Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Balfour Declaration

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to Featured Article status prior to the 100th anniversary next year. At this point I am specifically looking for feedback regarding how to ensure that this article meets the requirement that it should be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (WP:FACR 1.c.)

Thank you, Oncenawhile (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Discussion

[edit]

Comment: There are some sources in this bibliography which might be useful to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems very comprehensive to me, representative of relevant literature, and in compliance with WP:POV. However, there are very few (only two?) Arab and Palestinian sources cited in the article. Perhaps, in order to avoid POV accusations because of the touchiness of this topic, it's best to add a few more citations of Arab and Palestinian sources, if they exist and are on par with the quality of the existing citations. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Based on the above comments, and those of User:FunkMonk, there are the sources I propose to add:

  • Shlaim, A (2009), ‘The Balfour Declaration and its Consequences,’ in Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations, London: Verso
  • Rhett, Maryanne A. (19 November 2015). The Global History of the Balfour Declaration: Declared Nation. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-31276-5.
  • Renton, James (15 November 2007). The Zionist Masquerade: The Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance 1914-1918. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-54718-6.
  • Fromkin, David (1990). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. Avon Books. ISBN 978-0-380-71300-4.
  • Friedman, Isaiah. The Question of Palestine: British-Jewish-Arab Relations, 1914–1918. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-3868-9.
  • Rose, Norman (2010). A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine, 1890s to 1948. Pimlico. ISBN 978-1-84595-079-8.
  • Albert Hourani; Malise Ruthven (30 November 2010). A History of the Arab Peoples: With a New Afterword. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05819-4. Retrieved 23 December 2011.
  • Said, Edward W. (1979). The Question of Palestine. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-73988-3.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I was going to suggest Edward Said as well. Good to have respected writers from all sides. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the next step would probably be to incorporate the new sources. One issue I noticed that may become a problem at FAC is the amount of long quotes used here (including in the source section). Due to copyright issues, you should probably select the most relevant quotes, and summarise the rest. Also, there should probably not be long quotes in the intro, which is just supposed to be a summary of the article. Also, the non-citation text in the source section should rather be placed in a footnotes section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of those rare cases where I'm going to disagree. The quote in the lead is only one sentence, and I think it serves the purpose of clearing up some of the mythology about the Balfour Declaration. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the quotes can be demonstrated to be in the pubic domain, there may not be a problem. But still, I think the intro needs to be longer, regardless of the quote. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: thanks again for your comments so far. I have been working on the referencing - it is still work in progress, so please don't review now. I wanted to check one thing with you before I continue though - are you comfortable with the way I have dealt with the quotes in Balfour_Declaration#Notes? I have moved these quotes out of the Citations section, and if this format works for you I will move the rest in the same way.
With respect to copyright issues and fair use, I have been reviewing the various scholarly quotes in light of the Berne Convention's Right to quote, and I am working to ensure that whatever quotes remain represent the minimum required for the purpose. Given the controversial nature of this topic, these quotes serve to provide full clarity as to the views of these scholars, strengthening a reader's confidence in the veracity of the article as a whole.
Oncenawhile (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine! FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query: @Oncenawhile: G'day, this review seems to have come to a natural conclusion as there haven't been any edits since 23 December 2016. If you would like, I can close it and archive it for you. Please let me know if this suits your intentions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert, I was rather hoping to keep it open so that I can request further comment once I have completed the latest round of changes to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll leave it open. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


March 2017 Update

[edit]

Since the brief initial review in September, I have:

  • added 44 (forty four) sources to the bibliography all of which are linked to throughout article
  • improved the flow and breadth of the article by adding a subsection on Progress of the War in late 1917, and two subsections on the other two components of the Declaration (Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine and Rights and political status of Jews in other countries)
  • significantly improved some previously unclear components, having first made significant amendments to corresponding articles (e.g. McMahon–Hussein Correspondence and Balfour Day)
  • added further detail around the War Cabinet discussions leading up to the Declaration, given that they represent the only known discussions of the group of people who formally authorised it
  • deleted or moved into notes a number of unnecessary inline quotes

What I am aware I have yet to do is:

  • broaden out the lead paragraph into a more fulsome summary of the article
  • remove duplicate linking (and guidance on how to do this in an automated fashion would be appreciated)

I would now appreciate comments on the body of the article. Once that has reached the appropriate level, I will work on the lead.

Pinging: @FunkMonk: @Nikkimaria: @BrightRoundCircle: @Dank: @AustralianRupert:

Many thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see! I'll give it a read soon, until then, the easiest way I know of highlighting duplicate links so they can be removed is this script:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. I have removed the duplicate links. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very welcome article, and beautifully written. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about the details to comment, but I wonder if Sykes's personal history, travels and interest in Turkish affairs should not be mentioned? At the moment all the article says about him is "Cabinet Secretary", and the footnotes mention a letter, but it seems he played an important part in the affair. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You make a good point - I have added more on Sykes (and Picot). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: sorry, not a topic I know much about, so I can only offer some nitpicks. Anyway, hope these help: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "subsequent decades — from 1916": emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH, either that or covert it to a spaced endash
  • this should be referenced: (the sentence ending) "...whose efforts to gain international support for his ideas were not to succeed in his lifetime."
  • same as above for: "In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing the entirety of Palestine to this purpose."
  • this should be referenced: "At San Remo, as shown in the transcript of the San Remo meeting on the evening of 24 April, the French proposed adding to the savings clause so that it would save for non-Jewish communities their "political rights" as well as their civil and religious rights. The French proposal was rejected."
  • "p. 251-270Shlaim quotes": needs a space or some sort of punctuation
  • same as above for "p. 325Friedman quoted"
  • in the Bibliography, is there an OCLC number or ISBN for the Meinertzhagen work? (they can usually be found at worldcat.org
  • same as above for the Antonius, Cohen, Gelvin, Lloyd George, Stein, and Weizmann (1949) works?
Thank you. I have made all these amendments. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Ok, I'll start adding comments as I read along. As a sidenote, it is interesting that Walter Rothschild was involved, who I have written about in quite a few article myself, latest example being Rodrigues parrot. He needs to be linked and presented in the article body, by the way.
  • There are some terms that are not linked at first occurence (Palestine, Zionism), and others that are not linked at all (evangelical Christian, WW1), but could be. Perhaps check throughout.
  • "The background of British support for an increased Jewish presence" Seems "reason for" or "basis for" would make more sense than "background of" here?
  • I think the interposed sentence in the first sentence of Background is a bit long, which makes the entire sentence a bit confusing. Perhaps move it to the end of the sentence instead?
  • "the earlier calculations, that had lapsed for some time" What were these calculations?
  • "began living in the UK in 1904" Seems a bit awkward. Moved to/settled in the UK in 1904?
  • "and met Balfour during" you have not linked or presented Balfour until this point in the article body.
  • "on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, Weizmann's efforts picked up speed" Perhaps make clear before this that Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, within Ottoman Syria.
  • "meeting between Lloyd-George" You only link and present him long after this first mention.
  • "were to the 1903 Uganda Scheme. The scheme, which had been proposed to Herzl" I think you could specify here in-text what the scheme was about.
  • I'm still a bit concerned about copyright issues with some of the many long quotes in the notes section from more recent, non public domain sources, per WP:Quotes, but let's wait and see if others bring this up during FAC.
    •  Done As promised above, I have reviewed the various scholarly quotes in light of the Right to Quote, and am confident that the remaining quotes represent the minimum required and are fair use. Given the controversial nature of this topic, I consider these excerpt quotes serve a very important purpose, providing real clarity as to the direct views of these scholars, strengthening a reader's confidence in the veracity of the article as a whole. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One a separate note unrelated to copyright, I think some of the quotes could easily be summarised in the article body, which in some places seem like it needs in-text elaboration, but instead refers to a note.
  • I won't go too much into the images, but it seems the Balfour image[2] in the infobox has somewhat questionable info on the Commons page. The declaration itself is also very blurry compared to the source image, perhaps make a new composite and upload over the old one.
  • "and territories which were not purely Arab were excluded by McMahon and Hussein" To clarify this, I think it should be made clear before that there was an "indigenous" Jewish community in Palestine, and that European Jews had already been immigrating to Palestine in large numbers by this time. You mention the third aliyah later, but I think the first and second could be mentioned as well.
    •  Done This sentence has now been removed as unnecessary detail (it is currently still in the lead paragraph, but I propose to remove in when creating a proper summary). First Aliyah is now linked in the Early Zionism section. FYI the "not purely Arab" point in McMahon's discussions wasn't intended to infer Jews, but rather the fact that the Palestinian population is very diverse (they are Arabic speaking, but so are Lebanon, the Alawite region and Alexandretta which were definitely excluded). Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So they are talking about areas that were excluded from being part of mandate Palestine? I think that's what made it unclear for me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what they referred to then? Palestinian Christians and Druze mainly identify as Arab, and I'm pretty sure they were seen as such by the Europeans. Other than that, there would be Jews, Armenians and Samaritans identifying as non-Arab.. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This genesis is the statement in the letter that "The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded." Attempts to extrapolate this to include Palestine have led to the argument that Palestine was not purely Arab as well, so must have been included. Clearly the "so must have been included" is a logical fallacy, but that's not the point we are discussing. The point is that those that make the argument that Palestine was "not purely Arab" are really trying to say that it is "just like Lebanon and the coastal provinces of Syria". This then comes down to the question of "what is an Arab", or more precisely "what did McMahon think an Arab was in 1915". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought I had deleted the second comment after I realised it may have referred to areas outside Palestine. Anyway, it would seem the wording was left ambiguous by the writers to leave wiggle-room. Seems contentious enough to be discussed in the article somehow? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a lot on the subject and contributed much to the information at McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence#Debate_about_Palestine. The Toynbee quote in the blue box is particularly interesting to read. I concluded that there are just too many contentious areas about the M-H letters, and that these details don't matter to the BD article - what matters with respect to the BD is that the British government changed their views on M-H, the whole M-H matter was widely debated for many years, and either way the Arabs considered it to be a betrayal. All of which is now in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link to Christian Zionism as further information, but you earlier state this had little to do with the actual British motivations? If you want to keep it, I think it should be elaborated upon.
  • You write Herbert Samuel's name in full many times, whereas other people are only referred to by last name after first mention. I think you should do the same with Samuel.
  • "noting that the exclusion of Hebron and the "East of the Jordan" there would be less to discuss with the Muslim community." With the exclusion of? Seems something is missing.
  • I see the Hourani source is listed, but not used?
  • "The geopolitical calculations behind the decision to release the declaration were debated and discussed in the following years." No citation at the end. There should always be a citation at the end of a standalone paragraph.
  • "The cabinet believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and America, and help the war effort;[48] they also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia.[49]" This seems to simply summarise what was mentioned in the former paragraph? Seems redundant.
  • There are a few sentences that are also standalone paragraphs, would perhaps look better if they were merged with nearby, related paragraphs. For example, why is the following sentence separated from the one before it, which seems to be about the same issue? "In addition, the British intended to preempt the expected French pressure for an international administration."
  • "was made "due to propagandist reasons." What is meant by this? I assume you mean because it would influence American and German Jews, but you don't state this specifically.
  • "In his Memoirs, published in 1939, Lloyd George further elucidated his position." What is the point of mentioning this without elaborating?
  • "Explication of the wording has been sought in the correspondence leading to the final version of the declaration." Why present tense?
  • "Rights and political status of Jews in other countries" Is this section header really necessary? It doesn't really seem to cover the text within it, which appears to still be within the scope of the earlier title, "Civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine". In fact, I had a hard time even connecting the title with the content.
  • "It had proven impossible for the British to pacify the two communities in Palestine" If there were clashes, it could be mentioned specifically.
  • "Vereinigung jüdischer Organisationen Deutschlands zur Wahrung der Rechte der Juden des Ostens" Such a long foreign name should be translated intext.
  • The 1922 white paper is mentioned several times without elaboration, you could explain here what it was about.
  • "from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland." This is only stated specifically in the intro, but it should also be stated in the article body. There should not be any unique info in the intro.
  • The intro should be a summary of the entire article, so it seems it could be expanded, there is little about the background, for example.
  • "later incorporated into both the Sèvres peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire" Only mentioned in the intro.
  • "a 1939 committee set up to consider the Correspondence concluded that the British Government had not been "free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine". Only mentioned in the intro.
  • "The original document is kept at the British Library.". Only mentioned in the intro and infobox.
  • "Britain's involvement in this became of the the most" Seems a word is missing.
  • "since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears" Seems something is grammatically wrong here.
  • There could be some info on transferral from Ottoman to British rule over Palestine, when it happened, etc.
  • Perhaps it could be mentioned in the long term impact that there was not only violent conflict between Jews and Palestinians, but that the violence also became directed against the British authorities.
  • "often referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict"." Only stated in intro.
  • Though it may seem obvious, the intro should state this declaration lead to the foundation of Israel.
Yes, the intro is missing some key points, and as mentioned elsewhere, it should summarise the entire article. The Palestinian problem seems to be missing from the article body as well, unless it is Easter-egg linked somewhere. Should be mentioned under long-term impact. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is superb - thank you for the thorough comments. I will do as suggested and make comments under each point. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: just to keep me going through the hard grind of perfecting this, please could you let me know what you think the next steps should be once the above comments are satisfactorily processed? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, when the article body is done, it is important to get the intro to reflect it as accurately as possible, so you don't run into problems like the one there was on the talk page. But I think you will be ready to nominate for Good Article (a good step on the way to FA) once the issues above are fixed, and then go to Featured Article. I suspect others at FAC will ask you to cut down on the quotes, but we will see. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @FunkMonk: thank you. FYI the article made GA status just under a year ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, can't believe I missed that. I think you could go for FAC after finishing my issues then, unless you want some more opinions here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A thing I always do before FAC nomination is to request a copy edit.[3] It is good with some fresh eyes looking at the text, and it can help get the text even further away from the exact wording of the sources. The wait is pretty long, so if you want to, you could list it for copy edit already. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, thank you. I will do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, I assume you want to nominate this as today's featured article on the anniversary date? Then I'd advise you to nominate it for featured article at least two, maybe three, months before the date; the process usually takes a month or more. And the today's featured article nomination itself also takes some time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, and appreciate the timeframe guidance. I would like to nominate it in the next few weeks. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange this article suddenly attracted the attention of so many editors at the same time. So it will of course be more difficult to make it completely stable in time for copyedit and FAC, but should be possible if the issues are sorted out quickly. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It feels to me like all of the issues raised on talk have now been resolved, with the expection of adding a couple of paragraphs on the mandate history. Then I just have one more of your comments to fix (re the "Jews in other countries" protections). And then the lead paragraph. So almost done. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot one point - the debate around the footnote. The ANI has just been closed. There were some interesting points being made in there, including a number of admins who share my view that short footnote quotes from secondary sources are of great value to Wikipedia. I would appreciate any thoughts as to how to achieve a clear consensus either way on this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the problem is, for every editor, there is another opinion... You should prepare for the same discussion perhaps starting over again once you hit FAC... But by that time, you'll at least have previous discussions to refer back to. And by the way, my own first FAC, Rodrigues solitaire , consisted heavily of old quotes as well... There was also a long discussion about it, but in the end, they were kept, and it's easier to get your way when they're in then public domain anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Copy-Edit

[edit]

Hello, Oncenawhile – I have finished copy-editing Balfour Declaration. It was generally quite well written, so most of my edits were minor, and many of those were simple formatting changes such as changing a hyphen to an en-dash. There are just a few things I'd like to mention:

1) You have several acronyms throughout the article that I did not see spelled out in full at first mention. I don't know where they are now. Just scan the article looking for sets of three or four capital letters in a row, and you'll find them. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll look for them. I think there are at least three. You should spell out the entire phrase (such as name of organization or government agency) at first mention, then put the initials in parentheses after it. After that, you can use the initials (all caps).

2) The section Balfour Declaration#Reaction at present contains only one sentence:

  • The text of the letter was published in the press one week after it was signed, on 9 November 1917.

The previous paragraph only speaks of drafts; the explanation that the declaration was contained in a short letter was way back at the beginning of the article, I believe; and the word "declaration" is used thereafter. Readers might be confused by the phrase "the letter" in this sentence. You might think of a way to clarify this. You might, for example, either change "the letter" to "the declaration", or you might add descriptive words to the phrase such as "Lord Balfour's letter to Lord Rothschild", or "the letter from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild that constitutes the declaration/became known as the Balfour Declaration", or some other words.

3) In Secondary sources notes, I saw

(a) "jewish" spelled with lower-case "j", in note xvi., and
(b) "jewry" spelled with lower-case "j", in note xx.

I just wanted to be sure those were the spellings in the sources and not typos.

4) Note 175 contains the quote that is given several times, the one with "It produced a murderous harvest, and we go on harvesting even today" at the end of it. The quote in the article itself, in Balfour Declaration#Long-term impact and note xxiv. in secondary sources look all right, but the way it is punctuated in Note 175 in Citations does not look right. It has two sets of double quotation marks at the end. It appears to be a quote within a quote. Usually, at least in prose, when there is a quote within a quote, the one in the middle is put into single quotes, but I don't know if that's the right thing to do here. Miniapolis What would you do with the punctuation here?

5) I'm not sure "declaration" needs to be capitalized after the first mention of the Balfour Declaration, or at least after the first mention of "Balfour Declaration" after the lead. Now, it is capitalized throughout. I capitalized a few instances for consistency, but I've got to ask my colleague Miniapolis what he or she thinks. If Miniapolis thinks it does not need to be capitalized in such phrases as "the declaration", I will go through and change them to lower-case.

6) In Note n. in Primary sources, you have "Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, m.p." Shouldn't "m.p." be capitalized, for "Member of Parliament"?

Well, that's all for now.  – Corinne (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see my edit summary says "Date format by script" or something like that. I don't know why that appeared; I must have pressed something without meaning to.  – Corinne (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Corinne: thank you very much for this thorough review. I have moved your comments here (from my user page) and will comment here. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the generic "declaration" shouldn't be capitalized. All the best, Miniapolis 22:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, MP should be. Rothorpe (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Miniapolis and Rothorpe. I guess I'll make those changes.  – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks all. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

[edit]

Could some of you join the GAR discussion I opened about this article? Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Balfour_Declaration/archive1&oldid=792879882"