Talk:Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon

message: During the Ottoman period (before 1918) there was no such thing as the independent state of Lebanon. Lebanon had been always part of Syria since the Roman period and maybe earlier.
Why isn't this fact shown in this article? and why is Lebanon treated in a different manner than the rest of the "Syrian new states" during the French mandate over Syria??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.86.12.39 (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Presentation 

message: Hello, I can add some information to the article to make it clearer. I can also add some missing flags (like the flag of Damascus). Can I rewrite some parts of this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HD1986 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I do some changes? 

message: I agree that the map should be changed. Hatay & Lebanon at that time were part of French mandate of "Syria." All the agreaments and the League of nation's papers refered only to a mandate of "Syria" but never to Lebanon or Hatay. France sought to break Syria into six states, but it succeded only in making three (although Hatay is not really a state today).HD1986 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Change 

message: Hey, this is a new map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mandate_of_Syria.png
This is more comprehensive and the borders are more accurate, what do you think?
I have a question about the flag in the info box, does the flag have to be the last flag used during the mandate? why shouldn't it be the first flag?  HD1986 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new map, what do you think? 

message: The articles on the San Remo conference, Sykes–Picot Agreement, and McMahon-Hussein Correspondence cite declassified British and US documents which prove that the Sykes-Picot Agreement did not include Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo in the French zone of direct influence, and that the other Allies denied that the LoN mandates could be used as a justification to violate the treaty agreement with Hussein. harlan (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sykes-Picot and the LoN Mandates did not preclude a Confederation of Arab States 

message: Note to talk page watchers - a new article has been created at Arab Kingdom of Syria , and I'm no expert on the subject but it appears to be a topic which is partly covered in this article.  I don't know if a merge is appropriate so I am hoping some experts can take a look.  If the article should exist as a separate article then perhaps some contents can be moved out of here and linked over to Arab Kingdom of Syria .   7  08:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the subjects are separate, so the articles should remain separate. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arab Kingdom of Syria ]] 

message: What does "...and the issue is still disputed until the present time" mean? Does that mean it's no longer disputed? Or is this an exercise in redundancy?
24.208.224.73 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguity 

message: I said before I was going to add information, but I am not going to do that because this website is infected with vandals and as soon as I write something Israelis and whatever other politically motivated editors start distorting it.
Here are some references for those interested:
*M. Andrew & Sydney Kanya-Forstner (1981) The climax of French imperial expansion, 1914-1924
*Fieldhouse, David Kenneth (2006) Western imperialism in the Middle East 1914-1958
*LaMaziere, Pierre (1926) Partant pour la Syrie (I don't know if there is English translation. This book contains good information about political life in Syria-Lebanon in the early 1920's).
*Salibi, Kamal (1990) A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered (also a good and famous book, I recommend it.)
--HD86 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good references for readers 

message: The mandate officially started in 1920, but in reality Syria was already occupied by the Birtish in 1918, and a year after the Syrian coast was ceded to France. The Arab kingdom in Damascus (which claimed sovereignty over all of Greater Syria, but in reality only held the inner Syrian track from southern Transjordan to Aleppo) was never recognized as an official state as far as I know. So I believe the mandate's first year was actually 1918, despite the fact that it only became official in 1920. By 1919, France had already established a headquarters in Beirut and started printing Syrian currency.
As for the end of the mandate, it certainly was after 1939, so the Hatay flag can't be put in the info box because by 1943 Hatay had been part of Turkey proper.--HD86 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags and dates 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 17 June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:King Faisal Of Syria 1920.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The statement that has been written for the section has stated: "On September 27, 1941, France proclaimed, by virtue of, and within the framework of the Mandate, the independence and sovereignty of the Syrian State."
The actually statement made in accordance to the legal document is as follows: "the independence and sovereignty of Syria and Lebanon will not affect the juridical situation as it results from the Mandate Act. Indeed, this situation could be changed only with the agreement of the Council of the League of Nations, with the consent of the Government of the United States, a signatory of the Franco-American Convention of April 4, 1924, and only after the conclusion between the French Government and the Syrian and Lebanese Governments of treaties duly ratified in accordance with the laws of the French Republic."
There is no actual admission made in that whole part that situates France's actual proclamation of the independence of Syria and it also goes against the current lay work of events that took place, since France had fallen to Germany in 1940 with the subsequent establishment of the Vichy regime. Meanwhile, the Free French, at least also noted in the same article on wikipedia, were occupying the Syrian Mandate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.76.52 (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the statement about Syria's Independence in 1941. 

message: I added the tag because the article does a poor job at explaining clearly what exactly happened during a very complex period. I suggest it is split into an article about the mandate and another about the states. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag 

message: An article Syrian Federation would help clear up the mess this article is in by pulling the complex history from 1922-30 out into a separate article, followed then by Syrian Republic (1930–1958). Comments welcome. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to demerge [[Syrian Federation]] 

message: As per comments above, detail about the history of the administration in Syria has been demerged to two main articles -> Modern history of Syria and State of Syria (1922-30). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article about the mandate, not the administration 

message: User:Minorities observer has created subsections for Al jazira and Golan in the States created during the French Mandate section. Though these two areas were never states. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. And personally I think those paragraphs would fit better in the Syrian Republic (1930-1958) article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These two sections have their place here as they were the last attempts to create autonomous entities during the Mandate period. The aim of the autonomists was to force France to grant them the same level of autonomy as the existing Djebel Druze and Alawi territories, or the Sanjak of Alexandretta. --Minorities observer (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the Syrian Republic (1930–1958) article has only a few paragraphs on the 1936-38 period, it is totally unsourced and hard to read (no sections and chronological incoherences). The addition of sourced paragraphs on Al-Jazira and Golan would unbalance it. --Minorities observer (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone wanting autonomy does not make it a state created during the French Mandate, so it can not stay as it is now. I support Oncenawhile that this info should be moved to the Syrian Republic (1930-1958) article, as the info is related to that one, and not this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still do not agree, anyway the banner you added is insulting: you deny the factual accuracy of two sections that are fully sourced by scientific articles, while the rest of the article and the Syrian Republic one are nearly unsourced. I moved the two subsections into a new one, "Autonomy revendications not satisfied by the French Mandate authorities", and I move the article into "unwatched" in my list. --Minorities observer (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracy 

message: I disagree with the recent edits which have turned this from an article about the mandate document to an article about a "country". The structure for similar situations we have now is (1) an article about a mandate document and (2) articles about the "countries" or "territories":
* British Mandate for Mesopotamia (legal instrument) / Kingdom of Iraq (Mandate administration)
* British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) / Mandatory Palestine / Transjordan
* Previous version of this page / Greater Lebanon / Alawite State / State of Aleppo / State of Damascus / Jabal al-Druze (state)
Greyshark, if you feel strongly about this change, please could you justify it here and then let's discuss. Although I disagree with what the article now looks like, I don't intend to revert before we've had a chance to discuss. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Greyshark, i waited one week for response (also re my post on your talk) - have now reverted. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandate document or country? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. 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/20120228065151/http://www.syrianhistory.com/timeline to http://www.syrianhistory.com/timeline
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) 20:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified