|
|||
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot I. |
Recent revert
@Icewhiz: can you explain your revert? [1]
I read Al Andalusi’s changes, which all seem to be presentational improvements, with nothing controversial added or removed.
This important article is in desperate need of improvement, so it would be a shame to derail what looks to be a bona fide attempt to make the article higher quality and a better read.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- The riots (in which Arab mobs killed many Jews), are widely referred to as riots. Al Andalusi changed them to demonstrations. He added " according to rumours, attacked local residents and had cursed the name of the Prophet Muhammad." - which seems to require some other phrasing (apparently referring to false rumors amongst the Arabs). Cherrypicking the following quote from Shaw - "A demonstration which, according to the Shaw Commission, was the immediate cause of the violence." in the midst of the "March to the Western Wall and counter demonstrations" is highly POV and out of context. The Shaw report is treated at length later down the article.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- OK thanks, let’s let Al Andalusi explain and go with whatever can be tracked to the most neutral sources.
- In the meantime, are you disputing that the Arab side of things started as a demonstration, which later degenerated into a riot?
- Re Shaw, it’s unquestionably the best secondary (or pseudo-primary) source available to us, since it was written at the time by a third party government. Clearly these commission reports can be flawed, but its perspectives are important and shouldn’t be entirely relegated to a section at the bottom of the article.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Shaw has its issues. The UK was not a neutral 3rd party - the UK had its own interests - namely maintaining control and reducing violence at the minimal cost to the UK treasury. It is a valuable source - I agree - but we should cherrypick from it to make a POV case.Icewhiz (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Shaw is a primary source we cannot use without secondary source that give it proper context --Shrike (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is a secondary source written by an involved party. Same implications, so let’s not argue about terminology – we can agree to disagree. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: I reverted the contributions of Al-Andalusi - who did not come here to discuss nor did he self-revert his 1RR violation (which I was waiting for him to do upon request). In addition I reverted the recent editions of 71.191.43.147 (who was engaged in an edit war with 181.105.98.53) - who shouldn't have been editing here in the first place, and was also POVish. So no - this is not multiple editors - but two, one of which was an IP in an edit war, modifying the NPOV stance of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Icewhiz. I found it hard to comment because there are a mixture of good, moderate and not great edits all jumbled up in there. @Al-Andalusi: can you comment on your edits please? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, it has now become clear that Icewhiz has absolutely no clue about anything to do with this article, or the changes that he/she is strongly resisting. Icewhiz reverted 9 of my edits claiming that I cited Shaw, yet only one of them (the first) mentions the Shaw report. No explanation was given for his mass revert of the 8 other edits. We are talking about important details that were purposefully obliterated from the article. Now, to address the objection regarding Shaw:
- Thank you Icewhiz. I found it hard to comment because there are a mixture of good, moderate and not great edits all jumbled up in there. @Al-Andalusi: can you comment on your edits please? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile: I reverted the contributions of Al-Andalusi - who did not come here to discuss nor did he self-revert his 1RR violation (which I was waiting for him to do upon request). In addition I reverted the recent editions of 71.191.43.147 (who was engaged in an edit war with 181.105.98.53) - who shouldn't have been editing here in the first place, and was also POVish. So no - this is not multiple editors - but two, one of which was an IP in an edit war, modifying the NPOV stance of the article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- It is a secondary source written by an involved party. Same implications, so let’s not argue about terminology – we can agree to disagree. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Icewhiz claims that I cited and cherry-picked from Shaw, but this is patently false. I cited an academic historical article written by a modern historian of Palestine (Philip Mattar) who comments on Shaw's conclusions. This is a big BIG difference. Our role as editors is to reproduce the views described in reliable sources, but it seems that Icewhiz has taken things a step further and is now passing judgments on the reliable source itself, questioning the basis for the historian's views and so on. This constitutes as WP:OR, since no reliable sources were presented for the counter-view. In addition, Icewhiz arguments are self-contradictory. If you are really opposed to citing Shaw, then why revert my edit where I tag Shaw citations with the primary reference tag? Show some consistency.
- He also claims that any Shaw-related view should be stated in a special section. But the views from Shaw spam the entire article from top to bottom, mostly because they are critical of the Arabs, and yet we have not seen any objection from either Icewhiz or Shrike for this "disorder", or complains of "British bias". It's a double standard no doubt. I say, Mattar's coverage of Shaw's conclusions stays where I placed it, until Icewhiz shows initiative in centralizing all Shaw-related views into the section that he is advocating for. Only then can he can remove my recent addition under the "March to the wall".
- Finally, Icewhiz really thinks he owns the article. So far, has reverted all 11 of my edits to this article. If this is not a sign of a troubling behavior, then consider his latest revert that he made today: a closer look shows that not only my 9 edits were reverted, but he also includes in his sneaky revert an additional edit by me under "Jerusalem riots, 23 August" that came after the 9 edits. AGF? I don't think so. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- That was quicker than I had expected!
- Icewhiz, can you point out the specific edits you take issue with so we can focus the conversation here. Al-Andalusi’s complaint against your mass reversions is well founded, because it makes discussion very difficult. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was typing a response when you posted. Icewhiz will need to create 9 separate sub-sections and provide an explanation for the revert of each one. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- The alleged 9 edits were all made in one sequence in rapid succession and some were CEs of previous edits. I do not OWN this article. The the contrary - I came here to discuss - even after Al-Andalusi's 1RR violation - and was awaiting his belated response (in the midst of this - we also had two POVish IPs jump in). Philip Mattar is a WP:BIASED sourced regarding the Mufti, and we should present a balanced view of the various views and interpretations here. Incidentally he is cited incorrectly (the 1983 article is presented as being written in 2006). Specifically, and I'm addressing the following six, ignoring the more minor ones:
- Revision as of 06:43, 17 December 2017 - misrepresents the complex Shaw conclusions (which also point responsibility on the "Society for the Protection of the Moslem Holy Places") - to a sole cause - the demonstration - and this in the midst of a chronological description of events. The chronological events - facts on the ground - should be jumbled with cherry-picked asides (from Shaw and Mattar) - which are furthermore pared down to a POVish stance.
- Revision as of 06:58, 17 December 2017 - this interjects a previous alleged call to violence - in the midst of the chronological description of events. This belongs, if at all, in the previous section - "The Western Wall Tensions" - where calls for violence on all sides should be discussed - and not in the unconnected demonstration.
- Revision as of 07:04, 17 December 2017 - this edit disconnects conjoined events (shouting "the wall is ours", "raising the flag", and "singing the tikva") into separate and disjoint sentenced (apparently to give greater weight to the inappropriately placed interjected cherry-picked Shaw quote) - what the demonstrators did at the wall, should remain together in one sentence.
- Revision as of 07:27, 17 December 2017 - this incident is already described in the previous sentence in a different way (the attack on the shacks of Lifta) - but is presented here as a supposedly additional incident.
- Revision as of 07:40, 17 December 2017 - I don't agree Shaw is a primary. It does have its issues.
- Revision as of 08:15, 17 December 2017 - modification of the COMMONNAME in English of the Temple Mount. Interjection of rumors, already detailed previously, into the chronological sequence of the 23rd. Adding the Mufti's supposedly non-inflammatory speech (and note that Mattar is particularly predisposed to be pro-Mufti per Sela, Avraham. "The “Wailing Wall” riots (1929) as a watershed in the Palestine conflict." The Muslim World 84.1‐2 (1994): 60-94. - who says
Histmians differ regarding the Mufti‘s motives of action and responsibility for the eventual crisis Whether he actually incited the crisis, turning a local religious dispute into a full-fledged war-as argued by the Jews-or, what seems more accurately, had taken advantage of it for his own goals, it is obvious that the Mufti was not acting in a vacuum.
(see further discussion of sources in the footnote)) - while to the most part ignoring inflammatory speech (by other sermon givers - and the Mufti's sermon on the 16th). The Mufti's role in 1929 is debated - we should not present Mattar's views (which take the most favorable possible view of the Mufti) as Wikipedia's - and we should present all (or none) sides of this debate.Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Mattar is a respected historian. So is Sela. Both views are acceptable here, and we shouldn’t denigrate either as “biased”. You can add Sela’s view alongside Mattar’s, and attribute both scholars inline. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I provided a quote from Sela as he provides an overview of treatment by other historians (without taking a view in this article actually). In his footnote 28 -
For an indictment of the Mufti’s role, see Chaim Arlozoroff,/ervs, Arabs, andGreat Brifah, Winnipeg. 1930, p. 8, and Kolinski’s article. This charge has been refuted by Palestinian historians: Mattar. ’Role.’ p. 111-116; Khila. p. 291; Jbara, 86-87, offering evidence of the Mufti’s calls to the Muslims for restraint and relating his agitation to his official responsibility to and genuine concern for the third holiest place in the Muslims world. Israeli Histcrians-hrath I. p. 266. ’Riggar, p. 69- maintain that the Mufti capitalized on the Wailing Wall issue to stir up Muslim religious sentiment in order to force a fmrable British response to Arab grievances in the disputed Wall issue. ’Riggar adds that such action was also instrumental in defeating the Opposition and strengthening the Mufti’s own position. Palestinian historians-Darwaza. pt. 3, p. 61-62; Bayan N. al-Hout. A/-Oil’ads( W8~~U8WSm7 fifih@ff, Z9f%fM& Beirut, 1986, p. 230-231-maintain that the Mufti used the incident for reactivating the dormant Palestinian national movement ascribing to him ’full historical responsibility’ for the riots
He provides greater detail on the discussion on the Mufti's role. We shouldn't be promoting one view - and we definitely should be doing this in the midst of the chronological description - We could perhaps add a subsection discussion the various views on this - but we shouldn't be promoting Mattar specifically and exclusively. In any event - the Mufti's alleged role (or non-role) is a matter that is wider than just 23 August.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- I provided a quote from Sela as he provides an overview of treatment by other historians (without taking a view in this article actually). In his footnote 28 -
- Mattar is a respected historian. So is Sela. Both views are acceptable here, and we shouldn’t denigrate either as “biased”. You can add Sela’s view alongside Mattar’s, and attribute both scholars inline. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The alleged 9 edits were all made in one sequence in rapid succession and some were CEs of previous edits. I do not OWN this article. The the contrary - I came here to discuss - even after Al-Andalusi's 1RR violation - and was awaiting his belated response (in the midst of this - we also had two POVish IPs jump in). Philip Mattar is a WP:BIASED sourced regarding the Mufti, and we should present a balanced view of the various views and interpretations here. Incidentally he is cited incorrectly (the 1983 article is presented as being written in 2006). Specifically, and I'm addressing the following six, ignoring the more minor ones:
- Well, I was typing a response when you posted. Icewhiz will need to create 9 separate sub-sections and provide an explanation for the revert of each one. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Answering Icewhiz's points:
- Debatable. This could have been easily addressed by attributing the statement to Mattar.
- The march on 14 August 1929, with 6,000 participants belongs exactly where it is now, under the "march to the wall", because, well, it was a march to the wall. Jabotinsky's press statement can be moved to the previous section, something could be done without a revert.
- I don't understand.
- It's not presented as a additional incident. It clarifies the vague "wounded" part. It is clear that the purpose of the revert was to remove any explicit details on the violence committed by the Jews towards Arabs.
- Ok. Note that tags cannot be removed until an agreement is reached first on the TP.
- "Pray on the Temple Mount" vs "Pray in al-Aqsa mosque". Something tells that latter sounds more natural.
- The rumors came in after the Zionist march to the wall. So the chronological aspect is respected here. And again, you are demonstrating ownership by claiming that certain statements "should be" expressed in particular sections only.
- There was a speech given by the Mufti in Jerusalem on August 23 to the angry crowds. Regardless of whether you think this speech calmed them down or further incited them, you cannot ignore the fact that the a speech was given that day. You revert however, obliterates this historical encounter between the Mufti and the crowd.
- What you think of Mattar belongs in a blog, quite frankly. On wiki, attribute the views to Mattar if you disagree strongly, and feel free to counter with the reliable sources you cited. I should remind you also, that it's NOT a requirement (and certainly not my job) to have to add every pro-Zionist POV out there before I'm able to use Mattar and his views. No such policy on Wikipedia.
- The sources you mention regarding the Mufti are respectable, however, they give an overall assessment of the Mufti's role in the entire conflict, or at least, in the 1929 events. To use those general assessments as an excuse to eliminate every specific detail involving the Mufti from the article (like his speech in Jerusalem on Aug 23 to the crowd), is WP:SYNTH.
- Your claim that the Mufti's August 23 speech could not be added unless we reference his earlier sermon on the 16th: With the Jewish march, you refused the inclusion of Jabotinsky's earlier calls for violence because they happened earlier and now it "interjects" the chronological description of events. Whereas with the paragraph on Arab demonstrations, you maintain that it should mention an earlier sermon? Not consistent.
There were 3 other reverts. One of them had removed Leaders of the Palestine Zionist Executive were reportedly alarmed by the activities of the Revisionists as well as "embarrassed" and and fearful of an "accident" and had notified the authorities of the march in advance
. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- There was 1 revert by me - of 9 consecutive edits. I am not, at this time, challenging the stmt above, or the two others (though they might not make sense with the rest omitted - the other two were minor changes). If you add Mattar - per WP:BALASP you should add other views. This isn't a question of WP:RS - but balancing between different views in the sources. Mattar holds a certain view - Wikipedia articles are supposed to present an ensemble of views per
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
. If you add Mattar, extensively, you need to balance this out. In addition - opinions/views should be separate from facts. The chronology should be separate from views on what caused what - at least in different paragraphs when the views/opinions on the matter vary widely.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)- This discussion seems like it is making progress.
- One point from me: Icewhiz you are right that wikipedia should show all relevant perspectives. Al Andalusi added an RS which he was familiar with. It is not his responsibility, unless he is aiming to achieve GA or FA status, to perform a thorough review of available literature. When another editor with a potentially conflicting RS comes along, it is the responsibility of the new editor to add it in. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a question of what is a RS. The RS card works for cold hard undisputed facts (e.g. the riots occurred in August 1929 and killed approx. X people). It doesn't work when we have varying opinions/views on either "soft facts" or outright opinions/views (which in history regarding causality (causes) - it is almost always the case that causes are viewpoints, not facts). Edits should not be made that violate WP:BALASP. Lets take the Mufti possible culpability - Al-Andalusi added a sentence that seems to absolve the Mufti - interjected into a chronological description (of relatively hard facts). What do I do? Add a whole paragraph discussing the range of possible views regarding the Mufti's culpability? Where do I do this? In the midst of the factual chronological sequence? This shouldn't be added to the article - unless it is added in a balanced fashion and in an appropriate section. And yes - it is the responsibility of an editor adding material to consider WP:BALASP (particularly when reverted and challenged on this very point) - as not considering it is a severe WP:NPOV violation. As it is - this interjection needs to be removed. It might be appropriate to have a sub-section (beyond the mixed Shaw report conclusions which do address the Mufti somewhat in the text - but Shaw is indeed somewhere between a primary and secondary source and in any event not a reflection of post-Shaw scholarly consensus) discussing scholarly views and opinions on the Mufti's culpability (as well as possibly other figures and movements). And the way to do so - is not to add Mattar's view - but to find a source (e.g. Sela discussing views above - or someone else) that provides an overview of scholarly opinions - and then covering each one (including Mattar).Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are using a lot of time and energy here which would be better spent improving the article. What you are saying is, as usual, quite sensible, except for the hyperbole regarding Al Andalusi’s edits which seem to me to have been made in good faith. The resistance you are facing is because your reverts have been pushing the article backwards not forwards. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- I made some constructive (I hope!) edits. I separated the Mufti's role into a separate subsection - which is currently very short and just states the widely ranging views on the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Icewhiz. They all seem sensible. I have a few proposals to find which I think will be a good compromise position on the few outstanding points. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Icewhiz wrote "The Mufti's role in 1929 is debated - we should not present Mattar's views (which take the most favorable possible view of the Mufti) as Wikipedia's - and we should present all (or none) sides of this debate." but then Icewhiz cites the far-right nationalist historian Avraham Sela in Wikipedia's voice that only Palestinian historians maintain that the Mufti called for restraint. Which is a false assertion, as Icewhiz is doubtless aware. Zerotalk 11:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- There are some additional sources at Amin_al-Husseini#Aftermath. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I cited Sela, Avraham. "The “Wailing Wall” riots (1929) as a watershed in the Palestine conflict." The Muslim World 84.1‐2 (1994): 60-94. - the esteemed "The Muslim World" journal is surely a reliable source. Avraham Sela, editor opinions here aside, in an esteemed historian - and in any case we are not citing his view here - but rather his source review - which is actually quite fair and covers the entire spectrum of opinion of the Mufti (from Mattar who not only absolved the Mufti but also says he called for restraint, to the more scathing indictments). If you are striking Sela - then we should strike each and every citation of Mattar - who is much more biased - and is used not only for background/source-review but as citation of fact.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I don't cite people like Sela at one fringe or like Pappe at the other; it is my private vice. But the rules don't eliminate either, alas. The problem here is not that you cited Sela for a fact, but that you cited him for an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. You won't be citing Pappe's opinion without attribution on what the scholarly consensus is, so don't cite Sela for that either. Find someone who is not one of the leading protagonists if you want a citable summary. Zerotalk 01:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I did not cite his opinion - I cited his review of other historians - in which he cited and included Mattar (which would be the extreme point is absolving the Mufti) - and it was a reasonable review published in a journal that would pass RSN. I could just cite each of Sela's citations to show the range, however that is not required for a review of sources published by an established historian in a peer reviewed journal (and choosen, I would add, mainly by looking for a source in a journal that is available online and that covers the entire range - I did not go looking for Sela, I did go looking for someone who covered this as background in a RS).Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your word games. You cited his opinion that the view that the mufti urged calm is restricted to certain Palestinian historians. Call it his claim if you like; I don't care. But you put it in, in Wikipedia's voice, knowing full well that it is a false claim made by a protagonist in the debate. I have no respect for that type of editing. Zerotalk 08:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it is a false claim (circa 1994), however your sole issue is that Sela pointed out that Mattar, Khila, and Jbara are Palestinian? He didn't say only Palestinian - nor did I - and nor am I insisting on retaining the Palestinian qualification in the text if you dispute it. You aren't providinga policy based rationale for excluding an article in a peer reviewed journal.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC) I agree it isn't only Palestinian (nor did the text or Sela say so) - e.g. Ilan Pappé (however we count his nationality) and Zvi Elpeleg seem to espouse similar views following Mattar.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your word games. You cited his opinion that the view that the mufti urged calm is restricted to certain Palestinian historians. Call it his claim if you like; I don't care. But you put it in, in Wikipedia's voice, knowing full well that it is a false claim made by a protagonist in the debate. I have no respect for that type of editing. Zerotalk 08:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I did not cite his opinion - I cited his review of other historians - in which he cited and included Mattar (which would be the extreme point is absolving the Mufti) - and it was a reasonable review published in a journal that would pass RSN. I could just cite each of Sela's citations to show the range, however that is not required for a review of sources published by an established historian in a peer reviewed journal (and choosen, I would add, mainly by looking for a source in a journal that is available online and that covers the entire range - I did not go looking for Sela, I did go looking for someone who covered this as background in a RS).Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I don't cite people like Sela at one fringe or like Pappe at the other; it is my private vice. But the rules don't eliminate either, alas. The problem here is not that you cited Sela for a fact, but that you cited him for an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. You won't be citing Pappe's opinion without attribution on what the scholarly consensus is, so don't cite Sela for that either. Find someone who is not one of the leading protagonists if you want a citable summary. Zerotalk 01:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I cited Sela, Avraham. "The “Wailing Wall” riots (1929) as a watershed in the Palestine conflict." The Muslim World 84.1‐2 (1994): 60-94. - the esteemed "The Muslim World" journal is surely a reliable source. Avraham Sela, editor opinions here aside, in an esteemed historian - and in any case we are not citing his view here - but rather his source review - which is actually quite fair and covers the entire spectrum of opinion of the Mufti (from Mattar who not only absolved the Mufti but also says he called for restraint, to the more scathing indictments). If you are striking Sela - then we should strike each and every citation of Mattar - who is much more biased - and is used not only for background/source-review but as citation of fact.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Political context
To try to "de-propagandize" the feel of the article, it would be helpful if it was clear that Jabotinsky/Klausner and the Mufti, as well as the rioters themselves, represented the respective right-wings of their communities, not their communities as a whole.
Segev, page 303, writes: "Political rivals within both camps were competing to demonstrate their patriotism, each side accusing its opponents of being overly submissive om the national issue. Both Arab and Jewish politics made demagogic use of religious symbols; both were easily drawn into extreme positions and lost control of events. Among the Arab international politics were driven largely by the ongoing rivalry between the Nashashibis and the Husseinis; among the Jews, the competition was between the followers of Ben-Gurion and of Jabotinski."
Onceinawhile (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is under contention I believe - and there is also some modern POV pushing of the "build bridges, not war" type. Regarding the Jewish side I think it would be fair to say that most of the Jewish community felt that the wall "belonged to them" - it was more of a question of "not worth while fighting over now". With lesser certainty I think this is also true of the Muslim community (and one must note that the Mufti was a mainstream, in an effective control, position - whereas Jabotinsky was fringey at the time (and would remain so until the late 1970s).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- You write "one must note that the Mufti was a mainstream, in an effective control, position". The British created the role of Grand Mufti only a decade before this incident, in order to push out the pro-Ottoman contenders. His was not an elected position.
- Insidious propaganda through the ages has pushed the position you write - that the Mufti, and his often poor judgements, represented the entire population - but there is of course no evidence for this nonsense.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have not said "full control" - I said "that the Mufti was a mainstream, in an effective control, position - whereas Jabotinsky was fringey at the time". The degree of control by the Mufti (and for that matter - anyone in the local Arab leadership) is definitely questionable - however he was a more mainstream figure (either in various degrees of control or actively vying for supremacy in the Arab leadership). Jabotinsky and the Revisionists - weren't in such a position during the Mandate years (and until the 1970s). In any event - I think we can agree that so many sources try to push their narrative on 1929 (are are still trying to do so - e.g. the "Year Zero of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1929" book title is quite assertive on a subject that isn't quite clear cut)- that making deconstructing the narrative from the actual events is difficult. Anyway - we are digressing to WP:FORUM, but what is important in terms of our article is separating the various layers of narrative (which we could also discuss) from the main article body.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Grammar
In the intro, please find "133 Jews were killed and between 198–241 others were injured, a large majority of which were unarmed", can someone change "which" to "whom" as it refers to people not objects. Thanks, Of 19 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2019
I suggest to update the title only so to match the title on the frame located on the right hand-side. Specifically, change the title to say "1929 Arab Palestine riots". 68.109.72.53 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. MrClog (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Benches at the Wailing Wall
I have a few pictures of Jewish worshipers using benches and chairs at the Wailing Wall in Ottoman times. One is a newspaper clipping from 1910. Could those be relevant to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.54.241 (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you upload them to commons:Category:Historical images of the Western Wall – if they are better than the ones we have then maybe yes. Do you have a source dating them? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Merge Safed riots into here
The 1929 Safed riots article is no more than a duplication of the text we have have here, plus a couple of primary quotations which would easily fit here. There are no detailed sources which cover the Safed event separately from the overall riots. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have done this after two months without comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)