Talk:Faisal–Weizmann agreement

message: this dubious comment has nothing to do with the faisal - weizman agreement. The only reason the proposal was quoted is for the reader to see what territory was being discussed in Faisal's eyes. Interpretation of the actual regime of this state (if the quote is geniune, Weizman is simply stating the state will be democratic and provide rights for all citizens, exactly repeated in the Declaration of Independence in 1948) is irrelevant to the article. There are many comments on the proposal by prominent zionist, including whole passages by Weizman. For starters, quote the entire proposal if you intend to add comments to it. Subsquently, selective quoting of Weizman's comments on the proposal are irrelevant. If he said something directly to Faisal then it will fit in the article.  Amoruso 16:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the edit was reverted using pop-ups by Ian Pitchford. Pop-ups is an anti-vandalism tool and Ian Pitchford has repeatdly abused this feature in the past and is doing the same thing right now. I've explained the reason to omit the edit, and therefore it won't be included, unless good explanations are provided. Amoruso 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could Feisal's opinion of the proposal be relevant, but not Weizmann's, in an article on the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement? --Ian Pitchford 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully ask you will remove the comment until this is settled or it will go to arbitration. I will personally remove the comment myself tomorrow, and I think it's better you revert it yourself. As to your question, you have phrased it wrongly. Faisal's letter is directed towards the Zionist movement and Weizman in specific. That letter I can quote in full if you wish, it's signed by Faisal himself. Your comment is firstly dubious, I don't know if it exists or not, secondly it's about the proposal without any connection to Faisal... it's a whole differnet subject - if you intend to start analysing the proposal, then it will take a whole new page altogether. Therefore any comments on the proposal are irrelevant unless they're directly linked to Faisal - Weizman connection. Your attempt at quoting a dubious sentence said by Weizman out of context can not be taken seriously, since only part of the proposal is even written (by you). If you left the article as it was, with the proposal only covering the part to clarify the territory in question it will make sense. Amoruso 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, what you're attemptly trying to say is that Faisal only agreed that it's moderate and proper if Israel won't form a state. Now that firstly is a wrong interpretation of Weizman, that IF he did say those things, he was only talking about Democracy in future Israel and nothing more - secondly, you have no source saying that Faisal was aware of this comment - Faisal's comments were attributed only to the proposal. Any further comments made on the proposal aren't relevant here and open to interpretation. The proposal spoke for itself. Note that if Weizman meant anything, he will include it in the actual paper, just like Faisal put all his thoughts into the agreement, even in his hand writing. Therefore, your comment is false in any respect. Amoruso 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weizmann's comments are not particularly ambiguous. I don't see how you can claim that the opinion of one of the parties to the agreement is irrelevant when you've added to the article what is supposed to be a comment about the Balfour Declaration by the father of one of the parties to the agreement as reported by an Irgun propagandist. --Ian Pitchford 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isarig brought you the reference from another established historian. But ok, you convinced me. The quote from Weizman can stay. I'll add the other quotes discussed below now (not reverting anything). Amoruso 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal comment 

message: in 1947, in the U.N assembly talks, this was said :
Sir ABDUR RAHMAN (India): You were reported to have said in "The Times" of 1 March 1918. We do not aspire to found a Zionist State. "What we want is a country in which all nations and all creeds shall have equal rights and equal tolerance."
Mr. WEIZMANN: I may have said that; I do not know. I have forgotten it. You must never quote a public man's speeches which have been made twenty-five years ago, because in those twenty-five years a great deal has changed.
Sir ABDUR RAHMAN (India): I only quote them because you have quoted what happened twenty-five years ago. It is only relevant in that connexion.
Mr. WEIZMANN: That is quite right. We did not want to speak of a State then. We spoke of a National Home. But the characteristic of the thing, whether it is a National Home or whether it is a State, remains the same. We think that in the Jewish State all peoples will live in amity and freedom. 
----Note : Weizman is not even sure he said those things, he doesn't stand behind them, and he explains that at any case national home at the time meant state ! and what he meant was that just all people should have democratic rights (essentially the same like arab citizens in Israel). Therefore, if you insist on having this comment, the entire transcript of this U.N assembly talk , and also other comments will be added to the article, which I think is redundant. Proposal speak for itself, and therefore comment will be deleted. 
Incidentally, I will add though from the assembly Weizman's assesment of the treaty in 1947. Faisal's quotes on the "aftermath" of the treaty should be referenced, as they are not.  Amoruso 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Weizmann tried to put a different spin on his comments 28 years later. --Ian Pitchford 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, you're trying to put a differnet spin on something he might very well have never said. In contrast, Faisal and Hussein never denied their comments. Amoruso 22:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (another) ultimate reason for deletion of comment

message: As it stands, the article draws an analogy between the quoted letter from Faisal to Felix Frankfurter - the relevant portion here is: "Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference" (my emph.) - and the next quote, a Jewish proposal regarding borders in Palestine and submitted to the conference. The letter is dated March 3, 1919 (so "yesterday" in the quote should be March 2), but the Jewish proposal was actually submitted February 3 of that year (according to the cite). Thus, the analogy is broken. This also concerns the map in the article. It's not incredibly important, and I've left it as is, but there's a problem. -- Steve Hart 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd notice the dates do overlap. The Times article shows that too, as the conference was still in process. There is only one set of proposals from the zionist delegation, and the important detailed has enormous historical importance. I restored material concerning this. 212.143.128.242 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem with dates in one cite 

message: Thank you for bringing this article to my attention. While the Sykes quote is offensive he did actually write it. I've tried to contextualize his views as anti-Semitic based on sources I found (need to improve the citation, unfortunately the template doesn't work for me). What else do you find problematic about the article? Electoralist (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH to combine sources like that. It simply isn't allowed to create a narrative that none of the sources create.  You can cite "entrenched preconceptions" as an opinion of its author (MJ Cohen) but you can't interpret that as meaning antisemitic on the basis of a different source that doesn't mention the statement in question. Zerotalk 23:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what's the justification for removing "entrenched pre-conceptions about the Jews" which is a comment made about the Sykes quote by a scholarly source? Electoralist (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the justification for not removing anti-Semitic? --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Contextualization. "Entrenched preconceptions" implies that. Regardless though the justification for removing the term antisemitism does not apply to the "entrenched preconceptions" quote since there's no synthesis there, the reference to the Sykes quote is explicit.Electoralist (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats called original research and a spinoff of sources, specifically in a sensitive topic like this one. WP:SYNTH. --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "entrenched preconceptions" quote is not the editor's original research, it is sourced to a book and is used by the book's author to describe Sykes' quotation so by definition it is NOT original research. McArthur Parkette (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking the quote to anti-Semitism is in fact OR. --Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only referring to the "entrenched preconceptions" quote.McArthur Parkette (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151024004146/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4C4F7515DC39195185256CF7006F878C to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4C4F7515DC39195185256CF7006F878C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/2d1c045fbc3f12688525704b006f29cc%21OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111124943/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/99818751a6a4c9c6852560690077ef61/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/99818751a6a4c9c6852560690077ef61/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3%21OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604031223/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5bff833964edb9bf85256ced00673d1f?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,faisal to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/5bff833964edb9bf85256ced00673d1f?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,faisal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified