Jump to content

Talk:1920 Nebi Musa riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 4 April 2024 (Remove unknown param from WP Religion: InterfaithImp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Former good article1920 Nebi Musa riots was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 22, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

untitled

[edit]

What is being disputed exactly here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aftermath

[edit]

The fatality listing under the header is messy, does anyone have any ideas on how to clean it up? Red1 08:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intimidation of christians

[edit]

We need a reference for " In the years predating 1920, these processions were marked by intimidation of Christian communities on their way."

fix it or it will be deleted.

which report??

[edit]

I've added the fact tag (citation needed) to the non-specific reference to a british report. If the report described is the Haycraft Commission report, then the description in this article seems to severely misrepresent that report. See a better description here:L http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots#The_Investigative_Commission_report

I will return to see if there are any comments to this, and if not I'll make appropriate changes. Gni 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Haycraft report concerned events of 1921. The report on the 1920 events is usually called the Palin Report and unlike the Haycraft Report was not published. Actually I don't know if it is published still, and I have looked in many places. Palestine was still under a military government at this time. There is an article on the Palin report at answers.com which seems to be better than either of ours. --Zerotalk 13:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Zero. It looks as though much of the Answers.com summary comes from the 1945 Survey of Palestine. Here's what pg. 17 of the reprinted version says:

April, 1920 (Easter Sunday).
Savage attack were made by Arab rioters in Jerusalem on Jewish lives and property. Five Jews were killed and 211 injured. Order was restored by the intervention of British troops; four Arabs were killed and 21 injured. It was reported by a military commission of inquiry [gni: footnote states that this was "not published"] that the reasons for this trouble were:--
(a) Arab disappointment at the non-fulfilment of the promises of independence which they claimed had been given to them during the war.
(b) Arab belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a National Home would mean a great increase in Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.
(c) The aggravation of these sentiments on the one hand by propaganda from outside Palestine associated with the proclamation of the Emir Feisal as King of a re-united Syria and with the growth of Pan-Arab and Pan-Moslem ideas, and on the other had by the activities of the Zionist Comission supported by the resources and influence of Jews throughout the world.

I'm sure you agree, then, that the summary which was part of this article didn't accurately convey the report? I've updated the article accordingly. Gni 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. The article clearly and blatantly misrepresents the findings contained within the Palin Report itself. The motive of the author of this section is hard to gauge given this one instance of atrocious editorializing. But clearly to anyone doing even a cursory scan of the Palin Report's official findings, bias leaning strongly toward placing blame for the riot on the Arab side soon becomes evident. Indeed that bias is so pronounced one must realistically entertain the question of whether the author deliberately mischaracterized the Report, for whatever purpose. And, as a result of that, whether wiki moderators should seriously be considering a need to more closely scrutinize that authors edits. Mycos 11:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycos (talk • contribs)

Antisemitism

[edit]

Just because it was sparked by nationalistic factors doesn't preclude it from taking on antisemitic colours like "the Jews are our dogs!" The Iraqi Farhud as well as other such events in the region mixed the two freely. TewfikTalk 16:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If IDF soldiers made racist comments during an action against Palestinians I don't think most people would want to categorise it as a racist operation. The context of this event was the threat to Palestinian and Arab self-determination posed by the British commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its inclusion in the peace treaty with Turkey. --Ian Pitchford 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, a better analogy would be if a Jewish mob repeatedly made religious anti-Muslim statements and then, while beating and killing Muslims, specifically targeted mosques and tore up Qurans, then burning the building. That would qualify for something like "Category:Anti-Islam", even if the Jews were really just protesting an unjust government law. TewfikTalk 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you discuss about the category "antisemitism". We are here at the limit of NPoV. Some would claim it is antisemitism; other (historians) would claim it may be not. In fact they are nuances (detailled in the article).
We are here in face of the limit of NPoV with categories that cannot be nuanced.
You will never convince any Jew that such events do not reflect antisemitism and I don't think you will succeed in having an "objective analysis" of what is antisemitism and what is not.
Historians in stating that this was a nationalist reaction to a another threathening nationalism are right but also lack empathy concerning protagonists. Jews and Arabs who fought that day didn't care at all about that global social context that influenced them to behave the way they did.
This critic of seeing the events of the arab-zionist conflit with lack of empathy and only based on documents or contextual analysis is made by french historian Henry Laurens in the French version of Eugene Rogan, Avi Shlaim, Palestine 1948 : Behind the myths.... (of course he doesn't say that this event was an example of antisemitism).
So I think antisemitism category is fully justified here, on the point of view of the victims. Alithien 06:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most important issue in my mind is that we don't edit without sources. If a reputable source says that there is most probably a cause-effect relationship between Palestinian anti-Semitism and the riot then fair enough otherwise we are talking about original research. --Ian Pitchford 08:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I think people are going to fight about "reputable" source here.
A source from an historian stating that the whole palestinian nationalism was considered by the jews (of Palestine) as an expression of antisemitism would be good for you ? Alithien 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will we also look for a source that says the Zionist enterprise was inherently racist and add the racism category too? I'm sure you realise that finding such a source would not be a problem. My suggestion is that we try to make the article balanced and historically accurate and leave the labelling game for polemic websites and chat rooms. --Zerotalk 08:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1
Except you will not find an historian who states that. ;-)
Alithien 08:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were serious about your criterion a few lines above, I would only have to find a historian who says that the Arabs felt like that. No problem. --Zerotalk 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was serious.
Your comparison is not really fair. That would rather concern the article zionism after a section would have been developed on the fact that today some people consider zionism to be racism. I prefer not trying to introduce this category to the article zionism :-)
The reasons why the zionism's racist consequences cannot be introduced with such words today while the 1920 Palestine riots can widely be considered antisemitic acts are - I think - that while palestinians victims of 1948 have been deshumanized (seen as a group) and that each jewish victim have been humanized. I don't know if I am clear but wikipedia should not try to balance this and only reflect matters at the speed they are widely admitted and not necesseraly discovered by some.
NB: I agree not seeing antisemitism category here but you will manage Zeq&Co, right ? ;-)

Whatever. You know historians who have written that the Arabs felt [at that time] the zionism entreprise was inherently racist ? I never read this.
From what you know, how did each community perceive the other one at that time ? Alithien 09:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The King-Crane Commission report is one of the best sources:

For "a national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting"; "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery." If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people's rights, though it kept within the forms of law

It is to be noted also that the feeling against the Zionist program is not confined to Palestine, but shared very generally by the people throughout Syria as our conferences clearly showed. More than 72 per cent-1,350 in all-of all the petitions in the whole of Syria were directed against the Zionist program. Only two requests-those for a united Syria and for independence-had a larger support. This general feeling was only voiced by the "General Syrian Congress," in the seventh, eighth and tenth resolutions of the statement. (Already quoted in the report.)

The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a "right" to Palestine, based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

--Ian Pitchford 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

importance

[edit]

The history of the shaping of the problems in the middle east is known by far too few. The more people know about the history of the zionist movement the better they are able to make informed decisions regarding their choice of elected officials who decision impact U.S. foreign policy in that region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.202.39 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I see this has been rated "high". It seems too much for me... This is just one point of the context of the Palestinian fight againt Zionism. Nothing special here. It could have not arise and nothing would have changed.
What do you think ? Alithien 08:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segev's quote

[edit]

Segev is not a historian; he is a journalist. As a source for facts, his book may be marginally acceptable, though only as long as no better source describing the events in such details has been found. But his opinions are completely irrelevant, especially such opinionated claims as "Meinertzhagen sounds like something of a lunatic". Beit Or 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1]
Alithien 22:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold: FIxes needed before promotion

[edit]

After comparing this article to WP:WIAGA and the good article criteria, I am placing it on hold for the following reasons:

  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. Basically, the lead should summarize all of the highlights of the article; it should stand alone as a sort of "mini-article" on its own. I would recommend expanding the lead so that it briefly explains what the reasons were for the riots, who the principals were, and what the aftermath was. 2-3 paragraphs should be more than enough.

Other than that the article appears to be GA quality. Make that fix, and I will promote the article and list it. Good luck. If you have any questions, please drop a note on my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I was entirely successful as I discussed the significance of the riots rather than a step-by-step summary. Do let me know if I should rewrite it. Cheers, TewfikTalk 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the lead is an improvement. It is no more a summary of the article than the old lead. In fact, it really only lists some (rather POV) causes and results of the riots, and the weight of the info in the article does not seem to be mirrored in this summary. Consider a format like this:
  • Pgraph 1) Same as it is.
  • Pgraph 2) Named after the Nebi Musa holiday (avoid terms like "politically charged"...), the riots occured after events X, Y, and Z.
  • Pgraph 3) During the riots A, B, and C happened.
  • Pgraph 4) After the riots, the official British response was.... The relations betweem X and Y became ....
The trick is to stay in facts and not as much on interpretation. The article definately does a better job of this than the lead does. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, but "politically charged" referred to the generic nature of the Nebi Musa holiday, which was always characterised as a time for a show of force to prevent Christian pilgrims from threatening Muslim sovereignty. I generally tried to change the tone, but I'm not sure what facts could be added. Large parts of the sections deal with details that were not very relevant to a basic narrative (Jewish volunteers, Zionist warnings, Meinhartzhagen's allegations, details of the violence, specifics of British action, various punishments, halt of immigration etc.). Let me know, TewfikTalk 18:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks MUCH better. The lead now summarizes the article completely. I will list the article at the GA list. Please continue to improve the article so that it may reach feature status. For additional help on this, consider a Peer Review. Good luck and happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath additions

[edit]

In the aftermath section it says that the Haganah were formed as a result of the riots but I believe that the Haganah actually formed just before the outbreak of the riots rather than immediatley after.

I think it's also worth mentioning that Herbert Samuel lifted the sentences of Haganah members arrested after the riots like Jabotinsky and re-opened Palestine to Jewish immigration after the British O.E.T.A. was replaced by the civil administration and he was made High Commissioner. And also that in July a general amnesty was declared that allowed the release of all the Arabs arrested ater the riots. Incuding Aminal-Huseini being able to return to Palestine.

And lastly that Britain restated after the San Remo conference that the Balfour Declaration was still a part of British policy. Matthew C. Bell 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right for Haganah
For the remaining, I think it concerns more 1921 Palestine riots's consequences. Alithien 22:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alithien, Sorry to see that the wikistress has gotten to you, but here is my belated reply. Segev is one of the better writers among his peers, but I've caught a number of errors in his work, and so I wouldn't discount that possibility. You might want to check Gelber's Jewish Transjordanian relations though, as he deals with this period in some detail and may have mentioned something interesting. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Jabotinsky started Haganah in Russia== Altalena5768 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


These sentences, currently in the introductory summary, seem more appropriate to the Aftermath section:

In its wake, sheikhs of 82 villages round the city and Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the population, issued a document protesting the violence against the Jews.[3] Notwithstanding the riots, the Palestinian Jewish community held elections for the Assembly of Representatives on 19 April 1920 among Jews everywhere in Palestine except Jerusalem, where they were delayed to 3 May.[4]

Zulu Kane (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

[edit]

To whom it may concern. Wikiproject:Good Articles in currently in the middle of its sweeps period, where we go over articles that have been passed as good articles and review them to ensure that they still meet the standard. In this case, I notice that this page is protected over disputes, though I can't seem to figure out what they are. If there were legitimate concerns, then the article would have to be delisted. If they have been resolved, however, I can unprotect the page. Please let me know what the case is. Cheers, CP 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-list it. This article looks as if it is written in order to paint the natives as violent racists, and the historical record does not justify this. The immigrants are known to have been bringing in guns for 30 years, and were acting in other highly offensive ways. PRtalk 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was protected several months ago, and I don't see any on-going disputes. Beit Or 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be reviewing the article now. Hopefully I will be able to take a more specialized eye than the average person to this review, given my background. Cheers, CP 02:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PR, "if it is written in order to paint the natives as violent racists" - where ?
"The immigrants are known to have been bringing in guns for 30 years, and were acting in other highly offensive ways" - That is not true - could you give "secondary sources" for that claim. Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known in the literature (and amongst all interested parties) that significant sections of the immigrants were violent extremists, and they quickly dominated their new community. Despite the rigorous ethnic-exclusivity of the newcomers, this fact had become known to the Palestinians at least 30 years before the 1920 riots:
Here is Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p56, quoting Ro'i, Yakov. "The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs 1909-1914." Middle Eastern Studies 4:3 (1968), p206: "... the first recorded, organized "national" protest against the Jewish influx took place in 1891. Newspapers had reported that a large number of Russian Jews were about to embark for Palestine. On June 24 a group of Jerusalem Arab notables sent a telegram to the grand Vizier of Constantinople asking that the government halt Russian Jewish immigration and bar Jews from purchasing land. "The Jews are taking all the lands out of the hands of the Muslims, taking all the commerce into their hands and bringing arms into the country," they complained."
Earlier, in secret, the immigrants made clear to each other that dispossession of the natives, with force if necessary, was their intention: "... For decades the Zionists tried to camouflage their real aspirations, for fear of angering the authorities and the Arabs. They were, however, certain of their aims and of the means needed to achieve them. Internal correspondence amongst the olim from the very beginning of the Zionist enterprise leaves little room for doubt." Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. Vintage Books, 2001, p. 49. (Morris then presents excerpts from 3 letters that demonstrate these threatening intentions).
It is puzzling indeed I should need to remind fellow editors of this material - and I distinctly remember helping you with portions of it when you first appeared (under a different name) a while ago. I treated you then as a potentially scholarly contributor. PRtalk 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer first question.
You don't give references to this : "The immigrants are known to have been bringing in guns for 30 years, and were acting in other highly offensive ways" but only to the facts that arabs viewed immigrants as agressive and feared them. PR, remembers too that you have to edit wikipedia to give all pov's at your disposal. You have "righteous victims", so you have certainly access to other pov's concering this in "Righteous Victims". Ceedjee (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under your former UserName, I treated you as a regular editor who was set on building the encyclopedia using the available RSes. I'm quite prepared to give space to other POVs, but I don't recall seeing any in the works of the top Israeli historian. All I see from Benny Morris is proof that the immigrants were armed and intent on seizing the lands, homes, farm and businesses of the natives.
Your first question (the one you claim I've not answered) appears to be "Where is our article written to make it appear the natives were violent racists"? - and I can only express my opinion that our article is laced with material and weasel words to make it appear this way. I'm only pointing this out, because the historical record most certainly doesn't justify such treatment. PRtalk 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"if it is written in order to paint the natives as violent racists" - where ?
Concerning the remaining, I will only answer you again when you have picked 10 quotes from Morris that could be considered as pro-israeli and added them in wp. Just to learn you to practice WP:NPOV.
Ceedjee (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've shovelled in propaganda nonsense such as "The annual Nebi Musa spring festival was instituted by Salah ad-Din to ensure a Muslim presence in Jerusalem during the influx of Christian pilgrims celebrating the Easter holiday. Arab educator and essayist Khalil al-Sakakini described how tribes and caravans would come with banners and weapons, as if they were going to war." when there was little or no problem between Christin and Muslim (certainly not over Easter pilgrims arriving).
Nasty nonsense such as "A petition circulated among American citizens and presented to their consul protested that the British had prevented Jews from defending themselves." - when it was the Arabs who were disarmed all over Palestine by Allenby and Bols, while Jabotinsky in Jerusalem (unmolested by Storrs) was training an army, some of it with guns.
There are outrageous statements of this kind all over eg "Named after the Muslim Nebi Musa holiday in which they took place, the riots followed tensions in Arab-Jewish relations and a number of anti-Jewish attacks.". Overwhelmingly, it was the immigrants attacking and dispossessing the natives, as they'd been doing increasingly for 30 years. Since the Balfour Declaration 3 years earlier, they'd become much more open about their plans - which were "to make Palestine as Jewish as England was English"
I should not need to be telling you this stuff, it should all be in this article instead of the papp that's in there now. PRtalk 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Reassessment

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment. Issues needing to be address are listed there. While I don't take the strong stance of PalestineRemembered, I do feel that there are neutrality issues here and a lot of key statements remain uncited. In this case, it's best to get more opinions. Cheers, CP 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What neutrality issues do you see ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a gross distortion of the record. The idea that it could have been tolerable for immigrants to arm themselves against natives, anywhere in the world, ever, is quite outrageous. When the immigrants are actually newly arrived Russian revolutionaries (as Jabotinsky seems to have been for 17 years since 1903) it's quite breath-taking that anyone would write supposedly NPOV articles as if his activities were anything other than intolerable.
Much of the historical record comes from the British Army, which had defeated the Ottoman's with the help of Palestinian Arabs (and then correctly disarmed it's former allies).
This same Army considered Jabotinsky (who'd also fought for the Allies, but had been excluded from Palestine by them) exceptionally dangerous. This is Huneidi 2001, "Allenby telegraphed to the War Office from Cairo saying that a modification of Jabotinsky's sentence, which had been suggested by Samuel, 'could only undermine authority' and would do no good. General Headquarters in Egypt also telegraphed the War Office two days later to report the 'lenient treatment' accorded to Jabotinsky. Commenting on these telegrams, Hubert Young minuted on 22 June: 'Colonel Deedes says that Jabotinsky is really a lunatic and should be kept under medical surveillance - if he were at large in Palestine now he would certainly cause trouble'. Sir John Tilley wrote:'We must see that Sir Herbert Samuel realizes this before he includes Jabotinsky in his amnesty'.[74.FO 371/5120, Allenby to War Office, 14 June 1920.] On 24 June, and with the consent of Lord Hardinge and Lord Curzon, the following despatch (drafted by Young) was sent to Sir Herbert Samuel through the British Embassy in Rome: Lord Allenby considers release of Jabotinsky or any modification of his sentence would undermine authority and prestige of Palestine administration - Deedes is of opinion that Jabotinsky should not in any case be set at large in Palestine as he is not responsible for his actions. We repeat these views to you for what they are worth.[75.FO 371/5120 E6714, 24 June 1920, Marked No Distribution - Docketed]"
Meanwhile, al-Husseini (who receives such blistering treatment in his WP biography) believed in and had actually fought to liberate Palestine from the Ottomans. Huneidi 2001: "the Palin report noted that Captain C. D. Brunton, who recruited these Arabs, acted in cooperation with a 'Sherifian officer named Hagg Ameen el Husseini, who was described at the time as being very pro-English' . Very mysteriously, Husseini is then supposedly sentenced to a similarly long term as Jabotinsky by a secret court in absentia, and so benefits from the same amnesty by the virulently Zionist first High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel. No actual record of the proceedings against Husseini has ever surfaced.
All in all, there are massive problems here. I don't know how to fix them - but I know for sure it would be a travesty to grant this article any kind of GA status. PRtalk 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there CP. This article is, as you noted, inadequately sourced, lacks inline citations, and a number of analytical conclusions are made throughout the article and even in the introduction are not attributed and not cited. It lacks WP:NPOV and I don't really understand how it managed to achieve GA status previously, but in its current state, it should definitely be de-listed. It would benefit from a good copy edit and a review of MOS guidelines once the sourcing and NPOV situation is taken care of. In short, this is not a good article. Tiamut 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you're really saying is that it was acceptable for Palestinian Arabs to attack unarmed residents of the local communities, based solely on the fact that they were Jewish. Then you're explaining this by saying that this was ok because Jews were newcomers, intruders, in the Mandate of Palestine. Ok, got it. you feel Jews don't belong there, and Israel has no right to exist, and was imposed wrongfully on the locals. ok, got it. i understand that's your view. Now, with that said, this is still a riot which targeted local indivudals based on nothing but their ethicity and religious identity, regardless of whether they were armed, because they identity made them a threat. so we actually have a similar view of this conflict, just from different ideological perspectives. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Steve! Is that addressed to me? And even it it isn't, and is instead in response to PR's comments, what about WP:AGF? I don't see anything in PR's comment that that would lead to the conclusion that in his view it is "acceptable for Palestinian Arabs to attack unarmed residents of the local communities, based solely on the fact that they were Jewish." Perhaps a more nuanced, content-based response is in order? After all, he did raise a number of specific and interesting points about the article content. Regards, Tiamuttalk 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiamut,
Sorry but I have to disagree.
PR's comments are absolutely at the same level as people who deny that numerous Palestinians were expelled from Palestine and base their comments on personal analysis coming from nowhere.
That guy is disgusting. Ceedjee (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, upon a second read, it may be a little rambling and off-topic, and based on his personal analysis, as you pointed out, but I don't PR is "disgusting" for it. Tiamuttalk 00:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply, tiamut. I am assuming good faith. As i tried to make clear, i am truly responding to the factual points in PR's record. he refers to Zionist as immigrants, meaning they have little political right to be there, and little validity to their claims of political status. i understand that is his perspective, but that is a view of ideology, not historical record. that is precisely where the two ideologies disagree. so I was simply pointing that out. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more details

[edit]

In his biography of the Mufti, Philip Mattar writes (Page 149) : "The four cases of political violence in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1933 were not revolts, (...) They were localized spontaneous riots that resulted in no sustained (...)"
I get this from google.books but cannot get more. Would someone have his book ? (maybe p.17 ?) Could you give me more information about what he writes exactly ? I also read that Mattar writes that the Mufti was not accused of any involvment by Palin Commission. This should be in that book. Could someone check ? Thank you Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Hai

[edit]

Technically Tel Hai was not part of Palestine at the time, but ceded to the French a year earlier (frm memory), why is it mentioned as part of the Palestinian riots?Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added this in the lead yourself :-) : "the riots followed rising tensions in Arab-Jewish relations over the implications of Zionist immigration, tensions which had, in outlying areas, spilled over into attacks on Jewish settlements in the Galilee" ???
Ceedjee (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Tel Hai events are important. This is the context of the context...
They just explain from where came the fears Jews had that the festival could lead to violence and explain the rightness of the critics of the British government that failed to take the appropriate measures to garantee security while they had received all the signals...
Ceedjee (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a considerable literature on the political information available to Arab notables and newspapers on the implications of the Zionist project for Arabs in the area, not to speak of many other things. I find all of these pages on riots POV because a few days of rioting 9 deaths, many injured, yes, is given as a riot over the whole of the year, throughout all of Palestine. The whole framing of these events, a few among many (lacking pages) tends to create the impression through links that someone these scabby Arabs hated Jews, and were easily incited. No details are given of speeches, no references are made to comments in the Hebrew and Englsh press preceding the riots. It is all Muslim (not Christian) incitement to cut Jewish throats. Repellent as these acts are, they are being interpreted in Wiki as Zionists used them at the time, i.e. on a par with the 1000 pogroms, killing on an average 200 Jews at a time, in the Ukraine, not to speak of elsewhere. If you compare the 60,000 killed by Petliura's thugs in areas many immigrants hailed from, to the several small riots in Palestine over 1919-1929, then one cannot but be struck by how, relatively, placid the Palestinian response was to an imperial declaration that they would lose their homeland. Remember, the Arabs in early 1920 greeted the decisions taken by European powers as signally a great 'nakba of 1920', a word we tend to associate only with 1948. One could open a page on 'the great nakba of 1920' of course, but . . .

In Europe territorial disputes and ethnic enmities led to a huge toll of life. In Palestine, at least until 36-9, the violence was actually quite low, given the provocation. One would never gather this from Wiki, which, as I said, uses the Zionist press approach of the age, interpreting infrequent outbreaks of violence against what was a colonial (Herzl's word) expropriation as though it were fueled by Muslim fanaticism. As to Tel Hai, it is in technically the Galilee, but it was under French jurisdiction, and not part of the Palestine occupied by the British. It is, I disagree, important, because much was made of it in the Zionist press, and the Galilee was one of the areas were dispossession of tenants through land-sales and occupancy caused great poverty and disaffection among the deracinated fellahin who then drifted into the cities, Haifa and Jerusalem and elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
you talk about a lot of things. It is not easy to answer you.
1. About Tel Hai, you want to remove this and later you say it is important. I don't understand your point. I still think it is the context of the context of the Jerusalem riots.
2. I understand you say that focussing on this event is not fair because 10d+250i is not relevant in comparison with all other things. Using Benny Morris's word, I would translate in : "this is pinuts". I don't agree : in the jewish eyes at the time, it was terrible and revealed them the "unseen question" (what about the Arabs of Palestine ?) to use Laqueur's words. More important, these riots (and next ones of 1921) had important consequences on the relation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine...
Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My remark re Tel Hai was not intended to have it removed, but to remark an anomaly (Palestinian riots)
No, it is not that to focus on this event is 'unfair'. Au contraire, it is fair and proper to focus on the riots. But one is required to provide a full coverage of the context of those riots, not just a list of incitors, and then devote a lot of space to the unfairness with which Jabotinsky is treated. Fine that the 'Jewish' (actually not so simple) side at the time has its perspective given. That is one POV, and requires the other POVs, of Arabs, Christians or otherwise, etc., in order to create a balanced text. Perhaps their perspectives, as so often in Morris, are just 'peanuts'. The riots in themselves were 'peanuts', but were blown up out of all proportion and this operations troubled many relationships, particularly among devout Jews and secular Zionists. Many devout Jews attributed the Zionist project, and the vicious atmosphere that prospect created in certain Arab quarters, a fundamental cause for the ruin of their traditional life in Palestine (this is completely erased from the text). I'm not intervening, for the moment. But the text is POV, extremely POV, and could easily have been copied off the usual ultra-Zionist net sites that some editors use to prime Wikipedia. It lacks Olympian balance. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian riots ? It is written Palestine riots, in the sense in Palestine... I don't understand.
Anyway, Jerusalem riots would be better. The status of these territories before San Remo is not possible to fix.
I didn't notice so much place dedicated to Jabotinsky's unfair treatment.
I don't know who wrote this but he used much Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete and is rather fidel to this historian's own retranscription of events.
I didn't notice this article is that much pov, in the sense that I don't find many more major contradictory pov on these issues except one that insist on the provocation due by Jabotinsky versus Arabs or versus British (in function of the source).
Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishidani. i appreciate your inpu8t as suaul. However, not sure i understand. that all does sound fine. if there are well-sourced detauils to add which are not in the article, i see no reason why they cannot be added now, in order to make more clear the Arab persepctuive on this. So i would suggest that editors who wish to add this sort of material should perhaps feel free to do so. does that sound ok? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tel Hai was an important battle, as Trumpeldor lost his life, and a Kiryat Shmona was named after him and the other martyrs. Altalena5768 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Pitchford's renaming

[edit]

I endorse it. The earlier title gave a misleading impression of some year long rioting. These small incidents should not be presented as some chronic uprising spread out all over Palestine intermittently for that year. Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


History

[edit]

It says that "The annual Nabi Musa spring festival was instituted by the Ottoman Turks to ensure a Muslim presence in Jerusalem during the influx of Christian pilgrims celebrating the Easter holiday." this was already fixed during the Mamluk period. צידקי (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I changed this using a pretty good source. Zerotalk 11:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pov

[edit]

After recent modifications, this event is presented as an inflammatory explosion of antisemitism whereas historians (from all sides) now introduce this in the context of the struggle between Jewish nationalism (zionism) and the birthing Palestinian nationalism. Care should be taken to comply with what historians write and take distance with propaganda.

The title was changed without discussion whereas it was more than 2 years in that situation (cfr discussion here above). 91.180.146.182 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The edit re Meinerthagen can go into his biography here, but is wholly beside the point in this article. In any case, he became intensely pro-Zionist, as his diaries show. Some work needs to be done on the historical context, and I've dropped in a sketch we can work on.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend reading "The Meinertzhagen Mystery: The Life and Legend of a Colossal Fraud" by Brian Garfield before citing Meinertzhagen too much. Garfield makes a very good case that a large fraction of what Meinertzhagen wrote was just made up. Incidently, the Palin enquiry described Meinertzhagen as the most pro-Zionist British official. Zerotalk 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having finished reading Garfield's book at my own recommendation, it is painful to see Meinertzhagen cited directly as a source. Garfield proves over and over (to the point that it gets monotonous) that Meinertzhagen invented a large amount of the material in his book. For example we quote "I had an efficient but small Intelligence Service", but Garfield says that he didn't run agents at all. It also isn't true that Meinertzhagen "became" pro-Zionist, he was actually the most vocal British supporter of the Zionists at the Paris peace conference of the previous year and was appointed to his position in Palestine at the recommendation of Chaim Weizmann. (However, that is not the reason for treating him as unreliable; the reason is that he has been proved an inveterate liar.) Zerotalk 09:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I had memories of his pro-Zionism stance at the Paris Conference which felt odd compared to what historians (Katz, Karsh et al.) reported from his memoirs, but couldn't pin it down. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians vs. Arabs. Re the recent tiff.

[edit]

Dates are important for the language one uses, which however should stick to sources that specifically deal with the events. The description of the Arabs of Palestine as Palestinians occurs, for example, in the official British report (The Palin Report 1920) on the events, p.41 (from memory). In other official texts of that period, the British anthropologists deny that the Palestinians were in fact ethnically Arabs. Nishidani (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1 of the Palin report says "For the sake of convenience it is usual to speak of the Moslem population as 'Arabs', though the actual Arab element in the blood of the people is probably confined to what is really a landed aristocracy, the vast majority of the population, both Moslem and Christian being of mixed blood and largely consisting of indigenous races which have occupied the country from time immemorial, races which were not in reality extirpated even by the Jews at the remote period of their original conquest." Zerotalk 06:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should take the highest care about the reliability of scientific information contained in such a report. The reporters were not scholars.
More, it was written by soldiers and politicians with an agenda. We are in a period of high tensions between Arabs (who claims Palestine) and British politicians who deny that claim. The Palin report is not a reliable source to determine how the unhabitants of Palestine should be named.
What 8HGasma writes to justify his revert is right but not at the time : he refers to fact that during British Mandate, both "Arabs" (sorry, I don't know what word to use) and Jews of Palestine were all a way or the other citizens of this Mandate and therefore Palestinians with equal rights on Palestine. But the 1920 riots took place before the Mandate is set. In 1920, Palestine was an occupied area under British military administration.
We want to describe the "tensions" at the time in the litigeous diff.
It seems to me that the tensions at the time concern very few unhabitants of the area but come from the "Arab nationalists", the "Zionists" or "Jews zionist" and the "British".
I would suggest to fit what scholars do most of time and write "Arab" to refer to the Muslims and to the Non Western Christians of Palestine (even if it is not accurate) and to add a footnote with a reference to a recent high rank scholar, that explain that the qualificaiton of Arabs for the unhabitants of Palestine is not appropriate. 81.247.161.224 (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't think the wording of the Palin report should be adopted with regard to the inhabitants of Palestine. We should use the majority terminology of modern scholars, which is "Arabs" unless a more specific target is intended. Zerotalk 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is basically my view, but it is not without problems.
There are, unless I am mistaken, two ways of looking at this. The language of contemporary documents (b) the narrative language of modern histories of that period or that event.
(a) says mostly 'Arabs' 8b) is divided between 'Palestinians', Palestinian Arabs' and 'Arabs', and the way editors choose between them unfortunately seems to reflect a personal bias, or a contemporary vested interest in one kind of rhetoric or the other.
Let's look at the specific edit.
'followed rising tensions in Arab-Jewish relations over the implications of Zionist immigration, tensions which coincided with attacks on outlying Jewish settlements in the Galilee.
Since the outlying attacks mainly refers to the Lebanese Shiite-Jewish conflict at Tel Hai ('an attack' according to the Zionist version), 'Arab' here tends to suggest that 'Arab-Jewish' relations referred to were not Palestinian Arab vs. Jewish immigrant tensions, but a rising tension between Jews and the whole Arab world. I think one should write either 'Arab' or 'Palestinian Arab' depending on what you mean by 'Arab-Jewish tensions': are the tensions those of the whole Arabic world against Jews, or are they of Palestinian Arabs with Jewish immigrants?
The word Palestinian Gasma's edit summary says, did not at the time refer to Arabs only. True. But if the unsourced WP:OR statement in the article that the Jewish victims were mostly from the old Yishuv is true, then they were Jewish Palestinians. One of the ironies, almost never mentioned, though widely sourceable, in these articles is that the old Yishuv was often strongly opposed to the new Yishuv of secular, non-Arabic speaking Zionists, and was well aware, knowing the nature of the country, that Zionism would lead to tensions that would put their own lives in danger. To avoid the ambiguities (Jew/Arab) of this simplistic dyad, which founds all Arabs with Palestinians, and all Jews as one undivided collective, I think 'Palestinian Jews' and 'Palestinian Arabs' would probably be narratively more precise, and avoid the rhetorical twists that simplistic ethno-determinative labels engender. But I won't press it.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps. I've provided links to Congreve and his correspondent, and added a bit. It's rather odd and should be source. Segev apparently says that Congreve was removed by Churchill on Weizmann's recommendation as an anti-Zionist, though here the passage has him hardly acting as an anti-Zionist.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the article was protected with the new version of "Palestinian" rather than "Arab". I will be restoring it to the longstanding STATUSQUO version once the protection is over.
If I'm not mistaken, it's very uncommon for historians to frame these events in terms of Palestinians vs Jews rather than Arabs vs Jews. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that uncommon. I think I have not edited either way, because I regard this as an unsolved problem. A zionist POV has historically preferred to denote the non-Jewish population of Palestine as 'Arab' (part of a huge geodemographic area, intimating their extraneity to the area); the modern Palestinian POV, conversely, would prefer to call their forefathers on that territory eith Palestinian or Arab Palestinian. This is the essential POV conflict.
When such a conflict occurs, we should go by RS, either for the period use, or for the usage standardized by modern area specialist historians.
The British usage, after Balfour, while admitting in at least one official document that the Palestinians were not ethnically 'Arab' as opposed to a culturally Arabized people, used 'Arab' as a conventional shorthand. Modern usage after WW2 standardized this usage, but since the rise of a strong Palestinian national awareness, a good many historians, in deference to Palestinian usage, speak of 'Palestinians' or 'Palestinian Arabs' in writing of this period.
So a problem exists between 'Arabs', 'Palestinian Arabs,' and 'Palestinians', as often discussed. I prefer 'Palestinian Arabs' in the narrative voice because 'Arabs' alone elides the geophysical specificity of the population, though I'm not happy with the fact that 'Arabs' is recurrent for Arabs is not what they were ethnologically, despite what a majority of sources mechanically reiterate, ignoring the intrinsic loose ambiguity of this term. They were a culturally Arabized indigenous population, as least 2/3rds were according to Baruch Kimmerling and many others. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
far from impressed. Basic googling can support almost any theory and this is no different. What you have yet to prove is that "Palestinian Arabs" was the preferred nomenclature at that time as opposed to plain "Arabs."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you wouldn't be, because you didn't notice that this was a duly documented reply to NMMGG's notion, which contained a good implicit query:

If I'm not mistaken, it's very uncommon for historians to frame these events in terms of Palestinians vs Jews rather than Arabs vs Jews.

It would be helpful if you read what was being discussed, and recall that in 1918 the British found that Jews were 10% of the population, and most of those immigrants in the preceding 40 years. The other 10% were deemed non-Jewish non-Muslim inhabitants of Palestine. To speak of 'Arabs' vs 'Jews' is to include the non-Jewish Christian population specified to be of mixed race, though commonly referred to as Arabs, which they were not ethnically: they spoke Arabic and ws culturally Arabized, as 'Arab'. Encyclopedic editing, as opposed to POV manichaeism, is comfortable with complexity, since the facts are complex, unlike many editors. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic source

[edit]

I removed this: "Al-Husayni demanded that the Zionist Commission be disbanded, its leaders expelled and Jabotinsky brigades be disbanded. The demand was ignored by the British military administration.ARABS TAKE ACTION AGAINST ZIONISTS; Demand Commission Be Suppressed and Threaten Massacre--Allenby Takes a Hand" Reason: The source does not support this text. As well as not mentioning al-Husayni at all, the newspaper story is just a report of what the Zionist commission claimed to have been "reliably informed" about. It source says so explicitly and does not claim to have checked any of it. There is almost no evidentiary value here, certainly nowhere near enough to satisfy WP:RS. We must not report unverified claims of one side of a dispute as facts. Any significant true facts here will be covered by the works of historians. Zerotalk 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source is simply way too obscure and weak for inclusion. Find these events in a history book or leave them out. Zerotalk 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero0000. I add that all this is tiring. Our request is obvious. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for Translation/Expansion from French Wikipedia Version of Article

[edit]

Does anybody involved in any of the above WikiProjects on this Talk page (or anybody just viewing this Talk page) have any plans for translating the French Wikipedia version of this article, which is listed as an FA-class article on FR:WP?

If not, I'm going to take a crack at doing the translation. --Buspirtraz (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What level of fluency in French do you command?Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very little fluency, like less than 1%. I rely upon Google Translate for FR:WP translations. I take it that the subject of this article is that contentious enough to require absolute fluency in French for translation from FR:WP to EN:WP, then. --Buspirtraz (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, Shmuel Katz is totally unacceptable as a source, and Meinertzhagen should appear only for the part he personally played and not for his testimony which is unreliable. Zerotalk 10:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the aim is to substitute this article with a translation of the French article, forget about it. Both articles need a lot of work. (The spin put on the events by the nascent Zionist press, and the conspiracy mongering, much of it recirculated later by Katz and co., probably still lacks adequate coverage, as does the fact that, if I remember correctly Shapira's survey of the press mentions the impact of the massive pogroms in 1917-1918 in Eastern Europe, esp. the Ukraine, on immigrants who made a parallel between Palestinian opposition to the declared intent of taking their land from them, (which meant opposition to Zionism) and antisemitic murders of whole communities some years earlier in Europe. That was the way the local Hebrew press spun it, and the notion was exploited for political ends to pressure the British, etc. 'Riots' though in the RS, is of course tendentious, and when I first read these articles 7 years ago, there was a whole chain of them depicting a political opposition, certainly at times sanguinary, as an example of Arab hysteria and thirst for blood. The French article still has several signs of this spinning, in favour of the Zionist narrative. Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the French article but my English is not good enough for a translation.
I want to point out that Meinertzhagen's testimony is there 'only' because it is notorious but it is commented with the words of Segev. Nothing more. Regarding Katz, it is just for details or to report the Zionist narrative or some points that are not controversial.
Nishidani, I hope that you don't talk about my work. This version is 5 years old and not 7. I don't see any bias of the Zionist narrative in the article. The "body" is mainly the report of Segev and other elements were added around this structure.
What is not neutral in this ?
Pluto2012 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, pal, if my words were ambiguous. I was talking (7 years ago) about the 2006/7 Engish wiki article on the 1920 riots, not the French version, which I read today. You were quite correct to report Meinerthagen via Segev, no problem there. It's just that Meinerthagen was a liar, and even if a good source quotes him, one asks to what point. Most of what I wrote above refers if anything to the patent inadequacy of our sources, or the sources I've read, at least, on this period. I can only remember reading once that the hysteric reportage in the Palestine Hebre newspapers read everything in the light of the recent experiences of immigrants with pogroms in Europe. I think that an absolutely central part of the narrative, but it's hardly ever mentioned, except, I think, by Shapira. That 'bias' ran through a whole genre of reportage on 1920,191,1922, 1924, 1928, 1929 'incidents', and it survived in the postwar Zionist version. It's still with us. This is a WP:OR personal opinion of course, and is not pertinent.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dismiss, despite Meinerthagen, any decent scholarship showing the inflection of a certain antisemitic strain in the English upper class/army. But the crap we're served up re this aspect overlooks the fact that anyone with a rational mind in geostrategic, diplomatic and military matters would have good reason to regard the operational implementation of the Balfour agreement as pure lunacy, which it was. The latter is often interpreted through the former, which makes a lot of earlier books on this unreliable or not evenhanded.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Nishidani :-)
And no worry, I am open to critics and improvement ;-)
  • the fact they Meinerthagen's testimony is reported in the French version but the testimony is reported as well because it was important and had direct important consequences such as the end of the military rule in Palestine and the arrival of Samuel as High Commissioner.
  • Regarding the "progrom/riots/fightings" fighting, I found an interesting source (Monk) that explains that there is fight to give a name to these events, which I find very neutral. The "hystery" around the "progroms" is not that much a WP:OR but it is a difficult topic, I agree.
  • "anyone with a rational mind in geostrategic, diplomatic and military matters would have good reason to regard the operational implementation of the Balfour agreement as pure lunacy, which it was". Agreed. That's why I put the "nationalist conflict" as the first point in the background and that it is the one that's given the more space. Jabotinsky's actions during the events is also worth mentionning. These events were a real turn point in the conflict.
Pluto2012 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just may be a deficiency in my reading, but really solid historical reconstructions of Mandatory (and even earlier) Palestine in the pre-sexy period, esp. 1918-1930 appear to be thin on the ground, few and far between. I'd love to read detailed analyses of the way commissions of enquiry were formed, from Palin down to the League of Nations one after the 1929 massacres, because so much is hinted, or raises questions that remain unanswered. I guess that's why I'm unhappy, because we haven't the extensive resources for this period which we have for the later big events from 1948 onwards. Given the scarcity, editors just have to make the most of what little's there, and in that sense your Fr article deserved its FA mark. CheersNishidani (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nishidani, that was my original intention on translating the FR:WP version because it appeared to have a lot more sources and I wanted to try to get an article to FA status. I now see trying to get that done would be one hell of a task, especially with some Wikipedians worrying about it being pro-Zionist and other Wikipedians worrying about it being pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian. I'll probably have to withdraw the offer for now. This is going to require Expert attention, and I'm not an expert. This would also require non-controversial Expert attention, as in an expert that is proven to be truthful. --Buspirtraz (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have another way to try to deal w/FR:WP version of the article: Do you think we can try to do a rough translation (either w/Google Translate or something/someone else) but not edit the article itself for now, instead posting the translation in the Talk page (in a New Section) w/references from FR:WP, ask for a translation cleanup (since I can merely read some French, and even that's very little French I can read), and then sift through the cleaned-up translation of the article in the Talk page (not making any edits to the EN:WP article itself) until we can get a fully-sourced, fully-detailed version that is not too heavily pro-Zionist, trying our best to keep both sides happy but being honest with them at the same time, then post it? (You did mention that the FR:WP version also needs work.) I hope I managed to make that proposal right without repeating my offer. --Buspirtraz (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920 (encore appelées Émeutes de Nabi Moussa ou Pogrom de Jérusalem[1]) se produisirent entre les dimanche 4 et mercredi 7 avril 1920 dans la Vieille Ville de Jérusalem[2].

Lors de la célébration de la fête religieuse de Nabi Moussa, la foule arabe poussée à la violence par plusieurs leaders nationalistes s'attaqua à la population juive de la Vieille Ville. Les autorités militaires britanniques réagirent avec une certaine passivité. Les émeutes firent une dizaine de morts et près de 250 blessés[3].

Ces émeutes constituent la première manifestation majeure de violence entre les communautés arabe et juive de Palestine dans le contexte du conflit nationaliste qui les oppose[2]. Elles poussèrent les Juifs à développer leur propre organisation de défense : la Haganah[4].

Une controverse existe quant au rôle possible que plusieurs hauts militaires britanniques auraient joué dans l'organisation de ces émeutes dont le but était de soutenir le roi saoudien Fayçal à la veille de la conférence de San Remo qui devait débuter le 19 avril et où le sort de la région serait discuté.

There's no need for a machine translation. It takes a few minutes (here's the intro between ad breaks for There Will Be Blood

The 1920 Jerusalem riots (otherwise still known as the Nabi Musa riots or Jerusalem pogrom (n.1)) took place between Sunday 4 and Wednesday the 7th of April 1920 in Jerusalem's Old Quarter.
On ther occasion of the celebration of the Nabi Musa religious festival that year, the Arab mob, incited to violence by a number of nationalist leaders, attacked the Jewish population of the Old Quarter. British military authorities reacted rather passively. The riots caused a dozen deaths and about 250 wounded.(3)
These riots were the first major expression of violence between the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine in the context of their (respective and) opposed nationalisms (2). The outbreak of the rioting drove the Jews to develop their own defence organization, the Haganah.(49
A controversy remains regarding the possible role that several officials in the upper echelons of the British army might have played in the organisation of these riots, whose purpose was to support the Saudi king Faisel on the eve of the San Remo conference, where the region's fate was to be discussed, which was due to open on the 19th of April.
If you want personally to edit this page via the Fr article, do your machine translation privately and make suggestions from it by comparing it to what we have here. It's quite pointless doing a translation here, other than to demonstrate that the page has been duly read by both its original editor, and some others. It's a problem of economy and time.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the intro, Nishidani. --Buspirtraz (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth reading the actual words of the Palin commission regarding Meinertzhagen. You will see that they were not taken in by him for a moment. Also, I wonder where "the testimony is reported as well because it was important and had direct important consequences such as the end of the military rule in Palestine and the arrival of Samuel as High Commissioner" comes from; it seems a great exaggeration. Zerotalk 22:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make some time to read that Palin commission. --Buspirtraz (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fives years later, it is hard for me to remind all details. But the scandal generated by Meinerthagen's report, true or not, had deep and immediate effects : Quand le 14 avril, Meinertzaghen rapporte ses informations au Foreign Office et accuse Allenby de ne pas respecter la politique officielle britannique en Palestine, le scandale éclate. Allenby menace alors de démissionner et Meinertzaghen doit quitter le pays10,25. Mais suite au « choc » provoqué par ces révélations, Londres décide de remplacer l'administration militaire par une administration civile24 et le colonel Waters-Taylor et le général Bols sont démis de leurs fonctions en Palestine30.
The scandal broke out when, on April 14, Meinertzaghen referred his information to the Foreign Office, accusing Allenby of failing to honour Britain's official policy with regard to Palestine. At that point Allenby threatened to resign and Meinertzagen had to leae the country. In the wake of the shock caused by these relevations, London decided to replace the military administration with a civil administration and both Colonel Waters-Taylor and general Bols were relieved of their functions in Palestine30.
  • 10 Benny Morris (2003), Histoire revisitée du conflit arabo-sioniste, pp.104-116.
  • 24 Howard Sachar (2007), pp.122-125.
  • 25 Tom Segev (2001), Partie 1, chap.6, Nebi Musa, 1920 - section 3, p. 139-141.
  • 30 Samuel Katz (2002), pp.64-66.
Pluto2012 (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare these:

  • Morris (Righteous Victims, p97): "One of the more persuasive witnesses before the commission had been Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen".
  • Palin Report, p45–46: "A careful examination of Colonel Meinertzhagen's reckless championship of the Zionist cause fails to convince the Court that he has added materially to the proof of general bias charged against the O.E.T.A.(S) officials, while Colonel Meinertzhagen's own indiscretions on a tour which was apparently intended to conciliate the Arabs, reveal him as an agent who, however capable of doing good work in other spheres is singularly out of place in the East."

So who exactly found Meinertzhagen persuasive? Morris? Zerotalk 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Morris seems not to have done a good job here... Per my understanding, Meinertzhagen's convinved the British public opinion and Whitehall... Pluto2012 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to note that of the four sources used, 3 are distinctly within the Zionist tradition (with varying gradations of fervour). As for Segev, it is not quite his period. Meinertzhagen coordinated very closely with Weizmann for several months before the riots. He pressured Bols to accept the Zionist drafts, which would have created huge problems with the French since, were they implemented would have overthrown the Sykes-Picot agreement. The essential aim of Meinertzhagen's lobbying was to review borders in order to redefine the Jewish homeland as it was later by the maximalist camp, to allow massive Zionist use of the waters of the Litani, development of the Golan Heights etc. The declarations Meinertzhagen made which so entertain one version of the story, antisemitic claques in the higher echelons, have a history long before the Palin report. Bols in late 1919 asked him to put all his accusations against his fellow officers down in writing, so they could be reviewed. I can't remember him doing this, but it shows Bols wasn't averse to investigating Meinertzhagen's corridor rumour-mongering. To raise Meinertzhagen's testimony is no problem, the 4 RS use it, but don't contextualize it sufficiently, and one reason they don't is that most of them are making a pro-Zionist reading of events which taxed the wits of the British Foreign Office and High Command, which veered from betraying the Arabs and underwriting the Zionists, to being pissed off by them over the crucial period of November-December 1919 to February 1920, as they had to walk a delicate line between Zionist pressures to push for the dismissal of Arabs from the administration, open land to large foreign sales that would dispossess the fellahin, extend the water claims beyond the agreed borders, and French threats to use the Arabs to destablise British influence in Mesopotamia, and in Palestine. It was a massive headache and our sources deal with it superficially, with a top-down account that ignores the Arab street and press, and the legitimate anxieties of local communities Christian and Muslim, that they were being sold out.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nishidani,
I was totaly unaware of this... That puzzles me because it is an important issue with wp:npov. Is there a source where it is described with details. I could try to integrate this in the French article... Thx, Pluto2012 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're probably overlooking the fact that your work over there was done several years ago, and I think certainly before I started reading Laurens.
The material is all in Laurens, La Question, tome 1 pp.491-526, which concludes with the following summary of the Palin report:-
‘Il pose pour la première fois la nature de la question de Palestine non pas en termes d’analyse de discourse – anti-sémitisme contre sionisme-, mais en termes de logique de situation. Le conflit entre Arabes et Juifs est inévitable, puisque la nature même de l’opposition des deux nationalismes et l’impossibilité matérielle de dépasser les enjeux territoriaux (croissance démographique des deux populations et absence de terres vacantes) rendent inconciliables les deux revendications. Les Britanniques en Palestine sont les prisonniers d’une contradiction insurmontable dont ils sont eux-mêmes les responsables.’ Laurens vol.1 p.526
It's late here, but of course, any specific point you need precise sourcing and text for, I will supply on demand tomorrow. On coordination he writes:'Meinertzhagen et Weizmann sont en contacts permanents et coordonnent leur action' (p.495) 'Bols and Weizmann got on very well during the latter's visit but, 'Cela ne dure pas longtemps. Meinertzhagen le (=Bols/nish) presse de publier la déclaration qu'il a rédigée et s'en prend à l'attitude peu favorable des Anglais de Palestine envers le sionisme. Bols refuse la publication et lui demnde de préciser ses accusations contre ses compatriotes. 'pp.406-7, etc. Cheers Pluto. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have Tome 1 of Laurens... :-(
That's quite ironical that the French article doesn't use Laurens's material...
I will buy this and insert the material. Many thx !
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda of riots

[edit]

Efraim Karsh writes in Palestine Betrayed pg. 40: "...the Jerusalem pogrom of April 1920... was carried out not in the name of Palestine's independence but under the demand for its incorporation into Faisal's kingdom."

Perhaps this alternative perspective should be mentioned somewhere in the article? Unchartered (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The sentence that begins with "In its wake, sheikhs of 82 villages..." has several problems:

  • It appears only in the lead and not the body of the article, which is a violation of LEAD.
  • It says they protested the violence, while the source says they protested the demonstrations, which is a violation of V.
  • It doesn't include the fact the source notes that such statements were sometimes procured with bribes, which is a violation of NPOV.

Would someone like to fix this or should I just remove that sentence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that in context "demonstrations" and "violence" have different meanings, but it could be changed to "demonstrations". On your last point, Segev does not seem to directly address the 1920 statement, as the paragraph is apparently about the 1922 telegrams/cables. I think it would be SYNTH for us to connect the two things when Segev does not. Zerotalk 08:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while you replied, I looked at Segev and edited in a paraphrase. My impression is that Segev does connect the two, but I may be wrong. In any case, the lead remark needs expansion lower down.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

Segev writes: "In the wake of the 1920 riots in Jerusalem, the sheikhs of 82 villages around that city and Jaffa issued a statement protesting the demonstrations against the Jews. They claimed to represent 70 percent of the population and expressed allegiance to the British. Among other things, they stated that they did not see any danger in the Zionist settlement. The leaders of the Druze village Daliat al-Carmel, southeast of Haifa, stated that the settlement by Jews would bring great benefit to everyone in the land. Similar cables were dispatched in 1922 to the British colonial secretary, in opposition to the activity of the Arab delegation in London... According to Friedman, it looks like the delivery costs of the Arab telegrams in support of Zionism were covered by the World Zionist Organization. But the files of the Zionist Archive also chronicle many efforts by Zionist Arabists to obtain Arab declarations of support in return for actual bribes."
This is a fine mess of facts, but it still doesn't support the statement that "The sheikhs protesting the riots, and telegramming [sic] later [in 1922?] the British colonial secretary to express solidarity with the Zionist programme were sometimes bribed to state this position by the World Zionist Organisation. Their opinions were procured." One can at most write that there was an effort on behalf of the Zionists to secure Arab statements of support with bribe, based on this source. Whatever weight was placed on the Nebi Musa riots in the telegrams of 1922 (after the massacre in Jaffa) must have been very little. I don't think it belongs in the aftermath section of this article. Perhaps a better source can be found in the late prof. Friedman's book.
Further, Segev evidently has the petitions mixed up. Two petitions were sent by sheikhs of the Abu-Gosh clan, in which they claimed to represent "the majority, in numbers 70% and in land and property 90%," and demanded that the "administration and government be under the mandate of Great Britain," finally stating that there was "no danger to [their] interests, public or private, in Zionist immigration." The first petition was sent on March 23, carrying the names and seals of 142 mukhtars, and the second on March 28, carrying those of 121 mukhtars. This was prior to the violence in Jerusalem, not "in the wake of the riots" as Segev writes - and it is quite evident from the wording (70%, danger of Zionism) that he was referring to the same documents. Both petitions were addressed to the Chief Administrator, with whom the notables also requested a private audience, and he transmitted them to Herbert Samuel who was still in London. They weren't cabled ("telegramed") to Bols, but rather delivered by mail - from Jerusalem (Damascus Gate) to Jerusalem (Administration headquarters). Whether the Chief Administrator of the Occupied Enemy Territory South had to rely on the World Zionist Organization for transmission fees to the High Commissioner in London - I cannot tell. An earlier petition of similar nature was sent by Muslim, Christian and Druze mukhtars of the Safed district on March 20.
On March 30 the Abu-Gosh sheikhs also sent a letter of protest against clubs of "young and tendentious men" from "the cities" who claimed to speak on behalf of the rural majority. A classified assessment of the petitions found the names listed to be "persons of no importance whatsoever," as they were without "prestige or influence," and reported a "strong suspicion" of bribery by Yehoshua Hankin.
Finally, following the violence in Jerusalem, a statement was sent to general Bols by the Abu-Gosh sheikhs for transmission to the Prime Minister in London. In it they condemned the riots and proclaimed their support of Zionism, citing their petitions as evidence. Bols again referred it to Samuel in London. This is, to my knowledge, the only telegram sent in the wake of the riots - i.e. April 1920. But primary sources yada yada --ארינמל (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4–7 April 1920, Old City

[edit]

Two accounts of the riots were published by John Patterson in 1922. The second was by a "senior British officer," and could perhaps be quoted in the article, as it describes the initial outbreak near the Jaffa gate.--ארינמל (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Trigger'

[edit]

this 01:23, 6 March 2021‎ following this 20:35, 5 March 2021‎, which I reverted, breaks the IR rule. You are obliged to revert, and if 'trigger' in the lead worries you, argue for a change in the lead here.Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I believe my change did not violate the IR. You complained about me removing your source and you reverted my change. So I made a different change, leaving your source and much of your text intact and moving it below where it belongs.
Here's part of the quote in question:
"The trigger which turned the procession into a riot is not known"
The lede of an article is for only the most important and relevant info. An "unknown" where there's questionable info, at best, should not be displayed so prominently.
"it is also possible, though unreported, that Arab activities also contributed"
This 2nd part comes across are rather biased. Other sources describe Arabs dehumanizing Jews as "dogs". Those sources may not use the word "trigger", but dehumanization is absolutely another possible trigger for violence (see Rwanda as an example). So the text is improved with this section removed. Just because one source doesn't have info about Arab activities as possible triggers, doesn't negate the existence of other sources describing those activities.
My 2nd edit moving this quote down below, and shortening it, was 100% appropriate and should stand.
Bob drobbs (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In your second revert you altered once more the text, that is what the -83 byte diff shows, In any case your point has zero policy basis.
  • Causes are important information, esp. where the two narratives conflict.
  • The thoughts about 'dehumanization' being a cause of a major riot are ridiculous. Dehumanization is how we characterize a process not a cause.- It may be a concomitant factor. The Holocaust in Europe and Rwanda were not caused by dehumanization, but concomitant factors enabling genocides. That murders are characterized by dehumanization doesn't mean they are caused by dehumanization-
  • Your dislike of a source for not stating what you personally consider important (Arabs regarded Jews with contempt as 'pigs' 'dogs' etc.,) gives you no grounds for tampering with that passage. There were numerous small Sephardi communities who lived in enclaves within Arab towns for decades who did not suffer from pogroms, even though they had dhimmi status. Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My response: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* You make no argument for why an "unknown" is important enough to belong in the lede. Do you have any arguments against moving it into the body?
* In my 2nd edit, I left your source in tact, so we don't seem to have any disagreement about the source.
* Causes are important and I left the claim that Jewish actions may have been the trigger. Is there any disagreement there?
* The only thing I removed was the part saying that this one source didn't know of any Arab actions that could have caused it. There's zero reason to share what a single source does not know, and other sources can speak for themselves. So can we delete this part of the sentence?
"it is also possible, though unreported, that Arab activities also contributed"
Bob drobbs (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to leave it in the lead, together with the refnote but delete " - some evidence exists suggesting Jewish provocation, but it is also possible, though unreported, that Arab activities also contributed." Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Unknown' because there are two models used to explain violent events in Mandatory Palestine, the incitement of a pogrom by leaders approach, and the spontaneity theory, where no one was directly responsible but the violence broke out over some perceived symbolic offense or insult. There is no consensus, or certainty over which prevails here. For the first the Palin reports assigned some responsibility to both al-Husseini and Jabotinsky for provocations. For the second, modern studies tend to emphasize the importance of a structural conflict induced by sudden waves of migration, the bruited news that the country's national aspirations would assume only a Jewish dimension at local expense, and, specifically, that numerous incidents of incomprehension between the new Jews, who unlike the traditional Sephardi communities, knew no Arabic, lived in ways incautious of local customs of mutual accommodation (as at Hebron), and the Arabs, who were upset by these alien and culturally different manners, as well as by their thwarted aspirations to have a nation that represented their majority. In one testimony, it all started with a red-haired Jew spitting on the banner of Hebron, which led to pushing, then stone-throwing etc., but other accounts cite different incidents. We don't know, but the pogrom model is discounted now. All of this needs explanation, not just a parti pris for a source that justly states the consensus, that we don't know precisely why this occurred, with some blaming a number of Jews for sparking the event, and others saying Arabs used the occasion to protest at the new realities.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier's suggestion is an amenable compromise, which I endorse, as long as the part re Arab/Jewish responsibilities per the Palin report and later research is given proper notice in the body of the text.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier if this is the text remaining in the lede, sure:
"The trigger which turned the procession into a riot is not known with certainty."
A single short sentence seems to give appropriate weight to an unknown.
Nishidani I have no objections to some of the alleged Jewish instigations (spitting, pushing) being added to the body. But can we avoid repeating the word "trigger" and just let the various sources tell their own stories and let people draw their own conclusions?
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem I can see with the word 'trigger'. No side is blamed: it is neutral and an admission of what the body of the text says or will say. That attempts to discern the immediate incidents that sparked off the riot in one group's behavior or another have failed. I once thought of redoing this article a decade ago, because it is a mess, and not neutral. The problem is not in the lead, or one word. It is in the poverty of sources used to write the main article. That is where we should be working, to improve it so that it reflects the complexity of modern research. ( Comment to self: why do nearly all IP edit difficulties single out the lead, when the articles themselves are generally poorly researched, or fail to update old stuff with research put out in the last few decades?) Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can say "no side is blamed" as your source absolutely points toward Jewish culpability and says there's no documentation of Arab responsibility. The reference from Sachar, by comparison, says that there were speeches and then the violence began afterward, implying that the the speeches were the trigger. It's very possible there were minor incidents in between like Arabs spitting and pushing, but it simply was not deemed newsworthy as compared to the speeches and the rape and murder that followed.
So let's just leave that part in the lead lede saying no one knows for sure what trigger or triggers, led to violence. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate suggestion is if you really want the word "trigger" down below, then we should list both Jewish actions and the speeches as possible triggers. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trigger which turned the procession into a riot is not known with certainty - some evidence exists suggesting Jewish provocation, but it is also possible, though unreported, that Arab activities also contribute

This is dumb prose, but one tweaks. One doesn't protest if it is basically accurate. I.e.

Dispute exists concerning the cause that triggered the riots, with narratives that assign primary blame to the Arabs, the Jews, or culpability on both sides.

Anyone can just junk text they dislike. Work here means (a) consulting several sources perhaps not even mentioned (b) getting an approximate picture of the incident in scholarly work (c) improving the text on that basis. To tweak a text just by looking at the article, and not searching relevant sources, is often lethal to article composition. Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was not what was agreed upon here, nor is what's written in your source. Your source simply lists some incidents that possibly instigated violence, but does not make claims about who had "primary blame". The agreed upon change for the lede was simply to say that we don't know what happened. So I'm reverting the change. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you reverted was lead summary style. I assumed you would agree that the gravamen of your unease with the passage that it favoured Arabs at the expense of Jews, and therefore I adjusted for balance. If you don't like it suggest a different summary of that extended footnote, equally neutral as to the parties. We did not agree that 'we don't know what happened'. We have detailed information from numerous witnesses as to what happened. What we do not know is what specific incident 'triggered' the transformation of a procession into a riot.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll chose my words more carefully. The change to the lede that Selfstudier made was agreed on by all here and 100% acceptable. We have reports that Arab leaders were inciting violence by dehumanizing Jews. We have reports of Jews spitting and pushing. What we do NOT have is reliable sources ascribing primary responsibility to both sides. Your source absolutely does NOT say Jews were primarily responsible; it's simply anecdotes of things that could have instigated violence. The lede should stand as-is.
"The trigger which turned the procession into a riot is not known with certainty." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on here, the lead is OK as far as I can see. What goes into the body is a different discussion, the body may be more detailed. Now the main point here is that you cannot simply write off what a reliable source says because one doesn't like it. The best solution, as usual, is contradictory sourcing ie alternative sources that say something different and add those in for balance. If there are none, then the best solution is to attribute what is being said to whoever is saying it rather than stating it in WP voice as a fact (that reference is not written properly, it needs a chapter/author addition being an edited work).Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier What you missed was the change that I reverted. It spoke of primary blame being attribued to both sides. That's not what the source says.
And I agree that the examples of Jewish misdeed should be included. They belong in the body as a historical account of actions that day without any non-factual, guesses that they maybe, possibly, could have been a trigger that instigated the violence. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British complicity in Nebi Mussa Riots

[edit]

The article says that " comparison was made between racist, anti -Semitic Eastern European pogroms , with the colonial adventure and ethnic exclusivity " that is Zionism. The word "colonial" is incorrectly applied to a native people coming back to its homeland, especially after the expulsion of Jews from Israel by Romans, Christians and Moslems( including Haj Amin Husseini, who planned to murder Mandate Palestinian Jews in a German - aided Holocaust). And with the long history of British, American, and other Christian Friends of Zion- Friends numbering some50 million today- "ethnic exclusive " is untrue,- and I demand that it and the term colonial be removed Docaryeh1989 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The given source supports this and quotes Jabotinsky saying "Zionist colonization...". The source also says "manifestly exclusionary, and often deeply racist" in describing the Zionist project. If you want to bring alternative sources that say it wasn't like this, please do so. In general, we need sources for articles, personal opinions of editors are insufficient.Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That comic book cliché rant hardly warrants being taken seriously. Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh condemnation of anti-Jewish demonstrations

[edit]

“In its wake, sheikhs of 82 villages around the city and Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the population, issued a document protesting the demonstrations against the Jews. This condemnation may have been procured with bribes. [4]” —Edit: the source is no longer down, but I’m unable to view more than about 2 paragraphs in the article , and can’t find the claim that there may have been bribery involved in this condemnation. https://www.haaretz.com/2012-04-06/ty-article/when-zionism-was-an-arab-cause/0000017f-e219-df7c-a5ff-e27b00310000 EgyptianBlue22 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can read it all, and can confirm that this is a fair report. Zerotalk 07:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to bring this up. when you go to the reference its behind a registration wall, which most people aren't going to do for a one time visit to a site they have never or may never go to again. is there any way to maybe find the article on wayback before it was walled? or maybe place where the article isn't behind a registration wall? i mean its more of an inconvenience for someone like myself, but you know what people are like and it'll end up being well i couldn't read the rest of the article, and cuz i couldn't see it that means i didn't see proof of that point so it mustn't be true tbh, its not a wikipedia problem, its a problem with the site putting it behind a wall like that, and not just letting people read the info fro free....like wikipedia does. D0S81 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1920_Nebi_Musa_riots&oldid=1217256779"