Talk:1929 Palestine riots/Archive 3

Consensus (again)
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:
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_1
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_2
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_2
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_2
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots/Archive_2
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * Talk:1929_Palestine_riots
 * 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. -- Activism  1234  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):


 * 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). -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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)


 * 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)


 * 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. -- Activism  1234  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.  -- Activism  1234  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?? -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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.
 * 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.  -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

-- Activism  1234  20:01, 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."
 * 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. -- Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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 . 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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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 :) --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. -- brew crewer  (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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit
Just like to ask why you have changed what I put in here 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
I have moved a section from the article from midway down to the top 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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1929 Palestine riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=staff200408181145

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Casualties
A summary by the Department of Health to the Chief Secretary dated October 1929 provides the following figures: The Director added the following note: "While the number of Jews killed and injured as shown in the summary and clarification of casualties may be taken as correct, it is known that considerable number of unrecorded casualties from rifle fire occurred amongst Arabs in the neighbourhood of towns and in the country"
 * 120 Jews killed or died in hospital (16 from bullets, 1 from a bomb, 103 from other causes) and 198 injured and treated in hospital (48 from bullets, 150 from other causes)
 * 83 Muslims killed or died in hospital (63 from bullets, 2 from bombs, 18 from other causes) and 165 injured and treated in hospital (126 from bullets, 3 from bombs, 36 from other causes)
 * 4 Christians killed or died in hospital (2 from bullets, 22 from other causes) and 16 injured and treated in hospital (8 from bullets, 1 from a bomb and 7 from other causes)

There is a lot of statistical data to be drawn from this report, for instance sex and age ratio of the casualties in various locations.--ארינמל (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There appear to have been a few fights in Arab villages resulting in multiple casualties - of which the article lacks information. For instance, there were six Muslims killed by bullets in "Subaher village" (Suba, Jerusalem?) on the 28th during a "punitive expedition" of the government, including a 3 year old girl and two 70 year old men. Bodies were not autopsied or exhumed.--ארינמל (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1929 Palestine riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160628142645/http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/gush-etzion to http://peacenow.org.il/eng/content/gush-etzion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Jewish counterattacks, use of airpower in British suppression
So far no explanation has been given for the removal of the cited mentions of "Jewish counterattacks", and "use of airpower" as part of British suppression. I'm assuming WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's the corresponding change to the body - before the lead? Can you provide a quote from a citation for bombing of Arab villages (preferably with context)? For the use of "Jewish counterattacks" in the context of 1929?Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The cited work I used does not go into the details. Instead, it references a bunch of other works dedicated to the events in question (I will try to get hold of them). If the scholar I cited had chosen to summarize the events using the above statements (among others), then I don't see why the lead section of the wiki article cannot include the same statements. Why is there a need to go into more context behind the airpower use to justify its inclusion? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lede should be a summary of the body, not introduce new facts or opinions. MOS:INTRO.Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Source
Hillel Cohen’s book from a couple of years ago is one of the best on this subject:



Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Lifta
- can't correct you lest I violate 1RR - but I believe the following is incorrect Maccabi grounds near Mea Shearim, near the Palestinian Arab village of Lifta, - This is not near the village of Lifta (which is far to the west - if you look at a map) but next to shacks set up by the residents of Lifta for temporary residence inside the city (e.g. after market days and the like) - I've seen this in other sources, but I can't recall which ones at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ice, I took it directly from Segev, p.311 "Avraham Mizrahi, seventeen years old, seems to have been murdered because the soccer ball he was playing with, not far from the Arab village of Lifta, rolled into an Arab family's tomato patch." Onceinawhile (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Without looking a at Segev, if this is what he wrote it is wrong (and makes little geographic sense (nor "violence" sense - Lifta would've been a "hard" target for the Jewish mob to attack... Shacks and tents in town - "soft"). See for instance this - or this -  (Hebrew) which both provide a more verbose explanation of what was attacked.Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Segev is implying that Litfa was either where the Arabs came from or to which village the tomato field belonged.
 * If not Litfa, which village do you think the field belonged?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See - the land belonged to Lifta residents - but it was well outside of the village proper (and next to the Bukharim quarter) - and they erected tents and shacks there (as opposed to the stone houses of the village proper).Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Page 98 of Cohen: "Few now remember that Lifta's lands once extended from what is now the western entrance to Jerusalem east along both sides of Jaffa Road, almost up to the Old City walls and, to the northeast, up to the bottom of Mount Scopus." Onceinawhile (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Your eyes might be better than mine - which of these three pictures shows Jerusalem in the background? If you think any of these photos might include the place where all this sparked off, it would be good addition to the article. (FYI this is a map of Lifta's lands) Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (I disagree this event set this off, but that aside) - None of these - these are modern photos of the currently surviving stone houses (around 50 of them) - which are 2+kms away (on hilly/mountainous topography) from where the tents and shacks were. What was attacked was totally different - as opposed to these fine stone dwellings (even 100 years later - and at least one of them dating back to a Crusader stable) - what was attacked were tents and shacks - ramshackle field or town visits accommodations which were probably build much more sparsely than the village center.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the 1943 map you posted - JerusalemWest1943.jpg - The houses you have pictured are in the red village marked as Lifta. The tents and shacks that were attacked - were within the built up area of West Jerusalem circa 1943 (and on the edge of it in 1929).Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem build up that you see in the 2011-5 photos - is some 200-300 meters away (the tents and shacks being "deep inside" the current modern day city).Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 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)

Recent revert
can you explain your revert? 

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)
 * 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. 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:


 * 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( W8U8WSm7 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)

Answering Icewhiz's points:
 * 1) Debatable. This could have been easily addressed by attributing the statement to Mattar.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) I don't understand.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 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. 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)

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)
 * ✅ 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)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. MrClog (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)