Talk:Jaffa riots

Clean up tag?

Thinking of adding the clean up tag for this article, thoughts? Red1 08:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really need it, although a minor copyedit should take care of any problems. —Viriditas | Talk 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Jewish Bias?

"Hearing of the fighting, the Arabs of Jaffa feared they were under attack by the Jews [citation needed] and went on the offensive."

This sentence implies a clear case of "Preventive war": a very questionable line of reasoning. Citation is very necessary here. If there is none, I will assume that this is a deliberate attempt to justify the unjustifiable and change it to "Hearing of the fighting, the Arabs of Jaffa went on the offensive." Arabs, including Jaffa Arabs, have been killing Jews for over a millennium, without any fear of Jews attacking them. If there indeed was a fear of Jewish attack, it would be important to add more details: fear by whom, by what parts of Arab Jaffa, and how justified it was. 75.84.97.215 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I am changing the sentence.75.84.97.215 10:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ehh ... You actually had this sourced quote in the Investigative Commission section: "The raids on five Jewish agricultural colonies arose from the excitement produced in the minds of the Arabs by reports of Arabs being killed by Jews in Jaffa."

I believe that in this case, a revert would be appropiate MX44 11:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I am failing this article this time, unfortunately, because of several, very important issues:

1. The article refers to only three sources, onyl one of which is an inline source. This is a major problem, and I do not feel confident that the article will pass GA without at least 5 more references.
2. The lead is much too short for an article of this size, and needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article properly.
3. I think a general cleanup and improvement of prose might be required. Please not that this is a minor problem, and it is bordering in this regard. I'm not surprised however, that a cleanup tag is on this article.
4. While not an official criteria, it would be nice if this article had a couple of images. Not imperative, but would perhaps even tidy the text up a little.

Good luck in regards to improvements to this article. Any questions regarding my decision should be forwarded to my talk page. Thanks, and best of luck! Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

The first paragraph describe 'Riots' and 'Killing' in Palestine, as it was regular civil war. However, the article itself give report of Arabs attack Jews, when Jews with the British police use self-defence against the attackers, so 49 Arab attakers were killed. It is POV to describe the riots as just riots without mentioning that there was one side of attackers, and one side who use only self-defence. Netanel h (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sections?

Why on earth are the Jaffa riots placed under the "Anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims" section? All official bodies of investigation agreed that the riots were a spontaneous affair—the result of a volatile political situation, not a desire to kill Jews. The word "pogrom" is far too loaded to be used with such a nuanced topic. Same for "ethnic cleansing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.59.220 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)