Talk:Peasants' revolt in Palestine

Bethlehem Muslim Quarter

It was destroyed in this year by Ibrahim Pasha for an attempted murder on him, according to the Bethlehem Municipality's general history of the city - which is reliable. I assume it's related to the revolt, but I want to make sure before adding it to the article. So is it cool? --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kimmerling and Migdal try to pinpoint what they perceive as the beginning of national cohesion for the Arab city-states under the Ottoman rule. We cannot call them "Palestinians" since the term was (a) not used by the Arab community in Palestine in those days to describe themselves as an autonomous group, and (b) the term is confusing as it relates to the current day Israeli-Palestinian issues.

As such, the article needs a bit of historical perspective and a rewrite. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet of course the fact that, 36 years before the revolt, Immanuel Kant called Ashkenazi Jews in northern Europe in 1798, 'Palestinians' can be noted on the Palestinians page. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting content but I fail to see the relevance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the name change. I am very interested in this article (requested it a while back) and hope to edit and expand it very soon. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment

I'm not in love with the beginning text. It feels a little awkward and could use some rephrasing IMHO. Cheers for the good efforts, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

who says that they were not called palestinians??? any references???? All Arab history books used to call people living there as palestinians 87.101.195.108 (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Safed massacre

Just passing through here but please note that this section is not consistent with main article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.115.105.230 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Khiedevate

I was surprised that this article was entirely filled with mentions of the Khiedevate, even though its official status was given in 1867, some 23 years after the revolt. It arose a strong feeling of anachronism, and thus i changed Khiedeve to "Egypt under Muhammad Ali" in most instances. Am i wrong?GreyShark (dibra) 23:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't notice that the Khedivate was officially established in 1867. The Rood source, which I referred to frequently, used "Khedivate" and "Khedival" so I just figured that was the right term. My intention was to be more specific than "Egyptian" but if there isn't an accurate alternative (and simple) then no big deal. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1834 Arab revolt in Palestine → 1834 peasants' revolt in Palestine – The simple reason is the current name appears to be made up and isn't rooted in the many scholarly sources used in this article or in the Google Books search. The stressing of the term "Arab" in the title, and in the infobox for that matter, looks like original research. Arab identity had nothing to with the revolt and we don't know if all the participating clans were necessarily "Arab". Some could have been Circassian, Turkic/Anatolian, Kurdish and so on. There is no real basis for the current title. However, the sources used in the article frequently refer to the fact that this was a peasants/fellahin rebellion. Gabriel Baer on page 139 specifically says it was "known as the 'Peasants' revolt'. Alternatively, we can remove the year 1834 from the title as well since there doesn't appear to be any other major 'peasants' revolt' to have taken place across Palestine. --Relisted. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)--Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC) -- Al Ameer (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - actually it was me to put here the "Peasants revolt" in lead section, which is indeed the most common name for this event as opposed to "1834 Alawite revolt" in coastal Syria (region); i disagree that this was "not Arab", because the only tribe to claim partial non-Arab ancestry is Abu-Gosh, and even it is arabized Ingush tribe, often considered Arab. The problem is however also the suffix "in Palestine", because the most correct term would be "Egyptian-occupied central Ottoman Palestine" (in line with Mandatory Palestine and to differ from modern Palestine), and it is clearly too complicated to put in a title. Simplification is however misleading, because the revolt was also in Galilee, and i don't believe Galilee was included in geographic Palestine at the time, even though it was later incorporated into British Mandatory domain. Perhaps the best would be just "1834 Peasants' revolt" and in the lead we should explain that the revolt erupted in central Palestine (Judean Mountains and Samaria), which at the time was in the south of Egyptian-annexed Syrian provinces.GreyShark (dibra) 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The ethnic background of the majority of the clans isn't what should be ultimately considered when naming this article. The clans didn't revolt as Arabs (if anything they did so as Ottomans) and the sources don't describe this as an "Arab revolt". However, nearly all of the most prominently-used sources (Kimmerling and Migdal, Beinin, Rustum, Heacock, Ayyad and others) describe the revolt as having taken place in Palestine. This is the most commonly used term so we don't have to come up with our own descriptions. There have bee peasant revolts across the globe so it would make sense to distinguish them by location. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, in David Grossman's Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine page 47, he also explicitly refers to the revolt as "the uprising, known as the Fallaheen Revolt, ..." Fallaheen is Arabic for 'peasant'. I continue to see absolutely no basis for the word "Arab" in the title in any of the sources. Looking back at the article history, the page was given its current name five years ago by Jaakabou from its original title, 1834 Palestinian Arab revolt. I agreed with the name change back then, but without considering the fact that it was commonly called the "peasants/fellahin" revolt and that none of the sources called it an "Arab" revolt. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, i fully agree that it should be "Peasants revolt" (again i was to add this naming to the lead). Secondly, i know Arabic well enough. Third, the only issue here is the "in <location>" suffix, because sources also use "Central Palestine and Galilee" for revolt location - since geographically speaking Galilee wasn't always included in Palestine region (during the Arab Caliphates, Galilee was part of Jund al-Urdunn for example). The use of Palestine region by 20th century historians was often anachronistic - taking the borders of Mandatory Palestine, thus creating the confusion. The most correct term would be "in Egyptian-occupied Syria" or something of that kind.GreyShark (dibra) 18:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't find that argument convincing. The majority of the sources refer to the location as Palestine and since Palestine in this case refers to a general region and not a formal entity of any kind, its borders don't have to clearly defined. I think it's nitpicking to say Galilee wasn't always considered part of Palestine. It has been considered a part of the region of Palestine often enough, especially during the 19th century. Also, an article name like "1834 Peasant's revolt in Egyptian-occupied Syria" is too long, not really rooted in the sources, and just seems like we're trying to find ways around mentioning "Palestine". My suggestion is only to replace the word "Arab" in the current title with "Peasants'" because that is the one part of the title that has no basis in the sources and is therefore OR. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not call it Fallaheen Revolt, then? RGloucester — ☎ 14:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think its best we use the English name "peasants' revolt" since the sources use them interchangeably (Baer calls it the "Peasants' revolt" and Grossman calls it "Fallaheen Revolt"), and while few English speakers know the term fellahin, most know the term 'peasants'. Location is also important. There have been countless peasant revolts throughout world history, and there have been dozens of peasant revolts of varying degrees of intensity during the Ottoman era, and in the decade-long Egyptian period alone (in Hauran in 1838, in Mount Lebanon in 1820-21 and 1840, in Qena, Egypt in the 1820s, in the Alawite Mountains near Latakia in 1834-35). These revolts are just a small sample of peasant revolts to have taken place in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. There were further uprisings throughout the 1860s and 1870s. All these revolts are noted for the fact they were "peasant" revolts.(Beinin 34, Baer 254-255). --Al Ameer (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I'd suggest Peasant's Revolt of 1834 (Palestine). 'Peasant's Revolt' is clearly a proper name, so that should be capitalised. RGloucester — ☎ 00:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment There are a number of possible titles here, but I suggest we keep the "in Palestine". If we look at List of Peasant Revolts, there does not seem to be consistent naming, but there is only one case where it disambiguates using a bare date, and in general the location would mean more than the date to most readers. PatGallacher (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other revolt areas

Unfortunately, my remark was regarded by Al Ameer with antagonism, but without proper attempt to understand that Palestine doesn't cover all revolt areas. Keeping "Palestine" in the current title will force us to split the Druze revolt in Galilee and Hauran (with Galilee perhaps disputed, but Hauran is certainly not "Palestine") and the Alawite revolt on Syrian coast from this article. Since both of those revolts are poorly described here i guess it is not problem at current form. I shall implement, but my previous opinion stands that all 3 revolts should have been under one article (Nablus and Jerusalem revolt, Galilee and Hauran revolt and the Syrian coast revolt).GreyShark (dibra) 15:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Eyewitness account.

Manna mentions a Greek monk who made an eyewitness account of the events, and they were published in 1938. The reference is now in the article: Spyridon, 1938, "Annals of Palestine 1821-1841".

The events of year 1834 starts on Spyridon, 1938, p. 86.

Unfortunately, the page-numbering is messed up: you have to search a bit back and forward, Huldra (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: Thanks Huldra, I was actually looking for this. Do you know if Asad Rustum's 1938 book The Royal Archives of Egypt and the Disturbances in Palestine, 1834 is also accessible? That source is a treasure trove. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked for it, but could´t find it, not at archive, Huldra (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Robinson-refs

The problem with the Robinson and Smith 3 volume 1841 set of book is that they came in one zillion editions. And authors had access to different editions, typically with different page-numbering.

Now, since today all the 3 original volumes from 1841 now are on the net, I think we should try to stick to those. (They didn´t really change the text in later edition, AFAIK, only the page numbering)

So far, in this article, I have been unable to identify the originals of "Robinson, 1856, p. 88." "Robinson, 1856, p. 482." and Smith and Kiepert, p. 93. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert of name change

I reverted the recent change of the article's current name to Peasants' Revolt of 1834 because the current title had been reached as part of a compromise several months ago. It was not the best compromise and unfortunately there was not much participation in the discussion as I had hoped for. I am more than happy to participate in a new discussion on the article's name if one is started. From my understanding of the sources, this revolt was notable for taking place across all of Palestine (the region) and despite its fame for being a "peasants' revolt", it included wide participation by all of the segments of Palestine's inhabitants i.e. the urban notables, the peasants (incl. some Christians), and the nomads. The sources don't consistently use a formal name for the revolt, but nearly all emphasize it was known as the "Peasants (or Fellaheen) Revolt". Of course, there were hundreds of peasant revolts throughout history so that name on its own would not suffice. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Peasants' revolt in Palestine, which seemed to have general agreement. Created the other proposed titles as redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Peasants' Revolt of 1834 (Palestine) → Peasants' Revolt of 1834 – The current name was selected as a compromise after the 2014 RM discussion. I think the name over-disambiguates, since there is no other peasants' revolt from that year with an article on WP. In the previous discussion, the thought was expressed that users felt that "Palestine" needed to be included in the name since there was a type of peasants revolt in Syria in 1834. Anyway, I'd like to re-open the issue and begin by proposing that the "(Palestine)" be removed. Other rename proposals are also welcome. See User:Al Ameer son's helpful comment in the section immediately above this one for more background and a mention of the difficulty that it was more than peasants that revolted in this "peasants'" revolt. I also think that the originally proposed 1834 peasants' revolt in Palestine would probably be better than the current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment As I stated above, the closest thing that the sources used in this article have to a formal name for the revolt is "Peasants' (or Fallaheen) Revolt". Obviously, that name on its own is vague because there have been numerous peasant revolts throughout world history. Thus, there is a need for a qualifier. A consensus of the sources (Gabriel Baer, Beshara Doumani, Louis Finkelstein, Baruch Kimmerling, Adel Manna, Eugene L Rogan, Judith Mendolson Rood, Asad Rustum, Khaled M. Safi, Alexander Scholch) at the very least clearly note that this revolt occurred in "Palestine", and many emphasize that one of the main factors that made the revolt unique was that it occurred simultaneously (and with loose coordination) across all of Palestine (the region) and its participants hailed from all of society's classes (not just the peasantry who constituted the bulk of the armed rebels). This is opposed to previous revolts in Palestine that were limited to specific areas i.e. Jerusalem, the hills of Nablus and Hebron, etc. My original proposal was "1834 peasants' revolt in Palestine", but we could actually drop the "1834" and name it "Peasants' Revolt of Palestine". After all, this was the only "peasants' revolt" to have ever occurred across the region of Palestine. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be OK with Peasants' Revolt of Palestine. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"of Palestine" is not good English; should be "in Palestine". Personally I think the 1834 in the title is good and like "1834 peasants' revolt in Palestine". Zero^talk 04:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"of Palestine" is perfectly good English, as is "in Palestine"—which is chosen depends on what meaning is intended. "of Palestine" would connote that it was a revolt throughout Palestine. "in Palestine" would specify location but contains no connotation as to extent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: @Zero0000: I'm good with either "of" or "in", although "Peasants' Revolt of Palestine" does sound a bit off. How about "Peasant (R/r)evolt in Palestine" with or without "1834" in the title? After all, "in" could suggest a specific location within the region but it doesn't have to either. It could just mean that it occurred in Palestine. As for the year, some of the sources use 1834 in their name for the revolt and some do not. The only other uprising that could come close to a "peasants revolt" involving the region of Palestine as a whole was the 1936-1939 Palestine Revolt. However, unlike the revolt we're discussing right now, very few, if any, sources describe the 1936 revolt as a "peasants' revolt" even as many take into account the integral role that peasants played in that uprising. I think including "1834" makes the title longer than it needs to be, but if others believe that it should be included, I won't object to that point. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, since multiple users have some qualms about using "of", I'm happy to use "in": Peasants' revolt in Palestine? I think we should probably not capitalize "revolt" since we're not duplicating a proper noun that is in common usage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That suggestion sounds good to me. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silwan tunnel

@Arminden: Just to be clear, the source (Judith Mendelsohn Rood) says on 19 May, the people of Silwan pointed out “an abandoned sewer” (undoubtedly Hezekiah's Tunnel). It would be original research to insist that it was not Hezekiah's tunnel unless a source could be provided that says otherwise. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

---

@Al Ameer son: Just to be clear: I don't give a rotten whatever neither on all-too-obvious BS, published or rumoured, nor on WP regulations supporting the notion that light is night and dark is day unless proven otherwise by a written source. Hezekiah's Tunnel does not come anywhere near the city walls as built in the 1530s by Suleiman the Magnificent and unchanged ever since. What this Ms Mendelsohn Rood wrote is either due to carelessness, or to much worse. Having gross mistakes like this in the article is like placing Al-Aksa in the Kidron Valley and the Wailing Wall up on Mount Olivet. If that's what you like, go ahead, that would be far too silly and diminishing to fight against. Arminden (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Arminden: No need to get up in arms here, just pointing out that what I added in the past was supported by the source and that dismissing sourced information because it conflicts with your personal knowledge constitutes original research. I'm not going to revert you though because your argument seems to be a commonsense one (I'm not so silly as to ignore commonsense). Moreover, Rood's assertion that the "abandoned sewer" tunnel of Silwan that is mentioned by the primary source is "undoubtedly Hezekiah's Tunnel" could be a mistaken assumption on her part. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Thanks, that's wonderful, common sense is always a good start :-) Sorry if I got too carried away, there are narrow limits to what I can take in good spirits when it comes to contests "reality vs. regulations". Cheers.Arminden (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

A portion of this article Peasants' revolt in Palestine article was copied to Siege of Al-Karak (1834). Contributors may be found in this article's history. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Um what? How? nableezy - 17:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"By the 20th century, the revolt was largely absent in the Palestinian collective memory, from which "the humiliating and traumatic events" were "conveniently erased", according to Israeli historian Baruch Kimmerling. However, Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal state that the revolt was a formative event for the Palestinian sense of nationhood in that it brought together disparate groups against a common enemy. Moreover, they asserted that these groups reemerged later to constitute the Palestinian people. The revolt represented a moment of political unity in Palestine. "

Take the time to read the article you are editing. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And that makes you think the article on an uprising against Muhammad Ali Pasha before the British Mandate, before the Balfour declaration, before anything regarding the modern state of Israel, before Theodor Herzl was even born, is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? No, dont think so. nableezy - 21:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

At most that single paragraph is related, and as such Ive modified the banner. Ill be asking for admin review on if its appropriate at all. nableezy - 21:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)