text:
Talk:Conurbation

Early comments
Urban conurbation isn't silly. I've seen the terms 'urban conurbation' and 'rural conurbation' both used. Mintguy

 * Does the San Francisco Bay Area qualify as a conurbation? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:28, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I find it strange that the New York Metropolitan Area (and perhaps even the Washington, New York, Boston Urban Corridor) are not included in the examples. --WikiMartin 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Locals would know such things better than people half a world away. Conurbs seem to ne an unavoidable outcome of the automobile culture. I suspect that there are hundreds, of different syles. Alex Law 01:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

List
This list is getting outta hand. It's turning into a "List of every City Ever, Some of Which may be Conurbations or not but Who Cares". - Randwicked Alex B 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I nuked it. - Randwicked Alex B 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There are going to be more nad more conurbation areas as we grow older. At some point on the future i bet that it will be rare to see a gap between cities and countys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.159.44 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

De-stubbed
This article appears to be of an appropriate length for the subject matter under discussion. As part of my personal crusade to free up articles that have been stubbed and tagged for no apparent reason, this article has been disenstubified. If any editor disagrees, and would rather re-stub it than add actual content, please discuss here. The Editrix 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "disenstubified" -- I love it! I think that "Disenstubify" belongs in the Wiktionary. SFFrog (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Concerns
This seems rather unencyclopedic - like an environmentalist's manifesto. If this is to be included, there should be info on why conurbations form and why people seem to like living in them. Algr (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are a couple references, but the whole thing seems rather one-sided to me.  It refers to environmental and social concerns without addressing much else, then segues into a sort of semi-Marxist class warfare analysis that seems awfully speculative to me.  Fedallah (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a tag to this section, and to the article as a whole. The whole thing is unreferenced, partial, and generally unencyclopedic.  It reads like a student essay, and a pretty poor one at that. If I remember to do so I'll have a go at improving it at some future date, but hopefully someone else better qualified will get in before I do.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole section strikes me as one-sided, political, unsupported by references, and probably containing inaccuracies and maybe even nonsense. For example, the writer whines about the loss of land and habitat for animals as people build habitat for humans in conurbations. But the alternative of building those same human habitats farther away from urban areas would still consume as much land or more with similar effects. I'd be in favor of deleting the entire section if it is not improved soon. (It has already been tagged about two months but maybe that is not quite long enough.) 72.208.61.246 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully support 72.208.61.246 on this - I have again deleted the text as it is wholly biased and POV. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples
Some examples cited in the article are not conurbations, but agglomerations. Conurbations don't evolve around a single city, but around multiple centers and bedroom communities don't count as centers. As such, London, Los Angeles and Brisbane have to go. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "have to go" is too strong - we should get a consensus first. I don't know about LA and Brisbane - you may be right in one sense about London, but there are other major centres within the built-up area (e.g. Croydon), and it is defined in official statistics as a conurbation (I'll need to find a reference for that).  The whole article could do with a fundamental rewrite, but there are always going to be problems about people wanting to include or exclude their pet areas.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * South East Queensland is in a sense a conurbation of the cities of Brisbane and the Gold Coast, as they started distinct cities and merged through suburban sprawl. The other municipalities listed are just suburban areas that have always been subordinate to Brisbane. In the meantime I'll rewrite that section to clarify. - Aucitypops (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually maybe I won't, as it's not the best example and would be better deleted. The large "example" lists these articles tend to accumulate should be discouraged. It would be best to have just one or two "classic" examples for illustration. The Ruhr Area comes to mind as the granddaddy of conurbations. - Aucitypops (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, LA might be considered a conurbation, but the LA metro area isn't several medium-sized cities that have grown towards each other, but one big city that absorbed lots of smaller towns. Same with London. If we could consider London a conurbation (regardless what official statistics state - there is an expert definition of a conurbation not subject to local changes), then we could consider any megapolis with a few bedroom communities and edge cities a conurbation. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the definition is very clear. BTW, I was wrong about Brisbane, its metro area really is a conurbation and Aucitypops, Ruhr is indeed the best example. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this become too esoteric and begun to miss the point? There is a need to simplify and clarify. In everday language there is little need to be so specific and conurbation and agglomeration are essentially pseudonyms. I would say that (in UK English) conurbatation is the more widely used. They are both urban areas which have grown into each other so that from a map or 'on the ground' the boundaries are administrative only. Then we can progress to the academic discussion which is what most of the conurbation entry is about: they are not necessarily agreed definitions. This can be SUMMARISED here but as it stands, the existing text isjust a sample of the discussion and if additions are allowed to continue could be of indefinite size. Detailed academic discussion is surely not what a wikipedia entry should be, refernce to varying views are. (This is noit a specialist area of mine, so I have chosen to make my point rather than make any changes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talk • contribs) 10:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The population of the New York Tri-State Area is described as "with an estimated population of 21,961,994 in 2007.". Later the population of the National Capital Region (NCR) of India is also described as "it had an estimated population of 21,961,994 in 2007." Can these two numbers really be identical? The first number has a citation; the second does not. Fritzson (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I grew up in Los Angeles and now live in Ventura County, slightly to the north of it. I don't really care if you call Los Angeles a conurbation or not, but I would like to point out that radio KNX (AM) has, for decades, referred to it as a "Megalopolus." "From Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, from the mountains to the sea." Considering how many cities, towns, and other municipalities there are in that vast (by urban standards) area, it seems reasonable to list it as a conurbation, but again, YMMV. JDZeff (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition
It would be incorrect to say that a conurbation consists of several metropolitan areas. It consists of cities that have evolved to merge their urban areas, but still retain their distinctiveness. A conurbation is not an area which is known mostly for one city, but also includes some small suburbs, that is an agglomeration. Conurbation is made out of two or more cities being roughly the same size. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if Admiral Norton could provide some citation for the comments that "a conurbation consists of several metropolitan areas"; or that it is "made out of two or more cities being roughly the same size". That is one editor's opinion, but it is not necessarily a shared view.  Some conurbations - such as London, to give the obvious example - are dominated by a single main centre but also contain many other smaller historic centres.  That still makes "Greater London" a conurbation, at least in UK usage of the term.  This site gives more information on definitions used in the UK.  For example, C. B. Fawcett: "a conurbation is an area occupied by a continuous series of dwellings, factories and other buildings, harbour and docks, urban parks and playing fields, etc which are not separated from each other by rural land."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is London really a conurbation or is it just a British definition? According to your definition, I could as well name Brasília a conurbation. According to Geddes's book London is an agglomeration, not a conurbation, since it is predominantly one city with suburbs, like any other. The reference No. 3 provides a British view of the subject, which is fine, but not acceptable since it isn't the worldwide view. This problem is similar to the nearside/outside motorway lane. The difference here is that this isn't an article about motorways in UK, but about conurbations in the whole world. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Admiral Norton's edits state that "the definition [of a conurbation] is very clear", and you clearly have a strong view that it is something different to an "agglomeration". Could you provide citations for the "very clear" definition, and for your views on the difference between a conurbation and an agglomeration?  Unlike Brasilia, London did form through coalescence of existing settlements, albeit dominated by outwards spread from one main central area (well, two technically and historically - London and Westminster).  I really don't want to argue the point unnecessarily, and would be happy to have a wording in the article that recognises that different definitions of "conurbation" may exist - which may be differences between countries, or simply between different experts.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you heard about this agglomeration being conurbation thing, but I was taught in school and I read books saying conurbation and agglomeration are different things. Agglomeration is the expansion of a metropolitan area around one major core and conurbation is the expansion around two or more equally important major cores. E.g. Zagreb also formed through annexation of nearby settlements and it also formed from two cities: Gradec and Kaptol of which none has been more dominant than the other (this does not apply to London and Westminster), and yet it isn't viewed as a conurbation. It was a conurbation, but it ceased being one either in 1851, when Gradec and Kaptol were made mere neighborhoods by unification of Zagreb; or around the end of the 19th century by which time the city expanded enough so that neighborhoods that were larger than the original cities were formed, such as Peščenica or center. Although it previously had two cores, the city has expanded so much that these cores remain indiscernable on small maps, similar to London.
 * I guess you wouldn't deem a geography textbook a reliable source, so I'll try to find better sources tomorrow. Good night.
 * P.S. Please don't refer to me in third person. I don't know for UK, but it's offensive in my country. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an article talk page not a user talk page, so others may wish to be involved in the discussion, and it's helpful if everyone knows whose comments are being referred to. That's the only reason - apologies for any offense caused.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In relation to your substantive point, the administrative arrangements that applied in Croatia shouldn't be assumed to apply elsewhere - they don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I propose merging with Metropolitan area. The distinction that is sought does not exist. Look, for example at the Dallas metropolitan area (sometimes called the Dallas-Ft. Worth metropolitan area. Look at Los Angeles.  Look at the Midland-Odessa "metroplex". Look even the Albuquerque metropolitan area which subsumes Rio Rancho and Bernaillo in Sandoval County. --70.57.246.220 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The two concepts are distinct. The characteristic of a conurbation (an internationally recognised geographical descriptive term) is the physical spreading together of originally different built-up areas.  The characteristic of a "metropolitan area" (as I understand it, primarily a North American term) is a "zone of influence" over areas not necessarily physically contiguous, and/or an administrative area.  All the examples cited in the proposal are in the U.S., which has a number of unique features which do not apply elsewhere, e.g. in Europe.  Although there is obviously some overlap, the two concepts are distinct and require separate articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Ghmyrtle.  Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd oppose since I've found different definitions for a conurbation, but the current does not differentiate it in any way from a metro area. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The keyword in the definition is polycentric. Metropolitan areas aren't necesarily polycentric. Conurbations are a specific type of agglomeration, and not equivalent to the concept of 'metropolitan area', which is based on labour markets, etc., not on physical connectedness. - Aucitypops (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I've never heard the term conurbation before today in my 58 years. I don't see a need for it. I live in the Denver-metro area. Who here lives in a conurbation?71.218.228.204 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i live in a conurbation. The New York State Capital District is fully polycentric where the cities of Albany, Schenectady, and Troy have their own separate urban centers and Albany doesn't quite dominate Schenectady or Troy 160.72.94.4 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

British conurbations table
It shows in the wrong section, don't know why, but it's kind of weird like this. Junuxx (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisit: Merge
I know that this was discussed a year and a half ago but I'd like to suggest revisiting merging with Metropolitan area. My thoughts:
 * First, as yet there has been no real effort made that I can see to upgrade the two articles and establish a genuine distinction in the topics covered. If this is not going to happen I don't think arguing that it could happen some day is a good justification for keeping two articles.
 * The distinctions suggested between the terms are, IMHO, very source-specific. In general the variety of definitions used for both terms overlap heavily (entirely really). So far as I have seen the only objective distinction that could be made (and this is stretching a bit) is that a conurbation is sometimes used to describe a type of or characteristic of a metropolitan area. Even if that distinction is valid, it doesn't seem to me that distinction merits separate articles (i.e. this seems like a detail that can be elaborated on in some section of a combined article).
 * There was a previous comment about "polycentricism". Though there are different definitions used for metropolitan area, the term is commonly applied (by demographic experts and reliable sources) to polycentric urban areas. And again, even if you want to argue that perhaps according to some body of experts the term metropolitan area is best applied to a region with a single urban core, this does not seem to me a distinction that merits a separate article (and to title such an article "Metropolitan area" would be a bit misleading since clearly the term is widely used in a much broader way).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm adding Agglomeration to this proposal. As is, the article is not drawing a significant distinction and the areas that it lists overlap with with these articles. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. These are related and overlapping, but different, concepts. An agglomeration is a physical merging together of a central core area, expanding to encompass other settlements. A conurbation is a physical merging together of several built-up urban areas with separate and distinct core areas - it may be a subset of "agglomeration", although the term "agglomeration" itself is very rarely used in the UK. A metropolitan area is essentially a combination of administrative areas. The term "metropolitan area" is in many respects a US term, where the emphasis is more focused on administration. The term "conurbation" is more widely used in the UK and Europe, where the differentiation between physically urban and physically rural areas is often more clear-cut and important thatn in the US. But they are different concepts. Those editors opposed to the article on "conurbation" seem to be predominantly US-based, where I accept the word may be less regularly used, but merging articles on different concepts would be a retrograde and unnecessary step. The articles do explain the differences, but there is always scope for clarifying and improving them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment: Yeah but ... first of all you seem to be taking this as nationalistic. Who says the final article shouldn't be named "Conurbation"? Apart from that, though, do you have authoritative sources to say that the distinctions that you are suggesting are widely recognized in the use of the terms? Frankly some of what you are saying seems to me WP:OR:
 * Though I understand that "metropolitan area" is more of a North American term (Wikipedia is not a glossary) I am not sure how you come up with the notion that "the emphasis is more focused on administration".
 * You seem to be indicating that the agglomerations in the U.S. and Europe are different and that is why there should be different articles. That doesn't make sense. Having articles like United States metropolitan area and European conurbation may make sense but that doesn't explain why having metropolitan area and conurbation be separate articles makes sense. That's like saying that because the fuel mixtures in the U.S. and Britain are a little different then gasoline and petrol should be different articles.
 * Here are some articles that indicate that "conurbation" and "metropolitan area" (and "agglomeration") are essentially synonyms:, . Additionally as I poke around different sources, some say that a metropolitan area is composed of multiple conurbations whereas some say that a conurbation is composed of multiple metropolitan areas. This seems to indicate that the terms themselves do not have fixed meanings that distinguish themselves from each other.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. And the articles do not explain their differences in any appreciable ways. Apart from a lack of even technical differentiation of the concepts, Agglomeration and Conurbation currently include the New York metropolitan area, among other examples. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thanks for notifying the WikiProject. I agree with Ghmyrtle, the term "metropolitan" is most often used in administration and urban planning, while "conurbation" and "agglomeration" are more conceptual terms used in urban studies and design, and therefore should have separate articles. On a general note, all Urban studies and planning articles are in pretty poor shape (when they exist at all) and mostly reflect US and eventually UK use only, so there is thremendous work ahead to get some better coverage of this topic in Wikipedia. Elekhh (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Reply: Forgive me if I'm being dense but I don't understand the rationale. The argument sounds like "since different disciplines favor different terms there should be an article for each term, even though they refer to the same thing."
 * Also, as a general comment, may I request that the discussion be focused on sources? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I only studied geography up to A-level (18) so apologies if this comment seems a little naive to specialists amongst you. However, according to two book sources that I have, the Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography and the National Geographic Desk Reference, 'agglomeration' is primarily a term of economic geography rather than urban design. It refers to the spatial clustering of people or productive activities to facilitate Economies of agglomeration.--Pondle (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Not clear what your point is. You are pointing out a facet of the same concept. That Economies of agglomeration should be a separate article from Agglomeration is obvious. But how does that make Agglomeration fundamentally a different topic from Conurbation? --Mcorazao (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made myself clearer: for me, a conurbation means a continuously built-up urban area, formed by the merger of several separate settlements. Agglomeration means the spatial clustering of people or economic activity. Metropolitan area is an American term for a large urban area. Three closely-related but separate concepts. Personally I would rename the 'Agglomeration' article to 'Urban agglomeration' to distinguish it from the dictionary definition of the word.--Pondle (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should make a different request. For those who see a reason to maintain separate articles, can I request that you actually articulate what it is that you believe are the actual differences in the topics (with references). The discussion seems to be centering around where each term is more commonly used which — to me — isn't particularly relevant. Ghmyrtle at least provided some differentiation but no sources to indicate why those are anything more than opinion. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some points: "Metropolitan", as used in administration and urban planning refers to a legally defined entity, (i.e. demarcated boundaries, policies that apply to the area, administrative responsibilities, etc.), which is a major difference to the general concept of conurbation and/or urban agglomeration. Derived from this, it generally refers to large and in some way formalised connurbation/urban agglomeration only. It is not exclusively a US term, it is broadly used in Australia as well (some examples: Metropolitan Strategy Melbourne 2030, Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, South-East Queensland). I fully agree that there are major overlaps between the three terms, however they cover a vast area which can easily fill three articles, so merging would be temporary only, and soon be followed by split, so I don't see it usefull or leading to improvement. Elekhh (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply!
 * Responses:
 * "Metropolitan", as used in administration and urban planning refers to a legally defined entity - This is, in general untrue. Some countries may define administrative units called "metropolitan areas" but this is not universal. In most countries there is no legal entity referred to as a "metropolitan area".
 * As a point of comparison, from what I understand of the UK, for example, Greater London is a legally defined administrative unit around London, the Greater London Conurbation is a non-entity which the National Statistics Office defines for demographic purposes, and the London metropolitan area is yet a larger non-entity which they define for larger statistics.
 * The point here is that, setting aside how any particular source may choose to use these terms, in general usage they do not distinguish unique concepts . Certainly there are some unique concepts being discussed that probably merit separate articles but
 * These terms should not be used to distinguish those articles.
 * Regardless, the current articles do not make any appreciable distinctions anyway.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I still think these are three distinct terms, and even if not consistently used worldwide, they might have in a particular context (of a country, or scientific field) clearly distinct meanings. In con-urbation there is an emphasis on the distinct identity of its constituents, in metro-politan there is an emphasis on its large size and a common identity, while in urban agglomeration there in no emphasis on these. That's why merging the articles and providing a definition like the one proposed below which basically presents these as synonyms would be misleading for the reader. Elekhh (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Check your refernces. The second one says the terms are synonyms. Neither entry makes clear the distinctions that you are trying draw. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we seeing different pages?
 * con·ur·ba·tion = "an extensive urban area resulting from the expansion of several cities or towns so that they coalesce but usually retain their separate identities."
 * me·trop·o·lis= "any large, busy city" (my emphasis). Elekhh (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think that is more a question for you.
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conurbation:
 * con·ur·ba·tion [kon-er-bey-shuhn]
 * –noun
 * an extensive urban area resulting from the expansion of several cities or towns so that they coalesce but usually retain their separate identities.
 * Origin:
 * 1910–15; con- + L urb- (s. of urbs) city + -ation
 * Dictionary.com Unabridged
 * Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
 * con·ur·ba·tion (kŏn'ər-bā'shən)
 * n. A predominantly urban region including adjacent towns and suburbs; a metropolitan area.
 * [con- + Latin urbs, city + -ation.]
 * The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
 * Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
 * Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 * Mind you, this is the same entry I quoted below. American Heritage is very clear about these being synonyms. Regarding the size and separate identities thing, the Random House entry uses the term "extensive" which certainly implies size. Even setting aside the fact that American Heritage says they are the same thing, there is nothing else in these entries that indicates a real distinction.
 * At the risk of being insulting (which is not my intention) you guys are grasping at straws. To be honest there are reliable sources that actually do draw a real distinction between the two. But they don't consistently draw the same distinctions (i.e. they commonly draw the opposite distinctions). So the reality is that any distinctions drawn are entirely source-specific and do not reflect common English usage (in the same way some sources might say there is a difference between a car and an automobile but in common usage there is not a real distinction).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as do others. There seems to be little chance of getting a consensus to merge - so perhaps it would be more fruitful all round to improve the existing articles, as you have suggested.  If further work on the articles leads to a consensus between editors that they should be merged after all, so be it.  But the priority should surely be to improve the existing articles first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 * Mind you, this is the same entry I quoted below. American Heritage is very clear about these being synonyms. Regarding the size and separate identities thing, the Random House entry uses the term "extensive" which certainly implies size. Even setting aside the fact that American Heritage says they are the same thing, there is nothing else in these entries that indicates a real distinction.
 * At the risk of being insulting (which is not my intention) you guys are grasping at straws. To be honest there are reliable sources that actually do draw a real distinction between the two. But they don't consistently draw the same distinctions (i.e. they commonly draw the opposite distinctions). So the reality is that any distinctions drawn are entirely source-specific and do not reflect common English usage (in the same way some sources might say there is a difference between a car and an automobile but in common usage there is not a real distinction).
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as do others. There seems to be little chance of getting a consensus to merge - so perhaps it would be more fruitful all round to improve the existing articles, as you have suggested.  If further work on the articles leads to a consensus between editors that they should be merged after all, so be it.  But the priority should surely be to improve the existing articles first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it was not clear, my primary goal in proposing this was to improve the articles. Since there seems to have been little forward movement in cleaning up these articles since the last merge proposal I had hoped that editors would agree that it is better to focus efforts on getting a single article to a mature level and then, if meaningful distinctions emerge that merit separate articles, the efforts could branch out from there.

Anyway, the proposal is closed. Good luck. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks. It goes without saying that your input towards improving the articles would be most welcome - there are not many editors around who are as interested in the topic as you clearly are, and those of us who are interested often have other priorities as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed lead
In order to clarify what is being proposed above in terms of merging, I thought perhaps proposing a lead section might be helpful.

 * A conurbation, also known as a metropolitan area or urban agglomeration, is a large area of closely tied communities and municpalities typically anchored by a one or a few major cities. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines a conurbation simply as a "predominantly urban region including adjacent towns and suburbs; a metropolitan area". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "an extended urban area, typically consisting of several towns merging with the suburbs of a central city". Such regions may be legal entities established by central or provincial governments (e.g. Greater London), or may simply be unofficial groupings with varying degrees of recognition by the governments and the communities (e.g. the London commuter belt or the New York metropolitan area).
 * The term conurbation, coined in 1915 by Patrick Geddes in his book Cities In Evolution, emphasizes the growth of neighboring cities until they form a region of unbroken urban development even though they remain separate municipalities. In some contexts, particularly in Europe, the term may explicitly exclude neighboring communities where urban development is not continuous (e.g. the Greater London Conurbation is distinct from the London commuter belt because of the green belt). In others, however, the term may be used to refer to much larger regions containing significant areas with minimal development (e.g. the New York-Boston conurbation cited by Geddes himself). The term metropolitan area is predominantly a North American term that tends to emphasize economic connections between neighboring communities more than continuous urban development. In some contexts, though, metropolitan area refers to a dense urban core at the center of a conurbation. Agglomeration is generally the most generic term and can be applied to any large grouping of nearby communities that are seen as being tied in some important way.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Proposal you may be interested in
I have put forward a proposal wrt to articles discussing conurbations/metro areas/agglomerations in Wikiproject Cities and am seeking feedback. It is tangential to the above discussion but I figure that those of you that had an interest in this issue probably have opinions on the proposal. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This may be of wider interest. I have notified one group - WT:UKGEO - but there are other Wikiprojects elsewhere who may well wish to comment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I think it's a good idea. SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Golden Horseshoe
I think we really need to expand the Canadian part of this article. It still isn't any longer than the American part is.--Antigrandiose (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would it be relevant to include the full golden horshoe, as it extends into the United States? Cuting it off at the international border makes it half a horseshoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

China?
Why isn't China part of this? It's urban sprawl is continuing inland. I was surprised it was not included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.33.86 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Very unreliable article

 * Never trusted this article. And just checked one of its claims in Google maps, the Vienna-Bratislava conurbation, which does not exist. Are pretty well separated, although neibourhing cities, and in the middle there are pretty well separated villages. Other claims are pretty much not that different. in the other way around, conurbation must be something different from what I understand as conurbation or this article is just crap. So sorry... --Pedro (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources to help

 * Conurbation, student dictionary
 * "a number of cities or towns that come one right after the other with no countryside in between"
 * http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=conurbation

 * The San Francisco Bay Area conurbation
 * 21st Century Geography: A Reference Handbook, Volume 1 edited by Joseph P. Stoltman
 * http://books.google.ca/books?id=7WrVewV6rOwC&pg=PT317&dq=%22Conurbations+occur+when+several+urban+areas+blend%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DF79UL35N4v62AWh0IDIDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

French Wickipedia article
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation

Conurbations of India

 * Hooghlyside
 * "Subregion E-2, with its core in Midnapore District, straddles the Hooghly River in the east and Calcutta and the great Hooghlyside conurbation, which is among the largest metropolitan clusters in the world."

Orphaned references in Conurbation
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Conurbation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SC2011": From Vancouver:

 From Greater Montreal:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

UK
The British data is taken from urban areas, not conurbations. The British statistics are there for underestimated compared to Japan for example. It is serously ridicilous that Japan has Taiheiyō Belt mealopolis (not conurbation) with 82.9 million people, while London (Greater London Urban Area) has only about 10 million people. This list needs much more unified criteria! Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

3rd paragraph a total mess
The third paragraph of this article is a complete mess. Can someone please get to grips with it? Argovian (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

UK Liverpool Manchester conurbation
Can somemone explain why I find references to the name Liverpool Manchester conurbation from the University of Manchester here: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:89997, and in this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and in this book on Metropolitan Governence and Spatial Planning here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and we have no entries for it or any UK conurbation it lists Urban area's?--Navops47 (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Mexico?
Where is mexico here? It belongs to north america, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.198.41.246 (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue with the layout of the article
Greetings! I've just concluded some copyediting on this article, along with a few, albeit minor, adjustments to the layout. I wish to proceed to remove the flag in the "See also" section. I suspect editors have, over time, addressed this issue and although the article could still do with some improvement, I'm of the opinion that the template can now be safely done away with. If there is anyone who thinks otherwise, kindly let me know. - BroVic (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conurbation. 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/20150924002318/http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf to http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901061446/http://200.51.91.231/censo2010/ to http://200.51.91.231/censo2010/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505213723/http://censos.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/Libro.pdf to http://censos.inei.gob.pe/Anexos/Libro.pdf

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) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Reorg and rework needed
This article is bloated with what is effectively a poorly structure list of cherry-picked urban areas that do not aid understanding of the subject. The list section fails most of the List dos and don'ts. A better list of conurbations exists at List of urban areas by population. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This, (mega)city, metropolitan area,...
I've started a discussion at Metropolitan area. No sharp distinction possible, it seems to me, and definitely not based on titles chosen by the settlements themselves. Arminden (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

China megalopolis
I am not sure whether the Chinese megalopolises Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, and Jingjinji should be considered conurbations or not. Dmdogs900 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conurbation


text:
Creative nonfiction

Creative nonfiction (also known as literary nonfiction, narrative nonfiction, literary journalism or verfabula ) is a genre of writing that uses literary styles and techniques to create factually accurate narratives. Creative nonfiction contrasts with other non-fiction, such as academic or technical writing or journalism, which are also rooted in accurate fact though not written to entertain based on prose style. Many writers view creative nonfiction as overlapping with the essay.

Characteristics and definition
For a text to be considered creative nonfiction, it must be factually accurate, and written with attention to literary style and technique. Lee Gutkind, founder of the magazine Creative Nonfiction, writes, "Ultimately, the primary goal of the creative nonfiction writer is to communicate information, just like a reporter, but to shape it in a way that reads like fiction." Forms within this genre include memoir, diary, travel writing, food writing, literary journalism, chronicle, personal essays, and other hybridized essays, as well as some biography and autobiography. Critic Chris Anderson claims that the genre can be understood best by splitting it into two subcategories—the personal essay and the journalistic essay—but the genre is currently defined by its lack of established conventions.

Literary critic Barbara Lounsberry, in her book, The Art of Fact, suggests four constitutive characteristics of the genre: the first is "Documentable subject matter chosen from the real world as opposed to 'invented' from the writer's mind". By this, she means that the topics and events discussed in the text verifiably exist in the natural world. The second characteristic is "Exhaustive research", which she claims allows writers "novel perspectives on their subjects" and "also permits them to establish the credibility of their narratives through verifiable references in their texts". The third characteristic that Lounsberry claims is crucial in defining the genre is "The scene". She stresses the importance of describing and revivifying the context of events in contrast to the typical journalistic style of objective reportage. The fourth and final feature she suggests is "Fine writing: a literary prose style". "Verifiable subject matter and exhaustive research guarantee the nonfiction side of literary nonfiction; the narrative form and structure disclose the writer's artistry; and finally, its polished language reveals that the goal all along has been literature." Essayist and critic Phillip Lopate describes 'reflection' as a necessary element of the genre, offering the advice that the best literary nonfiction "captures the mind at work".

Creative nonfiction may be structured like traditional fiction narratives, as is true of Fenton Johnson's story of love and loss, Geography of the Heart, and Virginia Holman's Rescuing Patty Hearst. When book-length works of creative nonfiction follow a story-like arc, they are sometimes called narrative nonfiction. Other books, such as Daniel Levitin's This Is Your Brain on Music and The World in Six Songs, use elements of narrative momentum, rhythm, and poetry to convey a literary quality. Creative nonfiction often escapes traditional boundaries of narrative altogether, as happens in the bittersweet banter of Natalia Ginzburg's essay, "He and I", in John McPhee's hypnotic tour of Atlantic City, In Search of Marvin Gardens, and in Ander Monson's playful, experimental essays in Neck-Deep and Other Predicaments.

Creative nonfiction writers have embraced new ways of forming their texts—including online technologies—because the genre leads itself to grand experimentation. Dozens of new journals have sprung up—both in print and online—that feature creative nonfiction prominently in their offerings.

Ethics and accuracy
Writers of creative or narrative non-fiction often discuss the level, and limits, of creative invention in their works and the limitations of memory to justify the approaches they have taken to relating true events. Melanie McGrath, whose book Silvertown, an account of her grandmother's life, is "written in a novelist's idiom", writes in the follow-up, Hopping, that the known facts of her stories are "the canvas on to which I have embroidered. Some of the facts have slipped through the holes—we no longer know them nor have any means of verifying them—and in these cases I have reimagined scenes or reconstructed events in a way I believe reflects the essence of the scene or the event in the minds and hearts of the people who lived through it. ... To my mind this literary tinkering does not alter the more profound truth of the story." This concept of fact vs. fiction is elaborated upon in Brenda Miller and Suzanne Paola's book Tell It Slant. Nuala Calvi, authors of The Sugar Girls, a novelistic story based on interviews with former sugar-factory workers, make a similar point: "Although we have tried to remain faithful to what our interviewees have told us, at a distance of over half a century many memories are understandably incomplete, and where necessary we have used our own research, and our imaginations, to fill in the gaps. ... However, the essence of the stories related here is true, as they were told to us by those who experienced them at first hand."

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there have been several well-publicized incidents of memoir writers who exaggerated or fabricated certain facts in their work. For example:
 * In 1998, Swiss writer and journalist Daniel Ganzfried revealed that Binjamin Wilkomirski's memoir Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood, detailing his experiences as a child survivor of the Holocaust, contained factual inaccuracies.
 * The James Frey controversy hit in 2006, when The Smoking Gun website revealed that Frey's memoir, A Million Little Pieces, contained experiences that turned out to be fabrications.
 * In 2008, The New York Times featured an article about the memoirist Margaret Seltzer, whose pen name is Margaret B. Jones. Her publisher, Riverhead Books, canceled the publication of Seltzer's book, Love and Consequences, when it was revealed that Seltzer's story of her alleged experiences growing up as a half-white, half-Native American foster child and Bloods gang member in South Central Los Angeles were fictitious.

Although there have been instances of traditional and literary journalists falsifying their stories, the ethics applied to creative nonfiction are the same as those that apply to journalism. The truth is meant to be upheld, just told in a literary fashion. Essayist John D'Agata explores the issue in his 2012 book The Lifespan of a Fact. It examines the relationship between truth and accuracy, and whether it is appropriate for a writer to substitute one for the other. He and fact-checker Jim Fingal have an intense debate about the boundaries of creative nonfiction, or "literary nonfiction".

Literary criticism
There is very little published literary criticism of creative nonfiction works, despite the fact that the genre is often published in respected publications such as The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Harper's, and Esquire. A handful of the most widely recognized writers in the genre such as Robert Caro, Gay Talese, Joseph Mitchell, Tom Wolfe, John McPhee, Joan Didion, John Perkins, Ryszard Kapuściński, Helen Garner and Norman Mailer have seen some criticism on their more prominent works. "Critics to date, however, have tended to focus on only one or two of each writer's works, to illustrate particular critical point." These analyses of a few key pieces are. As the popularity of the genre continues to expand, many nonfiction authors and a handful of literary critics are calling for more extensive literary analysis of the genre. The genre of the personal essay is periodically subject to predictions of its demise.

"'If, these four features delimit an important art form of our time, a discourse grounded in fact but artful in execution that might be called literary nonfiction, what is needed is serious critical attention of all kinds to this work: formal criticism (both Russian formalism and New Criticism), historical, biographical, cultural, structuralist and deconstructionist, reader-response criticism and feminist (criticism).'"

"'Nonfiction is no longer the bastard child, the second class citizen; literature is no longer reified, mystified, unavailable. This is the contribution that poststructuralist theory has to make to an understanding of literary nonfiction, since poststructuralist theorists are primarily concerned with how we make meaning and secure authority for claims in meaning of language.'"

Audio/video links

 * Audio C-SPAN – Interview with Lee Gutkind gives a definition of the genre
 * Audio C-SPAN – Interview with Lee Gutkind gives examples of authors who write in the genre

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Creative nonfiction


text:
Alexandre Vinet

Alexandre Rodolphe Vinet (17 June 1797 – 4 May 1847) was a Swiss literary critic and theologian.

Literary critic
He was born near Lausanne, Switzerland. Educated for the Protestant ministry, he was ordained in 1819, when already teacher of the French language and literature in the gymnasium at Basel; and throughout his life he was as much a critic as a theologian. His literary criticism brought him into contact with Charles Augustin Sainte-Beuve, for whom he obtained an invitation to lecture at Lausanne, which led to his famous work on Port-Royal.

Vinet's Chrestomathie française (1829), his Études sur la littérature française au XIXme siècle (1840–51), and his Histoire de la littérature française au XVIIIme siècle, together with his Études sur Pascal, Études sur les moralistes aux XVIme et XVIIme siècles, Histoire de la prédication parmi les Réformés de France and other related works, gave evidence of a wide knowledge of literature, acute literary judgment and a distinguished faculty of appreciation. He adjusted his theories to the work under review, and condemned nothing as long as it met his literary standards.

Theologian
As a theologian Vinet gave a fresh impulse to Protestant theology, especially in French-speaking lands, but also in England and elsewhere. Lord Acton classed him with Richard Rothe. His philosophy relied strongly on conscience, defined as that by which man stands in direct personal relation with God as moral sovereign, and the seat of a moral individuality which nothing can rightly infringe. He advocated complete freedom of religious belief, and to this end the formal separation of church and state in Mémoire en faveur de la liberté des cultes (1826), Essai sur la conscience (1829), Essai sur la manifestation des convictions religieuses (1842). Accordingly, when in 1845 the civil power in the canton of Vaud interfered with the church's autonomy, he led a secession which took the name of L'Église libre. But already from 1831, when he published his Discours sur quelques sujets religieux (Nouveaux discours, 1841), he had begun to exert a liberalizing and deepening influence on religious thought far beyond his own canton, by bringing traditional doctrine to the test of a living personal experience (see also the philosophy of Gaston Frommel). In this he resembled Frederick William Robertson, as also in the change which he introduced into pulpit style and in the permanence of his influence.

Vinet died at Clarens, Vaud. A considerable part of his work was not printed till after his death.

title: Alexandre Vinet


text:
Socialist Unity Party (disambiguation)

The Socialist Unity Party of Germany was the ruling party of East Germany from 1949 to 1989.

Socialist Unity Party may also refer to:

 * Canadian National Socialist Unity Party
 * Republican Socialist Unity Party, Bolivia
 * Socialist Unity Party (Finland)
 * Socialist Unity Party (Turkey)
 * Socialist Unity Party of Germany
 * Socialist Unity Party of New Zealand
 * Socialist Unity Party of West Berlin, Germany

title: Socialist Unity Party (disambiguation)


text:
Shaper

In machining, a shaper is a type of machine tool that uses linear relative motion between the workpiece and a single-point cutting tool to machine a linear toolpath. Its cut is analogous to that of a lathe, except that it is (archetypally) linear instead of helical.

A wood shaper is a functionally different woodworking tool, typically with a powered rotating cutting head and manually fed workpiece, usually known simply as a shaper in North America and spindle moulder in the UK.

A metalworking shaper is somewhat analogous to a metalworking planer, with the cutter riding a ram that moves relative to a stationary workpiece, rather than the workpiece moving beneath the cutter. The ram is typically actuated by a mechanical crank inside the column, though hydraulically actuated shapers are increasingly used. Adding axes of motion to a shaper can yield helical tool paths, as also done in helical planing.

Process
A single-point cutting tool is rigidly held in the tool holder, which is mounted on the ram. The work piece is rigidly held in a vise or clamped directly on the table. The table may be supported at the outer end. The ram reciprocates and the cutting tool, held in the tool holder, moves forwards and backwards over the work piece. In a standard shaper, cutting of material takes place during the forward stroke of the ram and the return stroke remains idle. The return is governed by a quick return mechanism. The depth of the cut increments by moving the workpiece, and the workpiece is fed by a pawl and ratchet mechanism.

Types
Shapers are mainly classified as standard, draw-cut, horizontal, universal, vertical, geared, crank, hydraulic, contour and traveling head, with a horizontal arrangement most common. Vertical shapers are generally fitted with a rotary table to enable curved surfaces to be machined (same idea as in helical planing). The vertical shaper is essentially the same thing as a slotter (slotting machine), although technically a distinction can be made if one defines a true vertical shaper as a machine whose slide can be moved from the vertical. A slotter is fixed in the vertical plane

Operation

The workpiece mounts on a rigid, box-shaped table in front of the machine. The height of the table can be adjusted to suit this workpiece, and the table can traverse sideways underneath the reciprocating tool, which is mounted on the ram. Table motion may be controlled manually, but is usually advanced by an automatic feed mechanism acting on the feedscrew. The ram slides back and forth above the work. At the front end of the ram is a vertical tool slide that may be adjusted to either side of the vertical plane along the stroke axis. This tool-slide holds the clapper box  and tool post, from which the tool can be positioned to cut a straight, flat surface on the top of the workpiece. The tool-slide permits feeding the tool downwards to deepen a cut. This flexibility, coupled with the use of specialized cutters and toolholders, enables the operator to cut internal and external gear teeth.

The ram is adjustable for stroke and, due to the geometry of the linkage, it moves faster on the return (non-cutting) stroke than on the forward, cutting stroke. This return stroke is governed by a quick return mechanism.

Uses
The most common use is to machine straight, flat surfaces, but with ingenuity and some accessories a wide range of work can be done. Other examples of its use are:
 * Keyways in the hub of a pulley or gear can be machined without resorting to a dedicated broaching setup.
 * Dovetail slides
 * Internal splines and gear teeth.
 * Keyway, spline, and gear tooth cutting in blind holes
 * Cam drums with toolpaths of the type that in CNC milling terms would require 4- or 5-axis contouring or turn-mill cylindrical interpolation
 * It is even possible to obviate wire EDM work in some cases. Starting from a drilled or cored hole, a shaper with a boring-bar type tool can cut internal features that do not lend themselves to milling or boring (such as irregularly shaped holes with tight corners).
 * Smoothing of a rough surface

History
Samuel Bentham developed a shaper between 1791 and 1793. However, Roe (1916) credits James Nasmyth with the invention of the shaper in 1836. Shapers were very common in industrial production from the mid-19th century through the mid-20th. In current industrial practice, shapers have been largely superseded by other machine tools (especially of the CNC type), including milling machines, grinding machines, and broaching machines. But the basic function of a shaper is still sound; tooling for them is minimal and very cheap to reproduce; and they are simple and robust in construction, making their repair and upkeep easily achievable. Thus, they are still popular in many machine shops, from jobbing shops or repair shops to tool and die shops, where only one or a few pieces are required to be produced, and the alternative methods are cost- or tooling-intensive. They also have considerable retro appeal to many hobbyist machinists, who are happy to obtain a used shaper or, in some cases, even to build a new one from scratch.

title: Shaper


text:
McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire. The correspondence had a significant influence on Middle Eastern history during and after the war; a dispute over Palestine continued thereafter.

The correspondence is composed of ten letters that were exchanged from July 1915 to March 1916 between Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and Lieutenant Colonel Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner to Egypt. Whilst there was some military value in the Arab manpower and local knowledge alongside the British Army, the primary reason for the arrangement was to counteract the Ottoman declaration of jihad ("holy war") against the Allies, and to maintain the support of the 70 million Muslims in British India (particularly those in the Indian Army that had been deployed in all major theatres of the wider war). The area of Arab independence was defined to be "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo"; conflicting interpretations of this description were to cause great controversy in subsequent years. One particular dispute, which continues to the present, is the extent of the coastal exclusion.

Following the publication of the November 1917 Balfour Declaration (a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild, a wealthy and prominent leader in the British Jewish community), which promised a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and the subsequent leaking of the secret 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement in which Britain and France proposed to split and occupy parts of the territory, the Sharif and other Arab leaders considered the agreements made in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence violated. Hussein refused to ratify the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and, in response to a 1921 British proposal to sign a treaty accepting the Mandate system, stated that he could not be expected to "affix his name to a document assigning Palestine to the Zionists and Syria to foreigners". A further British attempt to reach a treaty failed in 1923–24, with negotiations suspended in March 1924; within six months, the British withdrew their support in favour of their central Arabian ally Ibn Saud, who proceeded to conquer Hussein's kingdom.

The correspondence "haunted Anglo-Arab relations" for many decades thereafter. In January 1923, unofficial excerpts were published by Joseph N. M. Jeffries in the Daily Mail and copies of the letters circulated in the Arab press. Excerpts were published in the 1937 Peel Commission Report and the correspondence was published in full in George Antonius's 1938 book The Arab Awakening, then officially in 1939 as Cmd. 5957. Further documents were declassified in 1964.

Initial discussions
The first documented discussions between the UK and the Hashemites took place in February 1914, five months before the outbreak of World War I. Discussions were between the Consul-General in Egypt Lord Kitchener and Abdullah bin al-Hussein, the second son of Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca. Hussein had grown uncomfortable with the newly appointed Ottoman governor in his Hejaz Vilayet, Wehib Pasha, reflecting on rising tensions since the 1908 completion of the Hejaz railway, which threatened to support increased Ottoman centralization in the region. Discussions culminated in a telegram sent on 1 November 1914 from Kitchener—who had recently been appointed as Secretary of War—to Hussein wherein Great Britain would, in exchange for support from the Arabs of Hejaz, "...guarantee the independence, rights and privileges of the Sharifate against all external foreign aggression, in particular, that of the Ottomans". The Sharif indicated he could not break with the Ottomans immediately but the entry of the Ottomans on Germany's side in World War I on 11 November 1914 brought about an abrupt shift in British political interests concerning an Arab revolt against the Ottomans. According to historian David Charlwood, the failure in Gallipoli led to an increased desire on the part of the UK to negotiate a deal with the Arabs. Lieshout gives further background on the reasoning behind the shift in British thinking.

Damascus Protocol
On 23 May 1915, Emir Faisal bin Hussein—the third son of Hussein—was presented with the document that became known as the Damascus Protocol. Faisal was in Damascus to resume talks with the Arab secret societies al-Fatat and Al-'Ahd that he had met in March/April; in the interim he had visited Istanbul to confront the Grand Vizier with evidence of an Ottoman plot to depose his father. The document declared the Arabs would revolt in alliance with the United Kingdom and in return the UK would recognize Arab independence in an area running from the 37th parallel near the Taurus Mountains on the southern border of Turkey, to be bounded in the east by Persia and the Persian Gulf, in the west by the Mediterranean Sea and in the south by the Arabian Sea.

Letters, July 1915 to March 1916
Following deliberations at Ta'if between Hussein and his sons in June 1915, during which Faisal counselled caution, Ali argued against rebellion and Abdullah advocated action and encouraged his father to enter into correspondence with Sir Henry McMahon, over the period 14 July 1915 to 10 March 1916 ten letters—five from each side—were exchanged between Sir Henry McMahon and Sharif Hussein. McMahon was in contact with British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey throughout; Grey was to authorise and be ultimately responsible for the correspondence.

Historians have used an excerpt from a private letter sent on 4 December 1915 by McMahon halfway through the eight-month period of the correspondence as evidence of possible British duplicity: "[I do not take] the idea of a future strong united independent Arab State ... too seriously ... the conditions of Arabia do not and will not for a very long time to come, lend themselves to such a thing ... I do not for one moment go to the length of imagining that the present negotiations will go far to shape the future form of Arabia or to either establish our rights or to bind our hands in that country. The situation and its elements are much too nebulous for that. What we have to arrive at now is to tempt the Arab people into the right path, detach them from the enemy and bring them on to our side. This on our part is at present largely a matter of words, and to succeed we must use persuasive terms and abstain from academic haggling over conditions—whether about Baghdad or elsewhere."

The ten letters are summarised in the table below, from the letters published in full in 1939 as Cmd. 5957:

Legal status

Elie Kedourie said the October letter was not a treaty and that even if it was considered to be a treaty, Hussein failed to fulfil his promises from his 18 February 1916 letter. Arguing to the contrary, Victor Kattan describes the correspondence as a "secret treaty" and references The Secret Treaties of History that includes the correspondence. He also argues the UK government considered it to be a treaty during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference negotiations with the French over the disposal of Ottoman territory.

Arab Revolt, June 1916 to October 1918
McMahon's promises were seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between themselves and the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour represented the agreement as a treaty during the post-war deliberations of the Council of Four. On this understanding the Arabs, under the command of Hussein's son Faisal, established a military force that fought, with inspiration from T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia"), against the Ottoman Empire during the Arab Revolt. In an intelligence memo written in January 1916 Lawrence described Sherif Hussein's Arab Revolt as:

"beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break up of the Islamic 'bloc' and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states [Sharif Hussein] would set up to succeed the Turks would be … harmless to ourselves … The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion (emphasis in original)."

In June 1916, the Arab Revolt began when an Arab army moved against Ottoman forces. They participated in the capture of Aqabah and the severing of the Hejaz railway, a strategic link through the Arab peninsula that ran from Damascus to Medina. Meanwhile, the Egyptian Expeditionary Force under the command of General Allenby advanced into the Ottoman territories of Palestine and Syria. The British advance culminated in the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918 and the capitulation of the Ottoman Empire on 31 October 1918.

The Arab revolt is seen by historians as the first organized movement of Arab nationalism. It brought together Arab groups with the common goal to fight for independence from the Ottoman Empire for the first time. Much of the history of Arabian independence stemmed from the revolt beginning with the kingdom founded by Hussein. After the war was over, the Arab revolt had implications. Groups of people were classified according to whether they had fought in the revolt or and their ranks. In Iraq, a group of Sharifian officers from the Arab Revolt formed a political party of which they were head. The Hashemite kingdom in Jordan is still influenced by the actions of Arab leaders in the revolt.

Sykes–Picot Agreement
The Sykes–Picot Agreement between the UK and France was negotiated from the end of November 1915 until its agreement in principle on 3 January 1916. The French government became aware of the UK's correspondence with Hussein during December 1915 but were not aware formal commitments had been made.

The agreement was exposed in December 1917; it was made public by the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution, showing the countries were planning to split and occupy parts of the promised Arab country. Hussein was satisfied by two disingenuous telegrams from Sir Reginald Wingate, who had replaced McMahon as High Commissioner of Egypt, assuring him the British commitments to the Arabs were still valid and that the Sykes–Picot Agreement was not a formal treaty. After the Sykes-Picot Agreement was published by the Russian government, McMahon resigned.

Many sources contend the Sykes-Picot Agreement conflicted with the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. There were several points of difference, the most obvious being that Persia was placed in the British area and less obviously, the idea British and French advisors would be in control of the area designated as an Arab State. While the correspondence does not mention Palestine, Haifa and Acre were to be British and a reduced Palestine area was to be internationalized.

Balfour Declaration
In 1917, the UK issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The declaration and the correspondence, as well as the Sykes-Picot agreement, are frequently considered together by historians because of the potential for incompatibility between them, particularly in regard to the disposition of Palestine. According to Albert Hourani, founder of the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, "the argument about the interpretation of these agreements is one which is impossible to end, because they were intended to bear more than one interpretation".

Hogarth message
Hussein asked for an explanation of the Balfour Declaration and in January 1918 Commander David Hogarth, head of the Arab Bureau in Cairo, was dispatched to Jeddah to deliver a letter that was written by Sir Mark Sykes on behalf of the UK government to Hussein, who was now King of Hejaz. The Hogarth message assured Hussein "the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world" and referred to " ... the freedom of the existing population both economic and political ...". According to Isaiah Friedman and Kedourie, Hussein accepted the Balfour Declaration while Charles D. Smith said both Friedman and Kedourie misrepresent documents and violate scholarly standards to reach their conclusions. Hogarth reported that Hussein "would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain".

Declaration to the Seven
In light of the existing McMahon–Hussein correspondence and in the wake of the seemingly Zionist-favourable Balfour Declaration, as well as Russia's publication weeks later of the older and previously secret Sykes–Picot Agreement with Russia and France, seven Syrian notables in Cairo from the newly formed Syrian Party of Unity (Hizb al-Ittibad as-Suri) issued a memorandum requesting clarification from the UK Government, including a "guarantee of the ultimate independence of Arabia". In response, issued on 16 June 1918, the Declaration to the Seven stated that British policy was that the future government of the regions of the Ottoman Empire that were occupied by Allied forces in World War I should be based on the consent of the governed.

Allenby's assurance to Faisal
On 19 October 1918, General Allenby reported to the UK Government that he had given Faisal: official assurance that whatever measures might be taken during the period of military administration they were purely provisional and could not be allowed to prejudice the final settlement by the peace conference, at which no doubt the Arabs would have a representative. I added that the instructions to the military governors would preclude their mixing in political affairs, and that I should remove them if I found any of them contravening these orders. I reminded the Amir Faisal that the Allies were in honour bound to endeavour to reach a settlement in accordance with the wishes of the peoples concerned and urged him to place his trust whole-heartedly in their good faith.

Anglo-French Declaration of 1918
In the Anglo-French Declaration of 7 November 1918 the two governments stated that: The object aimed at by France and the United Kingdom in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations. According to civil servant Eyre Crowe, who saw the original draft of the Declaration, "we had issued a definite statement against annexation in order (1) to quiet the Arabs and (2) to prevent the French annexing any part of Syria". The Declaration is considered by historians to have been misleading at best.

Sherifian Plan
One day before the end of the war with the Ottomans, the British Foreign Office discussed T.E. Lawrence's "Sherifian Plan", in which Hussein's sons were proposed as puppet monarchs in Syria and Mesopotamia. Part of the rationale was to satisfy a belief among the British public that a debt was owed to the Hashemites under the McMahon correspondence. Of Hussein's sons, Faisal was Lawrence's clear favourite, while Ali was not considered a strong leader; Zaid was considered to be too young, and Abdullah was considered to be lazy.

Mandates
The Paris Peace Conference between the allies to agree territorial divisions after the war was held in 1919. The correspondence was primarily relevant to the regions that were to become Palestine, Transjordan, Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the Arabian Peninsula. At the conference, Prince Faisal, speaking on behalf of King Hussein, did not ask for immediate Arab independence but recommended an Arab state under a British mandate.

On 6 January 1920, Prince Faisal initialed an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau that acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation." A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, declared an independent state of Syria on 8 March 1920. The new state included portions of Syria, Palestine and northern Mesopotamia, which under the Sykes–Picot Agreement had been set aside for an independent Arab state or confederation of states. Faisal was declared the head of state as king. The April 1920 the San Remo conference was hastily convened in response to Faisal's declaration. At the conference, the Allied Supreme Council granted the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia to Britain, and those for Syria and Lebanon to France.

The United Kingdom and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia. Provisional recognition of Palestinian independence was not mentioned. France had decided to govern Syria directly and took action to enforce the French Mandate of Syria before the terms had been accepted by the Council of the League of Nations. The French intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the indigenous Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In Palestine, the United Kingdom appointed a High Commissioner and established their own mandatory regime. The January 1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was a short-lived agreement for Arab–Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which Faisal had mistakenly understood was to be within the Arab kingdom. Faisal did treat Palestine differently in his presentation to the Peace Conference on 6 February 1919, saying, "Palestine, in consequence of its universal character, be left on one side for the mutual consideration of all parties concerned."

The agreement was never implemented. At the same conference, US Secretary of State Robert Lansing had asked Dr. Weizmann if the Jewish national home meant the establishment of an autonomous Jewish government. The head of the Zionist delegation had replied in the negative. Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919; he said the system of mandates was a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war under the colour of international law. If the territories had been ceded directly, the value of the former German and Ottoman territories would have been applied to offset the Allies' claims for war reparations. He also said Jan Smuts had been the author of the original concept.

Hussein's downfall
In 1919, King Hussein had refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. After February 1920, the British ceased to pay subsidy to him. In August 1920, five days after the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres, which formally recognized the Kingdom of Hejaz, Curzon asked Cairo to procure Hussein's signature to both treaties and agreed to make a payment of £30,000 conditional on signature. Hussein declined and in 1921, stated that he could not be expected to "affix his name to a document assigning Palestine to the Zionists and Syria to foreigners."

Following the 1921 Cairo Conference, Lawrence was sent to try and obtain the King's signature to a treaty in exchange for a proposed £100,000 annual subsidy; this attempt also failed. During 1923, the British again tried to settle outstanding issues with Hussein; this attempt also failed and Hussein continued refusing to recognize any of the mandates he perceived as being his domain. In March 1924, having briefly considered the possibility of removing the offending article from the treaty, the UK government suspended negotiations and within six months withdrew support in favour of its central Arabian ally Ibn Saud, who proceeded to conquer Hussein's kingdom.

Territorial reservations and Palestine

McMahon's letter to Hussein dated 24 October 1915 declared Britain's willingness to recognize the independence of the Arabs subject to certain exemptions. The original correspondence was conducted in both English and Arabic; slightly differing English translations are extant.

"The districts of Mersina and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed limits and boundaries.

With the above modification and without prejudice to our existing treaties concluded with Arab Chiefs, we accept these limits and boundaries, and in regard to the territories therein in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to interests of her ally France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurance and make the following reply to your letter:

Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca."

The correspondence was written first in English before being translated to Arabic and vice versa; the identity of the writer and translator is unclear. Kedourie and others assumed the likeliest candidate for primary author is Ronald Storrs. In his memoirs, Storrs said the correspondence was prepared by Husayn Ruhi and then checked by Storrs. The Arab delegations to the 1939 Conference had objected to certain translations of text from Arabic to English and the Committee arranged for mutually agreeable translations that would render the English text "free from actual error".

"Portions of Syria" debate
The debate regarding Palestine arose because Palestine is not explicitly mentioned in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence but is included within the boundaries that were initially proposed by Hussein. McMahon accepted the boundaries of Hussein "subject to modification" and suggested the modification that "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab and should be excluded". Until 1920, British government documents suggested that Palestine was intended to be part of the Arab area; their interpretation changed in 1920 leading to public disagreement between the Arabs and the British, each side producing supporting arguments for their positions based on fine details of the wording and the historical circumstances of the correspondence. Jonathan Schneer provides an analogy to explain the central dispute over the meaning: "Presume a line extending from the districts of New York, New Haven, New London, and Boston, excluding territory west from an imaginary coastal kingdom. If by districts one means 'vicinity' or 'environs,' that is one thing with regard to the land excluded, but if one means 'vilayets' or 'provinces,' or in the American instance 'states,' it is another altogether. There are no states of Boston, New London, or New Haven, just as there were no provinces of Hama and Homs, but there is a state of New York, just as there was a vilayet of Damascus, and territory to the west of New York State is different from territory to the west of the district of New York, presumably New York City and environs, just as territory to the west of the vilayet of Damascus is different from territory to the west of the district of Damascus, presumably the city of Damascus and its environs."

More than 50 years after his initial report interpreting the correspondence for the British Foreign Office, Arnold J. Toynbee published his perspectives on the continuing academic debate. Toynbee set out the logical consequences of interpreting McMahon's 'districts' or 'wilayahs' as provinces rather than vicinities: (i) First alternative: McMahon was completely ignorant of Ottoman administrative geography. He did not know that the Ottoman vilayet of Aleppo extended westward to the coast, and he did not know that there were no Ottoman vilayets of Homs and Hama. It seems to me incredible that McMahon can have been as ill-informed as this, and that he would not have taken care to inform himself correctly when he was writing a letter in which he was making very serious commitments on HMG's account. (ii) Second alternative: McMahon was properly acquainted with Ottoman administrative geography, and was using the word 'wilayahs' equivocally. Apropos of Damascus, he was using it to mean 'Ottoman provinces'; apropos of Homs and Hama, and Aleppo, he was using it to mean 'environs'. This equivocation would have been disingenuous, impolitic, and pointless. I could not, and still cannot, believe that McMahon behaved so irresponsibly.

"Without detriment to France" debate
In the letter of 24 October, the English version reads: " ... we accept those limits and boundaries; and in regard to those portions of the territories therein in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally France" At a meeting in Whitehall in December 1920 the English and Arabic texts of McMahon's correspondence with Sharif Husein were compared. As one official, who was present, said:

"In the Arabic version sent to King Husain this is so translated as to make it appear that Gt Britain is free to act without detriment to France in the whole of the limits mentioned. This passage of course had been our sheet anchor: it enabled us to tell the French that we had reserved their rights, and the Arabs that there were regions in which they wd have eventually to come to terms with the French. It is extremely awkward to have this piece of solid ground cut from under our feet. I think that HMG will probably jump at the opportunity of making a sort of amende by sending Feisal to Mesopotamia."

James Barr wrote that although McMahon had intended to reserve the French interests, he became a victim of his own cleverness because the translator Ruhi lost the qualifying sense of the sentence in the Arabic version. In a Cabinet analysis of diplomatic developments prepared in May 1917 The Hon. William Ormsby-Gore, MP, wrote: "French intentions in Syria are surely incompatible with the war aims of the Allies as defined to the Russian Government. If the self-determination of nationalities is to be the principle, the interference of France in the selection of advisers by the Arab Government and the suggestion by France of the Emirs to be selected by the Arabs in Mosul, Aleppo, and Damascus would seem utterly incompatible with our ideas of liberating the Arab nation and of establishing a free and independent Arab State. The British Government, in authorising the letters dispatched to King Hussein before the outbreak of the revolt by Sir Henry McMahon, would seem to raise a doubt as to whether our pledges to King Hussein as head of the Arab nation are consistent with French intentions to make not only Syria but Upper Mesopotamia another Tunis. If our support of King Hussein and the other Arabian leaders of less distinguished origin and prestige means anything it means that we are prepared to recognise the full sovereign independence of the Arabs of Arabia and Syria. It would seem time to acquaint the French Government with our detailed pledges to King Hussein, and to make it clear to the latter whether he or someone else is to be the ruler of Damascus, which is the one possible capital for an Arab State, which could command the obedience of the other Arabian Emirs."

Declassified British Cabinet papers include a telegram dated 18 October 1915 from Sir Henry McMahon to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey requesting instructions. McMahon described conversations with a Muhammed Sharif al-Faruqi, a member of the Abd party who said the British could satisfy the demands of the Syrian Nationalists for the independence of Arabia. Faroqi had said the Arabs would fight if the French attempted to occupy the cities of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, but he thought they would accept some modification of the north-western boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca. Based on these conversations, McMahon suggested the language; "In so far as Britain was free to act without detriment to the interests of her present Allies, Great Britain accepts the principle of the independence of Arabia within limits propounded by the Sherif of Mecca". Lord Grey authorized McMahon to pledge the areas requested by the Sharif subject to the reserve for the Allies.

Arab position
The Arab position was that they could not refer to Palestine because that lay well to the south of the named places. In particular, the Arabs argued the vilayet (province) of Damascus did not exist and that the district (sanjak) of Damascus only covered the area surrounding the city and that Palestine was part of the vilayet of Syria A-Sham, which was not mentioned in the exchange of letters. Supporters of this interpretation also note that during the war, thousands of proclamations were dropped in all parts of Palestine carrying a message from the Sharif Hussein on one side and a message from the British Command on the other, saying "that an Anglo-Arab agreement had been arrived at securing the independence of the Arabs".

British position
The undated memorandum GT 6185 (from CAB 24/68/86) of November 1918 was prepared by the British historian Arnold Toynbee in 1918 while working in the Political Intelligence Department. Crowe, the Permanent Under-Secretary, ordered them to be placed in the Foreign Office dossier for the Peace Conference. After arriving in Paris, General Jan Smuts required that the memoranda be summarized and Toynbee produced the document GT 6506 (maps illustrating it are GT6506A ). The two last were circulated as E.C.2201 and considered at a meeting of the Eastern Committee (No.41) of the Cabinet on 5 December 1918, which was chaired by Lord Curzon, Jan Smuts, Lord Balfour, Lord Robert Cecil, General Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff; representatives of the Foreign Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury were present. T. E. Lawrence also attended.

The Eastern Committee met nine times in November and December to draft a set of resolutions on British policy for the benefit of the negotiators. On 21 October, the War Cabinet asked Smuts to prepare the summarized peace brief and Smuts asked Erle Richards to carry out this task. Richards distilled Toynbee's GT6506 and the resolutions of the Eastern Committee into a "P-memo" (P-49) for use by the Peace Conference delegates.

In the public arena, Balfour was criticized in the House of Commons when the Liberals and Labour Socialists moved a resolution "That secret treaties with the allied governments should be revised, since, in their present form, they are inconsistent with the object for which this country entered the war and are, therefore, a barrier to a democratic peace". In response to growing criticism arising from the seemingly contradictory commitments undertaken by the United Kingdom in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Balfour declaration, the 1922 Churchill White Paper took the position Palestine had always been excluded from the Arab area. Although this directly contradicted numerous previous government documents, those documents were not known to the public. As part of preparations for this White Paper, Sir John Shuckberg of the British Colonial Office had exchanged correspondence with McMahon; reliance was placed on a 1920 memorandum by Major Hubert Young, who had noted that in the original Arabic text, the word translated as "districts" in English was "vilayets", the largest class of administrative district into which the Ottoman Empire was divided. He concluded "district of Damascus", i.e., "vilayet of Damascus", must have referred to the vilayet of which Damascus was the capital, the Vilayet of Syria. This vilayet extended southwards to the Gulf of Aqaba but excluded most of Palestine.

While some British governments occasionally stated that the intent of the McMahon Correspondence was not to promise Palestine to Hussein, they have occasionally acknowledged the flaws in the legal terminology of the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that make this position problematic. The weak points of the government's interpretation were acknowledged in a detailed memorandum by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1939.

A committee established by the British in 1939 to clarify the arguments said many commitments had been made during and after the war and that all of them would have to be studied together. The Arab representatives submitted a statement from Sir Michael McDonnell to the committee that said whatever meaning McMahon had intended was of no legal consequence because it was his actual statements that constituted the pledge from His Majesty's Government. The Arab representatives also said McMahon had been acting as an intermediary for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Grey. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, Lord Grey said he had serious doubts about the validity of the Churchill White Paper's interpretation of the pledges he, as Foreign Secretary, had caused to be given to the Sharif Hussein in 1915. The Arab representatives suggested a search for evidence in the files of the Foreign Office might clarify the Secretary of State's intentions.

Works by involved parties

 * ; pdf version (0.3 MB); Original pdf (7.3MB)
 * ; pdf version (0.3 MB); Original pdf (7.3MB)

title: McMahon–Hussein Correspondence