Talk:Arab Revolt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Seems biased and NPOV

Why? You changed the name to "Arab Uprising", but this is the name that everybody, including the government of Jordan, uses for this war. There is another event called the Arab Uprising or Great Uprising. Changing names of wars because you don't like them is original research. But please provide some information on the material you would like to change. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This article could be better[edit]

This item would present a more accurate view of the Arab Revolt if it conveyed more of the sense of profound betrayal and dissatisfaction which arose among the Arabs when forced to accept the Western Allies' postwar arrangements for the newly "liberated" Ottoman territories.

I don't know how this can be done without abandoning a neutral point of view, but perhaps a more complete listing of the explicit official promises made repeatedly by the British and French to their Arab allies during World War I - and more detail concerning who those allies were (besides the Sharif's family) - along with a more detailed and complete description of the substance of the promises made (which can be summed up in five words: Arab unity and immediate independence), would go a long way towards correcting the deficiency.

The documentary record should include the Damascus Protocol of May 1915, which presented the conditions under which the underground Arab nationalist societies of greater Syria would join a pro-British alliance with Sharif Hussein of the Hejaz, a more complete description of the July 1915-Jan 1916 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence and Agreement, the Wingate Telegram of December 1917, which denied the substance of the Sykes-Picot Agreement to divide Arab territory between France, Britain, and other Allies after the war, the Hogarth Message of January 1918, stating that the Balfour Declaration would not infringe upon Arab political or economic rights, or upon Arab independence and sovreignty in Palestine, the Basset Communique of Feb 8, 1918, reiterating the Wingate telegram while adding a restatement of British pledges to support Arab unity and immediate independence, June 16, 1918's Declaration to the Seven Syrians of Cairo translating the Allies' promises to support Arab unity and independence into Wilsonian terms through the inclusion of phrases like "consent of the governed" and "self-determination", and Nov 7, 1918's Anglo-French Declaration, a very explicit French endorsement of the promises of Arab independence and unity that the British had included them in all along - when talking to the Arabs. General Maude's official public statement to the people of Baghdad upon the liberation of that city also essentially includes Iraq in the terms of the Hussein-McMahon Agreements.

Sharif Feisal's attempts to uphold the Arab cause in the diplomatic manouverings at the Paris Peace Conference, leading up to the creation of what became the King-Crane Commission, and that Commission's findings (which were ignored and suppressed), are essential to the story. The history of the short-lived democratic Kingdom of (united) Syria and the documents produced by its National Congress should not be neglected, nor should Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations be ignored.

In contrast to all of this, the postwar partition and imposition of various neo-colonial schemes upon the Arabs which occured under the terms of the San Remo and Cairo Conferences, as well as by the terms of the Treaty of Sevres should be described. (Sharif Hussein's Mar 10, 1921 Memorandum to the Conference of the Allied Powers, protesting the Treaty of Sevres is one of the most succinct and eloquent restatements of the Arab case).

The presentation of all this material should allow the reader to understand how the Allies left the leaders of the Arab states they created with such a legacy of powerlessness and illegitimacy, the bitterness and problems arising from it, and an inkling of what might have been if the Allies had been true to their word.

In The Seven Pillars Lawrence describes his first meeting with Feisal:

"I felt at first glance that this was the man I had come to Arabia to seek - the leader who would bring the ARAB REVOLT to full glory. Feisal looked very tall and pillar like, very slender, in his long white silk robes and his brown head cloth... His eyelids were dropped; and his black beard and colourless face were like a mask against the strange, still watchfulness of his body."

I tried to make this article closer to neutral. Did not quite know what to do about the adjective "stunning."

This article seems to me, rather biased against the Arab Revolt. So because tens of thousands of people didn't die in the Arab Revolt, it wasn't important? Please explain that reasoning. -- 13:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Entry into Damascus[edit]

I removed the fact tag on the date and manner of the entry into Damascus; waiting until the next day to enter is discussed by Lawrence in chapter CXIX, around page 644 in my edition. The date is evident from Appendix II, where he gives a list of locations and dates; Damascus is listed as October 1st. Brianyoumans 16:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I modified this passage, mentioning the arrival of Nuri Sha'lan and Sharif Naser prior to the Australian cavalry's entry. My authority for this is "The Arab Awakaning" by George Antonius. His personal acquaintance with, and extensive research of the events and persons supporting and opposing (Arabs, British, French, Turks and Germans), the Arab Revolt make him the best and most important source. This timeline of 'who got there first' is reiterated in former British SAS officer Michael Asher's Lawrence biography "T E Lawrence, the Uncrowned King of Arabia". I wouldn't be surprised if the recent authorized Lawrence biography by Wilson documents this sequence of events as well. For the Asher and Antonius books I only have my notes which don't include page numbers.But I will find the publisher and date of "The Arab Awakening" and add it to "Recommended Reading". (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottoman's view of their own significance to Islam[edit]

I think the article could be improved by giving some discussion of how the Ottoman's viewed themselves as protectors of Islam. The way the article currently reads, with statements like this, "The dethroned Sultan attempted to regain the Caliphate by putting an end to the secular policies of the Young Turks, but was in turn driven away to exile in Selanik by the 31 March Incident and was eventually replaced by his brother Mehmed V Reşad." you almost get the feeling that the new government was more indifferent to Islam than the Sultan, though it seems the Young Turks saw the war as a jihad [1] and even withdrew quality troops from strategic locations in their creation of an 'Army of Islam' Does anyone have more insight into Turkish or Arab views of Islam and their respective relationship to it during this period? Brando130 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To try to answer to the basic import of "Brando"'s questions by referring to Antonius's account: Early in the war - in the 1914-15 period - both the Turkish and the British sides exploited Islam in their propaganda. The Shaikh al Islam in Istanbul issued a 'fatwa' authorizing all Muslims to fight the Allies and support the German/Austrian side. The anti-European stuggles of the Sanussis in Libya and the Sultan of Darfur received the of the Ottoman imprimatur as "jihads". Ottoman and German agents appealed to Islamic sentiment while inciting unrest among Britain's Muslim colonial subjects in India and Afghanistan as well as in British influenced Persia.

On the British side, Secretary of War Kitchener urged the Sharif of Mecca to claim the title of Caliph for himself, and distribution of Arab nationalist leaflets with an Islamist slant was done by the British and French in early 1915. The idea of being Caliph had some appeal to Sharif Hussein. However, once the alliance between the Hashemites and the Arab nationalists of Greater Syria and Iraq was formalized by the Damascus Protocol, the Islamist aspect of the Arab Revolt was dropped due to the fact that the Syrian/Iraqi branch of Arab nationalism had been influenced by European concepts of nationalism, as well as by that of the Young Turk movement, and hence was essentially secular. Also, many of the Arab nationalists of Greater Syria were Christians or from minority sects of Islam, and their goal was that the future Arab state be secular or at least non-sectarian. (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

casualties section[edit]

what the hell? why is the casualties talking about the number of troops instead of casualties? (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing. Crazy. Somebody fix it, please. Lou Sander (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


I just cleaned up a wrong use of a word and replaced with the correct one. --Huss4in (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bravo mi amigo. The grammar police comes to the rescue again! Happy birthday and I shall reward you with a fish without air.

Emirate of Jabal Shammar[edit]

I think the Rashidans had been absorbed by Ibn Saud at this point. Also, the commander listed in the infographic died in 1906. I also recall that Rashidans were pro Ottoman and were fierce enemies of Ibn Saud. Can someone referee this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Ibn Saud didn't conquer the Hali until 1921, so the Rashidans were very much around at this point. The Kingdom by Ronald Lacey has some detail about the Saud and the Arab Revolt. Yes, the Rashid family were the archenemies of the al-Saud and tended to be pro-Ottoman --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)-

Ibn Saud[edit]

Ibn Saud shouldn't be listed as co-belligerent of Arab Revolt. Indeed Ibn Saud was pro-British and fought a battle against pro-Ottoman Rashids in 1915. But this battle happened before the Arab Revolt. Ibn Saud didn't joined the Hashemite-lead revolt. Actually they fight each other from 1917 to 1919.

Ibn Rashid's role claimed by Murphey should be crosschecked with other sources. I doubt that the Rashids had in this time the military power to do any actions against the Arab revolt. --Arturius001 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The nominator did not make his or her case with the use of reliable sources, and other editors who commented on his or her proposal did not see merit in the usage of "Great" on the basis of Arabic usage or as a disambiguator. As the proposal has run for fourteen days, it is clear that there is no consensus to move this page. (non-admin closure) RGloucester 17:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Arab RevoltGreat Arab Revolt – This is the name used by Arabs and has been used by English sources too. There were several other revolts under the "Arab Revolt" name. Also, "Great Arab Revolt" redirects here, so this shouldn't be a problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. RGloucester 04:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It lasted till 1917.. Great Arab Revolt is better in any case. --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both terms are used, yes, but in general "Arab Revolt" unqualified means this one, so disambiguation isn't a concern, and if it was, "Great Arab Revolt" isn't much clearer for the uninitiated. The redirect argument goes both ways; isn't there already not a problem since GAR redirects here? Do you have any usage statistics that show a majority of sources prefer "Great"?
  • Additionally... and this isn't a super-serious argument so please don't assume it's the basis of it... "Great" is a bit of an old-fashioned disambiguator. I wouldn't be surprised if sources that use it tend on the older, sensationalistic side, e.g. newspaper coverage of the time rather than scholarly books written later. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually no, when in, for example in Arabic, "Great" is mentioned, in the context of size, as it was the largest and most influential Arab Revolt Makeandtoss (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The Arabic term doesn't matter when there's well-attested English sources we can use instead. (e.g. "Germany" not "Deutschland"). This was the most important Arab Revolt, hence my support for keeping it at "Arab Revolt" rather than "Arab Revolt of 1916-18", but that doesn't affect the issue of what the WP:COMMONNAME is. If you want to prove your case, show that most reliable English sources uses "Great Arab Revolt." SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very biased[edit]

The article, specifically the lead, tries to portray the revolt to be completely orchestrated by the Sherif of Mecca, rather than a collective resentment towards Ottoman authoritarian rule over Arab lands. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

But... it kind of was? Lots of populations have some collective resentment. Most of them don't rise in revolt. It was the Sherif who specifically did revolt (w/ some British inducement), and it was under his leadership that some of the other Arab groups were convinced/bribed to join in. Additionally, the amount of actual discontent with the Ottomans (especially with the alternative being rule by European Christians) was greatly, greatly overstated in the Western media. To put things another way, there was probably some discontent in 1941 Malaysia / Hong Kong / Singapore / etc. with British rule, but that doesn't mean the citizens were eager to be conquered by Japan. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Uhm, the causes of the Arab revolt was to gain Arab independence from any empire. It was not known, at the time, that Britain and France were planning to divide the region between themselves. Plus the western sources sound very close to Arabic sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the future, which was indeed unknown in the era, the Arab Revolt asked Muslims of the Middle East to take up arms and ally with Christian powers against a Muslim government. There were lots of Arabs who were hesitant about this. An important leader like Hussein, backed by a pile of British money, helped turn "discontent with Ottoman rule" into "armed revolt." (Cards on the table: I am largely citing Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" here.)
What sources are you citing for this? You seem to want to say that in the alternate history where the Sherif stayed content with being an Ottoman official and the British ignored the region, this "collective resentment" would have still blossomed into a revolt. Well, maybe, but let's see some reliable sources first. SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to mention the rise of Arab nationalism... For example this page discusses how there were several other unsuccessful revolts against the Ottomans [2]. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
So answering your question, yes. There was a large chance that a revolt would end up being successful, especially as time passes by and "resentment" grows. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, that's a solid source! I'd have no objects to including Tauber's "The Arab Movements in World War I" some. However... and correct me if I'm wrong... the impression I get from reading up on it is that it describes some failed revolts that were eventually eclipsed in importance by Hussein's (which had British backing). Adding some info on them would be fine, but also shouldn't obscure the importance of Hussein's revolt. Seems like it might be relevant to add to "Background" or "Prelude." Just make sure it's sourced with page numbers & all in proper fashion, and the citations back it up. SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to be eclipsed because they failed? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I have read about the revolt in reliable Arabic sources and I am trying to match what I read with some English sources. But I haven't been able to find a source that mentions all Ottoman wrongdoings against the Arab population; heavy taxes, Impalement as execution, conscription, no developments, no involvement of Arabs in any leading positions, etc... ? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Tauber only mentioned Syria and Lebanon, here's a source mentioning Transjordan and Hejaz [3]. Anyway, I still can't find what I am looking for. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
[4] Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
p207 Makeandtoss (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arab Revolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Opening para, subsection "Prelude"[edit]

This para is problematic:

"Because of repression by the Ottoman Empire and their Central Powers allies, Grand Sharif Hussein, as the guardian of the holy city of Mecca, entered into an alliance with the United Kingdom and France against the Ottomans sometime around 8 June 1916, the actual date being somewhat uncertain. This alliance was facilitated by the services of a mysterious young Arab officer in the Ottoman army named Muhammed Sharif al-Faruqi.[23]"

Hussein made no alliance with France, the British supported him with arms, money and other assistance pursuant to the McMahon correspondence (10 letters in all between July 1915 and March 1916). I think it is not correct to say that this support was facilitated by...more correct would be to say that a key letter in the correspondence was sent in a hurry because of statements made by him. (Fromkin is a decent enough source, unfortunately this material is not in it.) The prelude could be expanded to good effect, I think (more explanation is needed).

If noone wants to fix it up properly, I will do it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)