Talk:1929 Palestine riots

Jabotinsky

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

Personal letter

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

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

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

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

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

Casualties

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

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

There are a number of issues with the insertion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bigger picture

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

For instance:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, [2][3]

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, [4][5] [6] 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)

dershowitz

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

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

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

"after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall"

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

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

Undue paragraph structure

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

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

The paragraph structure details the:

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

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

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

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

Flag and Anthem

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

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

Stabbed to Death

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

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

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

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

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

The Western Wall Tensions

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

POV tag

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

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