Talk:Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
'The Balfour Declaration established the international Zionist movement to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which was the site of the ancient Kingdom of Israel'
This is factually incorrect on both counts. The 'Zionist' or Liberation Movement of the Jewish Nation had been established by the Jews themselves years before the Balfour Declaration was written and after equivalent assurances to the Zionists of their status had been previously made by the Turkish Sultan before the Great War.
This was not done on the basis of this Land of Israel* being the ancient Kingdom of Israel but of Judea and it's being *Eretz Israel. The 'Kingdom of the Jews' more to the point was Judea.
The Arabs still occupy most of the two ancient Kingdoms of the Jews apart from Yerushalayim the Judean/Jewish Capital and centre of the Jewish religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In the opening paragrapaph, as getting "indirect or direct control" over the former ottomans empire land, but for the rest of the article, it only mentions Britain and France.
Either its inaccurate to say the USA gained control over the former ottoman empire (through post WW1 partitions) or the article needs to be expanded, to say why.
Since the partition of the ottoman empire basically (Afaik, correct me if i'm wrong) laid out the blueprint for the modern middle eastern states, being accurate, and/or a more indepth article would be pretty important
(Madrone 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
- I believe current form of the article has already include the King-Crane Commission. Obviously there is more to it and hopefully it will be extended. Thanks. --OttomanReference 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, just read it, but it seems to basically just say that the US comission found that most favored indepdence, but if not indepedence, then american Colonial control was best, but nothing came of it, because shifts in American Congress which turned it towards beign isolationist.
- The Article says "The partitioning caused the Islamic world to be directly or indirectly ruled by the leading western powers (Britain, France and the USA)." This makes it seem like the US had a big role, but from the article itself, it seems that Britain/France did the vast majority of the ruling, with American 'control' being little more than the political clout they had with Britain/France, and as a whole the US did little if any, b/c of isolaltionist policies. (Madrone 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC))
- What U are talking is an academic study, and generally do not have Yes/No answer. US also parted in Occupation of Istanbul. The final answer of your question should be searched behind the clouds of WWI. It may be the best approach to explain US in every section instead of a designated one. This does not change its importance. If WWI is not the stepping stone for US, then when was it? The vice president sometimes have more power than the presidents, :-). OttomanReference 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this article meant as a joke?
What is WIkipedia comming to? This is a political POV article that is extremely flimsy in its substance and support. I would also view this a a fork of the Ottoman Empiore articel (collapse of the ottoman Empire) and do not feel that this subject can be adequatly presented without an in depth discussion of the factors for disolution of such Empire and including the fact that in the process of its demise (beginning arguably in the 17th century) the Empire was unable to properly function and that corruption and abuse by the ottoman ruling/landholdign elite led to the ultimate painful collapse of Empire and in the process led to the Muslim genocides of substansial segments of the remaining Christian populations in the Empire. These are more historical relevant issues and the issue of the eventual partition of the Empire (and BTW the Turks themselves need to be discussed - as they actually cleansed territories of thier inhabitants prior to claiming the parcels of land for themselves). If one wants to discuss powers with exclusivistic intentions and who acted on such the Turks genocide and cleansing of the Christain inhabitants of the portion of the Ottoman Empire that eventual was seized by the turks and became Turkey must also be discussed. An any event these one liners referencing various agreements (without proper surounding explanation and out of context) is really not the basis for a valid WIki article IMO. What Turkish University did you say you were from BTW?--THOTH 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- The many noteworthy contributing factors to the central subject -Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire- are worthwhile subjects unto themselves -but beyond the scope of this article. To address them -or other issues of substance depending from, but not directly factoring in the Partitioning- here would onerously encumber the function of this document. Your concern for the suffering is laudable, but not served by derisive or inflammatory language.Mavigogun (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.|