Talk:1929 Palestine riots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Old discussion

Your citing Benny Morris??

There is no discussion page so I am starting it. Zero, if you any sepcific reason to dispute any fact in the article please explain or suggest an alternative. Zeq 12:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...purely biased. I dont even have time to change it because all of it biased.

A large amount of your addition is historical rubbish. It never happened. I'm wondering if you are really a certain obsessive POV pusher who was banned last year. --Zero 13:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not obesssive. I am not pushing any POV. My edit is not rubbish. I can see an RfA coming.

If you have other account of these events, for example if you think that Jews remained in Hebron after 1929, feel free to source it and suggest that the clain of ethnic cleansing is wrong. It is always possible that historic events have more than one version, you are free to bring the minority view into this article. (keep in mind it is the disnabguity article for hebron Massacre Zeq 13:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said repeatedly, the surviving Jews of Hebron were evacuated by the British after the massacre. None of them were expelled by the Arabs (which is what your sentences imply) even though of course it was the Arab violence that made the evacuation desirable. After about 2 years many of the Jews of Hebron returned there, but around 1936 the start of the Arab Rebellion made the security situation precarious again and the British authorities convinced those Jews to leave again. That's what happened; it's not an opinion and it is not equal in value to whatever rubbish you can find on the web. Unfortunately, you come across as an obsessive POV pusher with political opinions but no actual knowledge except a Google search box. --Zero 14:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you were actually there and you know the truth. Google is something that we all use. Fell free to add any fact that I forgot. I will do it shortly if you do not. This is a coloborative editing effort and you are more than welcome to take part in it instead of just use the revert option or writing sarcstic comments. Zeq 14:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no attempt to highlight other wrong facts (corrected the one about the British). so id this page going to be protected forever ? Zeq 09:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Claims

Some brief comments on recent claims.

• Many of the additions consist entirely of vitriolic comment, devoid of facts. Some are simply lies, such as "Observers heard Husseini issue the call: Itback al-Yahud 'Slaughter the Jews!'" Let's see that one reported in a contemporary source or supported by an academic historian. Such crap illustrates the uselessness of the source from which this material is copied.
• "minor disputes between Jews and Arabs about the right of Jews to pray at the Western Wall (Kotel) in Jerusalem" - that is not accurate. The disputes were about the manner of using the Wall. The Arabs insisted that the Jews observe the long-standing agreements (from Ottoman times) that allowed unlimited access but did not allow practices such as erecting barriers and blowing shofars. The Jews wanted to do those things. That's what the disputes were about. It is all meticulously documented in British reports.
• "proceeded to burn Jewish prayer books such as the Tora and Talmud" - the two "examples" were added gratuitously without evidence. Actually Moslems would not knowingly burn the Torah.
• "On Friday, August 23, Arab mobs attacked Jews in Jerusalem, Motza, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa..." - that paragraph is almost entirely emotive repetition of the story which is told dispassionately elsewhere in the article.
• "The Arab violence in Hebron was one of the worst atrocities in the modern histo....mass of frenzied Arab rioters...bloody rampage" - there is no place in the article for such purple polemic. It sounds like a supermarket tabloid.
• "The dead Jews that day included Eliezer Dan Slonim..." - That's true but why does he deserve a whole paragraph of our little article? If he was really an important person, write an article on him.
• "He had many friends among the Arab elders, who had promised to protect him." - A nasty attack on unamed Arabs who may or may not have been in a position to help this person. Btw, there is a list in the Israeli archives of 435 Jews who were saved by Arabs, along with the names of the Arabs who saved them.
• "By the end of the riot, during which the British police did nothing to protect the Jews or stop the violence, sixty-seven Jews were dead and hundreds wounded." - an outrageous slander! There was only one British policeman in the whole town and he did everything he could.
• "The survivors were isolated in a police station for three days while the Arabs rampaged through their houses, stealing and destroying Jewish property, unmolested by the British authorities." - who says? Anyway, shouldn't the over-stretched British authorities have been protecting the lives of citizens from the riots that continued elsewhere, rather than looking after property? (Guess what; they were.)

That's a start. It gives the idea. The big problem is that the article should not be written emotively and should not sound as if it was written by the mothers of the victims. We are here to recount historical events, not to evoke tears or anger or any other emotion. --Zero 10:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is great. I welcome the new spirit of cooperation.

I will address, each of youir points and remove or altrer the text as needed.

All this under one very important guideline : that the yardstick / policy used will be equal for articles or issues that address events that Palestinians care about in the same way we address the one Jews care about.

Let me give you an example:

• You say:

"The Arab violence in Hebron was one of the worst atrocities in the modern histo....mass of frenzied Arab rioters...bloody rampage" - there is no place in the article for such purple polemic. It sounds like a supermarket tabloid."

On the other hand on article nakba we find:

(Palestinians suffer) "the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization. More than half a century ago [53 years], the Palestinians as a people were slated for national obliteration, cast outside the course of history, their identity denied, "

So when applying the same yardstick of "no place in the article for such purple polemic. It sounds like a supermarket tabloid." - we will apply it equallly across the articles of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .

One is a quote from a named person and the other is text you want to insert. Those are different things and go by different rules. When we quote we have to use exact words, but when we write ourselves we have to be concise and not emotive. --Zero 23:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• You say:

"Such crap illustrates the uselessness of the source from which this material is copied."

We will apply this yard stick to quotes that arrived from sites that pure propeganda that no one accpet such as quotes from web sites or books of those who deny the holocaust (a claim known to be "crap and illustrates the uselessness of the source".)

• You also say:

"article should not be written emotively and should not sound as if it was written by the mothers of the victims."

And I agree. We will write the facts in an encyclopediac manner and we will present both (sourced) sides when the two POV conflict with each other. This again would apply not just to this article.

Do we have an agreement and can go to work ?

Signed: Zeq 14:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Zero:

You wrote: "We are here to recount historical events, not to evoke tears or anger or any other emotion." This should apply to the quotes we choose to use or not ? Zeq 04:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

missing info

The article on the conflict over the Western Wall should start with the general factors and concrete incidents that started it and those were: Meaning of the place: a) for the Jews the Wailing Wall is the most holy place of their religion because it is the last reminder of the site on which Solomon's temple once stood. b) for the Muslims the wall is part of the third holiest site of their religion, the Haram al-Sharif or Temple Mount, on top of which stands the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, where Mohammed once ascended to heaven. Incidents leading up to the conflict: In 1929 there were living quarters next to the wall and only a narrow street went along the wall. Already during the 19th century when the number of Jews praying at the wall was increasing, there were attempts to put up a screen in that street to separate women from men. This was objected by the local inhabitants as an obstruction to their use of the street. In 1919, under the British mandate then Zionist leaders proposed simply buying the wall. This was clearly opposed by the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem, which in turn was supported tentatively by the British administration.

On September 24, 1928, a screen was installed along the wall to divide men from women while praying. The screen blocked the narrow street so the Arab inhabitants protested and British authorities removed the screen. That action was condemned internationally by Zionist officials and taken to the League of Nations. For both Jews and Muslims the issue had become very important and a political face down. Nevertheless for another year matters did not escalate.

In July 1929 the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Hussaini, ordered building activities to be resumed around the wall. This in turn aroused the Zionist protests by Betar on August 15, which then escalated into the Wailing Wall riots.

This whole part needs to be inserted in the beginning of the article or it doesn't make sense at all. TMSTAPF

what else is missing

From 1922 through 1928 the relationship between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was relatively peaceful. However, in late 1928 a new phase of violence began with minor disputes between Jews and Arabs about the right of Jews to pray at the Western Wall (Kotel) in Jerusalem. These arguments led to an outbreak of Arab violence in August 1929 when Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, fomented Arab hatred by accusing the Jews of endangering the mosques and other sites holy to Islam. Observers heard Husseini issue the call: Itback al-Yahud "Slaughter the Jews!"

(we also need to cover the fact that he lost election to Nashibi and wanted to regain public support) the way he choose was to evoke religious hatred against the jews.

On August 15, 1929, rumors spread across the Arab comunity by leaflets - some apparently prepared in advance by Muslims -declared that the Jews were preparing to take control of the holy place and that Muslims should come to Jerusalem to defend them.

On Friday, August 16, 1929, after an inflammatory sermon, a demonstration organized by the Supreme Muslim Council, marched to the Wall and proceeded to burn Jewish prayer books that rae usually found near the wall (books such a "sidur" which include pareyrs from the Tora) supplicatory notes left in the Wall's cracks (considered sacred paryet between a person and his creator) were burned as well.

The acting High Commissioner Harry Luke answered to the jews compliants that "no prayer books had been burnt but only pages of prayer books". The Arab riots continued, and the next day one Jew was killed in the Bukharan Quarter. His funeral was turned into a political demonstration.

On August 20, Haganah leaders proposed to provide defense for 600 Jews of the Old Yishuv in Hebron or help them evacuate, but the community leaders declined these offers, insisting that they trust the A'yan (Arab leadership) to protect them.

On August 22, 1929 the leaders of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) met with the British Deputy High Commissioner to alert him of their fears of a large Arab riot. The British officials assured them that the government was in control of the situation. The following day the Riots of 1929 erupted throughout the Palestine Mandate, lasting for seven days.

On Friday, August 23, Arab mobs attacked Jews in Jerusalem, Motza, Hebron, Safed, Jaffa, and other parts of the country. The Old City of Jerusalem was hit particularly hard. By the next day, the Haganah was able to mount a defense and further attacks in Jerusalem were repulsed. But, the violence in Jerusalem generated rumors throughout the country, many carrying fabricated accounts of Jewish attempts to defile Muslim holy places, all to inflame the Arab residents. Villages were plundered and destroyed by Arab mobs. While attacks on Jews in Tel Aviv and Haifa were thwarted by Jewish defenses, there were Jewish deaths in Hebron, where 67 Jewish men and women were slaughtered and Safed, where 18 Jews were killed, as well as scattered other losses totaling 133 Jewish deaths, with more than 300 wounded.

The next Friday, August 23, 1929, Arabs, inflamed by false rumors that two Arabs had been killed by Jews started a murderous attack on Jews in the Old City. The violence quickly spread to other parts of the Palestine, Arab policemen often joining the mobs. The Arab violence in Hebron was one of the worst atrocities in the modern history of Palestine: Jerusalem Arabs came to Hebron with false reports of Jews murdering Arabs during the rioting there, even saying thousands of Arabs had been killed. Despite the fact that Jews and Arabs in Hebron had been on good terms, a mass of frenzied Arab rioters formed and proceeded to the Hebron Yeshiva where a lone student was murdered. The next day, the Jewish Sabbath, the killing continued as an Arab mob of hundreds surrounded homes where Jews sought refuge, broke in and murdered scores of Jews in a bloody rampage.

The dead Jews that day included Eliezer Dan Slonim, a man highly esteemed by the Arabs. He was the director of the local English-Palestine bank whose many clients were Arabs, and was the sole Jewish member of the Hebron Municipal Council. He had many friends among the Arab elders, who had promised to protect him. Twenty-two people died in Slonim's house that day including his wife and two young children.

By the end of the riot, during which the British police did nothing to protect the Jews or stop the violence, sixty-seven Jews were dead and hundreds wounded. The survivors were isolated in a police station for three days while the Arabs rampaged through their houses, stealing and destroying Jewish property, unmolested by the British authorities. At the end of the three days the survivers from the Jewish comumnity of Hebron were sent to Jerusalem, by the British authorities, who feared for their lives and were unable to protect them in Hebron. Hebron's ancient Jewish quarter was by that time empty and destroyed.

Throughout Palestine British authorities had only 292 policemen, fewer than 100 soldiers, six armored cars, and five or six aircraft.

While a number of Jews were being killed at the Jaffa Gate, British policemen did not open fire. By August 24, 17 Jews were killed in the Jerusalem area.

The massacre The worst atrocities occurred in Hebron and Safed, where massacres of Jews occurred. In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 67 Jews and wounded many others. The lone British policeman in the town, Raymond Cafferata, was overwhelmed and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations).

Cafferata later testified that:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him." On August 24, 1929 the violence reached its zenith with an attack on the Jewish community of Hebron, which numbered approximately 600 at the time. Violence was both imported and home-grown, with witnesses reporting both the arrival of outside elements and the rising up on locals against their neighbors. The worst attacks were carried out against the Slobodko Rabbinical College and a preparatory school in Hebron, 30 students were killed. A group of Arabs rushed into the college, killing, among others, twelve American citizens and wounding fifteen other American citizens. The Shaw commission reports that: About 9 o’clock on the morning of the 24th of August, Arabs in Hebron made a most ferocious attack on the Jewish ghetto and on isolated Jewish houses lying outside the crowded quarters of the town. More than 60 Jews—including many women and children—were murdered and more than 50 were wounded…Jewish Synagogues were desecrated, a Jewish hospital, which had provided treatment for Arabs, was attacked and ransacked"

Some Arab neighbors took in their Jewish friends and hid them from the mob —the family of Avrum Burg, former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset has reported that his family was saved in such a way. With time, the Haganah entered the fray and, together with British forces and mentionable numbers of Arab policemen, the violence was suppressed in Hebron. A British Colonial Office communiqué issued on August 26 stated that, “Up to the present the known casualties include forty-five Jews killed, while fifty-nine Jews were seriously wounded. Moslem casualties were eight killed and ten wounded. The town is now reported quiet, but 450 Jews have been temporarily accommodated in police barracks.” Describing the community, Joseph Levy of the New York Times wrote that “almost all of (the Jewish residents of Hebron) belonged to families who have lived there for three generations and always on the friendliest and most neighborly.” But by the time the riot was over the Jewish community had evacuated the city.

The other major centers of violence were in Safed, where 18 Jews were killed in a brief attack, and in Jerusalem.

During the week of riots, the fatalities were:

Killed: 133 Jews, 116 Arabs. Wounded: 339 Jews, 232 Arabs. The Jews were mostly killed by Arabs, while the Arabs were mostly killed by British-commanded police and soldiers.

On September 1, Sir John Chancellor condemned "the atrocious acts committed by bodies of ruthless and bloodthirsty evildoers... murders perpetrated upon defenseless members of the Jewish population... accompanied by acts of unspeakable savagery."

Zeq 08:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. How is the Jews' demonstration to express their desire to blow the Shofar at the Wailing Wall justification for a bloody massacre? This eas nothing but a blood libel, no different from the pogroms of Europe. Why does this page perpetrate the lie that the Jews declared that they wanted to conquer the wall?

See the book of Rabbi Moshe Segal, who organized the march. The demonstration lasted one day and the "perpetrators", incl. R' Moshe, obm, were jailed. The march was aimed at the Brits who had put stringent controls on the prayer rights of the Jews at the Wailing Wall to appease the Arabs. This included the famous ban on blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, which R' Moshe was the first to break. His book, מדור לדור is very worth reading if you understand Hebrew well enough.

This information should be added, instead of the vague implication that the Jews were threatening to conquer the Wall.

Sounds like R' Moshe was an agitator who contributed to the climate of tension. I'm not surprised the Brits arrested him. Btw, you are wrong about ban on shofar blowing. The Brits didn't invent it, they just continued the Ottoman rules. And nobody here, nor the article, said anything about anything justifying the massacre; that's just your imagination. --Zero 14:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefect OR by Zero Zeq 15:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To start an article about the massacre of jews by "on .., Jews marching shouted...." does not suggest anything ... sure.

This from a person that deleted the line that started "from 1922 to 1928 relations were good betwen jews and arabs"

The truth is of course that HUsseni (who was defeted in his arce from Jerusalem township council) by Nashibi decided to create tension that he could lead. As an Imam religion gave him the perfect pretext. The text will refelct that. Zeq 15:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this page - please do not resort to revert wars if you still don't see eye to eye over everything. If there is a dispute, try one of the established dispute resolution procedures. Thanks. Izehar 12:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As expected, Zeq just put back the same purple text that started this fuss, complete with "frenzied Arab rioters" and similar unacceptable phrases. --Zero 13:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"frenzied Arab rioters" is a cut and paste from other web site but in any case please explain what is wrong with it if it describe what took place. We are talkingabout a mob that comited a massacre so please help me understand why are you complaing . I am listening. Zeq 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting is generally against Wikipedia rules. Also, remember that you have to present each POV in a NPOV fashion. Describing "frenzied Arab rioters" is not NPOV, it is a description of the right-wing page you got it from, and not suitable as is for a Wikipedia article. You could for example, provide a quotation from a notable newscaster back then who "described the rioters as frenzied" (just as an example). But cutting and pasting a POV from a website does not contribute to NPOV. Each POV has to be presented neutrally. It's not hard to understand. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. I did this in a rush way and the result is wrong. Zeq 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unthinkable title for this page

The page should be named "Masscare of 1929 in Hebron" and other areas. The atrocious acts done by the arabs to the Jewish communinty is very well documented and although chilling and very sad, this is the truth and it should not be covered up as "riots" which sounds neutral as if both sides are to blame or something (!) Amoruso 02:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and sionce there was no objections I went ahead and changed the title. In light of Deir Yassin massacre, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, etc., it is wrong to imply that while the Jews repeatedly commit "massacres", the Arabs merely "riot". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

thank you. Amoruso 11:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And we start all over again. I renamed the page 1929 Palestine massacre. That is what happened: a simple massacre of Jews by Arabs. It didn't only happen in Hebron; it happened in Jerusalem and Safed also. I assume everybody agrees on the current title. --Daniel575 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Hebron massacre the name by which it is most commonly known? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A quite Google search gives about 10,000 hits for +"Hebron massacre"+1929, vs. about 300 for +"Palestine riots"+1929, and 1 for "Palestine massacre"+1929. I suggest it be moved back to the common name, following Wikipedia naming conventions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I also prefer 1929 Hebron massacre. However, some don't agree and want it to be 1929 Palestine riots. My version is a (bad) compromise. I prefer Hebron massacre. --Daniel575 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And if anybody wishes to have 'massacre' replaced by 'riots', we will change Deir Yassin massacre into Deir Yassin riots, Cave of the Patriarchs massacre into Cave of the Patriarchs riots etc. --Daniel575 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are talking here about individual events, not a series or riots, demonstrations and massacres such as occured during the 1929 Palestine riots. --Ian Pitchford 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but why shouldn't there be a separate article about the Hebron massacre itself, given its infamy? The Hebron massacre was one specific event in the "1929 Palestine riots". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

exactly. The 1929 riots title should be kept. And the information about Hebron should be mentioned briefly and then directed to the 1929 Hebron Massacre. Amoruso 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

POV

I have found this page to be seriously flawed and biased, using exaggerated and emotionally charged language and citing specious sources. In line with civilised debate, I have made some edits to the page to make it less biased, but keeping many unsubstantiated claims for the sake civility. However, I have found my edits disrespectfully cancelled. Therefore, I am marking this page as NPOV diputed and would like to invite various contributors to an intellegent debate over its content.--Rearticulator 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits did not consist of anything constructive. Yes, the victims in Hebron were anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. That deserves mentioning and I put that back, though not in the introduction. I also added some other background information, such as the fact that Muslims control(led) the entire Temple Mount yet refused to grant the Jews the right to pray even just at the Western Well. --Daniel575 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for incorporating some of my edits, but I still find other problems with the text:

1. The introduction is very misleading: "The Hebron massacre refers to the violent destruction of the ancient Jewish community of Hebron by Arab rioters in late August of 1929." The massacre was not the destruction of an ancient Jewish community. Check the entry Holocaust, does it say it is the destruction of the German Jewish community? Although in the latter it was actually about anihilating the Jews, but not in the former. The massacre was about killing some Orthodox Jews in Hebron in retaliation for a perceived Zionist plan to take over Muslim Holy sites, no more, no less.

2.The part which talks about them being Anti-Zionist Jews is ver important. Well, perhaps it should not be put in the introduction, but it should be highlighted to stress how the ignorant mobs failed to differentiate between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews.

3. Some parts of the text are pure tautology (e.g. "unsubstantiated rumors". All rumors are unsubstantiated, that's why they are called rumors. You cannot say they are "false" either because that can only be said post factum)

4. Some of the sources cited are specious. The parts about burning prayer books and rape of women are ridiculous. Only credible sources should be cited, or else the credibilty of quotes put in doubt.

I would like to keep the NPOV mark on the article until we are through with our discussion. I hope you do not mind.--Rearticulator 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

the killing and raping of the Jewish people in Hebron is all very thoroughly documented.

the anti zionist claim if not only untrue, but it's irrelevant.

the intro doesn't suggest it was premedidated (in fact the article says the opposite), but the result was the destruction of the old community. your POV about muslim holy sites is ridicolous. you have shown nothing concrete and provided no citations for your abuse of the article. I don't mind leaving the npov for a while , but only temporary to see if someone has something concrete to say and not just anti-semitic propaganda. Amoruso 16:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you asked for a citation about Zionist attempts to but the wailing wall and the fact that the massacred Jews were Anti-Zionist. I refer you to Anita Shapira, "Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948" (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1992), pp. 176–77. The fact that they were Anti-Zionist is not irrelevant (cf. #2 above). Moreover, even if the result was the destruction of that community, that does not equate the massacre with the destruction. Some sensible replies please :-) --Rearticulator 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

if you want, you can add her opinion then. Only one not being sensible is you. Amoruso 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you claim that the killing and raping in Hebron is thoroughly documented. Could you please offer some proper citation for that. I am afraid the sources cited are dubious. They are all web-pages that list some anonymous eyewitness accounts. I am sure you know that eyewitness accounts (even when properly identified) are hardly considered evidence, both academically and legally (cf. Witness). I shall give a full list of unsubstantiated claims in this entry that need proper support before being stated. Who said writing an encyclopedia was easy? Any historians around?--Rearticulator 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

the witness reports have been documented by established historians time and again. It's not at all dubious sources. Amoruso 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Being neither a historian nor having access to the references cited, all I can contribute is an observation of the language used in much of the entry.

"...under the leadership of Jeremiah Halpern [Jews] assembled at the Wall shouting 'the Wall is ours.'"

"...after an inflammatory sermon, a demonstration organized by the Supreme Muslim Council marched to the Wall"

The events being described in these two passages are clearly nearly equivalent. The modifiers, "leadership" as opposed to "inflammatory sermon", and "assembled" as opposed to "marched," with its marshal connotations, make the POV of the author quite obvious.

Further, re: the statement:

"133 Jews were killed and 339 wounded (mostly by Arabs); 116 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded (mostly by British-commanded police and soldiers)

It would be nearly impossible to verify this vague claim short of extensive forensics. And, the statement that

"...the leaders of the anti-Zionist community [at "Old Yishuv in Hebron"] declined... offers, [of defense by "Haganah leaders" on "August 20"]

does not imply that the Haganah was not active throughout the following week. The dead and wounded statistics above are for the accrual of the entire period and over the entire area and not just at Old Yishuv.

In fact I would find incredulous any claim that no armed Haganah soldiers were present during at the least some of these events who therefore would certainly have been responsible for a number of Muslim deaths, albeit defensively. In this way "mostly killed by" becomes obfuscative especially as no mention of the Jewish killing is made at all.

These remarks strike me as clear efforts to accentuate the martyrdom of the Jews. Zionist violence was antecedent to these events, and no doubt a similarly biased account could be prepared to accentuate the martyrdom of Muslims as an incitement.

Therefore, IMHO the entry constitutes a biased account and incidentally, I find that the presentation of such biased statements has severely undermined sympathy for and understanding of the genuine suffering many Jews have endured---Nesdon 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have recast this article as being about "the incident" which is related to "the massacre". --Uncle Ed 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

wrong shapira quote

Shapira doesn't say this, especially not the beginning. the whole paragraph will be rephrased anyway. and additional shapira quotes will be added. Amoruso 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Commission of Enquiry

The "Commission of Enquiry", i.e the Shaw Report paragraph should probably be shortened quite significantly. I have copied what is in the paragraph now to the main Shaw Report article, as that article was very thin. Regards, Huldra 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi HUldra. It can be in both with cross links. Zeq 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, hi there, Zeq; I think it would look much better if this part was "shrunk" a bit; now the whole article becomes unbalanced, as far too much space/detail is given to the Shaw Report. However, I do not have the Shaw Report available, so I can´t really do the job myself....hope somebody else will, though. Regards, Huldra 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay. This was the only official enquiry on the topic of this article, so its conclusions are noteworthy. What is here is just the main points from the conclusions section of the report. --Zero^talk 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Severely POV, immigrants seized Western Wall

The lead "In the summer of 1929, a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated" of this article is terrible, I'm flagging it. This was not about access to the Wall, it was about ownership, an attempt at violent takeover, leastways, that's what Morris says about it in Righteous Victims, p.112.

... The contention that the Jews were bent on taking over ... had long been a theme in Arab propaganda. For example, the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions"

On September 23-24, 1928 ... the SMC complained that Jews had set up a screen to separate men and women at the Wailing Wall (or Western Wall) in Jerusalem's Old City. The screen violated the status quo principle ... Failing to persuade the Jews to take it down, the police forcibly removed it.

In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.226

... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall On August 14, 1929, some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, "The Wall is ours"; that evening, three thousand gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, hundreds of Jews-some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons-demonstrated on the site.

Whitehall sent Sir John Hope-Simpson, a retired colonial official, to look into immigration, Jewish settlement, and land sales. "... The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official. The offensive assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellent:"260 On October 21, 1930, the British government issued the Passfield White Paper, seriously reducing its commitment to the Balfour Declaration. ... By early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Weizmann in London bore fruit. PR^talk 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now what exactly about Jewish ownership of the WALL made Muslims think THEIR holy places were in danger? Was it anything any JEW said, or was it was the Mufti and other Muslims falsely claimed the Jews were going to do, that caused the Arab pogroms of 1929?Bigleaguer 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia policy is clear, we report what the sources say. They say that the owners of the Wall long feared a violent takeover of it, and after at least 7 years of threatening to do it, in 1929 an attempt was indeed made to seize it. PR^talk 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's edit on lead-up to the events

I have pasted here the following passage, which is full of grammatical errors, and contains a highly biased, single and partial version of the events leading up to the Palestinian riots. I hope this can be edited collaboratively. As written it certainly does not conform to any standards of NPOV or grammatical writing, for wiki or any other venue.

- Sequence of events

During the late 1920s the Muslims have started to interfere with Jewish access to the wall. They disturbed prayers and throw stones on worshipers in the Jewish wall plaza. Muslims leaders tried to compel the mandatory government to forbids Jews from publicly praying near the wall. After the British government failure to respond the Muslims initiated provocations such as creating noise exactly when the Jews were conducting their prayers. The Muslims created other public nuisance such as smoking on Saturday and throwing waste water on the Jews. The Mulsim have also created an opening in the wall through which they drove cattle next to the Jewish prayer area.

Meron Benvenisti gives details, also available in several other historians, of Muslim activities harassing Jews at prayer. Other historians contextualize this with Jewish provocations. To rely on Benvenisti only is to ignore the thick description of the context, with its chronology, in which the riot atmosphere developed, and thus makes the text into a Zionist account and not an up-to-date NPOV account.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Other sources can indeed be relied upon.
2. You have brought Benvenshti as a source in the Mufti article - and over there you did not mention any problem with using him as source
3. If you want a colborative effort you will need to learn how to share with other editors not just revert their words but to propose modifications that improve text you think can be improved.
4. what you have just did amounts to vandalism: You removed text which is based on a WP:RS source and offered nothing instead or as addition. So I will wait about 24 hours, let you merge the text back with what everr you think can improve the text. I am all for colboration and improvments. Zeq (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with vandalism. I provided ther RS, and you misused it. I brought it in to be discussed here, on the talk page. You have jumped at it, culled what you like, eliminated what you dislike, phrased it in sloppy English, and now ask that those who dislike the edit fix it up. I don't accept this as a correct procedure, because a large, extensive edit which is deeply problematical should not be heedlessly patched in, in the expectation that others do the hard work to make it NPOV. You and I are not the only editors in here. I have no haste, and I hope you will discuss your proposed edit here, properly, before despoiling the page with a rash, highly Zionist POV pastiche of the period. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Before accusaing other editors I suggest you familiar yourself with WP:AGF. I offered my best edit - if all your ability to improve it is to revert than leave it at that. If you think you can do better I wil allow you the time to improve my edit. Zeq (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Before accusing other editors, I suggest you simply click on the following page, the wiki article on the Western Wall (A), or consult the evidence you removed from an earlier version of the Al-Husayni page (see B). To save you time, I have clipped it in here, and we can remove it when you have studied the page, and used these wiki articles to thicken out your one-sided paragraph, and make it NPOV.

Required Wiki reading for Zeq, as per above

(A) Western Wall

British rule 1917 - 1948===

Jewish Legion soldiers at the Western Wall after taking part in British conquest of Jerusalem, 1917

In December 1917, British forces under Edmund Allenby captured Jerusalem from the Turks. Allenby pledged "that every sacred building, monument, holy spot, shrine, traditional site, endowment, pious bequest, or customary place of prayer of whatsoever form of the three religions will be maintained and protected according to the existing customs and beliefs of those to whose faith they are sacred".

In 1919 Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, anxious to enable Jews to access their sacred site unmolested, approached the British Military Governor of Jerusalem, Colonel Ronald Storrs, and offered between £75,000 and £100,000 (approx. £5m in modern terms) to purchase the area at the foot of the Wall and rehouse the occupants. Storrs was enthusiastic about the idea because he hoped some of the money would be used to improve Muslim education. Although optimistic at first, negotiations broke down after strong Muslim opposition. Storrs wrote two decades later:

"The acceptance of the proposals, had it been practicable, would have obviated years of wretched humiliations, including the befouling of the Wall and pavement and the unmannerly braying of the tragi-comic Arab band during Jewish prayer, and culminating in the horrible outrages of 1929"

In 1922, a status quo agreement issued by the mandatory authority forbade the placing of benches near the Wall. (The last occurrence of such a ban was in 1915, but the Ottoman decree was soon retracted after intervention of the Chacham Bashi)

In 1926 another abortive effort was made by Palestine Zionist Executive, Colonel F. H. Kisch, who envisaged buying the whole area adjacent to the Wall in order to create an open space with seats for aged worshippers to sit on. In 1928 the Zionist Organisation reported that John Chancellor, High Commissioner of Palestine, believed that the Western Wall should come under Jewish control and wondered “why no great Jewish philanthropist had not bought it yet”.

September 1928 disturbances

On 28 September, 1928, the Day of Atonement, British police forcefully removed a screen used to separate men and women at prayer. After protests from the Supreme Muslim Council, the British described the screen as violating the Ottoman status quo that forbade Jews from making any construction in the Western Wall area. In practice a flexible modus vivendi had emerged and such screens had been put up from time to time when large numbers of people gathered to pray. Jews world over objected to the British action and the Vaad Leumi demanded that the British administration expropriate the wall for the Jews. Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld issued a letter on behalf of the Edah HaChareidis and Agudas Yisroel strongly condemning the desecration of the holy site. Various communal leaders called for a general strike. A large rally was held in the Etz Chaim Yeshiva, following which an angry crowd attacked the local police station in which they believed the British officer involved in the fiasco was sheltering.

In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall. He ordered new construction next to and above the Wall, with bricks often falling on the worshippers below. The volume of the muezzin was turned up while the Jews were praying. The Jews protested and tensions increased.

A British enquiry into the disturbances - "The Western or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem: Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies" - was published in November 1928. It emphasised the need to maintain the status quo and instructed that Jews could only bring “those accessories which had been permitted in Turkish times.” The Chief Rabbinate was asked to verify which apparatus had been permitted, but they refused to do so, arguing that Jews had the right to pray at the Wall without restrictions.

1929 Palestine riots

In the summer of 1929, the Mufti ordered an opening be made at the southern end of the alleyway which straddled the Wall. The former cul-de-sac became a thoroughfare which led from the Temple Mount into the prayer area at the Wall. Mules were herded through the narrow alley, often dropping excrement. This, together with other construction projects in the vicinity, and restricted access to the Wall, resulted in Jewish protests to the British, who remained indifferent.

On August 14, 1929, after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall, 6,000 Jews demonstrated in Tel Aviv, shouting “The Wall is ours.” The next day, the Jewish fast of Tisha B'Av, 300 youths raised the Zionist flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the Wall. The day after, on August 16, an organised mob of 2,000 Muslim Arabs descended on the Western Wall, injuring the beadle and burning prayer books, liturgical fixtures and notes of supplication. The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre. [[:Image:Wailing Wall, Palestine Post 1934.jpg|thumb|150px|A report in the Palestine Post, 21 September 1934]]

1930 commission to determine the rights of Muslims and Jews at the Wall

In 1930, in reponse to the 1929 riots, the British Government appointed a commission "to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall". The League of Nations approved the commission on condition that the members were not British.

The Jews requested that the Commission take the following actions:

• To give recognition to the immemorial claim that the Wailing Wall is a Holy Place for the Jews, not only for the Jews in Palestine, but also for the Jews of the whole world.
• To decree that the Jews shall have the right of access to the Wall for devotion and for prayers in accordance with their ritual without interference or interruption.
• To decree that it shall be permissible to continue the Jewish services under the conditions of decency and decorum characteristic of a sacred custom that has been carried on for many centuries without infringement upon the religious rights of others.
• To decree that the drawing up of any regulations that may be necessary as to such devotions and prayers, shall be entrusted to the Rabbinate of Palestine, who shall thus re-assume full responsibility in that matter, in discharge of which responsibility they may consult the Rabbinate of the world.
• To suggest, if the Commissioners approve of the plan, to the Mandatory Power that it should make the necessary arrangements by which the properties now occupied by the Moghrabi Waqf might be vacated, the Waqf authorities accepting in lieu of them certain new buildings to be erected upon some eligible site in Jerusalem, so that the charitable purpose, for which this Waqf was given, may still be fulfilled.

David Yellin testifying before the commission stated:

”Being judged before you today stands a nation that has been deprived of everything that is dear and sacred to it from its emergence in its own land – the graves of its patriarchs, the graves of its great kings, the graves of its holy prophets and, above all, the site of its glorious Temple. Everything has been taken from it and of all the witnesses to its sanctity, only one vestige remains – one side of a tiny portion of a wall, which, on one side, borders the place of its former Temple. In front of this bare stone wall, that nation stands under the open sky, in the heat of summer and in the rains of winter, and pours out its heart to its God in heaven.”

The Commission concluded that the wall, and the adjacent pavement and Mograbi Quarter, were solely owned by the Muslim Waqf. However, Jews had the right to "free access to the Western Wall for the purpose of devotions at all times", subject to some stipulations that limited which objects could be brought to the Wall and forbade the blowing of the shofar, which was made illegal. Muslims were forbidden to disrupt Jewish devotions by driving animals or other means. During the 1930s, at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, young Jews persistently flouted the shofar ban each year and blew the shofar resulting in their arrest and prosecution. They were usually fined or sentenced to imprisonment for three to six months.

(B) From earlier Amin Al-Husayni page, the evidence you and Armon removed included.

The Mufti's role in the 1929 Palestine riots

Al-Husayni's role in the1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre, was hotly disputed at the time. An observer on the committee investigating the riots noted that during the interview, the Mufti held a copy of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.. The Jewish Agency charged him with responsibility for inciting the violence. The Shaw commission of enquiry by a majority acquitted the Mufti of legal responsibility for the riot. A minority opinion by Mr Snell held the Mufti as accountable, in that he was fully aware of the dangers of incitement in religious propaganda and had failed to exercise his religious authority to restrain outbreaks of violence. . Snell's opinion was endorsed by the League of Nations's Mandatory Commission review, which was conducted later that year. .

It adduced the Mufti's memorandum, delivered to the British authorities, on October the 8th, in which the Mufti accused the Jews of wishing to take possession of the sector called Al Buraq. This accusation had been challenged in turn by the Jewish National Council in Palestine, in an open letter dated November 1928. The Mufti did not accept these official assurances, the accusation was repeated, and led to a widespread conviction in the Arab community that the Jews did indeed wish to take possession of the Mosque of Omar. The Mandates Commission concluded that al-Husayni’s accusations had exacerbated Arab hostilities.

Later historians such as Benny Morris, Christopher Sykes, Joseph Schechtman, Yehuda Benari and Walter Laqueur, in reviewing the evidence, have given a more nuanced account. Sykes argued that the withdrawal by Jewish authorities of what turned out to be groundless charges that the British themselves were complicit with the riots may have induced the Shaw Commission thereafter to ignore strong evidence on the other hand that pointed to Zionist incitement as a factor in the riots Morris argues that by 1929 the Arabs realized that the Yishuv's growth, abetted by Mandate policies, would turn them into a minority in their own land.' Internal clan politics weakened a united opposition, and the ascendancy of the Nashashibis, in part spurred al-Hussayn's campaign against the Jews, and the violence that resulted from it.

'By exploiting religious passions, he hoped to sway the Muslim masses to back his camp.'

.

As early as 1922, the Palestinian delegation to Mecca had declared that: 'the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions', and the theme reflected a long tradition in Arab propaganda. On Yom Kippur 1925, Jewish worshippers had set up benches before the wall, subsequently dismantled by the police after Arab protests. On September 23-24, 1928, the Supreme Muslim Council complained of a screen fastened to the pavement on Yom Kippur to separate Jewish men and women in orthodox worship. The acts interrupted the Ottoman status quo that had prevailed down until that time. Unable to have it dismantled by persuasion, the Mandatory constabulary removed it by force. As part of the Muslim attempt to have their traditional rights at the Wall confirmed, Husayni reacted to what he took to be provocations by, in turn, engaging in building new structures, and in reviving old and noisy Islamic rituals above the wall. The builders' methods disturbed Jews at prayer below. Husayni opened a long-shut gate that opened into the alley where Jewish worshippers prayed, to allow donkeys to pass. The English failed to intervene, and Zionists transformed the dispute into one of national honour. There was in fact increasing pressure from 'Right-wing Zionists' to take control of the Wall. As Laqueur notes, the Revisionist newspaper Doar Hayom had begun ‘to agitate the Jews for a fight against the Mufti' over the property, claiming on its pages that, ‘the wall is ours’. . On August 14th, 1929 some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting The Wall is ours, and prayers by half that number were made at the Wall that night. A predominantly Betar demonstration followed the next day, with several hundred youths, some with weapons and explosives, marched to the wall, and a detachment with knives and sticks on hand raised the blue-white flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the wall. and heated rumours raced round the Arab community to the effect that the haram itself was in danger. Al Hussayni's activists stoked the flames enjoining them to attack Jews and defend the holy sites. Official Jewish assurances that they had no claims to the Wall were to no avail. In the escalating tensions, with the parts of the Arab community inflamed by rumours that the Jews did indeed wish to take possession of the Mosque of Omar, the notorious massacres took place. The force and violence of these disturbances shook Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration. Jabotinsky had been out of the country at the time, but his Beterim demonstrations and inflammatory articles in Doar Hayom were, at the time, blamed for provoking the Muslim outrages. On his return he wrote that the rally 'had been a useful and a fine thing', insisting that,

'It is the main thing in all strategy to force the enemy to attack before he is ready. A year later it would have been infinitely worse.'

.

The British seized the opportunity of his departure from Palestine in December 25 of that year by barring his return.

By early 1931, however, Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Chaim Weizmann in London had rescued the status quo ante.

Nishadani, Can you sign your comments please ? thank you. Also I afil to understand the relvancy of the hugh amount of material you have just entered so I'll just repeat what I wrote to you before:

• "revert" is not a normal form of editing. If you think the text i adde needs improvment - please do so using sources. If you don't want to add anything I will not accpet your deletion of WP:RS as it is since it is bordering vandalism. I am willing to wait - either build on my text in colborative way or restore the sourced text you have removed. Zeq (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your text was too bad to do anything other than revert. Before editing please read up on the subject using all sources. Stop repeating yourself. Could I prevail on you to post less, and read more. As it is I am being forced to waste too much time cleaning up errors no responsible or self-respecting editor would commit. This is my last word, since I think I have already spent far too much time on this, and have not yet seen evidence you actually read what you reply to. From now on, I will simply edit, on occasion, as I think appropriate, and limit my explanations to the edit summary. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ithink you again make the mistake of trying to teach other how to edit. Thank you I don't get into this discussion. I invite you to edit amd improve my edit if you think it had a problem. Zeq (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: 'Zeq '- either build on my text in colborative way or restore the sourced text you have removed.'

I.e. Zeq orders me, gives another editor, two alternatives (1) build on his deeply flawed text, or (b) restore the text he inserted. Catch-22. Heads Zeq wins, Tails you lose.

I doubt any further evidence is required to prove what editors have complained about over the last two years, Zeq's abuse of WP:OWN.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a very hard streach Nashidani to claim that I own this or any article in Wikipedia. In any case the "catch-22" situation is something you have created by reverting. Wikipedia is a colborative effort. You either make use of what other editors have started or you at least avoid deleting a prefectly sourced good faith edit .

The options you have are indeed clear: If you think my edit is incomplete - please make it better. If you can not make it better - please restore it as it was a sourced good faith edit.

Clearly this propsal is reasonable and show nothing about "ownership".Zeq (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One sided massacre and yet 116 Arabs were killed.

"At least 116 Arabs and 133 Jews[1] were killed and 339 wounded.[2]" Why is it that the article only specifies moments when Jews were killed. No mention of Arab deaths. Is this information not available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstirner (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arab deaths were mostly due to police shooting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.233.96 (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the need for an explanation of the almost equivalent number Arab deaths. I spent a while reading through the article and the discussion page searching for an explanation and all I found was this unsigned comment above. I feel that without an explanation of this large number of Arab deaths and injured, the page reads like Jewish propaganda. (Bjoleniacz (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

Other names for this?

I've found "The 1929 Buraq Uprising" and the "1929 Western Wall Uprising" that seem to refer to this same incident. Are those names in common use? By which sides? Jason Quinn (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A Google search seems to confirm the two alternative names I've added to the article. A historian's input would be well appreciated however. These names seem to be Palestinian, which would balance the article. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I agree with the comments made above. The description of the riots focuses on the casualties of only one side, despite the relatively equal casualty figures. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvements can be made, but the evidence is that police and army fire was the main cause of the Arab casualties. As far as I know, there is no other explanation in detailed sources (including the enquiry report, which I have). I think a POV tag should be accompanied by a better case. Zero^talk 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the report in email form? This article reads one-sided, and two other editors have voiced the same concern. If there is not much detail out there about the deaths of the 116 Arabs, would be worth having a sentence which says that. I would have thought Palestinian Arab newspapers from the time would have documented what happened to the 116 Arabs, even if the Shaw Report did not. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jabotinsky

Does anyone have a source which explains why the British apparently blamed Jabotinsky for the 1929 riots and blocked his reentry into Palestine? If so, a section on that here would be a good addition. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal letter

I've moved this recent insertion to the Talk: page for discussion:

In a letter to his son later in the year, High Commissioner John Chancellor noted: "There is evidence to show that the Jews, realizing the need for arousing interest in the national home among the Jews of the world and the need for a rallying cry to stimulate subscriptions, deliberately seized upon the Wailing Wall incident of a year ago, and worked it for all it was worth, and converted a religious question into a political one."

Why would we give such prominence to the private correspondence of primary sources, as opposed to modern, reliable secondary sources? It appears to give WP:UNDUE weight to this opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in a couple of secondary sources with respect to this incident (feel free to search for it). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your response doesn't address my objection, and it's not actually my responsibility to find sources for your insertions. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

dershowitz

Is not a WP:RS. Please remove and replace. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. He's just an activist with a bad reputation for accuracy. Zero^talk 22:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Will remove.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Jayjg, please could you explain your proposed changes to the lead - they simply follow the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead should provide a general overview of the article and is not the place to stick cherry-picked specifics.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL Dlv999 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall simply state that there is an obvious distinction between a "fundamental cause of the violence" and a peripheral occurrence during the killing spree, in response to this red herring.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Given how much time you've spent editing the article, i am finding it hard to assume that you missed this bit of the article in good faith. I am trying though - perhaps you can help by explaining your oversight:

From the section "Shaw Commission of Enquiry": ... the incident among them which in our view contributed most to the outbreak was the Jewish demonstration at the Wailing Wall on the 15th of August, 1929.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What precipitated the outbreak was indeed "the Jewish demonstration at the Wailing Wall on the 15th of August, 1929." This served as the wick to the powder keg that the Shaw report described: "racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future, was the fundamental cause." Please note that the subsequent Peel Commission Report found that the cause of the hostilities was "the demand of the Arabs for national independence and their antagonism to the National Home". My main objection was to the inclusion of, "On 23 August the British government enlisted and armed 41 Jewish special constables, 18 Jewish ex-soldiers and a further 60 Jews were issued staves, to assist in the defense of Jewish quarters in Jerusalem. According to the official report, "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces". Arab notables accused the Government forces of firing at Arabs exclusively."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It may have been the Shaw Commission's view that it was "the incident among them which in our view contributed most to the outbreak", but there were many incidents before as well. Claiming the events "began" with this incident is simply false (and misrepresents the source), and as User:Ynhockey points out doesn't summarize article contents--this is taken out of context if the background section is not summarized. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems like a bunch of POV pushing to me. No-one has taken issue with Ank's insertion of the "racial animosity" quote into the lead (which appears nowhere else in the article). Yet you remove the quote about the about the Jewish demonstration that is taken from the main body of the article on the basis that it does not accurately summarize the contents of the article. I think people need to try to consider treating edits that fit their POV in the same way as edits that may not fit their POV. Dlv999 (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this. I can live with the additional detail added by Ankh so long as it is balanced by detail on the other side. This applies to the lead and to the main article. Jayjg, if you want to argue about interpretations of the Shaw Report conclusions, then the only way we will agree is to shorten the lead and remove a lot of stuff from the article which Ankh has spent time and energy adding. You can't differentiate between one Shaw Report conclusion and another Shaw Report conclusion, just because you like one and don't like the other.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not two conclusions. The Shaw report states, "The fundamental cause, without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future. ... It also lists the following as one of several immediate causes of the outbreak:

"the long series of incidents connected with the Wailing Wall... These must be regarded as a whole, but the incident among them which in our view contributed most to the outbreak was the Jewish demonstration at the Wailing Wall on 15 August 1929. Next in importance we put the activities of the Society for the Protection of the Moslem Holy Places and, in a lesser degree, of the Pro-Wailing Wall Committee." Other factors are also cited as immediate causes such as "Propaganda among the less-educated Arab people of a character calculated to incite them."

The lead currently states that "The Shaw Commission found that the incident which "contributed most to the outbreak was the Jewish demonstration at the Wailing Wall on 15 August 1929". This does not accurately reflect what the Shaw Report said regarding this issue and omits references to other immediate causes. Additionally, the Peel Commission attributes the violence to "the demand of the Arabs for national independence and their antagonism to the National Home". The lead should not select just one of the several factors cited as immediate causes of the outbreak (and misrepresent it.)
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This unresolved point is one of many open issues in the lead. If we're going to reach agreement on this, we'll either end up with a very short lead or a very long lead. Which do you prefer? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

An accurate one. You have not responded to any of the points raised.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall"

Ankh, please can you provide the source and context for this statement? It does not appear to be supported in the context that you have written it. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall remove this until I can substantiate it.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag and Anthem

"At the Wall they raised the Jewish national flag and sang Hatikvah, the Jewish anthem.". There is no Jewish national flag or anthem, and this needs rephrasing.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't now, but there was then. At least according to the Shaw report. We can make the wording line up. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Stabbed to Death

Source states, "a young Jew was stabbed to death by an Arab into whose garden he had followed a lost football". You removed "to death" in this edit.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As per my edit, he died four days later. It's semantics, but I understand the phrase "stabbed to death" means the victim died during the attack. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We follow sources, not your understandings.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the most critical discussion point here, but I would like to point out that your statement makes no sense given that we have two or more sources which say different things. The Shaw Report does not use this phrase. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Would "stabbed repeatedly" be acceptable to you?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The bigger picture

In my opinion the current article is fairly good on the details of the actual riots, but is poor in showing how the riots fitted into the wider conflict, and the historical significance that has been attributed to the riots by leaders of the time and modern historians.

For instance:-

"In the wake of the 1929 riots the leaders of the Yishuv had started to gauge the real meaning of the outburst of Arab rage. Ben-Gurion and Yosef Sprinzak were among the first to sound the alarm at what the latter defined as ‘the renaissance of the Arabs’. A national movement was taking shape with its heroes and martyrs, and the Zionists took notice. Not too concerned with the subtleties of theoretical definitions, Ben-Gurion did not lose sight of the political challenge posed by the 1929 riots. ‘Politically speaking,’ he said, ‘it is a national movement.’" Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006) Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press. pp 13

"Berl Katznelson, the main ideologue of the mainstream Labour movement, had acknowledged in the wake of the 1929 Arab riots that ‘the Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest’." Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006) Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press pp 12

"Ben-Gurion even made the stunning acknowledgement that the entire presence of the Zionists in Palestine was ‘politically’ an aggression. The fighting, he said, ‘is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.’" Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006) Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press. pp 13

I think these are important observations by the Jewish leadership, Shlomo Ben Ami presents the riots as a turning point in the Zionist leadership's recognition of the Palestinian Arab national movement and as an important moment in that national movement's oppostion to Zionism and Imperialism. I would like to see some of this wider context in the article as well as the minutiae of the the actual riots. Dlv999 (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What you call "the bigger picture" is classic WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The purpose of the lede is to summarize the main points of the article, not introduce extraneous material intended to promote a political agenda. Please don't add inappropriate material to the lede like this. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please can you explain your charge of OR/SYNTH as the source quoted source directly uses the quotes in relation to the 1929 riots which is the topic of this article. The changes were discussed on the talk page and I received no objections. I am not trying to promote an agenda, I am trying to show all aspects of this issue that have been published in reliable sources. I think agenda pushing is those who delete reliably sourced material from one perspective while deleting all reliably sourced material from any other perspective. Dlv999 (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"the source quoted source directly uses the quotes in relation to the 1929 riots" - This is simply not the case.

• The BBC is providing a history of the entire conflict and writes, "The Zionist project of the 1920s and 1930s saw hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating to British Mandate Palestine, provoking unrest in the Arab community". You cherry picked this quote and decided to connect it with the 1929 Palestine riots, disingenuously stating, "The Zionist project had seen hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating to Mandatory Palestine which had provoked the unrest."
• You selectively state that "In the wake of the riots Berl Katznelson acknowledged that "the Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest" and "David Ben-Gurion stated that the fighting "is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves", which was stated in 1938, long after the riots. Ben-Ami contextualises these statements in an entire chapter that discusses the vying National movements at the time. Ben Ami prefaces this by saying that peace was out of the question for the mainstream Zionists until Palestinian Arabs accepted a Jewish presence in Israel. He refers to the consequential challenge of Arab nationalism, Palestinian "unrealistic hallucinations", all as part of describing a bitter struggle of national survival between two antagonistic communities. Your statements are hardly a summation of his work and his conclusions.

Please do not cherry-pick quotations that do not accurately reflect the source, the topic at hand, and stuff them into the lead. I find it hard to accept that you are "not trying to promote an agenda", and that this has not affected your contributions. I suggest you re-read what another editor has seen fit to say regarding your interpretive use of quotations.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The quotes I used very accurately reflect the source. I have posted them above for everyone to see. The book can be viewed on google books. I I find it hard to believe that you are not pushing an agenda when you aggressively add material from one side of he debate and support deletion of sourced material from the other. I suggest you stop wasting everybody's time linking discussions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.Dlv999 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite frank in that that I have a POV and wish to accurately present it. However, I extend such honesty to my editing and am more than willing to countenance reasonable objections, as this page will testify.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the justification for inserting these specific cherry-picked quotes from Ben-Ami in the lede, particularly as they are not representative of the actual arguments Ben-Ami makes, nor do they summarize this article's contents. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The quotes most certainly do represent the actual arguments that Ben-Ami is making, they are not cherry picked, if you take the time to consult the source you will clearly see this. Dlv999 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review AnkhMorpork's comment of 14:50, 18 April 2012, which has already refuted your claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

An editor has seen fit to 'add balance' by adding the following content: Muslims consider the wall to be part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, and according to Islamic tradition the place where the prophet Muhammad tied his horse, A-Buraq, before his night journey to heaven. This partially duplicates what is already written in the article "Muslims began to increasingly refer to the wall as the Al Buraq Wall, because it was said that Muhammad had tied the Buraq to the wall during his Night Journey.

I kindly request that the editor stops acting so impulsively and lazily reverting my entire edits, which also contain helpful formatting changes and links. In his rush to repair a perceived imbalance, he has dumped material in the article with scant consideration of what the paragraph already states.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The significance of the site to Muslims and Jews should be presented in a balanced way as per RS. Not presenting the Jewish significance prominently, then mention the Muslim significance as an afterthought at the end of the paragraph per your latest edit. The second sentence you quote ("Muslims began to increasingly refer to the wall as the Al Buraq Wall, because it was said that Muhammad had tied the Buraq to the wall during his Night Journey.) is very poorly sourced and in my opinion needs to be removed as I have already pointed out in the thread above. As for the revert of your edit I was justified in doing so as the source was nowhere near suitable. I had raised the issue of poor sourcing in that passage (see the thread above), you chose to ignore the discussion and add more material to the section without suitable sourcing. Dlv999 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's presented both chronologically and in terms of relative importance to the religion. Plot Spoiler replaced the source and wording you objected to with the Segev source and wording you provided. Problem solved. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue paragraph structure

I see little reason why the desecration of the mosque demands a separate paragraph. In the same vein, the attacks on the Safed orphanage, the Hebron college and the many synagogues can also be emphasized in individual paragraphs.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to add additional paragraphs if you feel appropriate. The date structure works well. The Shaw Report suggests that the mosque desecration was a highly notable attack during the days of 25-28 August. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph structure details the:

Jerusalem riots, 23 August Hebron massacre, 24 August Desecration of the Nebi Akasha Mosque, 26 August Safed massacre, 29 August

This undue structure was explained by "The date structure works well". The same editor has created a new paragraph called The Arming of Jews. This details a British decision during Jerusalem riots, 23 August. I see no reason why this incident has a separate paragraph especially as it does not conform with the previous date structure that "works well", and is clearly part of the Jerusalem riots.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not a new paragraph or section - it was an existing one that was reverted by Jayjg on the basis of WP:MOS. I then put it back to the original and amended the paragraphing to comply with WP:MOS. So your revert was not appropriate.

To your question, the arming of jews was an issue amongst the arab leaders and populous over a five day period between 23-27 August. It was a reaction to the riots in Jerusalem on 23 August, as were each of the other events which have their own section. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Western Wall Tensions

• Muslims began to increasingly refer to the wall as the Al Buraq Wall, because it was said that Muhammad had tied the Buraq to the wall during his Night Journey.

The sourcing on this sentence seems poor. The quote in Cobbs refers to the 1967 war and does not appear to be discussing the situation in the 1920's at all. The Jewish virtual Library reference is a hosted Forward opinion column by Hillel Halkin, so would not appear to meet the standards for an RS. This topic has been covered by numerous scholarly sources, so I am not sure why we are using these unsatisfactory sources in this instance. Dlv999 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Support removal. Material is adequately covered by Segev.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When I read Tom Segev's account he gives equal weight to Arab and Zionist propaganda, while our article gives 3 paragraphs to the Arab propaganda and only three sentences to the Zionist propaganda. This seems like a clear case of non-NPOV. Segev states "Both Arab and Jewish politics made demagogic use of religous symbols; both were easily drawn into extreme positions and lost control of events". On the Zionist side he mentions inter alia, "Zionist publications around the world used images of a magnificent but imaginary domed structure on the Temple Mount to symbolize the national dream"..."A few months before the Yom Kippur incident, the Yeshurun Synagogue in Jerusalem held a Passover celebration. The main speaker was Menachem Ussishkin, who banged his fist on the table and declared, "The Jewish people wants a Jewish state without concessions, from Dan to Be'ersheva, from the great sea to the desert, including Transjordan".....Ussishkin concluded by saying "Let us swear that the Jewish people will not rest until its national home is built on our Mt. Moriah," referring to the Temple Mount."..."the Zionist chief rabbi, had intervened in the screen uproar, strengthening the impression that religious yearnings and the Zionist plan were one and the same"...."Ben- Gurion had stated that the wall should be "redeemed", predicting that this could be done perhaps "in another half a year".Dlv999 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Despite best efforts from a number of editors over the past couple of weeks, one or two over zealous editors have ensured that this article is still not neutral. The techniques that these editors have used to ensure this outcome range from the sublime to the ridiculous. As such, the momentum to improve the article appears to have been lost. For the moment then, the best thing for everyone is to wait, calm down, and accept that this article is not yet ready for the public to read without a warning tag. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

I've moved this recent insertion to the Talk: page for discussion:

According to the Shaw Report, during the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 116 Arabs and 133 Jews were killed and 232 Arabs and 198 Jews were injured and treated in hospital. The Jewish casualty figures were provided by the Jewish authorities, whereas the Arab casualty figures represent only those actually admitted to hospital and do not include "a considerable number of unrecorded casualties from rifle fire that occurred amongst Arabs".

There are a number of issues with the insertion.

1. It cites the Shaw Report itself, rather than the views of modern, reliable secondary sources. We should be relying on the latter, not the former, for any casualty figures.
2. The wording appears to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Jewish figures, and in general suggest that the Jewish figures are unreliable/overstated, whereas the Arab figures are understatements.
3. It leaves out some fairly critical context - specifically, that while the Jews were mostly killed by Arab mobs, the Arabs were mostly killed by British authorities. As a result, it misleadingly conflates the numbers of deaths, giving the appearance the causes were similar and/or reciprocal.

In general, the insertion appears to not-very-subtly promote an anti-Zionist POV. Since I'm sure that was not the intention, I've brought it here so we can fix these issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

1)A large proportion of the article appears to be cited directly to the shaw report, so removing this one passage based on that and not the rest seems odd. 2) sorry I do not see where you are coming from at all with your second point. 3)seems more like a justification for adding more information than removing what is there. Dlv999 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the most recently inserted and egregious material. Oncenawhile did insert much else from the Shaw Report, which should likely also be removed. Since there's a whole section for the Shaw Report's conclusions, that is where material from it should go, if anywhere. The problems raised in points 2 and 3 are fairly obvious - please review the previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. All of the information you removed is taken from the Shaw Report, which is a WP:SECONDARY source (a second-hand account, at least one step removed from the event, relies on primary sources for their material). And all the other sources take their information from it.

The wording you removed about the casualties is about as word-for-word as can be done, including the term "Jewish authorities" and "considerable number of unrecorded casualties". Here's a tertiary source for you. And your point (3) is already in the lead so i'm not sure what your are taking issue with. I'll copy it down to the main section. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oncenawhile/Talktemplate Oncenawhile (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Jayjg, this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" is a statement about editors, not article content. Please make more accurate Talk: page statements, and please abide by WP:NPA. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The text and the source are fine with some adjustment. Taking the footnote on p65 into account, the uncertainty in Arab casualties refers to injuries and not to deaths. It is a secondary source quoted in many other sources. This doesn't prevent other secondary sources being cited as well if they are reliable enough for this question. Zero^talk 10:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Zero, the Shaw Report is problematic not only because it is a WP:PRIMARY source (it was compiled almost 90 years ago, soon after the events in question, by the government of one of the participants), but also because of the way in which is was selectively cited and quoted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The age of the report has nothing to do with its status as a secondary source. I have bolded above the definitions of secondary source from WP:SECONDARY which the Shaw Report very clearly complies with. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The age of the report does indeed have something to do both with its reliability and its status as a secondary source. It is "very close to the event", and compiled by one of the parties in the event, the British government. Please respect the WP:V policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of casualties I find the detailed discussion of whether the Shaw report is primary or secondary to be superfluous. The best detailed academic sources that cite sources for their statements (e.g. Morris 1999) give the exact same casualty figure as the Shaw report. For me, the issue here is why are we reaching for lower quality tertiary sources (who do not cite their sources) and draw conclusions that the better sources do not make? Dlv999 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary source?

It has been suggested that the Shaw Report is a primary source. There is no definitive criterion out there which distinguishes primary from secondary, but we can compare it to the description at WP:NOR. There we read "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The Shaw Report was arguably close to the event, though not contemporaneus with it (which I think is the intention here). With that one doubtful exception, it fails all of the sentence. It was not written by people who were directly involved. Shaw was a retired judge (see here for a biography). The other three commission members were politicians but from three different political parties. Moreover there is nothing from the archival record to suggest that the commission wasn't free to report as they wished (Pinhas Ofer (1985). "The Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929: Appointment, Terms of Reference, Procedure and Report". Middle Eastern Studies. 21 (3): 349–361.). The Palestine administration was one of the parties under investigation, not the author of the report. None of the four people on the commission were "insiders". Continuing to inspect WP:NOR, we read "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." This matches the Shaw Report exactly. The report was based on testimony and documents presented to it by all the concerned parties. Those testimonies and documents are definitely primary sources, so we would need to heed WP:PRIMARY if we wanted to quote them directly (which we could do, since they were published and I have them), but the Shaw Report's conclusions based on them are "one step removed from the events" and "make analytic or evaluative claims about them". Ergo, the Shaw Report is a secondary source by Wikipedia criteria and there is no reason based on WP:PRIMARY for failing to cite it. Of course, we should write "according to the Shaw Report" for things that are not in complete agreement with modern secondary sources. Zero^talk 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a lucid argument, Zero0000, but it depends on your a) stating that "close to the event" means "contemporaneous", and b) separating various creations of the British government from one another, and insisting that the involvement of one does not mean the other is involved. Regarding a), "close to the event" is deliberately vague, and depends on context. For events that happened last year, "close to the event" would effectively mean "contemporaneous". For events that happened over 80 years ago, "close to the event" would, I think, also cover activities that happened within a couple of years of it. Regarding b), let's use an analogy; suppose you claimed that employees of company X had damaged you in some way. Now suppose lawyers from that company, who were uninvolved in the incident, and worked for an entirely different department than those responsible, investigated the incident, and assured you that company X was not actually responsible. Would you feel that they were removed enough from the event to be uninvolved? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The boundary is fuzzy, for sure, but your analogy supports my case. The Shaw Commission heard from lawyers acting for all the main parties and nobody is quoting those lawyers' submissions as secondary sources. The report of the commission is an important step further step away. A better analogy would be a book written in 1930 by an author associated with the Zionist movement who was not personally involved in the riots. We would treat it as a secondary source even if we are cautious on account of its probable bias. Zero^talk 09:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A better analogy would be if the company in question unilaterally appointed an adjudicator to decide on the situation, and the adjudicator decided in favor of the company. They are all employees of the British government. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the British government was unhappy about the report. But that is irrelevant. I cited a very good source that says the commission was independent (i.e., there were no secret instructions or conditions imposed on it) but I don't think that bears on whether it is primary or secondary. Second-guessing the integrity of the commission without source support would be original research anyway. Zero^talk 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As per my comments above, I agree that the Shaw Report is certainly a WP:SECONDARY source for this article. It is of course a primary source for the Shaw Report article. With respect to Jayjg's points about the independence of the report from the British Government, I would encourage him to review the minutes of the 17th PMC which discussed the report in detail. At no point did any of the other members of the Permanent Mandates Commission question the independence of the commission. Nor was the authenticity of the description of the key events covered by this article questioned. If Jayjg's argument is to hold water, he will need to show that a meaningful number of WP:RS question either the Report's independence or its description of the events documented in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I continue to object to the early archiving of threads which are still "open" on this page. Since the AE discussion knocked the wind out of the debate on this article, 7 threads have been archived - and most of these are still open topics. Although the table at the top suggests that the bot will wait 2 months to archive, that is not what has happened. It seems like an editor has amended the timing but not amended the public number....

Anyway, there is a discussion about whether "archiving against consensus" by involved editors is appropriate at Talk:Pogrom#Archiving.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes a topic "open"? The topics in question had not had any comments in over two weeks; the discussion was obviously over. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

These topics were obviously NOT over:

• Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1#Jabotinsky
• Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1#Personal_letter
• Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1#Lead

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"obviously NOT over"? No-one commented for two weeks, so they clearly were. Please make more factual Talk: page statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have this same issue with Jayjg on Circumcision. I am constantly searching the archives and new editors keep bringing the same topics because of our over active archive bot. This seems like a tactical maneuver to maintain the status quo and limit discussion, something that is contrary to the spirit of the wiki. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The timing was set to about 4 times more rapid than the default. I reset it to once per month, if I understand the instructions. Zero^talk 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines suggest archiving when a page reaches 50k. This page is already well over that. I've reset it to 15 days. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, you do not have consensus for that. There is clear opposition. Please self-revert and discuss this first. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines reflect an established community-wide consensus which you are blatantly disregarding.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving practice is a clear example of something to be determined by consensus, just like it says at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you want to actually discuss the archiving parameters, go ahead. Zero^talk 11:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have formalised an RFC on this at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Archiving_talk_pages. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Referenced addition

By midday friction had spread to the Jewish neighborhood of Mea She'arim where two or three Arabs were murdered. The American consulate documented the event in detail, reported that the killings had taken place between 12:00 and 12:30.

To be added to the Outbreak of riots, Jerusalem riots 23, August section. Dlv999 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting new article section to cover the Jewish attacks

Sources:-

• "In this quarter there occurred the worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed. On the 26th of August there also occurred. a Jewish attack on the Mosque of Okasha in Jerusalem, a sacred shrine of great antiquity held in much veneration by the Moslems. 'I'he mosque was badly damaged and the tombs of the prophets which it contains were desecrated." Shaw report pg 65
• "In Jerusalem, Haifa and other places, a Jewish "mob" avenged itself on the Arabs, killing men, women, and children and lynching passersby; in Jaffa, an imam and six other people were murdered in a mosque, and the mosque itself was burned to the ground. In Jerusalem the Ukasha shrine in the Jewish Zikhron Moshe neighbourhood was serverely damaged." Gudrun Kramer (2011) pg232
• "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation a Haganah unit raided an Arab house, killing four people" Benny Morris (1999) pg 115
• "Arab spokesmen reported acts of terror perpetrated by Jews, including the lynching of Arab passersby and the murder of women and children. In a few cases, the Arabs claimed, Jews attacked people who had given them refuge. The Jewish Agency investigated some of these charges and concluded that "in isolated cases" there were Jews "who shamefully went beyond the limits of self defense". One memorandum reporting that Jews had broken into a mosque and set sacred books on fire bears a scribbled note "this unfortunately is true." Segev (2001) pg 327 Dlv999 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm noncommittal on a separate section. But meanwhile I've been digging for information about the trials and will replace a lot of what is presently in the article after the protection is lifted. I have a few good secondary sources and a lot of contemporary newspaper reports. There were 26 Arabs and 2 Jews convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Most of the 26 Arabs were involved in the Safed or Hebron massacres. One of the Jews was part of a mob that killed a family; it sounds like the case Morris mentions but the number of dead was 5. The other was convicted of shooting two Arabs from the roof of his house. I didn't find anything about killings in a mosque, but that might be because there was no associated trial. Zero^talk 12:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Including the information is more important than whether or not it is put in a new section. The reason I made the suggestion is that looking at the current article, I'm not sure which of the current sections it would fit into. For instance, the incident about the killing of the Imam and 6 others is already in the article in the section on the Jerusalem riots of the 23 August, but the cited source discusses it with respect to events on the 25/26 August and that it occurred in a quarter of Tel Aviv/Jaffa not Jerusalem. Dlv999 (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph structure is currently arranged chronologically, and the attacks are not divided along racial lines. If you could find a way of accommodating this material in the existing structure, that would be preferable, as the the creation of a specific section titled 'Jewish attacks' will necessitate a counterbalancing 'Arab attacks' section, which will subsume much of what is already written.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Zero, just to say that I am constantly amazed by your ability and perseverance to find the right information to resolve complex and long-open questions like this. You continue to show up some of the most respected scholars on the subject. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I had not read this before finding Gilbert. It seems Gilbert didn't make the work that Zero0000 made. Sometimes, even wp:rs sources are wrong... 91.180.72.97 (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shaw report only used in the Shaw report section?

User:Dlv999 Has removed material based on the Shaw Report, based on the claim that the "Quote is out of context and is already mentioned in the appropriate place - the shaw report section." Have we then decided that all material based on the Shaw Report should go in the Shaw Report section? I made that suggestion a while ago, but thought others opposed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Shaw report contains two types of material the first is a factual description of events that occurred during the riots, the second are the opinions and recommendations of the commission based on the factual evidence. My view is that it is perfectly reasonable to use the Shaw report's factual description of the events throughout the article. On the other hand the opinions and recommendations of the commission should be discussed in a balanced way in the Shaw commission report section. The sentence I removed was a single cherrypicked opinion about the events, not a factual description of the events. It has been labeled (context needed) for some time. I agreed that it was out of context so I deleted it. Opinions such as this should be discussed in a balanced way in the Shaw commission report section (where this quote already appears). Dlv999 (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that the article body contains only "factual description of events", rather than "opinions"? When did we determine that it's "perfectly reasonable" to use the Shaw report for one, but not there other? And when the Shaw report says that incident that led to the fatal stabbing of the young Sephardi Jew Abraham Mizrahi "in its origin was of a personal nature", is that a mere "factual description of events"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That is how I think the article should be, not how it is. As yet it has not been agreed by other editors who can agree or disagree with what I have said. I think there is a strong case for not including cherry picked moral judgements from the Shaw report in the sections of the article that describe the factual sequence of events, but rather they should be explained in a balanced way in the Shaw report section. While I believe that it is reasonable to use the parts of the Shaw report that simply describe the events in the section of our article which describe the events. I made an edit on the basis of this rational and it was reverted within minutes. Dlv999 (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You have not given any valid policy-based reason to delete this sourced content. There is a WP:RS providing details about the casualties of the riots, and unless you have an appropriate policy to cite that supports your opinion that we should ignore this information, you should stop deleting it. 74.198.87.103 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The entire top half of this page is filled with policy based reasons why I oppose the addition, but you have decided to just jump in and revert me without reading a word of it and responding to an unrelated thread. Dlv999 (talk) 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Another source for the 110 Arabs killed by British

I don't know if this has been introduced in the talk page yet : [books.google.com/books?id=cT16EWF9I4cC&pg=PA13&dq=1929+Palestine+riots+martin+gilbert&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=j4jDT76sKInz-gbqx-ClCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=1929%20Palestine%20riots%20martin%20gilbert&f=false see the comments on the top of the map]. It is from Martin Gilbert.

When I read the reports of the events from historians, it seems that Jews had no time to react (except at Tel-Aviv / Jaffa) and that at each time, British police had to intervene to protect them. Each time, civilians without defense were attacked. So, it sounds very reasonnable that most of the Arabs were killed by British police. If not, it was under legitimate defense (because a IZL or Hagannah militiaman was in the area) and in any way they didn't defend themselves at Hebron or at Safed. Maybe at Haifa ?

81.247.71.163 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. My only issue is the use of brief coverage by tertiary sources to give an exact figure of 6 Arabs killed by Jews. We know from the detailed sources that this figure is too low. The academic sources do not give an exact figure, because the truth is they don't know and no-body does due to the chaos of the situation across Palestine due to the riots. For the lead, I favour giving the casualty figures then some form of wording along the lines of most of the Arabs were killed by British forces suppressing the riots while most of the Jews were killed by Arab rioters(I have read sources which pretty much say this exactly, and this wording is inclusive of every source I have read on the topic). If people really want to include 6 Arab claim in the casualty section I can live with that. the issue I have is inserting material we know to be wrong into the lead knowing that it also contradicts the well sourced material in the article body. Dlv999 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, since you agree with the above interpretation of events, presumably you would not object to a statement to this effect in the lead?Ankh.Morpork 10:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We represent all viewpoints in a fair manner. The BBC's among others is worthy of inclusion.Ankh.Morpork 23:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• BBC is not a WP:RS for an article dealing with history. We have excellent 2nd and 3rd sources for this issue.

Personnaly, I would write in the lead that Arabs attacked Jews and that the British police intervened and killed numerous rioters.

91.180.72.97 (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case the BBC does not support the contentious claim about the 6 Arabs that Ankh is intent on inserting into the lead, and also in the one sentence coverage the BBC gives to these events it does not give a full account of the casualties so we shouldn't be relying on it for the casualty figures when we have numerous detailed academic secondary sources. Dlv999 (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested it provides a "full account", instead people have said it should be used in conjunction with other sources where it provides additional information. Please show where someone has said this. Also, you stated above that you agreed with 81.247.71.163's interpretation of events, presumably you would not object to a statement to this effect in the lead?Ankh.Morpork 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only does it not give a "full account", it gives a mere one sentence account of the riots which only mentions 110 Arab deaths when we know from copious detailed academic sources that there were 116. It is a totally inappropriate source for a historical encyclopedia article. But in a way this is beside the point, because the BBC source does not even support the contentious claim about the 6 arabs you keep ramming into the lead which is only supported by unreferenced popular history books which provide a very cursory coverage. Regarding the IP's comments I was attempting to gain some common ground in order to build a consensus way to move forward on the issue at hand and my agreement was based on the IP's statement that "most of the Arabs were killed by British police" which I think is a very similar wording to Shrikes proposal, which I have already said I support. Dlv999 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Why is the BBC's statement that 110 rioters were killed by British police in conflict with a 116 total?
2. Your selective quotation of the IP omitted the prefacing "so" which clearly showed that this was a conclusion based on previous assertions. Since you previously agreed with his statement, can you explain why you now are against it?
3. Since you explicitly agree that "most of the Arabs were killed by British police", please modify "a large part of Arab death", if you select to revert, to this consensus version.
4. Please show where someone stated that the BBC provides a "full account". Ankh.Morpork 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you both would work more efficiently if you would make some precise sentence proposals and select the one to introduce. 91.180.72.97 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and socks

I have just reverted a brand new editor whose first edit was to edit war. Edit warring seems to have started up again over some numbers. Before people start edit warring perhaps consider how many people have died of malaria while this edit war has been going on to get some sense of perspective. If it starts up again I am going to request that the article be fully protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the edit warring is bad but you edits seem to continue this war.--Shrike (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, my revert and what I said in my edit summary and above is exactly the same as edit warring and I am exactly the same as a new editor whose first edit is to join a pointless edit war. Despite that, if the edit warring starts again I will request full protection of the article. The version the admin decides to protect is of no interest to almost everyone on the planet including me. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Further to my post above [1], I have reported this (again) at WP:SPI. As I said above, I do not claim to know who the puppetmaster is, but I thought I should bring it to everyone's attention because someone has clearly found a way around this - possibly by using proxy servers. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a major problem with the topic area. Any contentious issue immediately attracts numerous battleground sock accounts who basically just support the most extreme position per their POV. Editors who have advocated those extreme positions then never bother to seek or accept consensus as there are always throw away accounts supporting their preferred edit. It makes the consensus approach almost impossible. Dlv999 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)