Talk:Jaffa riots (April 1936)

Name

The "name" section is pure WP:OR. There is no evidence at all that this day was named "Bloody day in Jaffa". The first source cited is a headline. The second is simply a statement "a bloody day in Jaffa" - note the use of "a" instead of "the" and the absence of capital letters. I don't find any evidence in the secondary sources that this event is given a name of this kind. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

(In parallel I was writing much the same:) No justification whatever has been given for the name of this article. Maybe the Paletine [sic] Post used it as a headline, but a newspaper headline is not a name for something. (I write "maybe" because a dead link with the wrong date is provided and I can't seem to bring up the right page.) Did the Post ever use it again for the same events? I think it didn't, so the Post didn't consider it a name. The next phrase "and other newspapers" is simply a falsehood because, as well as a plural being used for only one example, The Nation did not use it as a name but only reported the PP used a certain headline. Then we read Chaim Guri using "bloody day" as a description. Descriptions are not names. You can search for the phrase "bloody day" and find tens of thousands of usages, hardly any of which established names for something. Where is the evidence that this title identifies its subject as a name is supposed to? Zero^talk 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Arutz Sheva network, which includes "the third-largest weekend circulation" in Israel, published this 2015 article that calls The Bloody Day in Jaffa as follows: ‘The Bloody Day in Jaffa’. Now, the article is an opinion piece, so perhaps its content cannot be used as a WP:RS; nonetheless, the fact that the writer calls the events of April 19 and 20, 1936, the Bloody Day in Jaffa, is compelling evidence that the event is called "The Bloody Day in Jaffa" by people who make reference to these things that took place 80 years ago. Before people jump to conclusions, and recklessly start deleting content from the article, it should be considered wether the books "Army of Shadows" or "A Never-ending Conflict" also use the term. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that sourcing a historical article to a random opinion piece in Arutz Sheva written by a "veteran and an activist" isn't "compelling evidence" of anything. The two other sources also do not say anything about the name of the incident, for the reasons I mentioned before. I'm afraid Googling for "bloody day jaffa" isn't sufficient. This is an 80-year old event: it should be written mainly based on secondary historical sources. Se WP:HISTRS - not a policy, but a decent essay. As for the other books, I have checked Army of Shadows and it doesn't say anything about "blood day in Jaffa" which I could find. Indeed, see my post on AfD. I quote from the source: the whole incident is given exactly one line in the source. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The guy may be an activist, may be an extremist, may be a Nazi. It does not matter. His usage of the term "The Bloody Day in Jaffa" on major media means that at least some people refer the the events of April 19 as "The Bloody Day in Jaffa." This is compelling evidence of the name of the day. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Excellent point. The question is whether this moniker is in use in significant sources. Despite the fact that some editors DONOTLIKE certain large-circulation periodicals, or DONOTLIKE the politics of particular writers, the term is clearly in use.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I had misread the text and thought it was saying that the Palestine Post and another newspaper used it in 1936. However the Palestine Post never used it at all and the Nation article only attributes it to some Hebrew newspaper that it doesn't name (probably Davar, see here). Then we have A7, which is worthless even when it is puffed up with comments about its circulation (which means exactly nothing). Anyway you can't trust writers like that to not pinch stuff from Wikipedia. Zero^talk 08:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Bloody Day" is demonstrably in some degree of use, and has been since 1936. We edit not by deleting sourcing we DONOTLIKE, but by specifying the way a term has actually been used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Your revert of that crap is not a surprise. That's the most piss-weak excuse for an article title I've seen. Zero^talk 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, it's really annoying when you don't even write properly. Your text is always full of typos, bad grammar, etc. Lift your act. Zero^talk 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It's shameful that the racist diatribe in A7 is the ONLY source in the article which uses "bloody day" as a name. Zero^talk 02:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• except for The Nation, which references the Hebrew papers. And that major Hebrew poet, and the other writer. Replacing section deleted from article. Also, it would be useful for someone to do a thorough and good faith search of Hebrew (and perhaps Yiddish) sources, and of 1930s era sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Only ONE Hebrew newspaper is mentioned, and that is for a headline not for a name. Perhaps you would like to rename King David Hotel bombing to התנקשות-דמים פרועה בירושלים which is the headline in the same newspaper? Haim Guri didn't use it as a name in that extract either, only as a description. You can search for "bloody day" and find many many similar descriptions that are not names. You only found the A7 "article". And even if there are more examples in Yiddish or Hebrew, it makes no difference since we are supposed to use titles derived from English reliable sources. That's policy. Zero^talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Added: a reasonable translation of that headline would be "brutal massacre in Jerusalem". Zero^talk 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's better that the "name" section be kept out of the article till better and more firm sources are found. See WP:ONUS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The best thing would be to choose a better title and expand the coverage to more than one day. Even just restricted to riots in Jaffa it lasted more than one day. Zero^talk 04:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it lasted three days. How about "Jaffa riots (April 1936)" or "Start of 1936 Arab revolt in Palestine"? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Jaffa riots (April 1936)" seems like a good name to me. Epson Salts (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

This is an 80-year-old event. Why are newspaper sources from the time being used now? Contemporary newspaper sources shouldn't be used for historical events - they can be right or wrong: WP:SECONDARY sources which evaluate such things should be used. But of course, if the primary sources are eviscerated, very little of this article will remain. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you have access to a library or bookstore, simply open any book on Mandatory Palestine to the 1936 section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sources

This [1] State Department document is horrifying. But an excellent source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Welkl, use it. I'l l be interested to see what you select from it.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'e put a POV tag on the background because you have been alerted to the lack of a socio-historical outline of the background to these incidents, have even cited sources that contain this material, but still fail to add the requisite material.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nominating this article for deletion

As it is obviously POV in favour of the Zionist Jews, and also lacks historical significance.

If not deleted, it requires a massive clean up. All instances of "Arabs" should be changed to Palestinians; all examples of Jewish attacks and land theft targeted at Palestinians ought to be displayed as well to provide context to Palestinian operations targeting Zionist Jews in the Mandate. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)