Talk:San Remo conference

Note

Note Article 25: "In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, ", which clearly implies that the eastern boundaries were not determined by this conference. Also, note the Ma'an and Aqaba border issues between Transjordan and Hejaz, not resolved until 1925. - Mustafaa 11:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, but that's from the 1921-22 text of the Mandate, not the 1920 resolution, to which I gave a couple of links. In view of your comment, I probably should have said (at least) five years, not four, but I want to do a bit more checking. AFAIK the major issues were resolved by 4 years later, many of them much earlier.--John Z 14:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article makes the following statement - "The decisions of the conference mainly just confirmed (e.g. concerning Palestine) those of the First Conference of London (February 1920)". However the page on the "Conference of London" that this is linked to indicates that that conference took place after the Sanremo conference. MarkMcLT 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Balfour's intention was for ALL of Palestine to become the Jewish National Home, not just the western 22%. This was confirmed by Balfour's grandson at a conference at Balfour House at which I was present. In 1939 the British Parliament debated the meaning of 'in Palestine' and decided in its infamous antisemitic White Paper to interpret this as some small part of Palestine. The UN failed to uphold its charter article 80 which maintains the rights obtained at San Remo. John UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.5 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanremo, not San Remo

• The correct name of the town is San Remo. Since I am not a registered user I cannot move the article. --213.155.224.232 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Official name of Sanremo is... of course, Sanremo. Not San Remo (Italian for "Saint Remo", where no saint called Remo ever existed). So, it's absolutely impossible that the conference could be named "San Remo Conference". I know it is a common mispelling, but if we want to strive here for correctness (see for example the Britannica entry, you won't find cited as "San Remo"), please leave the page under this name. --Attilios 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Conference was known then and since as the "San Remo Conference" and was never referred to as anything else. The fact that the town is actually called "Sanremo" in Italian is not really relevant. For the sake of accuracy I recommend that we change the name of this article back to what it was. --Ian Pitchford 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. Never seen it as Sanremo conference, always with a space. Does anyone really think nonexistence of a saint would stop the Italians or the English from calling things what they like? I doubt naming conventions were so set in stone back then. Finally, the pizzeria near my high school was San Remo Pizza. Maybe the conference was named after it.  :-)

More seriously, I restored an external link I put in a couple years ago, to the original text of the San Remo Resolution, in English and in French, which was luckily still in the text of the article. A well meaning editor replaced it with " a more complete version" which however was not to the correct document, pointing instead to the text of the 1922 Mandate, which is erroneously called in the "more complete" link and several other places on the web and in print, the San Remo Mandate, with confusing and impossible dates. A hint that something is awry is that while it says San Remo Conference, April 24, 1920 at the top, it is dated DONE AT LONDON the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two at the bottom. I put in dates and a warning that should avoid a repetition.and changed another link to the superior one the well meaning editor gave. Note that the August 1920 Treaty of Sevres speaks of the drafting of the mandate as something for the future. This might be a slight help for the current confusion and warring in related articles, which I will try to do a little to clarify and pacify. John Z 09:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I'd noticed the incorrect link a while ago and had forgotten about it. Thanks again. BTW I have checked contemporary news sources and all refer to the event as the "San Remo Conference". --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the name of this event in English (99% of the time) is "San Remo conference". It is interesting but not relevant what the correct name of the Italian city is. Who will move it back? --Zero^talk 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Google search the faulty reference appears in 114 articles. I can use AWB to change them. --Ian Pitchford 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the opinion of only two people, and of Anglo-Saxon country, means "consensus". I think, this is an international encyclopedia. As the name of the conference is not official, but it's just that of the "Conference of " - Sanremo (meaning "The conference held at..."), not the "Conference of Sanremo", we should use the correct name of the city. Bye. --Attilios 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmhmhm... It seems that Britannica cites it as Conference of San Remo; however, it also wrongly cites Sanremo as San Remo. So, should we consider both of them wrong? Bye. --Attilios 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to address the issue on the page dealing with the name of the town, but almost all English language sources, including contemporary accounts in newspapers refer to the "San Remo conference". --Ian Pitchford 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In the past week I've looked at 20+ books and academic papers regarding this conference and I have not seen any spelling other than "San Remo". --Zero^talk 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
This is indeed the conference held in a city.
In italian, the city is named "Sanremo" but in French it is "San Remo". Alithien 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah…and the language of diplomacy was…. This looks like a plausible explanation of the issue! —Ian Spackman 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism and nomenclature

Not sure what the best name for the conference is: whatever good quality English language sources use. But this is a quote from santiebeati.it on ‘San Remo’, which seems to confirm that the saint did exist (a seventh-century bishop of Genoa), that he died in the the place now called Sanremo, and that the town can also be called ‘San Remo’ in Italian:

L'onomastico [Remo] viene festeggiato il 22 dicembre in ricordo di San Romolo, detto "Remo", vescovo di Genova nell'anno 641, vissuto e morto a Villa Matuzia, antico nome della città di San Remo che da lui cambiò poi nome. In alcuni luoghi è venerato il 13 ottobre. [1]

—Ian Spackman 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very useful. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 14:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

subsequent (?)

There is an error in the last sentence in the article's lead section: "As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 subsequent to the acceptance of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." Either (a) the 24 July 1922 date is wrong, or (b) the word subsequent is wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know the facts needed to resolve this. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Paris Peace Conference established the mandates system by January 1920, but did not confer the mandates on any state, because an Inter-Allied Commission was going to Ottoman Asia to find out what the wishes of the indigenous groups were on the subject.

The San Remo Conference awarded the mandates, but there was a disagreement between the parties, Italy, France, etc., over their own interests. Those had to be resolved before the Council of the League of Nations could ratify the terms of the Mandates. The Mandates took the form of LoN resolutions which could only be adopted on the basis of unanimity (each of the parties had a veto).

The Treaty of Sevres contained the Ottoman terms of cession, but it was never ratified because of the Turkish revolution. The Italians and French came to terms over Syria and the Council of the League approved the mandates in 1922, since the Allies were already governing the territories under the Armistice of Mudros. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne didn't contain any details about the mandates. It simply said that the territories, islands, and etc. had been detached from the Ottoman Empire by the present treaty - and that the details regarding their disposition would be arranged by the parties concerned. harlan (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire accepted the treaty of Sevres

The Ottoman empire accepted the treaty of Sevres in disposition of the Sanjak of Jerusalem and parts of the velayet of Beirut. Neither of these territories were ever claimed by the new state of Turkey. There are possibly valid political points for bending over so far backwards, but wikipedia doesn't need to get into that kind of thinking. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source and undue section

The book "Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel" is obviously a book written by an activist and not even close to being a reliable source. In case that isn't blindingly obvious, the book is self-published. The publisher is Creation House, which describes itself as a Christian self-publishing company, in other words a vanity press. Wallace also wrote another book, "Don't miss the Rapture" that also looks like a barrel of laughs. No thank you. Zero^talk 09:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I also tagged the section about the "celebrations" a few activists organised in San Remo on the 90th anniversary. The intro of the section says "the town of San Remo marked the 90th anniversary", which is not even supported by the source (it only says the mayor attended). The information is trivial and the pronouncements made are predictable and boring. Zero^talk 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree on both issues. The "anniversary celebrations" section would be more honestly titled "Israeli public diplomacy" - But the only sources we have are a couple of news reports documenting public diplomacy events its barely noteworthy as news outside Israel and this is not the news, we do not document every little event that has been reported in national news media. Dlv999 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you make it sound like this person is a creationist or something. However her background: "Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace received her PhD in international law from Cambridge University. Dr. Wallace’s international law career spans some thirty years, and she has held academic and senior diplomatic-level posts, including Deputy Executive Director, Investment Negotiation Program, International Law Institute, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC; Senior Fellow and Project Director, International Business and Economics Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC (“think tank”); and Senior Advisor to the Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva. With more than thirty publications, including six books, she is the recipient of the Grotius International Law Award for a law journal article selected jointly by the UN Association and the T.M.C. Asser Institute of The Hague. She is a US citizen and resides in Geneva, Switzerland." We do not assume that every Christian or Jew with pro-Israel views is 'obviously' an activist. By this thinking you couldn't use any information gleaned from anyone who is published by the Institute for Palestine Studies, as it is obviously activist. Ridingdog (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Founding Document of Eretz Israel/Palestine

Extended content
{{{1}}}

SInce Maccabipage has been topic banned, its long nonsense posting and my reply are collapsed. Zero^talk 02:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

map

There needs to be a map that shows the division of the land, specifically the region of west Palestine.--Jane955 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Which division? Do you refer to the geographical areas later assigned to the Mandates? What do you mean by "west Palestine"? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As the article says "The boundaries of the three territories were left unspecified". Most of the borders shown on your map did not exist at the time of the San Remo conference and were not defined by the conference. So the map is unacceptable. Zero^talk 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-jewish-national-home-determined-by-san-remo-conference-1920 Batsquatch (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP JVL is classed "generally unreliable".Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

JVL is not "generally unreliable", that article was inaccurate. Jordan has an established border and so did the Syria mandate and Egypt, meaning everywhere Israel bordered was established. Batsquatch (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but what you just wrote is absolute nonsense. In just one sentence you have made so many mistakes I don't know where to begin. If you don't want to trust this article, try reading the underlying sources. They are scholarly sources of the highest quality. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent RFC on JVL (see the link I gave you) and as far as WP is concerned, JVL is unreliable.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite hypocritical of you to say that what I've just wrote is absolute nonsense, when you yourself have made that same mistake. It's explicitly in the Balfour declaration that they supported the creation of Israel in all of mandate Palestine, which Jordan was in. There are plenty of books written by actual historian's that you can read that back up what I've said. Batsquatch (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The Balfour declaration says nothing about creating a state, nothing about "all of Palestine", nothing about boundaries, and nothing about the mandate system which didn't even exist yet. Zero^talk 07:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A bit messy

Over time this article seems to have become very messy and disjointed so I am going to tidy it up a bit. Anyone wants to join in, feel free.Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Better file

@Jane955, Zero0000, and Selfstudier: I created the "File:Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf" which is better than the actual djvu one. As I am not allowed to edit this page, do it if you please.Valp (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's have a looksee, [File:Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf]Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks OK, let me put it in.Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comes out back to front, ah well, not to worry.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

This was recently added to the article , without any supporting sources: "Under Article 22 of the British government was charged with recognizing the Arabs of Palestine, like other "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized", and with rendering to these Arabs "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone" . The source at the end of these new additions does not mention Arabs, at all, but refers to Jews. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me look into that, I am pretty sure that Article 22 itself has nothing to do with either Jew or Arab but some of those phrases do ring a bell.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I edited out the obvious errors (ie that its only the Arabs) and reworked it a bit, I have proper sources and I will put them in tomorrow and finish tidying up the material. K?Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Think it's OK now?Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:: The explicit word "Arabs" was not mentioned in Article 22. There was a reference to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" which were deemed to have "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized". So, who were these communities in Palestine? You can assume that they were everybody who lived in Palestine under Ottoman rule and who were there when General Allenby's Army arrived in 1917. These were a population of about 90% Arabs and 10% Jews. So, under Article 22, these 90% Arabs and 10% Jews were supposed to be provisionally recognized as an independent nation, and the British were supposed to render administrative help to this nation to get to the point where it could stand alone, at which point the British were supposed to declare that their task was achieved and happily depart. But according to the Balfour Declaration the British were also supposed to actively help the creation of the Jewish National Home, which meant that they were supposed to help and facilitate a great influx of Jews into the country who had not lived there under Ottoman rule and who were therefore not part of the "independent nation" which was provisionally recognized under article 22. How many additional Jews were supposed to come in? The Zionist Movement explicitly set the aim of making Jews the majority in the country. And also once the Jewish National Home was firmly established, the British were supposed to declare that their task was achieved and happily depart. So, the British Mandate was given the double task of: 1) Recognizing provisionally an independent nation composed of 90% Arabs and 10% Jews and help this nation achieve complete independence and 2) Actively facilitating and promoting a great influx of Jews into the country and helping these Jews create a Jewish National Home (possibly incorporating the Jews who were there under the Ottomans into the "Jewish National Home" and detaching them from the "Article 22 provisionally recognized independent nation"). Anyway, it should have been obvious to everyone, already then, that these two tasks entrusted to the British Mandate were mutually incompatible - and it is certainly obvious in retrospect. I think all this is clear common sense. Since there are so many books written about this subject, I am also sure I can find a respectable source saying it, but I admit at moment I don't have one at my fingertips, so the page had best remain as it is now. But at lease here in the talk page, I think it deserves to be written in this explicit way.Captain Sir Mansfield George Smith-Cumming, KCMG, CB (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OR is allowed in talk pages :) But best avoid a soapbox accusation. This mashup of documents is a nice little tangle that the UN decided to avoid in favor of a political course of action.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

The line saying the "Conference was attended by the 4 principal allied powers France, Britain, Italy and Japan" should be changed to "4 Allied Powers attended the conference France, Britain, Italy, and Japan" because Japan is not a principal allied power in WW1 and olnly played a minor role. Grahammydoodle (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to Allies of World War I, Japan is listed as a principal in the infobox. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's more complicated because the conference minutes refer to the conference as "Meeting of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers", which may not be the same as "Principal Allied Powers". Japan is included. Also the USA is listed as joining the Supreme Council during the meeting. I'll ping Onceinawhile who knows about this stuff. Zero^talk 01:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, though its relevance here can be discussed, the Principal Allied Powers listed in the Treaty of Sèvres are "the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan". Zero^talk 01:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This was all an outgrowth of the Paris Peace Conference, where the legal definition of Principal Allies came from. See the Treaty of Versailles: TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND GERMANY …THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY AND JAPAN, these Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY, these Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned above the Allied and Associated Powers.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)