Talk:1929 Palestine riots/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The sources

Dlv999, can you list the various sources with quotations which you consider disqualify the use of other contradictory sources. Ankh.Morpork 19:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• "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 severely damaged." Gudrun Kramer (2011) pg232
• "In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots.129" Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64
• Then consider that Jews were convicted in Court of murdering 7 Arabs during the rioting as is documented and sourced in the article.

None of the good academic sources attempt to give a an exact tally of responsibility of killings per ethnicity. Given the chaos of the rioting throughout Palestine it would be ridiculous to do so. No sources exist that could accurately provide that information. For instance take the incident in Hebron, "British Police Chief Reymond Cafferata and a Jewish policeman fired on the mob, killing eight", what source is there to say exactly how many were killed by the Jewish policeman and how many by Reymond Cafferata. There isn't such a source, I doubt if Reymond Cafferata and the Jewish policeman would even know the figures themselves. What about the defence of Kibbutz hulda, where 40 Arabs were killed? what source is there to tally those killed by the Jewish residents who defended the Kibbutz, and those killed by the British forces who evacuated it? The Shaw report also raises the possibility of Jews being killed by police fire, what source is there to confirm or deny this possibility? The answer is they don't exist. Your poor quality tertiary sources do not have some stash of sources to consult which answer these questions that the academic experts do not know, they are just oversimplifying the picture in their cursory coverage of the event. This is what popular history books do. But we should be holding ourselves to a higher standard. Why do we have to pretend we know the exact figure just because a popular history book has chosen to do so? Dlv999 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the source that you cite, Mathews, providing a precise figure? What is source for the goose is source for the gander... Ankh.Morpork 23:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DIv999's summary of the situation is good, except that Jewish police acting in their official capacity and within legal bounds should be counted with the police+military. Same with Arab police. Police who exceed legal bounds and massacre people (like the Arab police Cafferata shot, or the Jewish policeman convicted for killing a family in Jaffa) probably should not be counted with the police+military, but this can be argued and illustrates again how futile it is to expect exact numbers that are objectively established. I still haven't seen an argument against what I suggested above: be somewhat vague about the split in the introduction, then expose precisely what the best sources say later in the article. Zero^talk 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000.

What could be done is write something such as : Arab rioters attacked Jews and Mandatory police intervened against the rioters making 1xx deaths among Jews and 1yy among Arabs.

87.66.161.203 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I find Shrike's proposal to be the most reasonable approach. For the lead, give the overall casualty figures, which I think are the same in all sources. Then something along the lines of "most of the Jewish deaths were caused by Arab rioters while the majority of Arab deaths and injuries were caused by troops and police". Then as Zero says "expose precisely what the best sources say later in the article." Dlv999 (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I will agree to Belgian IP hopper's suggestion if something similar to what he is proposing is used in the lead, (an interpretation Dlv999 agreed to above) and this range of death figures is provided in the casualty section.Ankh.Morpork 10:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ankh, please could you propose your drafting for the section here on the talk page? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate that the casualty section should cover all (inc.the BBC, Bregman, Gilbert) the various death figures and not a subjective "best ones" selection. If that is agreed upon by the disputing parties, then I shall propose a draft based on Belgian IP hopper's suggestion.

Dlv999, you are yet to explain why you list a source, Matthews, that provides a precise figure, something that you vehemently protested against.Ankh.Morpork 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comments timestamped 22:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC); 08:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC) and related discussion. Ankh, I have suggested a consensus solution to the issue based on Shrike's suggestion. Why don't you post your suggested consensus solution so we can discuss the pro's and cons of each. Edit warring content into the article without consensus is not helping to find a solution to this issue. The contested material should stay out to give us a chance to reach an agreement. Dlv999 (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Ankhmorpork's latest attempt to insert contentious material into the lead without consensus. [1] The material is problematic for the reasons that have already been discussed at length. Essentially I have seen no rational argument as to why we should be inserting disputed figures into the lead when we could give a adequate general description of the events and casualties in the lead, then expose what the best sources say in the article body - which seems to be the approach favored by consensus looking at the recent discussion. Some further specific problems with the latest incarnation is that it uses sources (BBC, Levin, Gilbert) that were categorically rejected at the recent RSN discussion. [2]. It also makes a claim that some sources stated that seven Arab were killed by Jews, for which no source is provided - Ankh's OR interpretation of Mathews to support this claim was also rejected in the RSN discussion. A solution to this issue taking into account the points raised here on talk has been proposed. I have asked Ankhmorpork to make an alternative suggestion - but it appears that the editor would prefer to continue to edit war his own preferred position while ignoring the comments of all the other editors who have commented in this thread. Dlv999 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

An "adequate general description of the events and casualties" should include the fact that all the Jews were killed by Arabs while the vast majority of Arabs were killed by the police. The way the lead is worded now is completely unacceptable and an obvious NPOV violation. The fact the sources don't agree if there were 6 or 7 or even 10 Arabs killed by Jews doesn't change the fact that more than 90% were killed by the police. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you seem to be supporting a solution along the lines of what I have proposed, so I am not sure why you are disputing with me. See my comments timestamped 08:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC). "I find Shrike's proposal to be the most reasonable approach. For the lead, give the overall casualty figures, which I think are the same in all sources. Then something along the lines of "most of the Jewish deaths were caused by Arab rioters while the majority of Arab deaths and injuries were caused by troops and police". Then as Zero says "expose precisely what the best sources say later in the article."".

I have asked editors to comment on the proposal (I am not committed to the exact wording in the proposal and would be happy to negotiate changes) or suggest an alternative, but unfortunately other editors would rather act unilaterally and edit war without consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question for Dlv999

You do not appear to have explained or perhaps fully understood my query as you have referred to a post made in May when the editing in question was only conducted in June, so I shall make clear what I am asking. You definitively state that:

"None of the good academic sources attempt to give a an exact tally of responsibility of killings per ethnicity. Given the chaos of the rioting throughout Palestine it would be ridiculous to do so. No sources exist that could accurately provide that information."

Despite these assertions, you listed Matthews as a source who is guilty of the very issue that you take umbrage with. He specifies that the Arab death figure was "including seven victims of Jewish murderers" and you cite this as contradictory to other sources. The very failing that you attribute to 3 other sources, your own presented source seems equally culpable of, so please explain your contrasting approach to the sources which appears to differ depending on whether it supports you POV. Ankh.Morpork 18:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from the posts to which you have been previously referred: "Mathews says that the Arab deaths includes seven murders by Jews. Not that this is the exact total of Arabs killed by Jews during the riots (she is relying on the Shaw report account that states that the worst case of Jewish attacks on Arabs involved 7 killings). Mathews proves that your poor quality sources are wrong, but she does not allow us to quote an exact figure for the Arabs killed by Jews....." Please read the rest of the discussion to which you have been referred. Dlv999 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe your representation of the source could raise WP:COMPETENCE questions so I would like to make sure that I fully understand your position. When the source states, "In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots", are you interpreting this to mean that of the predominantly British inflicted deaths, Jews killed specifically seven people, or do you opine that this statement means that Jews killed at least seven people? Ankh.Morpork 18:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I have said: "Mathews says that the Arab deaths includes seven murders by Jews. Not that this is the exact total of Arabs killed by Jews during the riots" Dlv999 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a real easy way to handle minor interpretation questions like this: use similar wording ourselves. Just write "including seven..." as Matthews does, then nobody can argue the source is not being followed. Zero^talk 00:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bregman 6+110

The Bregman quote "Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110" is contradicted by the Shaw report, which say that in a single incident Jews killed an iman plus 6 others (so 7 in total). Are there any other sources quoting the 6+110? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to writing, "Jews killed 6 or 7 Arabs..." or something else to reflect this inconsistency.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide sources that underpin this. Most sources use the phrase "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces". The 6+110 is wp:fringe, and frankly is most likely a mistake in which the author misread the reference to the 6 Arabs above. It's not for us to guess though - if you can't find a meaningful number of credible sources quoting that, it needs to come out. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, it looks very odd to cite the Shaw report repeatedly, then jump to a poor tertiary source for one specific bit of information in contradiction to the report, then continue with the report again. If Bregman was a strong secondary source that states the report is wrong or cites some alternative primary source, there would of course be a place for it. But it isn't a strong source at all, it is just an isolated tertiary source making an unusual claim in passing without even noting it is unusual. Zero^talk 11:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Victim accounts frequently differ and slight discrepancies inevitably crop up. The previous version made no mention as to the cause of death of the victims and this needed rectification. That the vast majority of Arab deaths were caused by the British and the Jewish deaths were caused by the Arabs is not disputed by either of the two accounts.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What you say is correct, but that is not reason to use a source making a definite claim regardless of its quality. The report makes it clear that the causes of death are only known to some approximation. It is clear that most of the Jews were killed by Arabs, but the report suggests some might have been killed by police/soldiers (and this is what should be expected in such a chaotic situation). Bregman thinks he knows better, but how? Similarly it is clear that most Arabs were shot by police/military, but some were not. How many? Bregman thinks it was all of them except for 6 mentioned explicitly, but he even missed one and gives no reason. As far as I know there is no source at all that gives all the causes of death, we shouldn't pretend that we know. Why don't we just work on a good summary of what the report says, which is in agreement with detailed secondary sources like Segev? Zero^talk 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As you are well aware, it is not for us to speculate as to the basis of reliable reports. As it stands, the content is reliably sourced. Can you specify what you would like modified or present an alternate version here?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We have conflicting sources, and it is for us to weigh up and decide what weight to give to sources when they conflict. Zero and Oncenawhile have presented a strong case for not relying on Bregman in this instance. If you think Bregman's claims are defensible you must present the case. Dlv999 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you quote the conflicting material and state where the article accords undue weight. The material is covered in other sources too, [3][4]

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added "dubious" tags where your source conflicts with the Shaw report. The bbc link would not be the first time that the bbc's history articles were incorrect (their anachronous usage of the term "Palestinians" is a clue). Are you able to identify where any of the references which use the 110 source that figure from? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Three sources were provided, [5][6] [7] which substantiate this claim and for you to tag this as dubious is disruptive editing. In addition, I have previously expressed my acquiescence to modifying the language to conform with the Shaw report findings.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Plotspoiler, your removal of the tags is a violation of the guidance in WP:TAGGING. Please self revert and let's continue this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding inappropriate tags is an abuse of their purpose - please don't do it again; discuss instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In the event that sources disagree on something, we can decide which sources are more reliable or we can report both. The version given by the Shaw report is essential and can't simply be replaced by some tertiary source. It is notable that nobody has found a good secondary source supporting the tertiary sources, and in fact secondary sources simply repeat what the Shaw report said (confirming that it is the best source they know). However, I could agree to a formulation like "According to the Shaw report, something something. Some sources report something something." Zero^talk 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do the sources actually disagree? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources disagree in two key places:

(1) Jewish casualties:

• PROPOSED TEXT: "133 Jews were killed by Arabs"
• SHAW REPORT: "possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces" and also states that 133 Jews were killed in total

(2) Jewish casualties:

• PROPOSED TEXT: "Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110"
• SHAW REPORT: "The worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs occurred in this quarter, where the Imam of a mosque and six other persons were killed" [i.e. 7 people in total, and implication by ommission that this was probably not the only deadly attack by Jews on Arabs] and "many of the Arab casualties ... were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces" and also states that at least 116 Arabs were killed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Shaw Report is a WP:PRIMARY source, and non-specific about the numbers. We must rely on the consensus of reliable secondary sources. If they disagree, please explain how. And please do not repeat the mistaken view that the Shaw Report is secondary. As has been explained more than once, it is "very close to the event", having been compiled soon after the riots by one of the parties in the event(s), the British government. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Detailed academic secondary sources covering the topic and that also cite sources for their figures (e.g.Morris 1999) do not draw the conclusions that the lower quality sources have drawn. It seems odd that we are reaching to tertiary sources that do not cite references for their claims and a BBC news report when we have numerous high quality academic secondary sources which cover the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1. This is not a contradiction, the SR suggests a possibility that is discounted by subsequent sources.
2. This "contradiction" in not definitive and relies on original research:

• The SR report does not state the ethnicity of the fatalities, which could include Jewish deaths.
• Your "implication by ommission that this was probably not the only deadly attack", is a dubious paralogism. The occurrence of less severe attacks does not necessitate further Arab fatalities, which is confirmed by other sources.

I have previously communicated my amenability to adjusting the figures to include the SR's, where they are in outright conflict, but this suggestion appears to have been typically ignored.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Benny Morris (1999) writes "Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"(pg 116)

Now if you go through his detailed account of the events there are a number of contraictions with the tertiary non-academic sources that have been presented.

For instance he states

• "To the west, Kibbutz Khulda put up a spirited defense against an onslaught of several thousand Arabs, but the members were eventually evacuated by the British army convoy, and their homes were torched. More than forty Arabs were killed." (pg 115)
• "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation a Haganah unit raided an Arab house, killing four people" (pg115)
• [Referring to Jews]"Another two died and several more were accidentally injured by British police fire two days later." (pg 115)

Suffice to say Morris cites sources for each detail and the overall casualty figures. Dlv999 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify these 'contradictions':

1. Does Morris identify the perpetrators of the killing of forty Arabs, since it is clear that the British Army were involved?
2. Could the Haganah retaliation be referring to the attack referenced in the SR?
3. I have no idea what point 3 is said to contradict?
   Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Kibbutz Khulda is attributed with the defense, the British are only attributed the role of evacuation.
2. It would seem not, as the SR refers to "the worst instance of Jewish attack" in which there were seven killed, while BM describes an incident where "a Haganah unit raided an Arab house killing four people". This can be confirmed as Morris has given a citation for the statement (I have not been able to track it down just yet).
3. Let me spell it out. All sources agree that 133 Jews were killed, which is the figure taken from the Shaw report. Without giving details or citations your sources say that all the Jews were killed by Arabs. This is not supported by the Shaw report. The detailed academic secondary source that I have brought contradicts your sources in that it documents killing of Jews by British police. It is also important to note that said source does not precisely attribute the responsibility of each and every every killing, the very good reason is that none of the primary sources that the historians have based their work on allow these exact judgement to be made. You are relying on poorer sources to justify statements that the best sources we have on the topic simply do not make. Dlv999 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1. It is original research to state that the British evacuation did not result in Arab fatalities. Why are you adamant this was not the case
2. You state "the...source that I have brought contradicts your sources in that it documents killing of Jews by British police." Where is this contained in the quotation you cited, ""Another two died and several more were accidentally injured by British police fire two days later."
   Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring over the lead. The differences between editors on this issue do not look insurmountable and should be resolvable by discussion. Continued edit warring is either going to lead to the page being locked or to dispute resolution, and surely no-one wants that. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I stopped counting lines where would be required half way through. The draft is a wretched piece of shlipshod narrative, requiring a rewrite and tightening. There's a lot of work to be done on simply fixing its style. I suggest editors actually read the article from top to bottom, and, instead of worrying over content for the moment, improve it in these regards.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Continued...

BBC article

Quote: Zionist-Arab antagonism boiled over into violent clashes in August 1929 when 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians and 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police.--Jabotito48 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

But we know for a fact that Jews were responsible for at least 7 murders of Arabs during the riots as they were convicted in Court and are already well documented in the article. The BBC's one sentence coverage of the riots is not an accurate account and we shouldn't be using it in an encyclopedia article as we have numerous detailed academic accounts by Historians which we can use. Dlv999 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. 110 Arabs killed by British police and 6 or 7 Arabs killed by Jews. What do you suggest? Any historian saying otherwise?--Jabotito48 (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the most accurate sentence: The riots took the form in the most part of attacks by Arabs on Jews accompanied by destruction of Jewish property. During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. British police killed 110 Arabs and injured 232, and some sources stated that at least seven Arabs were killed by Jews, other sources putting the figure at six.--Jabotito48 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Only if you think that the BBC's history department is more accurate than the Shaw Report and a huge number of scholarly sources which do not make this same statement. As requested below, if you believe the BBC source, please tell us where you think its information came from. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Numbers are clear: 116 Arabs killed (110 by British, 6 or 7 by Jews). How many Arabs died according to the Shaw Report?--Jabotito48 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Shaw Report says 116 Arabs in total were killed and does not itemize their causes of death except to say "Many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces." No other total appears in a reliable source as far as I know. This 116 is the only solid figure here; everything else derives from that, including the 110 calculated from 116 and 6 (so we are making a mistake to present it as 110+(6 or 7) in violation of the solid total, it should be 116-(6 or 7)). The number of Arabs killed by Jews was at least 7, since Jews were convicted in court of that many (the sources are in the article, and we are allowed to add 5+2=7 by ourselves according to WP:CALC). Those were all in the Jaffa-TA area. Some sources (e.g. Segev) mention a few in Jerusalem as well but we are getting into OR if we try adding too much together from disparate places. We should say that 116 were killed altogether and that sources disagree on how many were killed by Jews but the courts identified 7 cases and maybe there were more. The footnote could mention a few of these dissenting sources. About the BBC, to be blunt, using a newspaper summary for something extensively covered by serious historians ought to be against the rules. Zero^talk 02:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Another source: Arabs killed 133 Jews and wounded 330; British police killed 110 Arabs and wounded 232 and the Jews killed six Arabs.--Jabotito48 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This source has already been brought to table and discussed. The basic question here is whether in an encyclopedic history article we willing to accept the use of cursory coverage by unreferenced, tertiary, "popular" history books to support the insertion of material when detailed academic secondary sources on the topic do not support it. My answer would be no, and especially not for insertion into the lead when the material contradicts well sourced material in the article body. Dlv999 (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. How many Arabs were killed by British police forces according to your sources?--Jabotito48 (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Per NPOV, all points of view should be fairly represented. There is significant sourcing including the BBC and an encyclopedia that supports this POV, that this should ignored violates Wiki principles. Dlv999, if you dispute the validity of a source, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, do not impose your personal views regarding sourcing when it is clear that you are promoting a contentious view that flies in the face of many editors.Ankh.Morpork 21:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You cannot rely on the BBC source for your proposed material because it does not state what you are trying to insert into the lead. I have seen no "encyclopedia" supporting your claims only popular history books which give a cursory coverage to the topic. It is not contentious or my personal opinion that historical encyclopedia articles should be based on academic secondary sources published by Historians specializing in the topic. Luckily we have plenty of these for this topic. All I am asking is that we base the article on the best most appropriate sources and that we do not reach to poor quality sources when the better ones do not support our POV. Dlv999 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike proposal

Here is another academic source that clearly says [8] that 110 arabs were killed by British police.--Shrike (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC) In this source[[9]] it says "Most of the Arab deaths and injuries were caused by troops and police" I think its undisputed and sums the body of the article so it can be included in the lead.Later we may give different numbers of different RS in the body.Does it acceptable?--Shrike (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what I would like to see in the lead, with the details and sources discussed in the casualty section. As you say it is undisputed and supported by every source (that I have read at least) that cover the topic. It also sums up the article body while the current formulation directly contradicts it. Dlv999 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you support this "Some sources stated that at least seven of the 133 were killed by Jews, other sources putting the figure at 6."?

No, I have already explained why I do not support your formulation in the post below. Would you be willing to agree to Shrike's suggestion or something similar? Dlv999 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Which aspect of this is directly contradicted?Ankh.Morpork 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I have answered this question a dozen times already so I find the question at this juncture to be disruptive, especially as Shrike has offered a solution and I have agreed with it. The current statement in the lead says that Jews were only responsible for 6 Arab deaths whereas the article documents the killing of 2-3 Arabs on the 23 in Jerusalem and a further 7 in a district of Tel Aviv Jaffa (which occurred several days later), these killings are also described as separate events by a scholarly source, Gudrun Kramer (2011) pg232. The article also documents that Jews were convicted in Court of the murder of seven Arabs. I have already explained why I do not accept your proposal, please see that post below. Would you be willing to accept Shrike's suggestion or something similar?

How can you state that you have addressed this issue a dozen times when today is the first time that I have proposed this formulation? This mentions all POV's as to the death toll. I remind you of WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.Ankh.Morpork 15:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, this section of the thread is not about you or your proposal. It is about the proposal Shrike has suggested and I have agreed with. I have already explained why I reject your proposal in my post that responded to your proposal in the thread below. You have now disrupted this discussion. Also you ignore that I have pointed out that a scholarly source (Gudrun Kramer, 2011 pg232) describes the killing of 2-3 in Jerusalem and 7 in Tel aviv/Jaffa as separate events. If you want to discuss your proposal, why don't you respond to the post that I responded below, that I am now directing you to for the third time. Also I am asking you whether you would accept Shrike's proposal that I support for the third time. Dlv999 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike agrees that my subsequent proposal is in accordance with NPOV and represents all viewpoints. With regards to your event compiling of Kramer, this is classic synthesis as you are asserting a conclusion not directly expressed. In addition, please show where Kramer said that the 2-3n deaths in Jerusalem were killed by Jews, as far as I can see, all he says is that it occurred in a Jewish neighborhood and that the identity of the perpetrators is your original research.Ankh.Morpork 11:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

My proposal was made in assumption that sources are in disagreement on how much were killed but now reading the discussion again all the source say the same that I can found talk about 6 or 7.DLV999 do you have a source that say different numbers maybe I have missed it?--Shrike (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, your previous proposal was a sensible middle ground. Dlv's source does not say 7 - it says at least 7. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As did the version that you just reverted. Why are you raising this undisputed point that has already been dealt with?

I am simply clarifying for Shrike. Your edit has many other issues:

• 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured => that all 133 were killed by Arabs is not in most secondary sources, only in your three poor quality tertiary sources
• British police killed 110 Arabs and injured 232 => same point as above re 110 being killed by British police, it's only in your three poor tertiary sources
• some sources stated that at least seven Arabs were killed by Jews, other sources putting the figure at six => This is misrepresentative. Most secondary sources do not say either - they follow the Shaw Report.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your argument of WP:MUSTBEALSOCONTAINEDINOTHERSOURCES is nonsense. The sources are reliable and these views have not been shown to be contradicted.Ankh.Morpork 21:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent on using low quality tertiary sources, when we have a plethora of high quality secondary sources on this topic? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

They supply additional content not contained in those sources. Next. Ankh.Morpork 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact they supply information which is contradicted by the high quality sources. Also the three sources do not even agree among themselves. The BBC source says there were 110 Arab deaths all due to British Police, while the two tertiary sources say 6 Arabs were killed by Jews. We know there were at least seven because Jews were convicted in Court of the murder of seven Arabs as our article documents. Dlv999 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Ankh, if you want to move this debate forward, you'll need better quality sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is "there were 110 Arab deaths all due to British Police" and "the two tertiary sources say 6 Arabs were killed by Jews." mutually exclusive?Ankh.Morpork 22:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand the question. Separately, please could you respond to the question you have been asked many times - where do you think your tertiary sources sourced those statements from? Can you find a secondary or primary source which says the same? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A very reasonable request. For the 6 Arabs killed by Jews claim we only have very brief tertiary source coverage which is contradicted by detailed academic secondary sources. Dlv999 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall repeat my question as Dlv999 has made the same point twice and does not seems to have answered any questions regarding it. You state that "Also the three sources do not even agree among themselves. The BBC source says there were 110 Arab deaths all due to British Police, while the two tertiary sources say 6 Arabs were killed by Jews." Wherein lies the contradiction; why can't both facts be true?Ankh.Morpork 21:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is you can't rely on the BBC for your proposed edit because it does not say what your edit says. Other than the BBC source all you have is cursory coverage in tertiary sources that do not cite references. It is absurd to use these brief mentions in "popular" history books to ram into the lead material that just does not appear in the detailed academic secondary sources that we should be basing the article on. I can't take this approach to writing an encyclopedia seriously, it is a total waste of all the work the likes of Zero are doing researching these articles if we are just going to insert any old thing into the lead just because it happens to fit with certain editors ideological agenda. The best analogy I can think of is going to a medical or science page and trying to insert material based on an inaccurate mainstream media report that wasn't supported by the scientific and medical journals. Of course it wouldn't fly, you would get reverted on sight by experienced editors. unfortunately the editing environment in the I-P area is dysfunctional and this thread is prime example of the issues we are facing. Dlv999 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you do not appear to have even remotely addressed the question that was posed to you:

You state that "Also the three sources do not even agree among themselves. The BBC source says there were 110 Arab deaths all due to British Police, while the two tertiary sources say 6 Arabs were killed by Jews." Wherein lies the contradiction; why can't both facts be true?Ankh.Morpork 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As you well know, your poor quality tertiary sources are wrong on the 6 Arab claim, because Jews were convicted in Court of murdering 7 Arabs over the course of the riots, and more than 6 killings are documented by numerous detailed academic secondary sources. You have been harping on and on about the BBC source ad nauseam, but it doesn't even support your proposed edit regarding the 6 Arabs claim. Also, are you not the slightest bit concerned that the BBC fails to give a full account of the Arab deaths in its one sentence coverage of the riots that you rate so highly as a source? In any case, the fact remains that the BBC source does not support your edit, because it does not make the 6 Arabs killed by Jews claim, for that you rely on cursory coverage in tertiary popular history books. Dlv999 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall keep on repeating this question until you directly address it. You stated that "Also the three sources do not even agree among themselves". Once again, I invite you to demonstrate the contradictions between these sources, without referring to your "weak tertiary source" mantra or other extraneous content to this discussion. Ankh.Morpork 23:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This point is totally irrelevant to the article. The issue I have with your proposed edit is that the BBC source does not support the 6 Arabs killed by Jews claim, for that you only have poor quality tertiary sources. Further not only do you only have poor quality tertiary sources for the claim, they are contradicted by the article body and the detailed academic sources of which we have many. (To address the irrelevant point, my comment was made to the effect that the sources do not give the same account of the casualties, so they do not agree among themselves - I couldn't care less if you agree with me on this point or not. If you say it is logically consistent that they both can be right, so what, the important thing is that the BBC doesn't support the contentious claim in your edit about the 6 Arabs which we know to be wrong because of the conviction of Jews for the murders of seven Arabs). Dlv999 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You raised this point so please do not accuse me of irrelevancy when your own discussion points are being addressed. You can chose to brush aside the subsequent examination of your POV with a dismissive "so what"; I make no apologies for examining the accuracy of your comments and I advise you that if you do not consider something relevant, do not mention it and waste other peoples' time.Ankh.Morpork 00:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, back to the issue at hand, why do you feel that it is appropriate in an encyclopedia article of a historical event to use detailed academic literature specializing in the topic, but then to reach for poor quality tertiary sources with no references or citations to insert an inaccurate detail into the lead when the academic sources do not support the agenda you are trying to push into the article? Dlv999 (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

When you stop phrasing "Have you stopped beating your wife" style questions, I will be better able to participate in productive discussion.Ankh.Morpork 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, let's stop beating around the bush. The veracity of your sources have been challenged on multiple occasions. Rather than saying "I invite you to demonstrate the contradictions between these sources, without referring to your "weak tertiary source"", we would make more progress if you commented on the direct accusation being made against your sources. If you disagree that they are weak and tertiary, please explain. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Dlv999 - you state that "Mathews does not specify the ethnicity of those who killed Arabs during the "suppression of the riots", to say that none were Jews is entirely original research of yourself and Ankh." Why is it original research if three sources support this position?Ankh.Morpork 23:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, could I suggest we centralise all the points you have raised about ethnicity to make this easier to follow. I believe the crux of your argument is the position that not all the sources are clear about the ethnicity of those killed by others. We know from the Shaw report that those killed were either Jews or Arabs. It seems a huge stretch to suggest that Jews killed Jews, since not a single source says that. However, before we get in to that, could you perhaps summarise all the different points you are making around the uncertain ethnicities? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ankh, Mathews contradicts your 3 poor quality sources as do other sources. So we have the issue of how to proceed given that we have directly contradictory sources. You cannot synthesize Mathews with your sources as they are directly contradictory and it would be original research. You promised to delete your addition pending consensus and I find your refusal to do so to be disruptive and a block to arriving at a consensus on this issue. Dlv999 (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why the three sources are not considered reliable, with particular regards to the BBC. I propose stating both casualty figures, saying something like, "Some sources stated that at least seven of the 133 were killed by Jews, other sources putting the figure at 6." This encompasses all the various view points. Ankh.Morpork 13:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This consistent with WP:NPOV as we represent several RS even if they don't agree with each other--Shrike (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source is a half a page coverage of various disturbances during the British mandate period. The BBC is set up as news media organisation, thus it specializes and has expertise in fact checking and reporting current events. For current events it would be a very high quality source. For historical articles peer reviewed journals are the best source followed by books published by scholars specializing in the topic area. General News media historical coverage is often cursory and inaccurate and thus comes someway down on the list of RS for this type of topic. We have good reason to think the BBC is wrong on this point (because we have high quality academic sources which report more than 6 killings by Jews). The lead should summarize the article body. The article body clearly describes more than 6 killings by jews. This issue is not a prominent controversy in the scholarly literature, so devoting space to this in the lead is undue. The discussion of what the different sources say about the casualties should be discussed in the appropriate section, not hammered out in the lead. Also your proposed solution does not cover all the sources. Gudrun Kramer (2011) pg232, describes both the murder of 2-3 Arabs in Jerusalem on the 23 and the later murder of 7 Arabs in a district of Haifa/Jaffa. Dlv999 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the point. Ankh, the quality of the sources supporting Dlv's proposal is very high. The sources you have proposed all appear to be low quality tertiary sources. Would you do us the honour of summarising your sources again and explaining why you think they are to be trusted on this question. In particular, your view as to where they sourced their information on this point would be very helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you stating that the BBC article is unreliable and its informative viewpoint should be ignored? Why is this article considered unreliable?Ankh.Morpork 11:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC is a poor tertiary source on the topic (see WP:RS "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion"). We have many better sources. If you think it is reliable in the face of so many secondary sources, please tell us where the BBC got its information from. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source does not even support the tertiary sources because its summary of the casualties figures is 110 Arabs killed by British forces. The tertiary sources refer to an additional 6 Arabs killed by Jews, while we know there were at least seven because Jews were convicted in Court of the murder of seven Arabs as our article documents. Dlv999 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Another false deduction. The number of perpetrators does not reflect the number of victims. The doctrine of Common purpose could mean that just one person was killed.Ankh.Morpork 21:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, your last comment can only mean that you haven't bothered to read the article and related sources. Two Jews were convicted of the murder of 7 Arabs. You're just wasting everyone's time here if you're not going to read the material and are just throwing out arguments off the top of your head. Dlv999 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, you still haven't answered my question. You have three sources - can you tell us where any of them got their information from? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't read my answer. I quote "It is unnecessary for me to provide that information. Per WP:ONUS I have provided reliable sources for the information and you are now making undue demands. Please direct me to a policy which states that it is necessary to provide sources for tertiary information. Contrary to your claims, the BBC is considered a RS."Ankh.Morpork 21:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source doesn't even support the text you want to introduce because it says there were 110 Arab deaths all due to British Police. Dlv999 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

At least we have come to some sort of agreement that this text is supported by the BBC, one would expect that you refrain from removing it in the future.Ankh.Morpork 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, what everyone has been saying is that the BBC is not a quality secondary source. They are not experts on history. Please answer the question you have been asked multiple times - where do you think your tertiary sources got this information from? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

False edit summary

In this edit, Dlv999 altered content and removed Bregman and Sykes as sources among others, claiming that he was removing sources "categorically rejected at RSN". This is a lie; these two were never rejected and were upheld at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and this misleading statement requires explanation. Ankh.Morpork 12:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the type of editing pattern typical of disruptive editors in the Israeli-Arab topic on Wikipedia, and should be dealt with on AE. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems both those sources were upheld at RS/N. Perhaps Dlv would like to explain why he removed sources that were found acceptable by uninvolved editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention in engaging with these ridiculous melodramatic accusations from a user who has consistently refused to engage with consensus discussion and continues to edit war his preferred position into the article ignoring the ongoing discussion. I have already explained the reasons for my edit [10] and do not intend to waste any more time or energy on this nonsense. I would repeat my request to the user to respond reasonably to the solution to the issue that has been proposed and to post an alternative suggestion if he has one. Dlv999 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The objection you have constantly cited was that the material was based on "weak tertiary sources". Since then, the academic source of Bregman and a new academic source of Sykes were found to be suitable and yet you persist in repeating old arguments that have little relevance, and have presented no policy objection to the inclusion of these two sources. NPOV requires that all POV's are fairly represented, why are you opposed to the inclusion of these two sources that ARE reliable. Ankh.Morpork 12:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did you reinsert into the lead (against consensus) citations to the BBC, Levin, Gilbert - all categorically rejected at RSN. Why did your edit include the insertion into the lead of the 7 claim - which RSN categorically rejected as OR? You ignored the majority of the findings at RSN and just took the one or two points that supported your preconceived position which you continued to edit war without bothering to engage with the talk page discussion. The RSN discussion was about reliability of sources, it does not give you the right to edit war disputed figures into the lead. What is suitable to the lead is decided by consensus discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the RS/N comments. You will have noticed that two reliable sources support the 6 claim. Do you object to the POV of these two sources being included in article, and if so, why? Ankh.Morpork 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to find a solution to this endless discussion

Apologies i missed the RSN discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_124#How_to_interpret_this_source?. I have now reviewed it and I disagree with your representation of it. Intererstingly though, I don't disagree with the final comment made by NMMNG (normally he and I do not see eye to eye). I think you should focus on his point, and propose some drafting here. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why this is necessary and why you aren't proposing an alternate version but continuously seeking to revert. Try to understand that I do not need to submit my edits to the censoring committee before introducing changes to the article based on RS/N findings that are in accordance with Wiki policy. On what Wiki policy grounds do you continue to bowdlerise this text; do you maintain that Bergman and the new academic source are still "weak tertiary sources"? Ankh.Morpork 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, sorry but we have been debating this forever - it is just one sentence. I am simply offering you advice that the most efficient way for you to reach consensus would be to propose a draft and let people comment, then amend the draft to reflect the comments. It won't take long if we do it properly. Let's stop debating around the edges and focus on finding a sentence that everyone can live with. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well my 'proposal' was what you reverted and was based on two reliable sources to which no objections have been made despite your filibustering consensus calls. Please comment on the edit in question as I sought to address your previous concerns about the sourcing by utilising academic sources. Ankh.Morpork 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My comment on your proposal is that it ignores the already stated opposition above in a number of areas: "133 Jews were killed by Arabs [DISPUTED - contradicted by Shaw Report] and 339 others were injured. A large part of the Arabs deaths were caused by British security forces; British police killed 110 Arabs [DISPUTED - contradicted by Shaw Report and 6-7 figures discussed] and injured 232 while trying to suppress the riots, and some sources stated that seven Arab were killed by Jews, other sources putting the figure at six. [DISPUTED - this gives the misleading impression that the range is 6-7 whereas the most reliable sources don't give an estimate]" Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume that you are not advocating a total suppression of this material? How would you rather this information is presented; please understand that remedying an 'misleading impression' should involve adding material or context, not the blanket removal of material and sources which you have repeatedly done. Ankh.Morpork 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you've asked my opinion, i can confirm that my preference is that disputed material is not presented as fact in the lead. My preference is therefore to keep the lead as it is at the moment. I remain open to suggestions though if you can find a form of words which incorporates your tertiary sources in an appropriate way. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat my question that you have continuously ignored. How would you rather the information in these sources is presented in a non-misleading manner? Instead of constantly removing the material, why can't you actually suggest a way to incorporate it in a manner that you deem appropriate? Ankh.Morpork 12:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what else I can say. I have underlined my position above. I want to help bring this to a conclusion but I am unable to answer your question - not because I don't want to but because I can't think of a "way to incorporate it in a manner that [I] deem appropriate". I am open to suggestions though. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ever ready to identify a "misleading impression", yet when continuously asked to suggest a counter-proposal you have declined. How are editors expected to form a consensus when you have not identified your preferred manner of using these sources? The situation is absurd, you are continuously removing sourced content but have not once suggested a fair manner in which to use them. Ankh.Morpork 22:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, your current proposal is so far away from being acceptable that it's hard to see a way through. See my boxed comment above explaining exactly the issues. My mind is still open, but you need to propose something more reasonable if we are going to end this. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why the reliably sourced material gets removed. "consensus" is a malleable term and subjective term, but the continued claim in this instance that there's "no consensus" appears to be reaching ridiculous proportions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, please don't make this absurd situation worse. It is wasting Ankh's time, and your hollow support is only encouraging him (it is also encouraging the continued SPA / sock activity). By hollow, I mean because you have provided no substance of any use to this debate in your comments. Constant edit warring of the same low quality and factually incorrect drafting is not going to resolve this. If you want to help, perhaps you could propose some drafting which might bridge the divide on the content debate? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the text now, that is with the 6-7 number, to the situation a couple of editors were trying to force which tried to suppress the fact the vast majority of Jews were killed by Arabs while the vast majority of Arabs were killed by security forces. And when I say vast majority I mean 95%. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG, you appear to have misread the text / misunderstood this debate. Neither version suppresses the point you make above. The debate is simply about how specific we can be based on the sources, and the fact that some of the sources conflict. If you would like to comment again, please comment on the sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The text before brew's last revert definitely suppressed the point I made above. I don't really care how specific it is, if it's 6 or 7 or 10 or some more general wording. I do care that this point (which is made in plenty of reliable sources) is represented in the lead. So I prefer the current version to the text that was there before. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"perhaps you could propose some drafting which might bridge the divide" - A bridge is structure that allows people to traverse an obstacle and pass from one side to another. This is an inappropriate term; you project no side to cross over to and it is becoming increasingly clear that constructive discussion with you might just be building a bridge to nowhere. The only view you have expressed is a mulish rejection of other proposals but you still have not delineated a personal position on how to use these sources. I have asked you to do so at least 5 times, and you have still refused. Ankh.Morpork 12:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't you accept that I have tried but i couldn't find a formulation that worked? You are asking me an unanswerable question. We'll make more progress here if you focus on the weaknesses i pointed out in your text above. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading these threads as well as the RS/N, I'd just like to say that I support the text as it currently stands in the article (ie: Ankh's text), and do not support the removal of the text which we have determined is perfectly reliably sourced. If editors disagree with this wording for whatever reason and want to propose an alternate text that uses these sources accurately and properly, without synthesis or OR, I welcome their suggestions. But until then, I find the current text to be sourced accurately and appropriately. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile's counter-proposal on how to use the reliable sources that he removed

Please advise. Ankh.Morpork 12:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See above. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's start from basics then, do you think these sources that you removed should completely excluded from the article? Ankh.Morpork 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please start at the real basics - what the article is actually saying. Please comment on each of my points in the boxed text above. We can talk about the sources in that context. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall but editors have expressed views that you are attempting to suppress this material so before I discuss the actual sources, I would like you to confirm whether you are of the view that they should be completely excluded from the article. A simple yes or no will suffice. Ankh.Morpork 00:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I confirm I am not of that view. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, it is now evident that all editors involved in this dispute regard the 'material excluded' status of the article as not satisfactory, while several editors consider the 'material included' version to be acceptable. Ankh.Morpork 12:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ankh, but that is not the case. Please see the "Consensus" section above. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

At the moment, 5 out of 5 pictures of victims shows Jewish victims. The Lib. of Congress have 51 pictures (search for 1929 Palestine) from the events, including the sacking of the Nebi Akasha Mosque (named Awkashi). Does anyone object that we get these pictures into the article? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because the overwhelming majority of victims were Jewish? Even in the Library of Congress the great majority of pictures belong to Jewish properties desecrated by Arabs. It wouldn't be representative or historically accurate to show something different.--Mediotic (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Arab casualties killed by the British during the riots, they were not "victims", but rioters and baby-killers. Just to clarify.--Mediotic (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I don't see why Roach is needed. I think the nature of the Jewish deaths in Hebron and Safed, slaughter by thugs, means that the presentation of images should tilt decidedly that way. But certainly Nebi Akasha Mosque should be added, and I think either a photo of Palestinian Arabs in protest, or a photo of British forces watching over the same, could be added. This had a political dimension, aside from the mob violence.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani for once. If the relevant pictures can be located, I will support their inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. If possible, try to insert it without deleting existing pictures already, if it's possible. And also, do the best to make sure it's not controversial, so we don't end up spending a month fighting over it (which often happens here!). But otherwise, go for it. --Activism1234 22:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

Does anybody think there is consensus for the inclusion of this in its current form: "133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110"? I certainly do not. If I understand the policies correctly, that means the sentence has to come out until consensus is achieved. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus which explains, "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Highly recommended reading would also include this. There are several outstanding issues in this thread that are yet to be clarified and I suggest you try and reach a consensus through discussion and not circumvent this critical process.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I suspect you need to read WP:BRD. And WP:STATUSQUO. You are correct that consensus has not been reached here. Until it is, this sentence must be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus, these figure do not reflect what the best sources we have on the topic say, so why are they being inserted into the article? Dlv999 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please both respond to queries raised against your previous assertions, so that a consensus through dialogue may be achieved.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I just checked Tom Segev (2000) p327. He reports the exact same figures as Benny Morris, citing the Shaw report. So if you would answer my question why are we not simply reporting what the best academic sources who have covered this topic agree on? Why are we reaching to poorer quality sources to draw conclusions that the best sources simply do not make? Dlv999 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. You are yet to establish why these sources are in contradiction with the other reliable sources that supply further informative information, and clarify certain obscurities, in the sources that you wish to solely employ. Please read the above thread.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea OK Ank, a BBC webpage which devotes half a page to the subject supplies more information than 500 plus page detailed academic literature. Now you are just being ridiculous. Perhaps if we all trawl through the recent Daily Mail articles as you have done, we will uncover some more long neglected material on the topic which Segev and Morris have overlooked. Dlv999 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Three reliable sources were provided, [11][12] [13] which substantiate this information, and improve upon the other sources. Please abide by WP:NPA and comment upon content and not editors.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no personal attack here. You have admitted yourself that your interest in this article is "presenting the Israeli view". Your history of edits in the article clearly indicate that your method is to search for sources that support the particular POV you are interested in presenting and inserting them into the article irrespective of source quality, rather than searching for the best sources on the topic and accurately reflecting them in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat something that I stated to you earlier, "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." I you wish to question me regarding this 'admission' and my editorial technique, please direct your queries to my talk page, as this thread should discuss article content.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, actually you have brushed aside reasonable questioning of your sources and just keep making assertions like "three reliable sources were provided" which fail to address the issue. Zero^talk 13:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I direct your attention to here and here where detailed questions are still unanswered, those in response to a close examination of the issues raised. I shall remind you of what you yourself stated about my conduct regarding this issue, "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate some of the salient points made above. DLV999 you are a new editor so it would make sense that you would not be as familiar with our RS policy. Secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources and your arguments that the secondary source is "mistaken" has no merit for Wikipedia purposes.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrew you are welcome to contribute to the debate, but please take the time to familiarize yourself with the discussion before opining. I have already quoted to two academic secondary sources in the above discussion. Here is another secondary source which directly contradicts the current figures in lead. Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64:-

"In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots.129"

Unlike Ankh's sources the author provides citations for the statement. Dlv999 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am amenable to amending the Arab fatalities inflicted by Jews from 6 to "7", or to a more accurate "6 or 7", to reflect this inconsistency. This collaborative overture has been repeatedly made, and I am uncertain why you are still revisiting this issue. I shall repeat this to be very clear: I accept modifying the lead to accommodate this uncertainty of whether 6 or 7 Arabs were killed by Jews.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As well as the 7 persons mentioned in the Shaw Report, there are 4 "in an Arab house" mentioned in Morris, Righteous Victims (p.115), cited to the official history of the Hagana. That makes 11. The fact is that nobody has an exact tally and all we really know is that the great majority of the Arab deaths were at British hands. Zero^talk 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you certain that this incident in not already included in the other sources death toll? Does Morris provide an overall death toll for these riots? Adding together the fatalities of various incidents to attain a final total is original reaserch and a most unscientific method. Additionally, this incident is prefaced with, "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation..." and this should be reflected when this incident is described.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should add the numbers together in the article, that would be original research. But it would also be original research to assume one of these is included in the other. The information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same or different. What we need to do is to present what the sources say and be noncommittal about what it means. Zero^talk 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I equally have no idea whether this figure is included or not in the total death toll and I repeat, "Does Morris provide an overall death toll for these riots?". You are using this excerpt to challenge the validity of three other sources. Since you acknowledge that "the information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same...", why are you disputing the use of other sources that provide a more detailed overview, that could easily conform with other "vague" source?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We've already been though this Morris cites exactly the same figures as Segev, which is to say the exact same figures in the Shaw report. The ones that were in the article prior to your edits. Also referring to Morris and Segev as "vague" when they meticulously cite their statements while your sources don't contain a single citation says more about your own understanding of the material than it does about the sources at hand.Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant passage. You criticise my description of Morris and Segev as vague, yet you have failed to recognise that I was paraphrasing what Zero himself said, "the information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same..." It appears that he does not consider the two versions as necessarily contradictory.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that anyone who wishes to challenge the numbers provide explicit quotes contradicting them; all this speculation about what Morris might have meant is WP:OR, and thus not appropriate for making changes to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A direct quote contradicting the numbers has already been provided. Dlv999 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Just going through the sources again. Segev (2000;p315) reports that on the 23 of August in Jerusalem "the tensions had reached the Jewish Mea She'rim neighborhood, and two or three Arabs were murdered there. A report from the American consulate, which documented the events in nearly minute-byminute detail, determined that the killing occurred between 12:00 and 12:30." This should be added to the 23 of August section. But it is also pertinent to the current discussion given that the Shaw report describing events on the 25 and 26 of August in "a quarter which lies between Jaffa and Tel Aviv", reports "a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed."(pg 65) Also to consider are the Arabs that were killed by Jews while defending themselves and their property, as well we should remember Jews were members of the British Police. For example, Benny Morris (1999 pg114) writes that in Hebron "British Police Chief Reymond Cafferata and a Jewish policeman fired on the mob, killing eight". Dlv999 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the murder of 2-3 Arabs on midday of the 23 to the article. The article now clearly documents, with excellent sourcing more than 6 killings of Arabs by Jews. The Lead as it stands contradicts the article body and needs to be changed. Is there anyone who still defends the current formulation in the lead and if so on what grounds? Dlv999 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The source in the lead currently states that 6 Arabs were killed by the Jews.Do you have a source that gives larger number.If yes we could give a range.--Shrike (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly contradicts these figures as adding together the fatalities of various snippets that are unclear and may overlap is classic original research.Ankh.Morpork 10:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states with excellent sourcing that there were 2-3 Jewish murders of arabs in Jerusalem on the 23. And also that the worst case of Jewish attacks on Arabs occurred in a district Tel Aviv/Jaffa where 7 Arabs were killed several days later. It is not OR to point out that if the worst case of Jewish murders involved the killing of 7 Arabs, jews cannot possibly be responsible for only 6 killings during the riots. There was never any consensus for this addition and it clearly contradicts the article body which is supported by excellent sources. The addition should be removed until there is a consensus on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. The Shaw report explicitly contradicts the 6+110 figures, as described above. Shrike, Ankh, which do you think is the most credible of the sources which support the 6+110? We should try to find out where the sources got those figures from. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The SR states that during the worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs, a Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed. It does not specify the ethnicity of the six victims. As previously stated it is OR to individually compile a fatality list. WP:SYNTHESIS states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" Is your conclusion explicitly stated by any of the sources?Ankh.Morpork 10:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The SR sentence you are referring to speaks of an attack ON Arabs - not a battle including Arabs - and in the same sentence says "in the course of which" refers to the 7 people killed. It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion you have drawn. Eith way, I agree with you that we can't make out own casualty lists for the article - but we can use these facts to question poor quality tertiary sources. You have added in the information we are disputing, so the WP:ONUS is on you to defend the integrity of your sources. Where do you think the 6+110 information came from originally? Do any of your tertiary sources provide references? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"In the course of which" does not circumscribe the resultant fatalities to Arab ethnicity; the death of a bystander or of an attacker killed in self-defense could be included in these figures. You state that it is "not reasonable to draw the conclusion you have drawn", what exactly have I concluded? Similarly you cite WP:ONUS, this mandates the provision of an inline citation to a reliable published source, something already satisfied three-fold.Ankh.Morpork 11:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The court cases I have put into the article include the deaths of 7 Arabs at the hands of Jews in the T-A/Jaffa area. Segev adds 2-3 in the Jerusalem area. So we know about 9-10. However I don't think we should make our own compilation. We should mention the known examples but summarize them using words like "several", "in a number of cases", etc.. Zero^talk 11:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I will be removing your 6+110 text unless you can gain consensus. The only way you will be able to do that is if you can answer the questions posed as to where your tertiary sources got the relevant information from. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unnecessary for me to provide that information. Per WP:ONUS I have provided reliable sources for the information and you are now making undue demands. Please direct me to a policy which states that it is necessary to provide sources for tertiary information. Contrary to your claims, the BBC is considered a RS.Ankh.Morpork 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the addition is disputed and has never had consensus for inclusion. I am asking you as a show of good faith to remove the material until we can agree on a formulation through consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall comply with your request if you establish that the three sources are unreliable and their figures are explicitly contradicted by other sources.Ankh.Morpork 21:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, we seem to be going round in circles with this. On the May 3 I posted this academic source which directly contradicts your material. Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64:- "In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots.129"Dlv999 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok then we say 6 or 7 and source each number.--Shrike (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999 - I have already stated in this section three times my acquiescence to accommodating the 6 or 7 figure. I even put it in bold above as you appeared to be willfully ignoring this. If you cite this again as an impediment to the current version of the lead, I shall take this to the administrators board as I believe this is deliberate obstruction.Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The point of citing Mathews is not to put the seven figure in the lead as the total number of Arabs killed by Jews, because that is not what Mathews says. Mathews says that the Arab deaths includes seven murders by Jews. Not that this is the exact total of Arabs killed by Jews during the riots (she is relying on the Shaw report account that states that the worst case of Jewish attacks on Arabs involved 7 killings). Mathews proves that your poor quality sources are wrong, but she does not allow us to quote an exact figure for the Arabs killed by Jews. If you are refusing to remove the disputed text pending consensus as you promised following the presentation of a source that directly contradicts your sources I think we must conclude that the consensus building has broken down and we should seek some form of dispute resolution on this issue. Dlv999 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you state that since the total death figures includes seven murders by Jews (as well as suppression of the riots), this necessitates that there was more than seven? Why is it not possible that the rest were committed by the British?Ankh.Morpork 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, noone is saying that. Dlv has simply proven that your sources "are explicitly contradicted by other sources". Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, now you are twisting my words. I did not state that Mathews wording necessitates that there were more than seven Arabs murdered by Jews. I simply said that she does not allow us to make a statement that this was the totality of Arabs killed by Jews as you have suggested, this would be a misuse of the source. She knows there were seven, but leaves the door open that there may have been more. A very sensible thing to do given the Shaw report simply states that the seven killed in Jaffa/Haifa were the worst case of Jewish attacks on Arabs, not that this was the totality of the attacks. In fact we know for certain that there were others, because Segev uses another source, the US consulate, to document the murder of 2-3 Arabs in Jerusalem on the first day of the riots. Then you also have to consider that Mathews wording "in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots", she is not saying that all the Arabs casualties killed in the suppression of riots were killed by non-Jews, which is what you are trying to do, a second misuse of the source in my view. Ankh, you said you would remove the text pending consensus if a source directly contradicting the material was presented. I have provided the source and I expect you to stick to your words. Dlv999 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already agreed to an amendment of the material in conflict. What is the explicit contradiction that states that more were killed than the 6 or 7? Once again you are citing (erroneously) individual cases and forming a conclusion not explicitly stated. You agree that Mathews wordings indicates "that there may have been more", but not necessarily; do you have any source that explicitly contradicts the cited death toll (over which compromise has not been reached) in the article?Ankh.Morpork 14:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that your proposed edit is unsuitable because it is not supported by the source you are planning to use (Mathews). To repeat Mathews does not say that the totality of Arabs killed by Jews was 7. She states that the Arab deaths included 7 people murdered by Jews. You cannot use a source to support a claim that it does not make as I have already pointed out. If you want to say that the totality of Arabs killed by Jews was seven you must find an RS which says so. In the meantime the disputed material should be removed. You promised to do so and I can only conclude that your refusal indicates the consensus approach has broken down and we need to seek some form of dispute resolution. Dlv999 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall happily comply when the information in the lead is explicitly contradicted. Since I have suggested amending the source to six or seven, despite three sources supporting the figure of six, the sources which you have provided does not explicitly contradict this material, Zero himself stated that, "The information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same or different". Do you disagree with this?Ankh.Morpork 17:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The information in the lead is explicitly contradicted by Mathews. The agreement was that if a source was provided explicitly contradicting the disputed material currently in the lead you would "remove the material until we can agree on a formulation through consensus". A source was provided and you have reneged on the agreement. Instead you are trying to impose your own formulation without consensus against objections of other editors. It is very difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith under the circumstances and unless you are willing to do as you promised, I think the only way forward is to seek dispute resolution. Dlv999 (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "explicitly contradicted". Mathews says "the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers". That does not imply in any way that Jews murdered more Arabs; on the contrary, it sets a limit at seven. Is your issue the number 6 vs. the number 7? A small numerical difference like that is easily handled using terminology such as "6 or 7" or "around 7". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Saying that the Arabs deaths included seven murders by Jews does not "set a limit at seven" for the number of Arabs killed by Jews. That is a clear misrepresentation of the source. Incidentally Mathews does not specify the ethnicity of those who killed Arabs during the "suppression of the riots", to say that none were Jews is entirely original research of yourself and Ankh. But we have already been through this and I think the only way forward now is to go to some form of dispute resolution. Dlv999 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another source - it says "Arabs were killed by Jews in Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa" [14] Oncenawhile (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it seems WP:DR is going to be necessary here.

Further to my post at the beginning of this subsection, and the further debate above, I will shortly be reverting Ankh's addition. I am basing this on Wikipedia:CONS#No_consensus, in particular the rule which states "In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article". If anyone disagrees with this interpretation, please shout. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One shouldn't revert based on mistaken statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, I have no choice but to ignore your comment unless you explain. What exactly are you trying to say? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Oncenawhile. per Wikipedia:CONS#No_consensus the material should be removed. Jayg, your comment is meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, please could you explain your revert and edit comment? You have made only one contribution to this whole debate, two weeks ago. Your edit comment about primary / secondary has been thoroughly discussed here Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1#Primary_source.3F (another example of why i'm complaining about early archiving). Please provide a proper explanation for why you have contradicted the point made about consensus policy above. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I will revert this unexplained change now. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, please explain why you feel it is appropriate to continue to push your proposal in to the article, in violation of Wikipedia:CONS#No_consensus? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Jabotito, please could you explain your revert and edit comment? You have not made any contributions to this debate so far. Please provide a proper explanation for why you have contradicted the point made about consensus policy above. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response below re the BBC article, which I have responded to. Separately, please provide a proper explanation for why you have contradicted the point made about consensus policy above. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Another source: Arabs killed 133 Jews and wounded 330; British police killed 110 Arabs and wounded 232 and the Jews killed six Arabs.--Jabotito48 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This material is more than adequately sourced, it is informative, and should be presented in the article. That it contradicts other material (still not established) is not a reason to exclude it; per NPOV all points of view should be represented.Ankh.Morpork 21:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, your view is clear, but it is not shared by most other editors. If you can find quality secondary sources making the same points, I suspect you will find more sympathy. But at the moment you do not have consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I remind you this map from Martin Gilbert where the numbers of 110 and the information is unambigously specified : [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] 91.180.72.97 (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This page appears to have attracted an unprecedented number of WP:SPAs, who have edited or commented on this page at the start of their editing careers in the last few weeks. Before this discussion began this topic did not attract much activity from editors at all - odd that so many new editors could come here so early.... These are as follows:

• Jabotito48 (now blocked as proven sock)
• 87.66.161.203 (third edit here)
• Tutangamon (first edit here)
• 190.49.202.168 (only ever edit here, writes "Sources agree. There is nothing more to talk" despite not having done any talking....)
• 91.180.72.97 (first edit here)
• 85.183.56.74 (an experienced IP editor who added Chesdovi's previously unlinked picture here [15])
• 74.198.87.103 (eighth and ninth edits here, almost certainly the same Rogers Toronto sock editor discussed here [16])

Could these editors please explain themselves? The underlying discussion hasn't progressed because of this activity.

And to be clear, does anyone believe that there is consensus yet for the inclusion of Ankh's sentence? If not, it will need to be removed (again...). Oncenawhile (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest what to do about the WP:SPAs who keep supporting Ankh's edit war?

Alternatively, Ankh, you could stop this edit war by finding consensus through further discussion. Every time you or someone else tries to edit-war in substandard text, you reduce the mutual trust between editors on this page making collaboration and consensus more difficult. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Deja vu. Does anyone believe that there is consensus yet for the inclusion of Ankh's text? If not, it will need to be removed (again...). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This keeps happening. Could any of the editors who have been continually trying to edit war the disputed text into the article, please set out why they believe there is consensus for its inclusion? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The only one edit-warring is yourself. I have continuously strived to find a satisfactory solution evidenced by my sheer volume of edits to this page. I initiated an RSN to deal with your concerns which upheld the reliability of the sources that are being used. In the last edit by Activism1234, fresh sources were added to substantiate the content in question. You still have not bothered formulating a counter-proposal on how to use these sources. Instead of looking around for evidence of a consensus, why don't you finally attempt to be part of one? I await your suggestions on how to use the numerous sources that you have continuously removed from the article. Ankh.Morpork 23:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand a basic rule of wikipedia. Until consensus is gained, the disputed material stays out of the article. The constant attempts to re-add this disputed material is extremely unhelpful - it means we spend our whole time debating whether it should be in or out rather than debating the actual content. If you believe there is consensus for this material, please show me. Otherwise it will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Anyone feel that an infobox should be added to the page? We can use "Infobox military conflict." Other riots, such as the 1936-1939 Arab riots, have military conflict infoboxes...

Thanks. --Activism1234 01:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre have historical event infobox.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)