Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article has been the subject of prolonged and sterile revert-warring. Edit warring is unacceptable even if none of the editors violates the letter of the 3RR rule, and protection prevents all editors from improving the article. ( If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. For the next month, ending May 15, I will enforce a limit of one revert per person per day. (Blatant vandalism is excepted, of course, but calling content edits that may have been made in good faith, "vandalism," is not acceptable.) Please discuss controversial changes on the talk page first, rather than editing and reverting and eventually discussing. Thank you. Thatcher131 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 23, 2008, August 23, 2009, August 23, 2010, August 23, 2013, August 23, 2016, August 23, 2019, and August 23, 2021. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Restatement: Sometime ago I asked for source on the category "Islam and antisemitism". No sources were provided, though there was extensive discussion on the topic (and other topics). Bless sins ( talk) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note: If you are going to place the "Islam and antisemitism" category, then you need to find a source that mentions both. If something is either unrelated to Islam, or antisemitism, then the category doesn't belong. Also, so as not to violate WP:SYNTH, a reliable source must make the connection between Islam and antisemitism (and the topic of the article), not individual wikipedians. Bless sins ( talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This massacre, together with that of Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and across the world.
in reality most who died were killed by their own Arab neighbours, not villagers from outside Hebron.
Where are the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, could you please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article? nableezy - 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
a.* The Hebron Massacre of 1929: A Recently Revealed Letter of a Survivor This is from a blog, consisting in a private letter in family archives, translated by a consultant at the family's request, and posted here.
b.*(1)Jewish Telegraphic Agency September 12, 1929
These are all primary sources. Numerous historians dealing with newspaper accounts in the immediate aftermath are sceptical of what many of the articles report (that Cafferata was an antisemite, that the British were in cahoots, that the police only fired only occurred after the mob dissolved, that the Mufti has ordered the massacre, etc.etc.etc. Unless policy-based grounds can be adduced to justify their presence, they ought to be removed. Nishidani ( talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This is silly, but a. false rumors is not exactly wonderful prose, and b. whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. nableezy - 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ill repeat the second part of what I wrote in the hopes that somebody can actually respond to it: whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. nableezy - 14:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Can yall try to actually read what you are responding to? whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. Can somebody explain how it is relevant? nableezy - 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem
Arabs, swept up by conflicting reports: news of Arabs murdered in Jerusalem, reports that the Haram would be assaulted and a false rumour that Jews had massacred Arabs, responded with a vicious pogrom. Nishidani ( talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Going back to basics for a moment here. The current article states that the riots were caused " by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem " using Segev (2000) pp319 as the citation. However Segev (2000) pp319 does not say there were rumours of massacres, he states that passengers returning from Jerusalem after 3pm on the 23rd "spoke of what was going on there, and the rumour that Jews were killing Arabs spread quickly". Furthermore, far from supporting the claim that the rumours were false, Segev himself reports the killing of 2/3 Arabs at 12:00 12:30 that day in Jerusalem (pp215). the citation does not support the "massacre" claim and actually contradicts the "false" claim. Dlv999 ( talk) 19:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
reports as one received from Hebron to the effect that rumours were being spread among the ·Arabs that the Jews intended to attack the Mosque of Al-Aqsa on the 23rd of August.p.58
some of the rumours appearing in the Hebrew Press and others which were at that time current to the effect that there would be trouble on the following day.p.59
On the occasion ·of the regrettable riot which occurred yesterday, many rumours and reports of various kinds have spread to the effect that Government had enlisted and armed certain Jews; that they had enrolled Jewish ex-soldiers who had served in the great War and that Government forces were firing at Arabs exclusively.'p.67 al Husayni and the nobles in amanifesto issued on the 24th denying the truth of these rumours in their community
The last line of argument employed before us in this part of the case was that the rumours which were current throughout Palestine between the 18th and 23rd of August are evidence that the outbreak which occurred on the latter date was premeditated and had been organized either by the Palestine Arab Executive or by the agents of that body. We are satisfied that rumours were widespread, but we are unable to attach importance to them as evidence of premeditation. Every rumour which was brought to our notice first became current after the demonstrations at the Wailing Wall had taken place. In a country with a population largely illiterate, where most news passes by word of mouth, it is more than likely that exaggerated accounts were disseminated of the incidents of both the 15th and 16th of August p.80
That so many of the rumours took the forin that· there ·would be· trouble in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August is not remarkable, since it isnotorious that a Moslem Sabbath, being a day when fellaheen in the. normal course come to Jerusalem in large numbers, is always the most likely occasion for such events as the rumours foretold.p.94
Conclusions 23. The rumours which were current in Palestine immediately before the 23rd of August were the natural consequence of the two demonstrations on the 15th and 16th of thiat month.p.160 Nishidani ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source. It is used on numerous other articles. Please explain why it is not allowed here. -- 68.6.227.26 ( talk) 01:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to change this part of the article: "Cases of mutilation and torture were reported in the Jewish press (ref name=segev/)" to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported,(ref name=segev/)(Norman Rose, "A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine 1945-1948", The Bodley Head, London, 2009. (p. 35))(ref name=forward>
"Jewish News, Jewish Newspapers - Forward.com". Web.archive.org. 15 May 2006. Retrieved 23 January 2013.)(
"Hebron". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 23 January 2013.)([A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel "Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman"]. Princeton University Press. 2008. p. 232. Retrieved 23 January 2013. {{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help))" Are there any objections? --
68.6.227.26 (
talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi IranitGreenberg,
The photography that you add is very "strong" [6] but the website from which you got it is not reliable. What proves this picture is really the one of the time and of a Jewish children who would have survived the massacre ? What proves it is not a fake ? (What strange doctors those who leave such an injury being photographed without healing it...) Pluto2012 ( talk) 13:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide reliable information in a neutral manner, not to provoke emotions in the reader. So basically I don't care if it is real or not, it doesn't belong here. Zero talk 13:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I am in favour of removing this picture. Pluto2012 ( talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems very balanced and well crafted (as well as concise), especially when considering the nature of the subject matter and its potential to arouse controversy. 81.158.173.241 ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
My bad. Found it.
No bias there.
In the 2nd paragraph, "the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'".
Disestablishmentarianism 17:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic ( talk • contribs) I AGREE! -- Monochrome_ Monitor 01:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It is true that the article contains the words 'bloodthirsty Arabs' but that is comprends or of context. The article simply contains a direct quote from Michelle Campos using the words 'bloodthirsty arabs.' The full sentence is "In the metanarrative of Zionism, according to Michelle Campos, the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs' and was 'engraved in the national psyche of Israeli Jews', particularly those who settled in Hebron after 1967." Please note the quotation marks and the specification that this is within the 'metanarrative of Zionism."
Wlglunight93 You have just broken the ARBPIA rule on 1R for articles related to the I/P area.
This is edit-warring, without regard to thee substance, and you admit you are unfamiliar with the archives, with which you should familiarize yourself before jumping into a text. Thirdly, you hav not deigned to make an argument for your change ('rumour' vs 'false rumour' has also been discussed in these articles. Had you takn th care to look at this talk page, you would have seen the problem exhaustively analysed just above this section. Neglecting that discussion and insisting on your own preferred term means you are ignoring an established consensus. 'Rumours' were both false and true: the rumour an Arab had been killed in Jerusalem was true, the rumour Beitar groups were claiming a right to take over the Temple Mount reflected Beitar's own challenges in a demonstration, and therefore were not 'false'. Rumours that Jews were massacring Arabs were completely 'false'. Therefore you cannot apply the word 'false' to 'rumours' for that week, because it falsifies history by bundling several distinct pieces of gossip up into one, and treating a 'true' report with a 'false' report. Nishidani ( talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hillel Cohen frames his recent narrative of the incident in terms of the murder of the Jaffa Awan family by a Jewish police constable called Simcha Hinkis.[16]
I'm afraid I don't really understand the meaning of this sentence. Is it really useful there? From what I understood, it means "Hillel Cohen centers his story around the murder [...] Hinkis." Why is that relevant? Cohen is not mentioned in the paragraph and I don't think it adds anything to it. There is no date to the murder, no details, it could imply that it is cause of the rumours but that is not proof and I don't feel the source adds anything to that. Does anyone have thoughts on this? TheMaskedTom ( talk) 23:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the article could mention that none of the Arab casualties in Hebron were inflicted by Jews. In fact, the matter of lumping attackers and victims together was discussed at length during the inquiry into the riots and found to be misleading. Here is a transcript extract from the Palestine Commission of Inquiry meeting dated 18th November, 1929 - Page 135-137. Harry Luke, who served as Officer Administrating the Government until the High Commissioner returned from leave on the morning of the 29th August, is being questioned by Sir Boyd Merriman.
I would like to second this motion. It is extremely misleading to refer to a conflict "in which a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed" without specifying that, while most Jewish fatalities were committed by Arab attackers, most Arab fatalities were committed by the British police. Mandely ( talk) 16:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to correct the following sentence "In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag." The following communique by Luke was presented at the same meeting of the Inquiry Commission as evidence [page 12]: "On the 15th August during the Fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple, in addition to the large number of Jews who proceeded in the ordinary way to the wall to worship, some hundreds of young Jews exercised their right of access for purposes not confined to the usual practice of prayer, but were associated with the making of a speech and the raising of a flag." Luke adds that "There is another matter which is not mentioned. The crowd also sang the Hatikvah" -- ארינמל ( talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The article cites Benny Morris correctly: Israeli historian Benny Morris has challenged traditional accounts that most survivors were saved by Arab families. He wrote, that "in fact, most were rescued by British police intervention and by the fact that many Jews successfully fended off their assailants for long hours – though to be sure, Arab neighbors did save several families". (One-State, Two-States). However, in his book "Righteous Victims" he wrote "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors (and, at a later stage, after Cafferatta had reimposed his authority, by Arab policemen)." (p114). The contradiction is obvious and I don't see why we should cite just one of these sources. I believe that the reason for the difference is that between these two books Morris had his political conversion and started writing unreliable polemics; but that's just my opinion. What to do? Zero talk 11:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1929 Hebron massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to register my opinion that this page is a disgrace. A horrible massacre of Jews is hardly mentioned or detailed, with paragraph after paragraph minimizing, "explaining", and excusing it. Someone's done a lot of nasty work here. Nelamm ( talk) 17:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I am new here (on this page) and I am not sure if this has already been discussed, so pardon me if it has, but my reading of the sources brings me to the understanding that the Jews of Hebron were not "evacuated" by the British, which implies a kind of "rescue," but rather were "evicted" which means more like what happened, they were kicked out. I think the use of the word 'evicted' would be more accurate here, and I am requesting this change. I noticed one other problem. The shore description says "Arabs residents" and it should say "Arab residents." That's all for now. DaringDonna ( talk) 18:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I am requesting that the word "evacuated" be replaced by either the word "expelled" or "evicted" in the following sentence in the article: Soon after, all Hebron's Jews were evacuated by the British authorities.[4] Many returned in 1931, but almost all were evacuated at the outbreak of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. in both occurrences of the word. Here is one source: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/hebron-riots-1929-consequences-lessons/ Here is the quote from the source: "But, in the years before the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, the area was exclusively Arab because the Jews had been expelled. In some cases, as in Hebron, the expulsion was accomplished through mass murder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaringDonna ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove ref 35 and insert the ref name of ref 20(or create a reference name for ref 20 if there is none). Reasoning: duplicate reference.
Remove ref 37 and insert the ref name of ref 20. Reasoning: broken reference, refers to ref 20 source.
I cannot check the refnames used, so someone with editing rights will need to check and update the reference names. Sennecaster ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The beginning of the article states that "a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed" in the 1929 Palestine Riots. This is misleading as it could easily leave one with the impression that the Jews and Arabs had killed very similar amounts of each other's member. In fact, as reported in the Shaw Report and in Causes and Consequences of the Arab Israeli Conflict by Ross Stewart (both quoted in the article on the 1929 Palestine Riots), while the Arabs were responsible for most of the Jewish deaths, the majority of Arab deaths were at the hands of the British police.
It is explained sufficiently in that article, however it is not fair to assume that everyone who reads this article will also read every wikilinked article within it. (The only reason I checked was because, given my personal knowledge of that time period in Palestine, I found the implication of that sentence unlikely. Someone without prior knowledge would very likely not bother checking the article to clarify the true meaning of that misleading sentence.) (I apologize for not signing my previous post) Mandely ( talk) 16:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Considering the recent edits, purporting to provide context, it does seems as if 1929 Palestine riots is the more informative article when all is said and done. Both articles need to be reviewed and edited for mutual consistency. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Kafr_Qasim_massacre links to the "Massacre" page. Consequently, anyone who reads /info/en/?search=Massacre sees "Israel" under the heading "List of massacres". This page (and others relating to massacres carried out against Jews) does not link to the word "Massacre" and there is no mention of them under the "Massacre" page.
I don't care whether you keep or remove the "Massacre" links, but its application should be consistent across all relevant pages. Cowwoc ( talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
hebron massacre 105.164.27.213 ( talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This article has been the subject of prolonged and sterile revert-warring. Edit warring is unacceptable even if none of the editors violates the letter of the 3RR rule, and protection prevents all editors from improving the article. ( If editors return to edit warring after an article is unprotected, the community has not forfeited the right to improve the article; rather, the editors have forfeited the right to edit. For the next month, ending May 15, I will enforce a limit of one revert per person per day. (Blatant vandalism is excepted, of course, but calling content edits that may have been made in good faith, "vandalism," is not acceptable.) Please discuss controversial changes on the talk page first, rather than editing and reverting and eventually discussing. Thank you. Thatcher131 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 23, 2008, August 23, 2009, August 23, 2010, August 23, 2013, August 23, 2016, August 23, 2019, and August 23, 2021. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Restatement: Sometime ago I asked for source on the category "Islam and antisemitism". No sources were provided, though there was extensive discussion on the topic (and other topics). Bless sins ( talk) 19:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note: If you are going to place the "Islam and antisemitism" category, then you need to find a source that mentions both. If something is either unrelated to Islam, or antisemitism, then the category doesn't belong. Also, so as not to violate WP:SYNTH, a reliable source must make the connection between Islam and antisemitism (and the topic of the article), not individual wikipedians. Bless sins ( talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This massacre, together with that of Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and across the world.
in reality most who died were killed by their own Arab neighbours, not villagers from outside Hebron.
Where are the sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 03:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, could you please provide reliable sources supporting the term "ethnic cleansing" being applied to the subject of the article? nableezy - 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
a.* The Hebron Massacre of 1929: A Recently Revealed Letter of a Survivor This is from a blog, consisting in a private letter in family archives, translated by a consultant at the family's request, and posted here.
b.*(1)Jewish Telegraphic Agency September 12, 1929
These are all primary sources. Numerous historians dealing with newspaper accounts in the immediate aftermath are sceptical of what many of the articles report (that Cafferata was an antisemite, that the British were in cahoots, that the police only fired only occurred after the mob dissolved, that the Mufti has ordered the massacre, etc.etc.etc. Unless policy-based grounds can be adduced to justify their presence, they ought to be removed. Nishidani ( talk) 17:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This is silly, but a. false rumors is not exactly wonderful prose, and b. whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. nableezy - 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ill repeat the second part of what I wrote in the hopes that somebody can actually respond to it: whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. nableezy - 14:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Can yall try to actually read what you are responding to? whether or not the rumors were false is irrelevant to their being what incited the violence. Can somebody explain how it is relevant? nableezy - 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem
Arabs, swept up by conflicting reports: news of Arabs murdered in Jerusalem, reports that the Haram would be assaulted and a false rumour that Jews had massacred Arabs, responded with a vicious pogrom. Nishidani ( talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Going back to basics for a moment here. The current article states that the riots were caused " by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem " using Segev (2000) pp319 as the citation. However Segev (2000) pp319 does not say there were rumours of massacres, he states that passengers returning from Jerusalem after 3pm on the 23rd "spoke of what was going on there, and the rumour that Jews were killing Arabs spread quickly". Furthermore, far from supporting the claim that the rumours were false, Segev himself reports the killing of 2/3 Arabs at 12:00 12:30 that day in Jerusalem (pp215). the citation does not support the "massacre" claim and actually contradicts the "false" claim. Dlv999 ( talk) 19:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
reports as one received from Hebron to the effect that rumours were being spread among the ·Arabs that the Jews intended to attack the Mosque of Al-Aqsa on the 23rd of August.p.58
some of the rumours appearing in the Hebrew Press and others which were at that time current to the effect that there would be trouble on the following day.p.59
On the occasion ·of the regrettable riot which occurred yesterday, many rumours and reports of various kinds have spread to the effect that Government had enlisted and armed certain Jews; that they had enrolled Jewish ex-soldiers who had served in the great War and that Government forces were firing at Arabs exclusively.'p.67 al Husayni and the nobles in amanifesto issued on the 24th denying the truth of these rumours in their community
The last line of argument employed before us in this part of the case was that the rumours which were current throughout Palestine between the 18th and 23rd of August are evidence that the outbreak which occurred on the latter date was premeditated and had been organized either by the Palestine Arab Executive or by the agents of that body. We are satisfied that rumours were widespread, but we are unable to attach importance to them as evidence of premeditation. Every rumour which was brought to our notice first became current after the demonstrations at the Wailing Wall had taken place. In a country with a population largely illiterate, where most news passes by word of mouth, it is more than likely that exaggerated accounts were disseminated of the incidents of both the 15th and 16th of August p.80
That so many of the rumours took the forin that· there ·would be· trouble in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August is not remarkable, since it isnotorious that a Moslem Sabbath, being a day when fellaheen in the. normal course come to Jerusalem in large numbers, is always the most likely occasion for such events as the rumours foretold.p.94
Conclusions 23. The rumours which were current in Palestine immediately before the 23rd of August were the natural consequence of the two demonstrations on the 15th and 16th of thiat month.p.160 Nishidani ( talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source. It is used on numerous other articles. Please explain why it is not allowed here. -- 68.6.227.26 ( talk) 01:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to change this part of the article: "Cases of mutilation and torture were reported in the Jewish press (ref name=segev/)" to "Many cases of torture, rape, and mutilation were reported,(ref name=segev/)(Norman Rose, "A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine 1945-1948", The Bodley Head, London, 2009. (p. 35))(ref name=forward>
"Jewish News, Jewish Newspapers - Forward.com". Web.archive.org. 15 May 2006. Retrieved 23 January 2013.)(
"Hebron". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 23 January 2013.)([A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel "Gudrun Krämer, Graham Harman"]. Princeton University Press. 2008. p. 232. Retrieved 23 January 2013. {{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help))" Are there any objections? --
68.6.227.26 (
talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi IranitGreenberg,
The photography that you add is very "strong" [6] but the website from which you got it is not reliable. What proves this picture is really the one of the time and of a Jewish children who would have survived the massacre ? What proves it is not a fake ? (What strange doctors those who leave such an injury being photographed without healing it...) Pluto2012 ( talk) 13:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide reliable information in a neutral manner, not to provoke emotions in the reader. So basically I don't care if it is real or not, it doesn't belong here. Zero talk 13:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I am in favour of removing this picture. Pluto2012 ( talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems very balanced and well crafted (as well as concise), especially when considering the nature of the subject matter and its potential to arouse controversy. 81.158.173.241 ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
My bad. Found it.
No bias there.
In the 2nd paragraph, "the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'".
Disestablishmentarianism 17:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic ( talk • contribs) I AGREE! -- Monochrome_ Monitor 01:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
It is true that the article contains the words 'bloodthirsty Arabs' but that is comprends or of context. The article simply contains a direct quote from Michelle Campos using the words 'bloodthirsty arabs.' The full sentence is "In the metanarrative of Zionism, according to Michelle Campos, the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs' and was 'engraved in the national psyche of Israeli Jews', particularly those who settled in Hebron after 1967." Please note the quotation marks and the specification that this is within the 'metanarrative of Zionism."
Wlglunight93 You have just broken the ARBPIA rule on 1R for articles related to the I/P area.
This is edit-warring, without regard to thee substance, and you admit you are unfamiliar with the archives, with which you should familiarize yourself before jumping into a text. Thirdly, you hav not deigned to make an argument for your change ('rumour' vs 'false rumour' has also been discussed in these articles. Had you takn th care to look at this talk page, you would have seen the problem exhaustively analysed just above this section. Neglecting that discussion and insisting on your own preferred term means you are ignoring an established consensus. 'Rumours' were both false and true: the rumour an Arab had been killed in Jerusalem was true, the rumour Beitar groups were claiming a right to take over the Temple Mount reflected Beitar's own challenges in a demonstration, and therefore were not 'false'. Rumours that Jews were massacring Arabs were completely 'false'. Therefore you cannot apply the word 'false' to 'rumours' for that week, because it falsifies history by bundling several distinct pieces of gossip up into one, and treating a 'true' report with a 'false' report. Nishidani ( talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hillel Cohen frames his recent narrative of the incident in terms of the murder of the Jaffa Awan family by a Jewish police constable called Simcha Hinkis.[16]
I'm afraid I don't really understand the meaning of this sentence. Is it really useful there? From what I understood, it means "Hillel Cohen centers his story around the murder [...] Hinkis." Why is that relevant? Cohen is not mentioned in the paragraph and I don't think it adds anything to it. There is no date to the murder, no details, it could imply that it is cause of the rumours but that is not proof and I don't feel the source adds anything to that. Does anyone have thoughts on this? TheMaskedTom ( talk) 23:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the article could mention that none of the Arab casualties in Hebron were inflicted by Jews. In fact, the matter of lumping attackers and victims together was discussed at length during the inquiry into the riots and found to be misleading. Here is a transcript extract from the Palestine Commission of Inquiry meeting dated 18th November, 1929 - Page 135-137. Harry Luke, who served as Officer Administrating the Government until the High Commissioner returned from leave on the morning of the 29th August, is being questioned by Sir Boyd Merriman.
I would like to second this motion. It is extremely misleading to refer to a conflict "in which a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed" without specifying that, while most Jewish fatalities were committed by Arab attackers, most Arab fatalities were committed by the British police. Mandely ( talk) 16:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to correct the following sentence "In mid-August 1929, hundreds of Jewish nationalists marched to the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting slogans such as The Wall is Ours and raising the Jewish national flag." The following communique by Luke was presented at the same meeting of the Inquiry Commission as evidence [page 12]: "On the 15th August during the Fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple, in addition to the large number of Jews who proceeded in the ordinary way to the wall to worship, some hundreds of young Jews exercised their right of access for purposes not confined to the usual practice of prayer, but were associated with the making of a speech and the raising of a flag." Luke adds that "There is another matter which is not mentioned. The crowd also sang the Hatikvah" -- ארינמל ( talk) 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The article cites Benny Morris correctly: Israeli historian Benny Morris has challenged traditional accounts that most survivors were saved by Arab families. He wrote, that "in fact, most were rescued by British police intervention and by the fact that many Jews successfully fended off their assailants for long hours – though to be sure, Arab neighbors did save several families". (One-State, Two-States). However, in his book "Righteous Victims" he wrote "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors (and, at a later stage, after Cafferatta had reimposed his authority, by Arab policemen)." (p114). The contradiction is obvious and I don't see why we should cite just one of these sources. I believe that the reason for the difference is that between these two books Morris had his political conversion and started writing unreliable polemics; but that's just my opinion. What to do? Zero talk 11:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1929 Hebron massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to register my opinion that this page is a disgrace. A horrible massacre of Jews is hardly mentioned or detailed, with paragraph after paragraph minimizing, "explaining", and excusing it. Someone's done a lot of nasty work here. Nelamm ( talk) 17:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I am new here (on this page) and I am not sure if this has already been discussed, so pardon me if it has, but my reading of the sources brings me to the understanding that the Jews of Hebron were not "evacuated" by the British, which implies a kind of "rescue," but rather were "evicted" which means more like what happened, they were kicked out. I think the use of the word 'evicted' would be more accurate here, and I am requesting this change. I noticed one other problem. The shore description says "Arabs residents" and it should say "Arab residents." That's all for now. DaringDonna ( talk) 18:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I am requesting that the word "evacuated" be replaced by either the word "expelled" or "evicted" in the following sentence in the article: Soon after, all Hebron's Jews were evacuated by the British authorities.[4] Many returned in 1931, but almost all were evacuated at the outbreak of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. in both occurrences of the word. Here is one source: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/hebron-riots-1929-consequences-lessons/ Here is the quote from the source: "But, in the years before the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, the area was exclusively Arab because the Jews had been expelled. In some cases, as in Hebron, the expulsion was accomplished through mass murder." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaringDonna ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove ref 35 and insert the ref name of ref 20(or create a reference name for ref 20 if there is none). Reasoning: duplicate reference.
Remove ref 37 and insert the ref name of ref 20. Reasoning: broken reference, refers to ref 20 source.
I cannot check the refnames used, so someone with editing rights will need to check and update the reference names. Sennecaster ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The beginning of the article states that "a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed" in the 1929 Palestine Riots. This is misleading as it could easily leave one with the impression that the Jews and Arabs had killed very similar amounts of each other's member. In fact, as reported in the Shaw Report and in Causes and Consequences of the Arab Israeli Conflict by Ross Stewart (both quoted in the article on the 1929 Palestine Riots), while the Arabs were responsible for most of the Jewish deaths, the majority of Arab deaths were at the hands of the British police.
It is explained sufficiently in that article, however it is not fair to assume that everyone who reads this article will also read every wikilinked article within it. (The only reason I checked was because, given my personal knowledge of that time period in Palestine, I found the implication of that sentence unlikely. Someone without prior knowledge would very likely not bother checking the article to clarify the true meaning of that misleading sentence.) (I apologize for not signing my previous post) Mandely ( talk) 16:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Considering the recent edits, purporting to provide context, it does seems as if 1929 Palestine riots is the more informative article when all is said and done. Both articles need to be reviewed and edited for mutual consistency. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Kafr_Qasim_massacre links to the "Massacre" page. Consequently, anyone who reads /info/en/?search=Massacre sees "Israel" under the heading "List of massacres". This page (and others relating to massacres carried out against Jews) does not link to the word "Massacre" and there is no mention of them under the "Massacre" page.
I don't care whether you keep or remove the "Massacre" links, but its application should be consistent across all relevant pages. Cowwoc ( talk) 03:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
hebron massacre 105.164.27.213 ( talk) 20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)