| Revision as of 11:47, 5 May 2012 editDlv999 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,466 edits →referenced addition← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:24, 5 May 2012 edit undoDlv999 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,466 edits →Suggesting new article section: Jewish attacks: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
| == Refs == | == Refs == | ||
| {{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| == Suggesting new article section: Jewish attacks == | |||
| Sources:- | |||
| * ''"In this quarter there occurred the worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed. On the 26th of August there also occurred. a Jewish attack on the Mosque of Okasha in Jerusalem, a sacred shrine of great antiquity held in much veneration by the Moslems. 'I'he mosque was badly damaged and the tombs of the prophets which it contains were desecrated."'' Shaw report pg 65 ] (]) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * ''"In Jerusalem, Haifa and other places, a Jewish "mob" avenged itself on the Arabs, killing men, women, and children and lynching passersby; in Jaffa, an imam and six other people were murdered in a mosque, and the mosque itself was burned to the ground. In Jerusalem the Ukasha shrine in the Jewish Zikhron Moshe neighbourhood was serverely damaged."'' Gudrun Kramer (2011) pg232 | |||
| * ''"In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation a Haganah unit raided an Arab house, killing four people''" Benny Morris (1999) pg 115 | |||
| * ''"Arab spokesmen reported acts of terror perpetrated by Jews, including the lynching of Arab passersby and the murder of women and children. In a few cases, the Arabs claimed, Jews attacked people who had given them refuge. The Jewish Agency investigated some of these charges and concluded that "in isolated cases" there were Jews "who shamefully went beyond the limits of self defense". One memorandum reporting that Jews had broken into a mosque and set sacred books on fire bears a scribbled note "this unfortunately is true."'' Segev (2001) pg 327 | |||
Revision as of 12:24, 5 May 2012
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | Religion: Interfaith B‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Jewish history B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Palestine B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 16, 2010 and August 16, 2011. |
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Casualties
I've moved this recent insertion to the Talk: page for discussion:
According to the Shaw Report, during the week of riots from 23 August to 29 August, 116 Arabs and 133 Jews were killed and 232 Arabs and 198 Jews were injured and treated in hospital. The Jewish casualty figures were provided by the Jewish authorities, whereas the Arab casualty figures represent only those actually admitted to hospital and do not include "a considerable number of unrecorded casualties from rifle fire that occurred amongst Arabs".
There are a number of issues with the insertion.
- It cites the Shaw Report itself, rather than the views of modern, reliable secondary sources. We should be relying on the latter, not the former, for any casualty figures.
- The wording appears to cast doubt on the accuracy of the Jewish figures, and in general suggest that the Jewish figures are unreliable/overstated, whereas the Arab figures are understatements.
- It leaves out some fairly critical context - specifically, that while the Jews were mostly killed by Arab mobs, the Arabs were mostly killed by British authorities. As a result, it misleadingly conflates the numbers of deaths, giving the appearance the causes were similar and/or reciprocal.
In general, the insertion appears to not-very-subtly promote an anti-Zionist POV. Since I'm sure that was not the intention, I've brought it here so we can fix these issues. Jayjg 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- 1)A large proportion of the article appears to be cited directly to the shaw report, so removing this one passage based on that and not the rest seems odd. 2) sorry I do not see where you are coming from at all with your second point. 3)seems more like a justification for adding more information than removing what is there. Dlv999 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I removed some of the most recently inserted and egregious material. Oncenawhile did insert much else from the Shaw Report, which should likely also be removed. Since there's a whole section for the Shaw Report's conclusions, that is where material from it should go, if anywhere. The problems raised in points 2 and 3 are fairly obvious - please review the previous comment. Jayjg 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. All of the information you removed is taken from the Shaw Report, which is a WP:SECONDARY source (a second-hand account, at least one step removed from the event, relies on primary sources for their material). And all the other sources take their information from it.
- The wording you removed about the casualties is about as word-for-word as can be done, including the term "Jewish authorities" and "considerable number of unrecorded casualties". Here's a tertiary source for you. And your point (3) is already in the lead so i'm not sure what your are taking issue with. I'll copy it down to the main section. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- User:Oncenawhile/Talktemplate Oncenawhile (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Jayjg, this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" is a statement about editors, not article content. Please make more accurate Talk: page statements, and please abide by WP:NPA. Jayjg 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- User:Oncenawhile/Talktemplate Oncenawhile (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I removed some of the most recently inserted and egregious material. Oncenawhile did insert much else from the Shaw Report, which should likely also be removed. Since there's a whole section for the Shaw Report's conclusions, that is where material from it should go, if anywhere. The problems raised in points 2 and 3 are fairly obvious - please review the previous comment. Jayjg 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The text and the source are fine with some adjustment. Taking the footnote on p65 into account, the uncertainty in Arab casualties refers to injuries and not to deaths. It is a secondary source quoted in many other sources. This doesn't prevent other secondary sources being cited as well if they are reliable enough for this question. Zero 10:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Zero, the Shaw Report is problematic not only because it is a WP:PRIMARY source (it was compiled almost 90 years ago, soon after the events in question, by the government of one of the participants), but also because of the way in which is was selectively cited and quoted. Jayjg 00:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The age of the report has nothing to do with its status as a secondary source. I have bolded above the definitions of secondary source from WP:SECONDARY which the Shaw Report very clearly complies with. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The age of the report does indeed have something to do both with its reliability and its status as a secondary source. It is "very close to the event", and compiled by one of the parties in the event, the British government. Please respect the WP:V policy. Jayjg 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- On the issue of casualties I find the detailed discussion of whether the Shaw report is primary or secondary to be superfluous. The best detailed academic sources that cite sources for their statements (e.g. Morris 1999) give the exact same casualty figure as the Shaw report. For me, the issue here is why are we reaching for lower quality tertiary sources (who do not cite their sources) and draw conclusions that the better sources do not make? Dlv999 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The age of the report does indeed have something to do both with its reliability and its status as a secondary source. It is "very close to the event", and compiled by one of the parties in the event, the British government. Please respect the WP:V policy. Jayjg 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The age of the report has nothing to do with its status as a secondary source. I have bolded above the definitions of secondary source from WP:SECONDARY which the Shaw Report very clearly complies with. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Bregman 6+110
The Bregman quote "Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110" is contradicted by the Shaw report, which say that in a single incident Jews killed an iman plus 6 others (so 7 in total). Are there any other sources quoting the 6+110? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to writing, "Jews killed 6 or 7 Arabs..." or something else to reflect this inconsistency.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)- Please provide sources that underpin this. Most sources use the phrase "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces". The 6+110 is wp:fringe, and frankly is most likely a mistake in which the author misread the reference to the 6 Arabs above. It's not for us to guess though - if you can't find a meaningful number of credible sources quoting that, it needs to come out. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- AnkhMorpork, it looks very odd to cite the Shaw report repeatedly, then jump to a poor tertiary source for one specific bit of information in contradiction to the report, then continue with the report again. If Bregman was a strong secondary source that states the report is wrong or cites some alternative primary source, there would of course be a place for it. But it isn't a strong source at all, it is just an isolated tertiary source making an unusual claim in passing without even noting it is unusual. Zero 11:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Victim accounts frequently differ and slight discrepancies inevitably crop up. The previous version made no mention as to the cause of death of the victims and this needed rectification. That the vast majority of Arab deaths were caused by the British and the Jewish deaths were caused by the Arabs is not disputed by either of the two accounts.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)- What you say is correct, but that is not reason to use a source making a definite claim regardless of its quality. The report makes it clear that the causes of death are only known to some approximation. It is clear that most of the Jews were killed by Arabs, but the report suggests some might have been killed by police/soldiers (and this is what should be expected in such a chaotic situation). Bregman thinks he knows better, but how? Similarly it is clear that most Arabs were shot by police/military, but some were not. How many? Bregman thinks it was all of them except for 6 mentioned explicitly, but he even missed one and gives no reason. As far as I know there is no source at all that gives all the causes of death, we shouldn't pretend that we know. Why don't we just work on a good summary of what the report says, which is in agreement with detailed secondary sources like Segev? Zero 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, it is not for us to speculate as to the basis of reliable reports. As it stands, the content is reliably sourced. Can you specify what you would like modified or present an alternate version here?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)- We have conflicting sources, and it is for us to weigh up and decide what weight to give to sources when they conflict. Zero and Oncenawhile have presented a strong case for not relying on Bregman in this instance. If you think Bregman's claims are defensible you must present the case. Dlv999 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you quote the conflicting material and state where the article accords undue weight. The material is covered in other sources too,
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- We have conflicting sources, and it is for us to weigh up and decide what weight to give to sources when they conflict. Zero and Oncenawhile have presented a strong case for not relying on Bregman in this instance. If you think Bregman's claims are defensible you must present the case. Dlv999 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, it is not for us to speculate as to the basis of reliable reports. As it stands, the content is reliably sourced. Can you specify what you would like modified or present an alternate version here?
- What you say is correct, but that is not reason to use a source making a definite claim regardless of its quality. The report makes it clear that the causes of death are only known to some approximation. It is clear that most of the Jews were killed by Arabs, but the report suggests some might have been killed by police/soldiers (and this is what should be expected in such a chaotic situation). Bregman thinks he knows better, but how? Similarly it is clear that most Arabs were shot by police/military, but some were not. How many? Bregman thinks it was all of them except for 6 mentioned explicitly, but he even missed one and gives no reason. As far as I know there is no source at all that gives all the causes of death, we shouldn't pretend that we know. Why don't we just work on a good summary of what the report says, which is in agreement with detailed secondary sources like Segev? Zero 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Victim accounts frequently differ and slight discrepancies inevitably crop up. The previous version made no mention as to the cause of death of the victims and this needed rectification. That the vast majority of Arab deaths were caused by the British and the Jewish deaths were caused by the Arabs is not disputed by either of the two accounts.
- AnkhMorpork, it looks very odd to cite the Shaw report repeatedly, then jump to a poor tertiary source for one specific bit of information in contradiction to the report, then continue with the report again. If Bregman was a strong secondary source that states the report is wrong or cites some alternative primary source, there would of course be a place for it. But it isn't a strong source at all, it is just an isolated tertiary source making an unusual claim in passing without even noting it is unusual. Zero 11:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please provide sources that underpin this. Most sources use the phrase "many of the Arab casualties and possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces". The 6+110 is wp:fringe, and frankly is most likely a mistake in which the author misread the reference to the 6 Arabs above. It's not for us to guess though - if you can't find a meaningful number of credible sources quoting that, it needs to come out. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added "dubious" tags where your source conflicts with the Shaw report. The bbc link would not be the first time that the bbc's history articles were incorrect (their anachronous usage of the term "Palestinians" is a clue). Are you able to identify where any of the references which use the 110 source that figure from? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Three sources were provided, which substantiate this claim and for you to tag this as dubious is disruptive editing. In addition, I have previously expressed my acquiescence to modifying the language to conform with the Shaw report findings.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)- Plotspoiler, your removal of the tags is a violation of the guidance in WP:TAGGING. Please self revert and let's continue this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Adding inappropriate tags is an abuse of their purpose - please don't do it again; discuss instead. Jayjg 11:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Plotspoiler, your removal of the tags is a violation of the guidance in WP:TAGGING. Please self revert and let's continue this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In the event that sources disagree on something, we can decide which sources are more reliable or we can report both. The version given by the Shaw report is essential and can't simply be replaced by some tertiary source. It is notable that nobody has found a good secondary source supporting the tertiary sources, and in fact secondary sources simply repeat what the Shaw report said (confirming that it is the best source they know). However, I could agree to a formulation like "According to the Shaw report, something something. Some sources report something something." Zero 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Where do the sources actually disagree? Jayjg 00:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- The sources disagree in two key places:
- (1) Jewish casualties:
- PROPOSED TEXT: "133 Jews were killed by Arabs"
- SHAW REPORT: "possibly some of the Jewish casualties were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces" and also states that 133 Jews were killed in total
- (2) Jewish casualties:
- PROPOSED TEXT: "Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110"
- SHAW REPORT: "The worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs occurred in this quarter, where the Imam of a mosque and six other persons were killed" and "many of the Arab casualties ... were caused by rifle fire by the police or military forces" and also states that at least 116 Arabs were killed.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Shaw Report is a WP:PRIMARY source, and non-specific about the numbers. We must rely on the consensus of reliable secondary sources. If they disagree, please explain how. And please do not repeat the mistaken view that the Shaw Report is secondary. As has been explained more than once, it is "very close to the event", having been compiled soon after the riots by one of the parties in the event(s), the British government. Jayjg 11:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Detailed academic secondary sources covering the topic and that also cite sources for their figures (e.g.Morris 1999) do not draw the conclusions that the lower quality sources have drawn. It seems odd that we are reaching to tertiary sources that do not cite references for their claims and a BBC news report when we have numerous high quality academic secondary sources which cover the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The Shaw Report is a WP:PRIMARY source, and non-specific about the numbers. We must rely on the consensus of reliable secondary sources. If they disagree, please explain how. And please do not repeat the mistaken view that the Shaw Report is secondary. As has been explained more than once, it is "very close to the event", having been compiled soon after the riots by one of the parties in the event(s), the British government. Jayjg 11:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a contradiction, the SR suggests a possibility that is discounted by subsequent sources.
- This "contradiction" in not definitive and relies on original research:
- The SR report does not state the ethnicity of the fatalities, which could include Jewish deaths.
- Your "implication by ommission that this was probably not the only deadly attack", is a dubious paralogism. The occurrence of less severe attacks does not necessitate further Arab fatalities, which is confirmed by other sources.
I have previously communicated my amenability to adjusting the figures to include the SR's, where they are in outright conflict, but this suggestion appears to have been typically ignored.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Benny Morris (1999) writes "Altogether, in the week of disturbances, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were killed and 339 Jews and at least 232 Arabs were wounded"(pg 116)
- Now if you go through his detailed account of the events there are a number of contraictions with the tertiary non-academic sources that have been presented.
- For instance he states
- "To the west, Kibbutz Khulda put up a spirited defense against an onslaught of several thousand Arabs, but the members were eventually evacuated by the British army convoy, and their homes were torched. More than forty Arabs were killed." (pg 115)
- "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation a Haganah unit raided an Arab house, killing four people" (pg115)
- "Another two died and several more were accidentally injured by British police fire two days later." (pg 115)
- Suffice to say Morris cites sources for each detail and the overall casualty figures. Dlv999 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please clarify these 'contradictions':
- Does Morris identify the perpetrators of the killing of forty Arabs, since it is clear that the British Army were involved?
- Could the Haganah retaliation be referring to the attack referenced in the SR?
- I have no idea what point 3 is said to contradict?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Kibbutz Khulda is attributed with the defense, the British are only attributed the role of evacuation.
- It would seem not, as the SR refers to "the worst instance of Jewish attack" in which there were seven killed, while BM describes an incident where "a Haganah unit raided an Arab house killing four people". This can be confirmed as Morris has given a citation for the statement (I have not been able to track it down just yet).
- Let me spell it out. All sources agree that 133 Jews were killed, which is the figure taken from the Shaw report. Without giving details or citations your sources say that all the Jews were killed by Arabs. This is not supported by the Shaw report. The detailed academic secondary source that I have brought contradicts your sources in that it documents killing of Jews by British police. It is also important to note that said source does not precisely attribute the responsibility of each and every every killing, the very good reason is that none of the primary sources that the historians have based their work on allow these exact judgement to be made. You are relying on poorer sources to justify statements that the best sources we have on the topic simply do not make. Dlv999 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is original research to state that the British evacuation did not result in Arab fatalities. Why are you adamant this was not the case
- You state "the...source that I have brought contradicts your sources in that it documents killing of Jews by British police." Where is this contained in the quotation you cited, ""Another two died and several more were accidentally injured by British police fire two days later."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus
Does anybody think there is consensus for the inclusion of this in its current form: "133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured. Jews killed 6 Arabs and the British police killed 110"? I certainly do not. If I understand the policies correctly, that means the sentence has to come out until consensus is achieved. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Consensus which explains, "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." Highly recommended reading would also include this. There are several outstanding issues in this thread that are yet to be clarified and I suggest you try and reach a consensus through discussion and not circumvent this critical process.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)- Yes, thanks. I suspect you need to read WP:BRD. And WP:STATUSQUO. You are correct that consensus has not been reached here. Until it is, this sentence must be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly no consensus, these figure do not reflect what the best sources we have on the topic say, so why are they being inserted into the article? Dlv999 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please both respond to queries raised against your previous assertions, so that a consensus through dialogue may be achieved.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- I just checked Tom Segev (2000) p327. He reports the exact same figures as Benny Morris, citing the Shaw report. So if you would answer my question why are we not simply reporting what the best academic sources who have covered this topic agree on? Why are we reaching to poorer quality sources to draw conclusions that the best sources simply do not make? Dlv999 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly. You are yet to establish why these sources are in contradiction with the other reliable sources that supply further informative information, and clarify certain obscurities, in the sources that you wish to solely employ. Please read the above thread.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- Yea OK Ank, a BBC webpage which devotes half a page to the subject supplies more information than 500 plus page detailed academic literature. Now you are just being ridiculous. Perhaps if we all trawl through the recent Daily Mail articles as you have done, we will uncover some more long neglected material on the topic which Segev and Morris have overlooked. Dlv999 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Three reliable sources were provided, which substantiate this information, and improve upon the other sources. Please abide by WP:NPA and comment upon content and not editors.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- There is no personal attack here. You have admitted yourself that your interest in this article is "presenting the Israeli view". Your history of edits in the article clearly indicate that your method is to search for sources that support the particular POV you are interested in presenting and inserting them into the article irrespective of source quality, rather than searching for the best sources on the topic and accurately reflecting them in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Three reliable sources were provided, which substantiate this information, and improve upon the other sources. Please abide by WP:NPA and comment upon content and not editors.
- Yea OK Ank, a BBC webpage which devotes half a page to the subject supplies more information than 500 plus page detailed academic literature. Now you are just being ridiculous. Perhaps if we all trawl through the recent Daily Mail articles as you have done, we will uncover some more long neglected material on the topic which Segev and Morris have overlooked. Dlv999 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly. You are yet to establish why these sources are in contradiction with the other reliable sources that supply further informative information, and clarify certain obscurities, in the sources that you wish to solely employ. Please read the above thread.
- I just checked Tom Segev (2000) p327. He reports the exact same figures as Benny Morris, citing the Shaw report. So if you would answer my question why are we not simply reporting what the best academic sources who have covered this topic agree on? Why are we reaching to poorer quality sources to draw conclusions that the best sources simply do not make? Dlv999 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please both respond to queries raised against your previous assertions, so that a consensus through dialogue may be achieved.
- Clearly no consensus, these figure do not reflect what the best sources we have on the topic say, so why are they being inserted into the article? Dlv999 (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. I suspect you need to read WP:BRD. And WP:STATUSQUO. You are correct that consensus has not been reached here. Until it is, this sentence must be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I will repeat something that I stated to you earlier, "I am quite frank in that that I have a POV and wish to accurately present it. However, I extend such honesty to my editing and am more than willing to countenance reasonable objections, as this page will testify." I you wish to question me regarding this 'admission' and my editorial technique, please direct your queries to my talk page, as this thread should discuss article content.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, actually you have brushed aside reasonable questioning of your sources and just keep making assertions like "three reliable sources were provided" which fail to address the issue. Zero 13:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I direct your attention to here and here where detailed questions are still unanswered, those in response to a close examination of the issues raised. I shall remind you of what you yourself stated about my conduct regarding this issue, "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC) - To reiterate some of the salient points made above. DLV999 you are a new editor so it would make sense that you would not be as familiar with our RS policy. Secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources and your arguments that the secondary source is "mistaken" has no merit for Misplaced Pages purposes.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Brewcrew you are welcome to contribute to the debate, but please take the time to familiarize yourself with the discussion before opining. I have already quoted to two academic secondary sources in the above discussion. Here is another secondary source which directly contradicts the current figures in lead. Weldon Matthews (2006) pg 64:-
- "In all, the government reported 133 Jews and 116 Arabs dead, the latter including seven victims of Jewish murderers in addition to casualties from the suppression of the riots.129"
- Unlike Ankh's sources the author provides citations for the statement. Dlv999 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am amenable to amending the Arab fatalities inflicted by Jews from 6 to "7", or to a more accurate "6 or 7", to reflect this inconsistency. This collaborative overture has been repeatedly made, and I am uncertain why you are still revisiting this issue. I shall repeat this to be very clear: I accept modifying the lead to accommodate this uncertainty of whether 6 or 7 Arabs were killed by Jews.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- As well as the 7 persons mentioned in the Shaw Report, there are 4 "in an Arab house" mentioned in Morris, Righteous Victims (p.115), cited to the official history of the Hagana. That makes 11. The fact is that nobody has an exact tally and all we really know is that the great majority of the Arab deaths were at British hands. Zero 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you certain that this incident in not already included in the other sources death toll? Does Morris provide an overall death toll for these riots? Adding together the fatalities of various incidents to attain a final total is original reaserch and a most unscientific method. Additionally, this incident is prefaced with, "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation..." and this should be reflected when this incident is described.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- I'm not saying we should add the numbers together in the article, that would be original research. But it would also be original research to assume one of these is included in the other. The information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same or different. What we need to do is to present what the sources say and be noncommittal about what it means. Zero 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I equally have no idea whether this figure is included or not in the total death toll and I repeat, "Does Morris provide an overall death toll for these riots?". You are using this excerpt to challenge the validity of three other sources. Since you acknowledge that "the information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same...", why are you disputing the use of other sources that provide a more detailed overview, that could easily conform with other "vague" source?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)- We've already been though this Morris cites exactly the same figures as Segev, which is to say the exact same figures in the Shaw report. The ones that were in the article prior to your edits. Also referring to Morris and Segev as "vague" when they meticulously cite their statements while your sources don't contain a single citation says more about your own understanding of the material than it does about the sources at hand.Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please quote the relevant passage. You criticise my description of Morris and Segev as vague, yet you have failed to recognise that I was paraphrasing what Zero himself said, "the information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same..." It appears that he does not consider the two versions as necessarily contradictory.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC) - I recommend that anyone who wishes to challenge the numbers provide explicit quotes contradicting them; all this speculation about what Morris might have meant is WP:OR, and thus not appropriate for making changes to article content. Jayjg 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- A direct quote contradicting the numbers has already been provided. Dlv999 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please quote the relevant passage. You criticise my description of Morris and Segev as vague, yet you have failed to recognise that I was paraphrasing what Zero himself said, "the information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same..." It appears that he does not consider the two versions as necessarily contradictory.
- We've already been though this Morris cites exactly the same figures as Segev, which is to say the exact same figures in the Shaw report. The ones that were in the article prior to your edits. Also referring to Morris and Segev as "vague" when they meticulously cite their statements while your sources don't contain a single citation says more about your own understanding of the material than it does about the sources at hand.Dlv999 (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I equally have no idea whether this figure is included or not in the total death toll and I repeat, "Does Morris provide an overall death toll for these riots?". You are using this excerpt to challenge the validity of three other sources. Since you acknowledge that "the information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same...", why are you disputing the use of other sources that provide a more detailed overview, that could easily conform with other "vague" source?
- I'm not saying we should add the numbers together in the article, that would be original research. But it would also be original research to assume one of these is included in the other. The information given in the two sources is vague enough that they might be the same or different. What we need to do is to present what the sources say and be noncommittal about what it means. Zero 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you certain that this incident in not already included in the other sources death toll? Does Morris provide an overall death toll for these riots? Adding together the fatalities of various incidents to attain a final total is original reaserch and a most unscientific method. Additionally, this incident is prefaced with, "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation..." and this should be reflected when this incident is described.
- As well as the 7 persons mentioned in the Shaw Report, there are 4 "in an Arab house" mentioned in Morris, Righteous Victims (p.115), cited to the official history of the Hagana. That makes 11. The fact is that nobody has an exact tally and all we really know is that the great majority of the Arab deaths were at British hands. Zero 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am amenable to amending the Arab fatalities inflicted by Jews from 6 to "7", or to a more accurate "6 or 7", to reflect this inconsistency. This collaborative overture has been repeatedly made, and I am uncertain why you are still revisiting this issue. I shall repeat this to be very clear: I accept modifying the lead to accommodate this uncertainty of whether 6 or 7 Arabs were killed by Jews.
- I direct your attention to here and here where detailed questions are still unanswered, those in response to a close examination of the issues raised. I shall remind you of what you yourself stated about my conduct regarding this issue, "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue."
Just going through the sources again. Segev (2000;p315) reports that on the 23 of August in Jerusalem "the tensions had reached the Jewish Mea She'rim neighborhood, and two or three Arabs were murdered there. A report from the American consulate, which documented the events in nearly minute-byminute detail, determined that the killing occurred between 12:00 and 12:30." This should be added to the 23 of August section. But it is also pertinent to the current discussion given that the Shaw report describing events on the 25 and 26 of August in "a quarter which lies between Jaffa and Tel Aviv", reports "a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed."(pg 65) Also to consider are the Arabs that were killed by Jews while defending themselves and their property, as well we should remember Jews were members of the British Police. For example, Benny Morris (1999 pg114) writes that in Hebron "British Police Chief Reymond Cafferata and a Jewish policeman fired on the mob, killing eight". Dlv999 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Undue paragraph structure
I see little reason why the desecration of the mosque demands a separate paragraph. In the same vein, the attacks on the Safed orphanage, the Hebron college and the many synagogues can also be emphasized in individual paragraphs.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are welcome to add additional paragraphs if you feel appropriate. The date structure works well. The Shaw Report suggests that the mosque desecration was a highly notable attack during the days of 25-28 August. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The paragraph structure details the:
Jerusalem riots, 23 August Hebron massacre, 24 August Desecration of the Nebi Akasha Mosque, 26 August Safed massacre, 29 August
This undue structure was explained by "The date structure works well". The same editor has created a new paragraph called The Arming of Jews. This details a British decision during Jerusalem riots, 23 August. I see no reason why this incident has a separate paragraph especially as it does not conform with the previous date structure that "works well", and is clearly part of the Jerusalem riots.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was not a new paragraph or section - it was an existing one that was reverted by Jayjg on the basis of WP:MOS. I then put it back to the original and amended the paragraphing to comply with WP:MOS. So your revert was not appropriate.
- To your question, the arming of jews was an issue amongst the arab leaders and populous over a five day period between 23-27 August. It was a reaction to the riots in Jerusalem on 23 August, as were each of the other events which have their own section. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The Western Wall Tensions
- Muslims began to increasingly refer to the wall as the Al Buraq Wall, because it was said that Muhammad had tied the Buraq to the wall during his Night Journey.
The sourcing on this sentence seems poor. The quote in Cobbs refers to the 1967 war and does not appear to be discussing the situation in the 1920's at all. The Jewish virtual Library reference is a hosted Forward opinion column by Hillel Halkin, so would not appear to meet the standards for an RS. This topic has been covered by numerous scholarly sources, so I am not sure why we are using these unsatisfactory sources in this instance. Dlv999 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support removal. Material is adequately covered by Segev.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)- When I read Tom Segev's account he gives equal weight to Arab and Zionist propaganda, while our article gives 3 paragraphs to the Arab propaganda and only three sentences to the Zionist propaganda. This seems like a clear case of non-NPOV. Segev states "Both Arab and Jewish politics made demagogic use of religous symbols; both were easily drawn into extreme positions and lost control of events". On the Zionist side he mentions inter alia, "Zionist publications around the world used images of a magnificent but imaginary domed structure on the Temple Mount to symbolize the national dream"..."A few months before the Yom Kippur incident, the Yeshurun Synagogue in Jerusalem held a Passover celebration. The main speaker was Menachem Ussishkin, who banged his fist on the table and declared, "The Jewish people wants a Jewish state without concessions, from Dan to Be'ersheva, from the great sea to the desert, including Transjordan".....Ussishkin concluded by saying "Let us swear that the Jewish people will not rest until its national home is built on our Mt. Moriah," referring to the Temple Mount."..."the Zionist chief rabbi, had intervened in the screen uproar, strengthening the impression that religious yearnings and the Zionist plan were one and the same"...."Ben- Gurion had stated that the wall should be "redeemed", predicting that this could be done perhaps "in another half a year".Dlv999 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
POV tag
Despite best efforts from a number of editors over the past couple of weeks, one or two over zealous editors have ensured that this article is still not neutral. The techniques that these editors have used to ensure this outcome range from the sublime to the ridiculous. As such, the momentum to improve the article appears to have been lost. For the moment then, the best thing for everyone is to wait, calm down, and accept that this article is not yet ready for the public to read without a warning tag. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Jayjg 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Primary source?
It has been suggested that the Shaw Report is a primary source. There is no definitive criterion out there which distinguishes primary from secondary, but we can compare it to the description at WP:NOR. There we read "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The Shaw Report was arguably close to the event, though not contemporaneus with it (which I think is the intention here). With that one doubtful exception, it fails all of the sentence. It was not written by people who were directly involved. Shaw was a retired judge (see here for a biography). The other three commission members were politicians but from three different political parties. Moreover there is nothing from the archival record to suggest that the commission wasn't free to report as they wished (Pinhas Ofer (1985). "The Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929: Appointment, Terms of Reference, Procedure and Report". Middle Eastern Studies. 21 (3): 349–361.). The Palestine administration was one of the parties under investigation, not the author of the report. None of the four people on the commission were "insiders". Continuing to inspect WP:NOR, we read "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." This matches the Shaw Report exactly. The report was based on testimony and documents presented to it by all the concerned parties. Those testimonies and documents are definitely primary sources, so we would need to heed WP:PRIMARY if we wanted to quote them directly (which we could do, since they were published and I have them), but the Shaw Report's conclusions based on them are "one step removed from the events" and "make analytic or evaluative claims about them". Ergo, the Shaw Report is a secondary source by Misplaced Pages criteria and there is no reason based on WP:PRIMARY for failing to cite it. Of course, we should write "according to the Shaw Report" for things that are not in complete agreement with modern secondary sources. Zero 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- You make a lucid argument, Zero0000, but it depends on your a) stating that "close to the event" means "contemporaneous", and b) separating various creations of the British government from one another, and insisting that the involvement of one does not mean the other is involved. Regarding a), "close to the event" is deliberately vague, and depends on context. For events that happened last year, "close to the event" would effectively mean "contemporaneous". For events that happened over 80 years ago, "close to the event" would, I think, also cover activities that happened within a couple of years of it. Regarding b), let's use an analogy; suppose you claimed that employees of company X had damaged you in some way. Now suppose lawyers from that company, who were uninvolved in the incident, and worked for an entirely different department than those responsible, investigated the incident, and assured you that company X was not actually responsible. Would you feel that they were removed enough from the event to be uninvolved? Jayjg 00:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The boundary is fuzzy, for sure, but your analogy supports my case. The Shaw Commission heard from lawyers acting for all the main parties and nobody is quoting those lawyers' submissions as secondary sources. The report of the commission is an important step further step away. A better analogy would be a book written in 1930 by an author associated with the Zionist movement who was not personally involved in the riots. We would treat it as a secondary source even if we are cautious on account of its probable bias. Zero 09:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- A better analogy would be if the company in question unilaterally appointed an adjudicator to decide on the situation, and the adjudicator decided in favor of the company. They are all employees of the British government. Jayjg 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the British government was unhappy about the report. But that is irrelevant. I cited a very good source that says the commission was independent (i.e., there were no secret instructions or conditions imposed on it) but I don't think that bears on whether it is primary or secondary. Second-guessing the integrity of the commission without source support would be original research anyway. Zero 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- As per my comments above, I agree that the Shaw Report is certainly a WP:SECONDARY source for this article. It is of course a primary source for the Shaw Report article. With respect to Jayjg's points about the independence of the report from the British Government, I would encourage him to review the minutes of the 17th PMC which discussed the report in detail. At no point did any of the other members of the Permanent Mandates Commission question the independence of the commission. Nor was the authenticity of the description of the key events covered by this article questioned. If Jayjg's argument is to hold water, he will need to show that a meaningful number of WP:RS question either the Report's independence or its description of the events documented in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the British government was unhappy about the report. But that is irrelevant. I cited a very good source that says the commission was independent (i.e., there were no secret instructions or conditions imposed on it) but I don't think that bears on whether it is primary or secondary. Second-guessing the integrity of the commission without source support would be original research anyway. Zero 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- A better analogy would be if the company in question unilaterally appointed an adjudicator to decide on the situation, and the adjudicator decided in favor of the company. They are all employees of the British government. Jayjg 23:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- The boundary is fuzzy, for sure, but your analogy supports my case. The Shaw Commission heard from lawyers acting for all the main parties and nobody is quoting those lawyers' submissions as secondary sources. The report of the commission is an important step further step away. A better analogy would be a book written in 1930 by an author associated with the Zionist movement who was not personally involved in the riots. We would treat it as a secondary source even if we are cautious on account of its probable bias. Zero 09:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Archiving
I continue to object to the early archiving of threads which are still "open" on this page. Since the AE discussion knocked the wind out of the debate on this article, 7 threads have been archived - and most of these are still open topics. Although the table at the top suggests that the bot will wait 2 months to archive, that is not what has happened. It seems like an editor has amended the timing but not amended the public number....
Anyway, there is a discussion about whether "archiving against consensus" by involved editors is appropriate at Talk:Pogrom#Archiving.
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- What makes a topic "open"? The topics in question had not had any comments in over two weeks; the discussion was obviously over. Jayjg 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- These topics were obviously NOT over:
- Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- "obviously NOT over"? No-one commented for two weeks, so they clearly were. Please make more factual Talk: page statements. Jayjg 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I have this same issue with Jayjg on Circumcision. I am constantly searching the archives and new editors keep bringing the same topics because of our over active archive bot. This seems like a tactical maneuver to maintain the status quo and limit discussion, something that is contrary to the spirit of the wiki. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The timing was set to about 4 times more rapid than the default. I reset it to once per month, if I understand the instructions. Zero 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Talk page guidelines suggest archiving when a page reaches 50k. This page is already well over that. I've reset it to 15 days. Jayjg 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, you do not have consensus for that. There is clear opposition. Please self-revert and discuss this first. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines reflect an established community-wide consensus which you are blatantly disregarding.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)- Archiving practice is a clear example of something to be determined by consensus, just like it says at Help:Archiving a talk page. If you want to actually discuss the archiving parameters, go ahead. Zero 11:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines reflect an established community-wide consensus which you are blatantly disregarding.
- Jayjg, you do not have consensus for that. There is clear opposition. Please self-revert and discuss this first. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Referenced addition
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at 1929 Palestine riots. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
By midday friction had spread to the Jewish neighborhood of Mea She'arim where two or three Arabs were murdered. The American consulate documented the event in detail, reported that the killings had taken place between 12:00 and 12:30.
To be added to the Outbreak of riots, Jerusalem riots 23, August section. Dlv999 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Refs
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Shaw65was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Cobb, p. 14
- Halkin, Hillel (January 12, 2001). ""Western Wall" or "Wailing Wall"?". Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved 2008-10-05.
- Segev, Tom (2001). One Palestine. Picador. p. 315. ISBN 0805065873.
Suggesting new article section: Jewish attacks
Sources:-
- "In this quarter there occurred the worst instance of a Jewish attack on Arabs in the course of which the Imam of a mosque and some six other people were killed. On the 26th of August there also occurred. a Jewish attack on the Mosque of Okasha in Jerusalem, a sacred shrine of great antiquity held in much veneration by the Moslems. 'I'he mosque was badly damaged and the tombs of the prophets which it contains were desecrated." Shaw report pg 65 Dlv999 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- "In Jerusalem, Haifa and other places, a Jewish "mob" avenged itself on the Arabs, killing men, women, and children and lynching passersby; in Jaffa, an imam and six other people were murdered in a mosque, and the mosque itself was burned to the ground. In Jerusalem the Ukasha shrine in the Jewish Zikhron Moshe neighbourhood was serverely damaged." Gudrun Kramer (2011) pg232
- "In one incident four Haganah men were killed and five wounded. In retaliation a Haganah unit raided an Arab house, killing four people" Benny Morris (1999) pg 115
- "Arab spokesmen reported acts of terror perpetrated by Jews, including the lynching of Arab passersby and the murder of women and children. In a few cases, the Arabs claimed, Jews attacked people who had given them refuge. The Jewish Agency investigated some of these charges and concluded that "in isolated cases" there were Jews "who shamefully went beyond the limits of self defense". One memorandum reporting that Jews had broken into a mosque and set sacred books on fire bears a scribbled note "this unfortunately is true." Segev (2001) pg 327
- B-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Selected anniversaries (August 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2011)
- Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests