me incredible that McMahon can have been as ill-informed as this, and that he would not have taken care to inform himself correctly when he was writing a letter in which he was making very serious commitments on HMG's account.
(ii) Second alternative: McMahon was properly acquainted with Ottoman administrative geography, and was using the word 'wilayahs' equivocally. Apropos of Damascus, he was using it to mean 'Ottoman provinces'; apropos of Homs and Hama, and Aleppo, he was using it to mean 'environs'. This equivocation would have been disingenuous, impolitic, and pointless. I could not, and still cannot, believe that McMahon behaved so irresponsibly"
...
The documents written by British officials, contesting the interpretation of McMahon's word 'wilayahs' that was made by me and, before me, by the author of the Arab Bureau'sHistory, all date from after the time at which HMG had become sure that Britain had Palestine in her pocket... I do not think that Young's or Childs' or Mr Friedman's interpretation of McMahon's use of the word 'wilayahs' is tenable. After studying Mr Friedman's paper and writing these notes, I am inclined to think that the drafting of this letter was, not disingenuous, but hopelessly muddle-headed. Incompetence is not excusable in transacting serious and responsible public business."Arnold J. Toynbee in 1970, in correspondence with Isaiah Friedman[1]References
- ^Toynbee & Friedman 1970, p. 185-201. sfn error: no target: CITEREFToynbeeFriedman1970 (help)
Baffle☿gab00:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put a short sentence back in with the relevant sources.Selfstudier (talk)13:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the recent ce, the "English" being used was changedDiff from EngvarB to Oxford spelling (English + "ize", basically). Do we want to keep that or change it back?
(Discussion here for those interestedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#American_or_British_spelling?_Neither.)Selfstudier (talk)09:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
