Talk:1929 Palestine riots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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)

Consensus (again)[edit]

I have asked the same question a few times but have only seen silence in response. I will ask one more time and will then revert.

Ankh appears to misunderstand a basic rule of wikipedia. Until consensus is gained, 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 anyone believes there is consensus for this material, please could you explain?

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Seem to be more people supporting it than opposing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You've been around long enough to know that that is not how consensus is defined. Please try again. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been around long enough to know that you saying IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough reason to keep information out of the article. At this point you're the only person who objects it would seem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it has been objected to numerous times, with detailed arguments by multiple editors over many months. See threads below, all of which relate to the same single sentence in the lead:
Can you show us a single place where you think consensus was found for the text which has been edit warred into the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Those show you and Dlv opposing, and at least 4 editors supporting the current text. Could you please quote wikipedia policy that requires "a single place" for consensus to be "found"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You should look more closely as your numbers are wrong - it was not just me and Dlv. There have been at least 3 editors opposing with substantive reasons and only 1 (Ankh) supporting with substantive reasons. Not one of the other supporting editors you refer to has made a single contribution to the debate. Consensus is about substance not about numbers. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Did I miss one? My apologies. Unfortunately, you don't get to decide if other editors' arguments are substantive. So we're at 4:3 for including the text, yes? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Er, forget the word substantive then - it still holds true. There have been at least 3 editors opposing with reasons and only 1 (Ankh) supporting with reasons. Agreed? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No, not agreed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to check... Am I included in "support?" See this edit I made a bit back using various references that show it on the article (been monitoring ever since), which shows I support it. However, Ocen only said Ankh supports it, and NMMNG said that's false, so wanted to put it out there that I too support this, partly due to the number of references that specify it - Sykes, Bregman, BBC, Newburg, Magnes... No need to censor this info and cover up deaths. --Activism1234 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying - please could you provide your thoughts on the conflicts with the other sources highlighted during the debate? Otherwise you are only commenting on half the issue! Oncenawhile (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's false. You don't even have to go into the archive to find 4 editors who support Ankh's text "with reasons". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please point them out to me - I can't see them. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ankh, brew, Activism and myself. In previous discussions we also have Jayjg and Shrike I believe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but no. Activism didn't provide a rationale until just now, and even then it's missed the actual point of the debate (i.e. the issue of conflicting sources). Brew did not provide any relevant rationale, despite being asked to do so. Shrike provided a different proposal. And Jayjg did not provide a view on this topic to my recollection. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you seem to think your opinion on other people's arguments holds more weight than it actually does (which is not much). At least 4 editors have supported the current text for various reasons. You and two others oppose. You were given the opportunity to suggest compromise wording, but you declined to do so. Feel free to provide a suggestion that addresses the arguments made by the majority of editors that support the current text. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree that the subject of this content debate is about conflicting sources? Or do you not care what the debate is about, but would rather just keep trying to prove "consensus by numbers"? I believe the former.
Only one editor (Ankh) has provided rationale for the disputed text in this context. Three editors have provided rationale against it. You and Activism have supported the text but ignored the issue in your rationale. Please could you expand your rationale so that we can understand your view on the conflicting sources? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe I explained quite clearly in my previous comments why I support the current text over what was there before. If you'd like to suggest text that addresses the problems with the previous version, please do so and I'll comment on that. Otherwise, I'm not playing this game with you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The text I support is "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured.[1] A large part of the Arabs deaths were caused by British security forces.[2]". I have looked carefully at what you have written - in all last four months I can find two comments from you containing relevant substance (see box below - feel free to add any I have missed):
Extended content
  • 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)
  • 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)
I cannot make sense of this gobbledygook. For Arabs killed by Brits, do you want it to say "90%" or "95%" or "vast majority"? For Jews killed by Arabs, do you want it to say "all" or "vast majority"? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
For each population I want the text to be very clear as to who was responsible for the vast majority of the deaths. The text you support doesn't do that. I hope that was clear enough. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, how about "During the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 198 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured. The Shaw report found that "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces". Arabs were responsible for the vast majority of Jewish deaths" I thought it was pretty clear before, but this should provide the "in your face" style that you are looking for. Would you like another sentence afterwards explaining that the Arabs did it because they are inherently evil people? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ocen, just noticed your comment. I provided a rationale above, as well as in my edit I made weeks ago (gave the diff above). --Activism1234 01:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Activism - could you kindly respond to my other comment above re the rationale you just provided? Your comment only addresses half the issue - we need your views on the issue of the conflicts with the other sources highlighted during the debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You mean "X says Y" and "A says B" in regards to the same issue, so what do we do? If it's not an inconveniance, I have an important presentation I'm working on for Thursday (happy to provide diffs where I've told other editors this and that I'd be busy, not making it up), and may not be able to respond fully to this until later today or tomorrow (but hopefully, at maximum, by tomorrow). Again, I'm just really hassled and have a lot going on, and this "consensus" debate has been lasting for weeks if I'm not mistaken, so another day shouldn't hurt that much. --Activism1234 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, and no rush. Good luck with the presentation. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Once, I'll try to reply as soon as I can, but for conveniance and a full response, can you list very specifically and clearly exactly what the problem with the sources here are according to you? As I said before, there are a wide range of reliable, referenced sources, from media outlets to books, which support the current wording. --Activism1234 03:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure - I can do better than that - below are a selection of key excerpts from this four month long circular discussion: Oncenawhile (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
  • 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? Zerotalk 11:56, 17 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)
  • 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 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. Zerotalk 02:48, 28 May 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)

Only people who don't want the current wording based on multiple reliable references should be mentioned as "key excerpts" of the discussion? That shows a clear bias and is plain misleading and absurd. --Activism1234 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not fair - if you reread your request, it says "according to you". I provided that in good faith. I had hoped it would be helpful, but after your rude response I shouldn't have bothered. Particularly since the way you worded your response ("based on multiple reliable references") make it sound like you are predisposed to come out on one side of the debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Predisposed? I already have an opinion and have a response, which I explained above and in an edit summary box. I don't have to explain it again here, I offered to do that since you wanted clarification, but my opinion isn't changing, as I've been following this and still stick with it. --Activism1234 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense - you acknowledged above that you hadn't been aware of the issue of conflicting sources which this debate has revolved around. Can you explain why since then your tone has changed from one of collaboration to one of defensiveness? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you really just go and ignore what others have been saying here in favor of your own ridiculous numbers that according to you certain people's votes don't count?? --Activism1234 19:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That was very aggressive and very unnecessary. You haven't responded for 5 days, and NMMNG for 4 days. You've both been busy editing other articles. My edit summary described what it was - a proposal made to NMMNG, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to fight, please go somewhere else - i have been nothing but courteous and reasonable to you. If you want to collaborate, please answer the questions that have been posed. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't replied because it diverged from the original discussion, which I answered, to an unnecessary discussion that I didn't intend to waste my time on regarding an editor's tone. --Activism1234 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The original discussion was "You mean "X says Y" and "A says B" in regards to the same issue, so what do we do?". Please could you kindly respond to this? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't reply to your proposal since I don't feel obligated to engage someone who implies I'm a racist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do not think you are a racist. I do think you worry far too much about other editors' underlying motives, which your appear to consistently misunderstand. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's much room for misunderstanding when you say something like "Would you like another sentence afterwards explaining that the Arabs did it because they are inherently evil people?" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That was a question not a statement, was obviously sarcastic, did not imply what you are reading in to it, and was not what I was referring to. What I was referring to was your belief that some editors had "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". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't really explain the "inherently evil people" bit. But never mind. I see no point in pursuing this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, a lot of what I'm saying I already explained above, but maybe this will be more clarified. Essentially, the specific figures are substantiated by multiple reliable sources. These reliable sources are confirmed at RSN (the reliable sources noticeboard). Now, these "contradictions" - well, the figures, these "contradictions," they're basd on the Shaw report. The Shaw report itself is a primary source, and as such, there are uncertainties that are clarified in other secondary sources, which are not contradictory at all. And if I overused Italics, I apologize. The specific figures are indisputably confirmed by a number of reliable sources, and it presents these views adequately. This is opposed to resorting to simply removing sourced content. --Activism1234 20:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Perhaps the key issue is definition of primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources. By the most basic definition, a secondary source is one which reviews and comments on primary sources, and a tertiary source is one which reviews and summarises secondary sources.
Have you ever read the Shaw Report? I can send it to you if not. You will see it is a secondary source - it reviews primary evidence relevant to this debate and comments on them. But i'm not sure that will make the difference here.
The problem with your statement above is that all of the "multiple reliable sources" are unquestionably tertiary sources in relation to the topic of the 1929 Palestine riots:
  • BBC timeline
  • The Pentecostal Mission in Palestine, 1906--1948: A Postcolonial Assessment of Pentecostal Zionism
  • Judah L. Magnes: An American Jewish Nonconformist
  • A History of Israel, Bregman
  • The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
(To what extent are the 1929 Palestine riots focused on by these sources? Do any of them claim to have reviewed any primary sources in relation to the events which took place? Do any of the give any sources for this information at all?)
On the other hand, if you look for sources which have focused on this subject, and which have provided their sources, you do not find the conflicting information. See a couple of examples here [1] [2].
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The first reference you give doesn't mention deaths, it discusses the British White Paper that was issued out of fear from Arab retaliation.
  • The second reference doesn't discuss the riots either.
  • An author is not obligated to show us for each and every fact where they got every detail. Nor is it important how much or how little they focus on it. Indeed, you give me references, yet the entire reference doesn't focus on the riots either, just like the multiple references I gave, including some books. The extent that they discuss doesn't make a difference - a fact is a fact. If they would've written 100 pages on it, that wouldn't mean they somehow would've written something different. Simply put, that's not how reliable references work on Wikipedia. We don't question every news article like that either, especially when there's a multitude of them. --Activism1234 22:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • They both mention the riots, both give the deaths numbers and both provide their sources. For the first, see the first paragraph of chapter 5, and for the second see the top of p38
  • The question is whether you credibly believe that these references which focus on the topic in passing without providing their sources are appropriate for us to base a specialist encyclopaedia article on? When sources conflict, we have to debate which are more likely to be right. Please let me know what it is about these sources that makes you think they are reliable in respect to this information. For a starter, could you please provide the relevant sentences from the two sources (1) "An American Jewish Nonconformist" and (2) "The Pentecostal Mission in Palestine"? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It's all referenced. --Activism1234 00:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The first reference you gave me which you linked to does not display, some pages are ommitted in the preview. The second reference pretty much confirms what I've been saying - it doesn't give specific #s, but says the # of Arabs killed that we have in the article and says that most were killed by the British. Then we have other sources that are more specific, reinforcing that. I found some other references as well that I'll include. --Activism1234 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Activism1234 00:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Great. First things first, since none of these references are available online, please quote the exact sentences from your sources here, so we can see exactly what they are supporting. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Am I obligated to do that? Well, I'd be willing to anyway. Give me 5 minutes to get it all. --Activism1234 19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It takes a dream: the story of Hadassah, page 116: "The violence was the bloodiest since the end of World War I: Arabs killed 133 Jews and wounded 330; British police killed 110 Arabs and wounded 232."
  • Those Origins, Those Claims, page 94: "Countrywide however the police did act in 1929, killing 110 Arabs, in affrays."
  • Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World, page 101: "The violence in Hebron in August 1929 left indelible marks on both sides of the conflict: 133 Jews had been killed by Arabs and 339 were injured. In the repression of the attack by the British police, 110 Arabs were killed and 232 wounded."
  • Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, page 382 - "By the end of August, 133 Jews had been killed and 339 injured. The British police had killed 110 Arabs."
  • Causes and Consequences of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, page 22 - "The Jerusalem riots of 23 August 1929 left 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead. Of the latter, 110 had been killed by the British police."

--Activism1234 20:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - this is clear and helpful. Seeing as you have the wider context within these sources, which of the five do you deem to be the "highest quality" in relation to this information? Criteria for their quality is clearly subjective, but might include whether they are scholarly or political works, whether they cited their sources and whether the author has a perceived agenda. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in rating them, even if I rate the 5 top references that wouldn't change the facts on the ground. --Activism1234 23:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I'll give you my views instead, and then perhaps you could respond:
(1) It takes a dream: the story of Hadassah - Levin is a journalist, not a historical scholar. Levin is self avowed passionate Zionist. The book is not a historical scholarly work, but an emotional tribute to the Hadassah.
(2) Those Origins, Those Claims - published by Lulu (company) - this is self published and therefore not RS
(3) Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World and (4) Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths - both by Karen Armstrong
(5) Causes and Consequences of the Arab-Israeli Conflict - this is a book for children, not a scholarly work.
In summary I would say the two Karen Armstrong books are of reasonable credibility for the purposes of our discussion, but the others are not. What do you think? Oncenawhile Levin is self avowed passionate Zionist 00:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
(1) - Help us all if we should assume that because someone is a journalist, they're unreliable. Media outlets would be out of business! Anytime we quote someone from Ha'aretz let's say on Wikipedia, it'd be plain silly to say "that person is a journalist, and is also an avowed leftist, so they're not reliable."
(2) - I don't see how the publisher discredits what the author wrote... It's also possible that publisher simply uploaded it, but was published by another company.
(3) (4) - yes, and she mentions it both times.
(5) Oh dear if children's books are now filled with lies or unreliable facts. What are we teaching out children? Guess we should recall all children's books. Doesn't seem like a children's book to me either - 80 pages is too long for most children, and the text is normal sized as opposed to large, and is written like a normal book, not specifically for children. --Activism1234 01:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Oncenawhile "Levin is self avowed passionate Zionist" I think this kind of political unscientific rhetoric just reviles the motivations and ideology of those who use this terms. This kind of labeling is insulting and should be avoided. Its clear that the sources mentioned here are legitimate. Tritomex (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What drivel. It is sourced here [3]. And there is nothing insulting about being labelled a passionate Zionist - would you have called it an insult if he was labelled a passionate Republican? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

@Activism, your answers jumped too far in their interpretation of my comments - I did not use words like "unreliable" or "discredits". The point here is more subtle - it is about "degree of reliability / credibility", i.e. it is a spectrum rather than a black or white answer.

Your answers did not inspire confidence in your belief in these sources - statements like "It's also possible" and "Doesn't seem like" suggest you have limited familiarity with these works.

The subtle point here is that to stand up against the other high quality works that do not make these statements, we need to find sources of a very high scholarly quality. So what you need to answer is which, if any, of these works you believe qualifies as a "high quality scholarly" source. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Activism, it's been 5 days since your last comment - do you intend to continue this discussion? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not much more to discuss. The article currently has 9 reliable references next to that sentence, which is sufficient. Personally, I think that The Washington Post is more neutral than The New York Times, which is more neutral than the BBC, which is more neutral than The Guardian, but that doesn't diqualify either of them from being used as a reference on Wikipedia. --Activism1234 22:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You are being lazy. Do you want to get to the bottom of this or not? Your statement above doesn't make any sense - sources 2, 3, and 4 out of the sources 1-9 all contradict the points above through their silence of the points we are discussing - and source 2 (the Shaw report) explicitly contradicts them! The other sources are being questioned above, with reasonable challenges. You are welcome to continue the discussion and answer the challenges raised, or you can leave the debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, please Assume Good Faith rather than call an editor lazy.
Secondly, I fail to see the debate here. I see one editor arguing against 9 reliable references in an article. But I don't see a "debate."
The absence of saying something doesn't contradict anything.
The numbers are based on the Shaw report.
As I said before, I'm not wasting time on "rating" 9 reliable references. It doesn't make a difference to me. I'd go ahead and rate them, it doesn't change the facts on the ground or what's written in any of them, namely that these are 9 references saying something and you're arguing against it. --Activism1234 23:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You are arguing about everything except the actual relevant issue.
All we need to do is establish which are the best sources here. If you think that's wasting time, then you shouldn't be involved in this discussion. You are supporting a poorly sourced sentence, the burden is with you if you want it to remain. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Poorly sourced? My, we must have differing opinions on how many reliable refs we need for a sentence, if 9 isn't enough... See, that's why this discussion is absurd. Also, pretty sure the burden of proof to remove a sentence that others oppose removing would be on you. --Activism1234 23:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. Do you intend to continue with these vacuous remarks, or would you like to actually discuss the issue?
At the moment, only you and Ankh have supported the text in light of the challenges posed. Although neither of you are willing to debate the key issue, which is the relative quality of these sources against the sources they conflict with.
So by my maths that's two editors supporting the sources and three challenging them. Until we reach consensus, these challenged sources and the data they are supporting should not remain in the article.
Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Also the fact that you keep repeating the "9" figure suggests that you have completely lost track of this debate! I have already explained above that 3 of the 9 are contradictory to the facts you are supporting! Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't mean I lost track of the debate at all, although I repeat this isn't much of a debate. It's 1 editor vs 6 refs (happy? :) ). Furthermore, we see again how this can't get anywhere with you - only 2 editors?? You can't just ignore the opinions and comments of other editors because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They count. No More Mr Nice Guy, for one, has been heavily involved here. Same goes for Brewcrewer. You simply can't ignore people because you don't agree with what they say. And I don't expect you to change your view, because it's plain ridiculous, but it shows how silly this is... --Activism1234 20:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I have listened to NMMNG's point and proposed text which addresses it. Brewcrewer hasn't even made a point. You and I are debating conflicting sources regarding an anodyne and esoteric issue, regarding which the only editors who have commented are you, me, Ankh, Zero and Dlv999. Capiche? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, from your recent comments I have lost my confidence that you can even remember what we are arguing about! This whole 4.5 month saga seems like a great case study to show how difficult it is to agree subtle points on wikipedia - I guess that's the nature of the beast. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not "capiche" when an editor doesn't understand that the views of other people count, even if said people have no intention of continuing a ridiculous argument for 4.5 months, and quite frankly, I can't blame them. Their opinions still count. I'm not sure why you would think I forgot what we are arguing about, but it'd be interesting to see if all of a sudden my opinion isn't part of people who participated here, becuase you feel I've forgotten what this is about. I'm impressed though by your psychic abilities. If you can tell me the winning lottery #s, I assure you I will scram out of here and leave :) --Activism1234 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't understand you at all. You are trying to add up names of people who have dissented to previous issues, not the issue we are discussing. That's absurd, and I would hazard a guess that the only reason you are doing it is so you can leave this debate without having to engage your brain again, but still get to have your way. In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
There's not much to engage one's brain with in this argument, with all due respect. Please further note, I have not had cake in a while, but would very much appreciate a slice, combined with the fact I'm very hungry right now, although I don't believe my dietary patterns are relevant to this argument. (Ironically, I'll be away until tomorrow night so I can't reply until then, although not because of "engaging my brain" as I won't be making any edits and will respond here when I'm back...). Good night/day sir/madam. --Activism1234 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Activism, I've been away from the gripping debate for a few days. I am happy to continue the discussion with you, or we can agree to disagree. Please note however that you do not have consensus for the inclusion of the 110 figure and the blaming of all the Jewish deaths on Arabs. So I will be reverting this in due course, until such time consensus is achieved. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Didn't we already deal with your assertion that there's no consensus for this text? I would strongly recommend you make sure you're right about the consensus or lack thereof before reverting "in due course". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not exaggerating but I think OAW reverted the same material like a dozen times in the last few months. I think this is ripe for AE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oncey, would you like to agree to disagree? If so, this has been a pure waste of time, if we are simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, and certainly isn't why I've disagreed with you on multiple areas, including the absurd claims that the statements of different editors don't count in gauging consensus. --Activism1234 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


@Zero0000: Just like to ask why you have changed what I put in here [4] My source states "immigration" not immigrants that you have changed it to and also my source was fine but you have deleted it and used the other source without knowing what page my quote actually comes from.GGranddad (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We prefer to avoid activist sources like Palestine Remembered if possible. In this case PR's reference is to the Shaw Report so the simplest thing is to quote it directly. Here is the whole paragraph from p151:
"To the political disappointment of the Arabs there came in time to be added fear of the Jew as an economic competitor. In pre-war days the Jews in Palestine, regarded collectively, had formed an unobtrusive minority ; individually many of them were dependent on charity for their. living, while many of the remainder-in particular the colonists-brought direct and obvious material benefits to the inhabitants of the area in which they settled. The Jewish immigrant of the post-war period, on the other hand, is a person of greater energy and initiative than were the majority of the Jewish community of pre-war days. He represents a movement created by an important international organization supported by funds which, judged by Arab standards, seem inexhaustible. To the Arabs it must appear improbable that such competitors will in years to come be content to share the country with them. These fears have been intensified by the more extreme statements of Zionist policy and the Arabs have come to see in the Jewish immigrant not only a menace to their livelihood but a possible overlord of the future."
It is actually quite a good summary of the situation and could be quoted more extensively in the article. Zerotalk 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for taking the time to explain and providing the quote. GGranddad (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Section moved[edit]

I have moved a section from the article from midway down to the top [5] being as that piece relates to the actual causes of the riots and I feel that the start off point for a description of relevant points from the Shaw report should begin with the causes and then go on to describe what happened and other relevant events. Thoughts? GGranddad (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1929 Palestine riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)