Talk:Arab Revolt

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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. --4.68.249.1 13:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article could be better 

message: 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)
thread_title: Entry into Damascus

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Ottoman's view of their own significance to Islam 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: what the hell? why is the casualties talking about the number of troops instead of casualties?162.83.137.114 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties section 

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

message: 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 76.242.70.64 (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Emirate of Jabal Shammar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ibn Saud 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150216073709/http://gazi.edu.tr/posts/download?id=115391 to http://gazi.edu.tr/posts/download?id=115391
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening para, subsection "Prelude" 

message: There are many negative perspectives on the revolt itself mentioned in the article, which mostly come from particular authors such as Efraim Karsh (whose obvious pro-Israeli stance should be mentioned, but maybe later), so I moved them to particular section (Views). I don’t think we should remove these views altogether (but still require clean up) but instead we should put more perspectives from the Arab side. JahlilMA (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV clean-up