Talk:League of Nations mandate

Modern mandates

I would be in favor of reformulating the idea of UN Mandates to meet modern needs. There are a number of countries which are so misgoverned that the world should do something to help. You can make your own list, but I would suggest perhaps Haiti, Congo, Ivory Coast.

Just a simple outline.

Administering mandates should be done by UN members who are not permanent security council members.

The mandates should be administer to insure:

 A: to insure Efficient government
 B: To eliminate corruption at all levels
 C: To establish health care institutions including schools for training health care workers.
 D: To establish an educational system
 E: To provide training and support for native businesses
 F: To negotiate specific aid projects on behalf of the mandate
 G: To establish a competent police force free of competition

In administering these mandates the administrators must insure that the mandate is protected from exploitation by outside parties.

I would enjoy the comments of others to this idea.

Howard McCarthy Lakeport, CA odessaguy@yahoo.cpm

The UN Charter allows the Organization to appoint trustees or to establish municipal governments and supervise territories directly as it did in Kosovo and East Timor. The UN also adopted a decision to govern Jerusalem and the surrounding area directly. harlan (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Although this is not the place to discuss it, I agree that some parts of the world are misgoverned: for instance, the United States has the disgusting habit of killing its own criminals... My point being, who is to decide on what countries are misgoverned? Flooding countries with humanitarian aid is as bad as we see: corruption, inefficiency, lack of local development. And if the UN concluded that a particular country was ungovernable, terraformation (aka genocide)?

Besides, isn't your idea already in place in Kosovo?

But it's funny, though: when I was a teen I wrote a sci-fi short story that adressed that, calling them "Blue areas".

Ricardo monteiro 11:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. Notice that I said that mandates would go to countries that are not permanent members of the Security Council.

I am not sure how to go about it, but if there was a way it would be of great benefit to countries such as Haiti, I'm sure you will agree.

Howard McCarthy

Well, you still don't set the criteria to make a country eligible. Take a look at democracy like you and I see it: you vote in a bipartisan system, I have plenty of parties to choose from; your president is the leader of the cabinet, my president can sack the prime-minister if he behaves badly; and so on.

Are any of our countries less democratic than others? Would you consider Venezuela democratic? And Cuba? Yet in the first case the leader was freely elected and in the second case there are undeniable social benefits. Where to draw the line in order to deploy "Blueaucracy"?

In my opinion, we have to let people get there by themselves.

We in Europe fought for 1000 years until slowly democracy, peace and good living conditions became the standard. Shouldn't we allow Africa to do the same, first of all by letting them draw new frontiers instead of the ones we imposed?

The United Nations system was a major improvement in international relations - it was really the first one since the end of papal sovereignty - and sure needs improvement, but not by occupying territories with refurbished arguments used since the Romans.

Ricardo monteiro

Just a few comments on your last note.

A. There are essentially two common types of democratic governments, a presidential system and a parliamentary one. Both types have many variations, but both allow the citizens to chose who will run the government and the basic policies the government will adapt. As to the number of candidates one may choose from, we also have many choices.

B. I agree that Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected President of his country. Fidel Castro of course is not. Cuba is a hell hole for most Cubans. They have to wait until he dies before any change can occur.

C. For many poor countries, mostly African, I don't believe that they need to indure another 1,000 years of bad governments, pverty, illness and backwardness because Europe did.

My original note was simply an idea put forward to elicit other ideas on how the rest of the world might hasten their progress.

Howard

I was asking: is election enough to proclaim that a State is democratic? All countries have elections (not sure about North Korea) but we obviously cannot compare elections in the US to those in Cuba.

Venezuela is the old Democracy dilemma: can an elected official overturn the freedom he stood for? As far as I know, he's making some undemocratic changes, always claiming the people his with him. Of course, freedom doesn't give you the right to end freedom.

As to Africa, I don't think they must wait 1000 years, but I believe the more we keep this kind of "Live Aid" help instead of opening our markets to their produces the more corruption will undermine those societies, in part because in most cases we're dealing with artificial entities created by European powers in the 1800s.

My country - who got there first - dealt only with local chiefs, that's why we had a hard time in the Berlin conference. You probably don't know, but Portugal and the UK (allies since 1385) fought for the control of southern Africa and there was a British ultimatum when Portugal presented a map with a claim for the territory between Angola and Mozambique.

Ricardo monteiro

Palesine and Transjordan as separate mandates

Elsewhere in Wikipedia and the internet it is reported that there was just one Palestinian mandate including present day Israel, Israeli controlled territories, and Jordan (plus a little of Syria). It is implied (but as far as I can tell never explicitly written) that the League of Nations never split the Palestinian mandate.

Did the League of Nations create a separate mandate for TransJordan, or was there only one class A mandate for the whole of Palestine? --Jsolinsky 01:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am going to modify the text in accord with the better referenced British Mandate of Palestine article. Jsolinsky 19:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The original mandate was Transjordan. Transjordan was subdivided in 1948, with the division being 90% Arab (Jordan), and 10% Jewish (Isreal), which was agreed to by all parties at the time. The Arabs reneged on the agreement the day after the division went into effect by invading in (and losing) in the 1948 war. 76.226.66.120 06:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Palestine Mandate was a system of multilateral administration, not a geographical area. The protocol of the Mandate itself allowed for separate administrative regimes in the eastern and western districts (aka Western Palestine/Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan). Technically speaking, the mandate was a self-imposed limitation on the sovereignty of the conquering or occupying powers. It did NOT originate within the League of Nations. The protocol of the Mandate was drafted and established by the principal Allied Powers, aka 'the Great Powers', at the San Remo Conference and in the Treaty of Sevres. The well-being and development of the peoples of the conquerored or occupied territories 'formed a sacred trust of civilisation', which was not merely the responsibility of the League of Nations. Securities for the 'performance' or oversight of that 'trust' were included in the letters of the Covenant (of the League). The advanced nations handled their responsibilities as mandatories on behalf of the League.

In terms of the mandate itself, the 'historical Palestine' of old was reduced to a borderless geographical expression. The Great Powers reserved the right to 'fix the borders' however they saw fit. The preamble of the Mandate reads:

'Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them'

You have to suspend your sense of disbelief to even accept the notion that after killing or wounding 40 million people, the Great Powers were best suited for the task of civilizing the so-called backward peoples. harlan (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Germany

Weren't the Free City of Danzig, the Memelland and the Saarland mandates as well? Känsterle 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Somebody says "no" [1].--Matthead 23:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There were certain attempts to impose international regulations on the status of these territories, but it wasn't done through the mandate system, so they aren't related to this article. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Connect to UN Trusts

I linked to the UN Trust article thinking it would explain what happened to Palestine, Iraq, etc after 1946 and found that article only seems to cover the class 2 and 3 mandates. I have no clue as to what should be there or how to structure it which is why I was here. Mulp 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine/Jordan, Iraq, and Syria/Lebanon never entered the U.N. trusteeship system (Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were granted full independence before the U.N. was formed, and Palestine's status was, to say the least, contested). For further information you can see the articles on those respective mandates/countries. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Norway offered mandate areas?

I have a vague memory of reading as a child that Norway was offered one or two mandate areas after World War I due to the importance of the Norwegian merchant fleet. As many of you may know Norway was referred to as "The Neutral Ally". Norway however supposedly turned this down an used the goodwill to secure sovereignty over Svalbard. Can anyone confirm this? - Nidator 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC) -

League Mandates Did NOT Automatically Become UN Trusts

The US Senate refused to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations. The so-called 'Irreconcilables' completely rejected the proposed system of Mandates as an illegitimate rule by brute force. see Classic Senate Speeches and the denunciation of the Mandates, starting on page 7

The UN Charter addressed the 14 Senate reservations which had prevented the adoption of the former Covenant.

The Protocols of the Yalta Conference stipulated that future discussions and agreements would be required before the old Mandates were sanctioned or placed under UN trusteeship:

'Territorial trusteeship:

It was agreed that the five nations which will have permanent seats on the Security Council should consult each other prior to the United Nations conference on the question of territorial trusteeship.

The acceptance of this recommendation is subject to its being made clear that territorial trusteeship will only apply to:(a) existing mandates of the League of Nations; (b) territories detached from the enemy as a result of the present war; (c) any other territory which might voluntarily be placed under trusteeship; and (d) no discussion of actual territories is contemplated at the forthcoming United Nations conference or in the preliminary consultations, and it will be a matter for subsequent agreement which territories within the above categories will be place under trusteeship.

Articles 73-85 of the UN Charter were an attempt to eliminate the old colonial Mandates, not preserve them. New agreements were negotiated on a case-by-case basis:

'Article 75 The United Nations shall establish under its authority an international trusteeship system for the administration and supervision of such territories as may be placed thereunder by subsequent individual agreements. These territories are hereinafter referred to as trust territories.' see UN Charter Chapter 11 and UN Charter Chapter 12

The Palestine Question was placed before the General Assembly for a recommendation under Article 10 of the Charter, the League of Nations Palestine Mandate itself was never actually placed under any UN trusteeship agreement. see QUESTION OF PALESTINE, A/286, 3 April 1947 harlan (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Mandate

I removed a statement from the article which mentioned that there was some dispute regarding Palestine's status as a Class A Mandate ( because it was not mentioned in the text of the Mandate itself).

Article 22 (8) of the Covenant only permitted the Council of the League to specify the class of a mandate in those cases where the Supreme Council of the Allies had not already done so themselves. Lloyd George classified the entire Mideast as Class A on January 18, 1919 during the Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris. The Arab mandates were already designated Class A before they arrived at the League Council. see http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/ww1/1919League2.html

The biggest delay resulted from the argument between Italy and France over Syria: here is a snippet from the New York times archived headline:

ITALY HOLDS UP CLASS A MANDATES; League Council Has Failed to Meet Her Views Regarding Palestine and Syria. BULGARIA GETS A REBUFF Her Appeal for Aid to Check Border Forays Is Sent Back to theBalkan Powers.

Copyright [expired], 1922, by The New York Times Company. Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

July 20, 1922, Thursday

Page 15, 860 words

LONDON, July 19.--The A mandates, which govern the British occupation of Palestine and the French occupation of Syria, came today before the Council of the League of Nations. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0CEFDF1239EF3ABC4851DFB1668389639EDE

The Memo approving the draft mandate hardly mentions anything other than the end of the dispute between Italy and France.[2]

harlan (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Class A Mandate Status

See Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Volume XIII, Annotations to the treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919: 'The mandates under which the various territories have been administered were submitted by the mandatory governments to the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with paragraph 8 of article 22. The terms were reviewed by the Council, in some cases revised on its recommendation, and finally approved by it. The following table gives the pertinent data for each territory:

"A" Mandates

Palestine

Trans-Jordan

Syria and Lebanon' [3]

On November 22, 1947 the United States expressed agreement with the statement made by the Chairman of Ad Hoc Sub-Committee 1 that the plan presented by the Sub-Committee was legal under the Charter. There was nothing in the Charter which prevented an immediate transition from a Class A mandate to independence. Foreign relations of the United States, 1947. The Near East and Africa Volume V [4]

Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. "Class A mandate." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 14 Nov. 2009 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/120113/Class-A-mandate

The International Court of Justice explained that "49 ...The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine (see paragraphs 70 and 71 below). This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as "a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy"

In its brief legal analysis of the legal status of the territory, the International Court of Justice said that "70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class 'A' Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant" see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [5] harlan (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The “Mandate For Palestine” was not a Class “A” Mandate

The document "Palestine Royal Commission Report" doesn't speak about "Class A" mandate for Palestine. It describe clairely the mandate for Palestine as a "Special Regime" : Meantime the "special regime" under wich Palestine was to be governed had not yet taken precise and legal form. (Palestine Royal Report, July 1937, Chapter II, p. 28, paragraph 29). You can download this document at this adress : http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/88A6BF6F1BD82405852574CD006C457F --FireJeff (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is weak sauce. The fact that one particular document does not call Palestine a class A mandate is not evidence of anything. john k (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Mandate for Palestine" (in 1922) never speaks about "class A" for Palestine. And this is the only document which could legaly define a class A mandate (for Palestine), but it doesn't! Furthermore, the "Palestine Royal Commission Report" (1937), an historical and official document, clarifies this point and proves that the mandate for Palestine was not a "class A" mandate (but a "special regime"). This is the analysis of Eli E. Hertz (specialist of the arab-israeli conflict). Anyway, deforming the truth is not a sincere proof. --FireJeff (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like the Jewish Internet Defence League has been here by throwing Eli Hertz of all the world's unreliable heavily biased individuals in as a specialist reference. That the referred to text never mentions "class A" in particular is of no relevance unless every single other mandate text has such an inclusion. The Palestine Royal Report, moreover, which except for Eli Hertz is a source this nonsense section heavily rests on has no legal power whatsoever. It is a report and not a decree or law. All in all the whole section can be deleted for the only ones claiming it was not a Class A mandate are people like Eli Hertz and they do it based on texts which clearly doesn't say what they pretend, or like in the case of the Peel Commission, are only recommendations and not enacted law or orders.//Gotipe (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the new paragraphs

In general they are way too long and make the part "Hidden Agendas and Objections" way too long and hard to read. They are inacurate, e.g. they give the impression that the said territories were completely unknown, whereas the sources only say that the precise were unknown.

The American view is given way too much weight. Mashkin (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Article 22 was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty, before it was known what "communities", "peoples", or "territories" were related to sub-paragraphs 4, 5, and 6."

I believe we've already had a conversation about one of these situations before. Here is the citation (again) to the FRUS Council of Four meeting where the independence of Faisal, and the Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Allepo Arab communities was discussed ad nauseum for more than ten pages. President Wilson finally said that he didn't care about either the British or French claims to Syria, if the people there didn't want them. It didn't matter if the territory of Syria was occupied or not. Article 22(4) didn't apply to all of Syria, it only applied to "certain communities": "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized..." Nobody knew which of those communities related to which of the territories. Some like Faisal in Damascus were supposed to be independent, but under a protectorate. The King-Crane Commission was being sent there to find out if that was acceptable to the inhabitants. Faisal's brother Abdullah was permitted to have an independent government in Transjordan.

I believe you don't give the American view enough weight. The United States declared that the Japanese mandate was invalid ab initio because the preamble said it had been approved by the Allied and Associated Powers, but the US had not been consulted. I gave you one citation for that in the article, here is another: International Law, Hersch Lauterpacht,page 36

The President demanded that all draft mandates be approved by the United States before they were approved by the Council. The League had been told they only needed to make sure the administrations satisfied the terms laid down by the Allied and Associated Powers, now it turned out that in many instances the Council of Four had not bothered to get the approval of the Council of Ten. Lauterpacht notes the United States position made it impossible for the League to complete any mandate business for the remainder of that session.

The United States also declared that the terms of the mandates were not legally binding, and that it intended to continue exercising its concessions and consular courts until the mandatory administrations entered into bilateral treaty agreements with the US. Those treaties imposed additional conditions on the mandates, required annual reports, and prohibited the administrations from altering or terminating the mandates without obtaining US consent. The US had one of those treaties for every mandate. The bilateral treaties survived the dissolution of the League, and led to direct US involvement in the Anglo-American Committee and Truman's demands for higher Jewish immigration quotas in Palestine. harlan (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Noting refusal to address issues after reverting (no valid reason given)

Attempted to address the issue - [6] - deleted.

Reason given for revert: "There is little uncertainty about what happened to the territory of Mandatory Palestine. I realize that you have issues with the legitimacy of that result, but Wikipedia is not a soap box for you to air those views"[7]

An unsourced opinion and personal comment are not a justification for reverting

The editor reverted to a statement referring to a period more than twelve months AFTER the Mandate for Palestine expired. The source is un-attributed, not WP:RS

What is certain is that ALL the Armistice Agreements say "dictated exclusively by military considerations". No borders were changed by them.

What is certain is 1946 is BEFORE 1947. Jordan could not possibly have been a part of the 1947 Partition Plan

Restoring accordingly ... talknic (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I note your 1RR violation. Please revert.

Second, the goal here is to say what happened to the territory that was part of the mandate. See every other mandate listed. Presumably this would be after the armistice agreements were signed, since during the war the amount of territory held was constantly in flux. I have no particular attachment to any source. Feel free to use your own. But the article should answer the question of "what happened to the territory that was part of the mandate?" Jsolinsky (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - There is no 1RR on the article. The Armistice Agreements - they ALL say "dictated exclusively by military considerations". No borders were changed ... talknic (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Futhermore : "But the article should answer the question of "what happened to the territory that was part of the mandate?" The article should accurately answer the question, with Reliable Secondary Sources which accurately reflect the Armistice Agreements and/or documents if the Secondary Sources refer to them.

Israel was already recognized and had already become a UN Member State and had already signed Armistice Agreements, which did not change or create any borders in any way what so ever, BEFORE 31st Aug 1949, when Israel made it's first official claim to territories not belonging to any State. "With regard to the territorial adjustments of which the Commission treats in Chapter II of it memorandum, the Delegation of Israel considers that in addition to the territory indicated on the working document annexed to the Protocol of May 12, all other areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israel territory". [8]. The claims were rebuffed, referring back to the Armistice Agreements and this common phrase to all of them "the terms of this agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations".

"since during the war the amount of territory held was constantly in flux" Israel was already declared and recognized by the time the Armistice Agreements were signed. Non-State territory 'held' by the military forces of the respective States was constantly in flux. The Laws of War were customary International Law in force before Israel was declared Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “ ... talknic (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately spoke to "control" because I am perfectly aware that there are questions of legitimacy.

But your previous text "Following the war, the area between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan[19] was controlled by Israel." is going to be nonsensical to most readers.

If there is a remaining issue on this part, I propose third party mediation Jsolinsky (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - Control by what? Feather dusters and kind words? May 22nd [9] and Aug 1948[10] Israeli Government statements to the UNSC and the Israeli proclamation tell us Israel held non-Israeli territory under military control. Customary Laws of War applied Art. 42 SECTION III. By Dec 1949 the territories in question were still NOT [11] Israeli. No territory has ever been legally annexed to Israel.

As it is now, the statement is based on the misleading presumption that Israel's borders somehow, magically, changed through the Armistice Agreements or by the acquisition of territory by war and/or that No Mans Land extended from Israel's borders, when it was actually only between disputed Armistice Demarcation Lines. Why are you are insisting on misleading the reader.

Israel agreed to the wording of the Armistice Agreements. The Agreements all say "the terms of this agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations"

"If there is a remaining issue on this part, I propose third party mediation " go right ahead ... talknic (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTING - Jolinsksi's refusal or in-ability to quote an alleged RS [12] ... talknic (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Talknic, I gave you a link that comes complete with highlighted text showing you exactly where the text begins (which can not be cut and pasted). What is wrong with you? Please don't engage me on my personal talk page anymore. It is not productive, and it keeps important history of your conduct off of the discussion pages where it belongs. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jsolinsky - "I gave you a link that comes complete with highlighted text showing you exactly where the text begins (which can not be cut and pasted)." [13] Uh? There's no text. The reader has no idea what the source is supposedly saying.

Please don't engage me on my personal talk page anymore. It is not productive, and it keeps important history of your conduct off of the discussion pages where it belongs. Everything is available [14] ... talknic (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

Of the two versions in dispute, i.e. this and this, I think it is pretty clear that the second version is preferable as it explains what happened after the mandate ended as with all the other mandates. Also, the insertion of the sentence "Following the war, the area between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan was controlled by Israel." is very confusing. What "area" is being referred to? Cheers, Number 57 11:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 57 - Unfortunately the source given for the second version is un-informative. The reader learns precisely NOTHING by following it. You apparently didn't read the sources, but prefer the version with a source that says zip... What was it supposed to have said? Please quote it...

"Also, the insertion of the sentence "Following the war, the area between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan was controlled by Israel." is very confusing. What "area" is being referred to?" On 15 June 1949 Shertock had no problems saying "As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel, there, too, our aim is peace, and peace negotiations. We have always declared that we should prefer to see a separate Arab State in that area, but we have not set this as a condition sine qua non to a settlement." Note: he did not say the Armistice Demarcation Lines and; he said 'an Arab in that area', so he's obviously not just talking about an Arab State in the area of no mans land.

It's sourced, so readers can find out, thus..

//"Following the war, the area between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan was controlled by Israel. Until 1967, the West Bank was under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip. Small slivers of territory east and south of the Sea of Galilee were held by Syria.// ... talknic (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the basicness of the facts in question, the sources are not really required (I fail to see how anyone could dispute the statement currently in the text about what happened to the land) and are not a reason for reverting to a totally uninformative version. If you don't like the sources, I would suggest just removing them.

The sentence "the area between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan[1] was controlled by Israel" still makes no sense. What is this area that is being talked about? The West Bank? No-Mans Land in the Galilee or Jerusalem? Latrun? If you can define what this area is, then there should be no problem in adding it to the existing text. However, forcing readers to check a reference to figure out what on earth this refers to should not happen. Number 57 14:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 57 - "Given the basicness of the facts in question, the sources are not really required" When it suits you, of course... however The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources The current source tells the reader exactly NOTHING!

"not a reason for reverting to a totally uninformative version" Nice try. I guess you'll say anything in desperation. The reverted source informs the reader of what Shertock described as "..the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel" The current source tells the reader exactly NOTHING!

"If you can define what this area is, then there should be no problem in adding it to the existing text." Oh? The current version doesn't actually define this area. The reader can click on the source and it will tell them exactly NOTHING! This, according to you is informative? AMAZING!!  :::Shertock described it as "the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel". But you don't like information being conveyed to the reader by a pesky source. Especially one that tells the reader the area was NOT included in Israel ... talknic (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been done "in desperation" - I have no vested interest in this article and came here solely to provide a third opinion. Do you dispute the text

"A plan for peacefully dividing the remainder of the Mandate failed. The Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May 1948, and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War began. Following the war, 75% of the area west of the Jordan River was controlled by the new State of Israel. Other parts, until 1967, formed the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip. Small slivers of territory east and south of the Sea of Galilee were held by Syria."

If so, how do you dispute it? If you do not dispute it and are only complaining about the references, change or remove them. Number 57 09:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have also reverted this edit you made, as your edit summary ("The source given says 1921. The article at that point is talking about a post 1948 period") is incorrect - the sentence the text was added to begins "In April 1921", so the article at that point is clearly not talking about a post-1948 period. Number 57 14:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 57 - My error on the revert. Apologies ... talknic (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)