Talk:McMahon–Hussein correspondence/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt responses. This will be a VERY thorough review, as I feel it is of sufficient note and controversy. Please understand that when I review, I am going through with a medium to fine tooth comb, and bear with it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Please make sure works cited is alphabetical.

Done and organized them into sub categories. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources (i.e. #9) should have pages specified.

Done where possible. On number 9, all three of the remaining references are general links to the document, rather than any specific page. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources tagged ^{[permanent dead link]} should have archive links (i.e. for source 13, [1] this one.)

Done link removed Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using sfn, every source that could use it should. For example, ref. 34 (and many others) need/s to be converted.

Done now converted for all scholarly books and publications. For newspaper articles and government papers, I have kept the <ref> style consistently (following the style used at Balfour Declaration) Onceinawhile (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When citing wikisource, {{Cite wikisource}} should be used.

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

try to fill out sources (like 112) with more information than just the link.

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will work on this. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I have now completed the implementation of the above. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

is the first note necessary? or could it be replaced by simply (also known as...) Is there a policy about this?

I moved it into the note here a few weeks ago. It looked awkward to have the alternative in the lead when it was just a simple reversal of the name. The relevant guidelines seem to be at WP:OTHERNAMES and WP:LEADSENTENCE. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you link to British High Commissioner to Egypt, but not Sharif and Emir of Mecca. Why?

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was the correspondence official British policy, or just this one man's thoughts? Clarify please.

Done I added a source and detailed note on this [2] Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this quote "“...guarantee the independence, rights and privileges of the Sharifate against all foreign external foreign aggression, in particular that of the Ottomans”" need to be in a quote template, because right now it seems to break up the article unnecessarily.

Done agreed and removed blockquote. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"On his return journey" I assume he is the Sharif? If not please clarify.

Done I reworded this entirely. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following deliberations at Ta'if between Hussein and his sons in June 1915, during which Faisal counselled caution, Sherif Husayn bin Ali argued against rebellion and Abdullah advocated action and encouraged his father to enter into correspondence with Sir Henry McMahon; over the period 14 July 1915 to 10 March 1916, a total of ten letters, five from each side, were exchanged between Sir Henry McMahon and Sherif Hussein." Does that para need a source, if so, please provide. If not, please give a reason.

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"requested that "England to acknowledge" perhaps remove the "That"

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If letter nine gets a source, all of them need one. (feel free to disagree on this point)

Done I have moved the source to the top as it applies across all. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the letter was not a treaty," Did you mean "the letters were not a treaty," or does it refer to a specific one?

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What were the promises in the 18 Feb. letter?

This is a tricky one. Kedouri explains his reference to Hussein's promises on p.242: "his own promises (in his letter of 18 February 1916) to raise a rebellion in Syria, to fall upon the Turks who were attacking the Suez canal, to subdue Medina and occupy the railway line ( none of which he fulfilled)". But if you read the letter in its original form ([3] pages 15-16), these read more like heavily caveated proposals rather than promises. It should be noted that Kedouri is considered to have taken a particular "slant" throughout his work. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the T.E. Lawrence quote is necessary.

The idea here is that since Lawrence was considered the key British officer on the ground inspiring the revolt, a quote from him provides a feeling - in colorful language - of the rationale for the relationship. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have enhanced the explanation and sourcing here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a source at the end of every paragraph,

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and the (Khalidi 1991, p. 7) needs to be in a citation

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balfour Declaration section should be expanded to a full paragraph, and sourced.

Is the idea here to try and summarize all that is contained in the BD page in one paragraph or is it just by way of explanation as to why it is related to the correspondence? (if it is the latter then there is a para with sources in BD we could just lift out for the purpose) Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: just the latter. That's a good idea. I think there a few other well sourced sentences which could come out of the BD article, for example to support explanations of the other related British commitments. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just two more problems for me:
- Sourcing. The way I see it, pretty much every para must have a source at the end.

Done - now sourced throughout. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- is the section on British interpretation undue weight, especially considering the comparative size of the Arab interpretation?

The table was discussed some time ago at Talk:McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence/Archive_2#RfC.

It represents the nub of the scholarly debate: what did the British believe they had signed up to? Kedouri’s Labyrinth walks through these quotations as a core of the book, and all other serious scholars of the topic will use a number of them for the same effect.

I didn’t consider an Arab equivalent because their positions didn’t change and so haven’t been the focus of scholarly study in the same way.

I am happy to try to add something on the Arab side, and maybe add a stronger and clearer introduction to the British table if you think helpful? @Selfstudier: your view here would be appreciated as well.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an observation. If it has been decided at length, which it appears it has, that is fine by me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "nub" is not only the interpretation of the correspondence itself it is also the extent to which the correspondence could be said to conflict with (mainly) the Sykes Picot agreement and with the Balfour Declaration and principally in regards to the disposition of "Palestine" (which did not actually exist as an entity at the time and was not specifically mentioned by either side in the correspondence). I think that when we are sourcing those parts of the article that still require that, we can bring out this aspect of things a little better (the material and sources exist already in the Sykes Picot and BD articles). The correspondence was kept secret for a long time and Antonius the first to publish it all in the lead-up to the 1939 enquiry and even then there further revelations (not just about the correspondence) in the sixties which likely led even if indirectly to the Friedman and Kedourie scholarship and subsequent challenges to that.Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: thanks again for your assessment. All comments have now been implemented. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This para needs sourcing "McMahon said the clause had been suggested by a man named Muhammed Sharif al-Faruqi, a member of the Abd party, to satisfy the demands of the Syrian Nationalists for the independence of Arabia. Faroqi had said that the Arabs would fight if the French attempted to occupy the cities of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, but he thought they would accept some modification of the North-Western boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca. Faroqi suggested the language: "In so far as Britain was free to act without detriment to the interests of her present Allies, Great Britain accepts the principle of the independence of Arabia within limits propounded by the Sherif of Mecca." Lord Grey authorized McMahon to pledge the areas requested by the Sherif subject to the reserve for the Allies.". I think that I'll promote after that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: many thanks. I have added this. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PROMOTING. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]