text:
Talk:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine

NPOV
This article is pretty much written with a Palestinian POV. Israeli historians refer to this as the "Arab Riot" and perceived it as a series of pogroms directed at Jewish targets. Also, the objectives and the effect of this series of events need further exploration - by many accounts, it was successful, in that it persuaded the British government to impose strict immigration quotas, setting the stage for what one might call the Great Jewish Uprising in Palestine. --Leifern 22:38, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

 * The Uprising is referred to as both the "Great Arab Uprising" and the "1936-1939 riots" (or the "1936-1939 events") in Israeli sources, depending on the context. When the uprising itself is the issue, the former is often used. When the Jewish casualties are the issue, the latter is often used.--Doron 00:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, The Encyclopedia of Jewish History, for example, calls it: 1936-1939 "מאורעות" (p.145; quotes in the original), which can be translated into incidents or events. In English, Cleveland's work calls it the 'Great Revolt' as does Swedenburg (to my knowledge, that is the most common English term used). El_C 02:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that's a too interpertive. We don't know, and it is counter-factual to assume, what the British would have done had the Jewish side agreed to the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission. El_C 02:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It may or may not be too interpretive, but it is one common perspective on it. Which is why I wrote "by many accounts."  You can't dismiss a perspective just because you don't agree with it.  We don't know what Brits would have done if the Jewish Agency had accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, or if the Jewish side had simply agreed to British and Arab wishes to collectively drown themselves in the sea, or perhaps report to Berlin, either.  In any case, it's telling that the Jews even considered the proposal, while the Arabs outright rejected it and started this "glorious" Uprising.  --Leifern 03:17, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Let's backtrack. I did not say I disagreed with it (as an interpertation), I'm limiting myself to the historiographical currents I know of/that are cited (as an approach, methodologically). I am more than pleased to review and comment on any of the sources you wish to bring forth. *** Indeed, by many accounts, the Revolt was successful when viewed as a decisive impetus for Britain's decision to scrap negotiations in favour of unilaterlism and curtail Jewish immigration, I know it was, I am the editor who enetered this information into Wikipedia. The problem with your sentence, is that its phrasing infers this as a logical, causal inevatibility. The would-be negotiations, whereby the Arab side (not to be pedanatic, -did- consider and then) rejected the proposals while that of the Jewish side (as I wrote in the P.C. article) remained "heatedly divided," can, therefore, be counter-factually interperted both ways, if. Honestly, I don't know what would have happned had the Jewish side agreed with the Plan: either the British would have still implemented the W.P (or something along those lines), or they would not have. It's difficult to speak in these terms precisely because it's so counter-factual and does not simply follow linearly from the Revolt to the WP. Now, I do have an opinion as to the 'glorious' or lack thereof nature of the Revolt; I don't think it's possible to write on this subtantively and not have one. In general, I have a certain sympathy towards peasent revolts, but this dosen't mean I identify with the ideology and/or practices of each one. At the event (again, continuing with my opinion), the Jewish leadership exhibited quite progressive political values and tendencies, while the Arab one was deeply reactionary (-even- with Berlin notwithstanding). But, criticizing the form the Revolt assumed, with its backward leadership, etc. (which I do, vehemently), dosen't take away from the Arab peasentry having had genuine greivences. El_C 06:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * History is always more complicated than historians would like you to believe, because the same event looks very different depending upon your point of view. I wouldn't dispute the (presumably) Palestinian perspective that this was a great (in the "good" sense of the word) uprising based on entirely legitimate grievances; but neither would I dispute the Jewish perspective that it was a series of all-too-familiar grievances; or the British perspective that it was a subversive insurrection.  I don't think the purpose of an article like this is to vindicate one perspective or another, but to try make the events as recognizable for everyone as we can.  There are lots of issues to consider here, such as whether the goals of the leaders were aligned with those of the peasants, whether the Jews were in fact the appropriate target; whether Jewish and British reactions and countermeasures were proportionate and effective; and not the least whether the White Paper was a well-advised move.  --Leifern 13:51, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

Actually, some historians, such as yours truly, would like you to avoid such generalizations as than historians would like you to believe, and do emphasize on it being more complex than A-to-B-to-C, or one interpertation/vantage point, as my comment above clearly illustrates. I'm not certain why historians titled the Revolt Great (they did this before I was born), but I suspect it had to do with its scope being great (within the BMoP) rather than 'glorious,' as you seem to be suggesting (as well, I did not select the title for this article, it was chosen as such before I joined Wikipedia). Yes, clearly these are valid issues and a sensible approach (but I should stress, so long as it is grounded in the scholarship), I'm not implying otherwise (though the W.P. being well-advised is a bit of a stretch, and at any rate, belongs in the W.P. article). I would have raised these myself had I written substantively on the Revolt here. El_C 20:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Correction: I did, it seems, on Aug 15, 2004, one addition. I just forgot to return to the article (until yesterday). El_C 20:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * My "historians would like you to believe" was a tongue-in-cheek comment, mostly referring to the fact that all historical accounts by necessity are reductionist, and even WP encourages us to be concise. --Leifern 20:43, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. Fair enough, I misread how that was nuanced. El_C 21:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag
I am removing the tag since there seems to be no more outstanding Talk discussions. If someone disagrees, by all means restore it, but please start a new talk section to discuss your concerns, or put out an RFC, or something that would lead to eventual consensus. Thanks. --AladdinSE 01:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Great Uprising or Great Revolt
The title of the article is "Great Uprising". The article itself refers only to the "Great Revolt". Apparently both terms are used. Should there be some sort of clarification or consistency here? Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * To me the two terms are innocuous synonyms. What uprising in history wasn't a revolt of some kind? I did a google search for [The Great Uprising "Palestine"] and [The Great Revolt "Palestine"] and the Revolt returned much more references to the Great Jewish Revolt against the Romans. Uprising seems more appropriate to me. What sort of clarification were you contemplating? --AladdinSE 05:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * A clarification that both are used, and Wikipedia preferentially and consistently using whichever is more commonly used. Jayjg (talk) 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in such a clarification. --AladdinSE 07:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of riots and allegations of detentions, house demolitions, etc.

 * The purpose of the riots was to put an end to Jewish immigration. It didn't fully succeed, of course, but there was no question what the goal was.
 * Administrative detentions, house demolitions, etc., are commonplace among a number of countries that are engaged in a conflict. If you're going to list Israel, I'll insist that you do the research and list every single other country that does it, or it isn't relevant.  Otherwise, it's just another gratuitous slight.  --Leifern 15:08, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

 * Certainly to put an end to Jewish immigration, nevertheless "protest the impact of" is also a valid reason. As for mentioning every single country that employ those practices, that's completely unreasonable. This is an article about the Great Uprising. Only relevant parties can be mentioned. The British, the Jews and the Palestinians. --AladdinSE 17:15, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I could argue that the impact of Jewish immigration was economic prosperity, employment, and increased opportunities for education. Specifically, the Arab leadership wanted an end immigration (and thereby allow Jews to be murdered in Europe, something the mufti already supported), and your phrase obfuscates that.  And unless you can prove and document that a) there is a causal connection between practices you allege among both the Brits and the Israelis; and b) that there is credible evidence that such practices are used in the same way; it is nothing but an attempt to smear Israelis.  Which is what I think it is anyway.  --Leifern 19:35, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

You could argue anything you want. The facts on the ground is that any country is going to be massively destabilized when vast numbers of foreign immigrants arrive espousing an alien movement (Zionism) and waving holy histories and scriptures which are completely foreign to the native population. No one is going to overlook the fact that these immigrants are arriving to establish a State in which Muslims and Christians will be second class citizens just because there are possible opportunities for "more jobs and education." I'm also sick of Zionists blaming Arabs for European atrocities. Arabs didn't want Europeans and foreigners PERIOD Jewish or otherwise. They went into league with the Brits and the French against the Ottomans and when the Brits and French betrayed them and become colonialists and broke promises, they became enemies. The Egyptians rose against the British and the Algerians and Syrians rose against the French, completely independently of the Palestine question. As for proving and documenting, that always amuses me when editors selectively apply these requirements. Where is the support and documentation for the version you put in? --AladdinSE 12:10, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, we're trying to create a neutral article here. My point is that we should stick with the neutral fact (which is that the rioters wanted immigration stopped) rather than interpretations of what the impact was.  Similarly, if we're going to link two events, the linkage has to have some purpose and meaning.  By writing that I could "argue," I was merely pointing out that there is a version of events that is in dispute with yours, and IMHO more credible.  These disagreements should also be covered here, but I'd like to isolate them to the relevant articles rather than dragging them into every single one.  --Leifern 13:03, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

 * One more thing: I don't remember anyone blaming Arabs for European atrocities (though Arab regimes should obviously be blamed for atrocities in their countries, of which there have been many). The reason European atrocities have been brought into the picture is because Jews in Europe between 1933 and 1945 were the victims of genocide and had little recourse of places to go to save themselves.  That may be completely irrelevant to Arabs, but it wasn't irrelevant to the Jews - the riots resulted in even more restricted Jewish immigration, which was fine with the Arabs, but not so fine with the Jews, who were murdered.  --Leifern 13:07, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to see what exactly is the dispute here. Clearly the Arabs wanted to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, as Leifern claims, and the reason for that is the impact this immigration would have on Arab political prospects in Palestine, as AladdinSE claims. These two claims are perfectly consistent with each other and complement each other.--Doron 14:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "emergency" practices that the British adopted at this time, and especially the regulations they passed to justify them legally, were a direct antecedent of the later Israeli practices. In 1948 many of those regulations were adopted wholesale into Israeli law. Since then the law as applied within Israel has been replaced by home-grown laws that still allow much the same practices, but in the territories the British regulations are still applied (the legal lineage passing through the Jordanian occupation). All of this is highly relevant to the article and deserves to be there. The existence of similar practices in other countries is beside the point. --Zero 14:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That's your opinion - feel free to include as long as you write "User Zero000's opinion is..." You have no way of knowing what the antecedent is besides biased speculation.  If you include this causal connection, I will have no choice but to explain why Israel does what she does, and argue the very premise.  --Leifern 14:12, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion, it's a plain fact that anyone can check. Ask any Israeli lawyer where Israel's "Emergency Regulations" came from. The British passed the main regulations in 1937 then amended them in 1945. Israel adopted them in 1948 except for a few that were explicitly repealed by the Law and Administration Ordinance (1948). Some other British laws such as one on collective punishments passed in 1936 were part of Israeli law until repealed in the 1960s. All this is common knowledge.  See  for more information (or any convenient book on the sources of Israeli law). Since Jordan did not repeal these regulations in 1948 with regard to the West Bank, they were deemed to still apply there in 1967 (Military Proclamation 2, 7 June 1967). --Zero 14:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Response to Leifern from yesterday) You did say Arab regimes wanted to "allow Jews to be murdered in Europe" which is outrageous. They had nothing to do with the European war. They were only concerned about their political status in Palestine. If anyone allowed Jews to be murdered in Europe it was Europeans. Arabs were busy fighting Ottomans and the British and the French for independence. As for sticking with neutral facts, I'm all for it but that does not mean discarding facts because they make Israel appear to disadvantage. Are you disputing that Israel adopted much of the British law codes regarding arrests demolitions and the like? --AladdinSE 14:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would have to do research to find out whether Israel adopted British laws regarding such practices; I simply don't know. But it's absolutely irrelevant to the article about this uprising.

At the risk of ruining a good argument, why don't I summarize what we know for fact and what we don't know. We don't know that the Arabs had a cunning plan by which they would stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, leaving them to be slaughtered in Europe by the Nazis. We do know that: 1. Palestinian Arabs' political prospects were threatened by Jewish immigration (or at least that is how they perceived it); 2. Consequently, they objected to Jewish immigration and settlement and wanted to stop it; 3. Stopping Jewish immigration and settlement was one of the goals of the Great Uprising; 4. The British exercised harsh measures to counter the Uprising; 5. Some of these measures were later employed by Israel.

Now I believe this description is more or less NPOV, except that the last item appears to me to be irrelevant to the Uprising. Does the article reflect the above? What's missing?--Doron 17:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that point 5) is irrelevant; I'm not sure if "political prospects" were the central issue, but I'm willing to accept it for the time being. As for "letting Jews get murdered in Europe," that is precisely the consequence of the action.  I haven't included it in the article, but it's more relevant to the issue than what Israel did or didn't do at a later stage.  --Leifern 22:44, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * To avoid further argument, I'll agree that they are both irrelevant.--Doron 22:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That summary looks to be sound. As for point 5 not being relevant to the uprising, what could be less accurate. Only consider, a direct result of the uprising was that a bevy of laws and regulations were incorporated into the Israeli state because of the effectiveness the British had in clamping down on Arab rebellions. These laws are now used against later uprisings, the Intifads. That goes to the heart of the Uprising's legacy. --AladdinSE 07:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree this was a direct result of the Uprising. All British law was incorporated into the Israeli law once she gained independence, and to this day British law still has some status in Israel (even British laws that have been passed since then, AFAIK). There was nothing special about these particular laws in terms of effectiveness, I'm sure similar laws have been used in other countries and it is only by coincidence that the same laws that are used nowadays in Israel against Arabs (and Jews in certain occations) have also been used during the British mandate against Arabs and Jews. Had the British not introduced these laws, rest assured that Israel would have passed equivalent laws to suite her purposes. In other words, it's like saying that the fact that the IDF uses rifles is related to the fact that the British used rifles. The Uprising and the Intifada are two very different events in the history of the Jewish-Arab conflict, and I think the connection between the two is slim.--Doron 09:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course the Uprising and the Intifadas were two totally different events. One great event leaving a mark and a legacy which significantly connected to later events does not in any way merge the two events. The issuing of rifles is hardly the same as the adoption of a set of codified laws of a previous power. That other civil laws were adopted not related to suppression of dissent and armed risings does not detract from the Great Uprising's direct legacy into modern risings like the Intifadas. --AladdinSE 07:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * You have raised an interesting issue - to what extent was the Great Uprising an inspiration for the Intifada. If you have something to say about this, it would be very interesting, but it is quite a different issue from the similarity of means used by the authorities to counter these two uprisings.--Doron 09:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree it's an interesting point, but it would have to be substantiated both in terms of references and logic to belong in this article. The reason I'm saying this, btw, is that the "Israeli side" also can draw all kinds of links, and this whole article will become yet another debate forum.  --Leifern 14:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I don't think inspiration is the right word. I doubt the kids throwing rocks in the intifadas are thinking of Haj Amin al Huseyn and the Great Uprising. I was thinking of technical details regarding how a set of laws codified by the British for a specific purpose and then later adopted by Israel for a similar purpose, is a significant legacy, historical link, whatever you want to call it. --AladdinSE 06:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I still see this as nothing but coincidence. Israel could have adopted any set of laws to counter the Intifada, and it just happend to already have suitable laws inherited from the British mandate. By the way, Israel used (and still uses) these very same laws even before the Intifada, and not just against Arabs, but also against extreme Left-wing Jews and extreme Right-wing Jews (which is, in my opinion, just as irrelevant).--Doron 09:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I find Doron's argument persuasive. Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the whole discussion is really unnecessary. The law AladdinSE refers to, that was used by Israel in the Intifada (as well as before and after), has nothing to do with the Great Uprising - it is the Defense (Emergency) Regulations 1945, introduced 6 years after the Uprising was over. See also on punitive house demolitions, deportation and administrative detention.--Doron 14:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That Btselem links are excellent, but in no way do they say that those laws had nothing to do with the Great Uprising. Coincidence? Not even close. The laws were specifically crafted as martial law measures designed to put down unrest, that were used against Arabs and Jews is besides the point. 6 years is not a lifetime by any means, and in any case the laws were only codified in 1945 out of regulations very likely used directly after the Uprising as a matter of military imperatives. The Uprising clearly inspired those laws, and it is a clear legacy to the present that these same laws are used to put down uprisings to this day. Incidentally, if you remember, it was not I who proposed this information about the laws designed by the Mandate Brits and adopted by Israel, it was another editor's, I just find it to be relevant and support it's inclusion. --AladdinSE 10:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * These means have been in use since the dawn of history. I'm sure the Romans detained and deported people and demolished houses back during the Great Jewish Revolt. The British did not invent anything new during the Great Uprising (or during previous riots in Palestine and elsewhere), and they codified these measures into the Defense (Emergency) Regulations a few years after the Uprising was over, after which Israel, inheriting the British legal system, has used these laws in many occasions, including the Intifada.
 * Therefore, we have the means, that were not unique to the conflicts in questions, as similar means have been used by the British (and other powers) in other conflict in Palestine as well as other territories, before and after; and we have the particular regulations, that have been codified after the Uprising was over, and thus had nothing to do with its suppression.--Doron 20:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly they were influenced by the Revolt, but, by extension, relating that (methods of suppression) to the Intifida seems too much a stretch. The sets of laws themsleves are incidental here, unlike what was being enforced and how (compared to other uprisings). Fact is that the two uprisings were very different, very different conditions, domestically and beyond, as were the means used to combat both. Crucially, is there is a scholarly current or otherwise notable opinion which makes explicit use of these juxtapositions? El_C 21:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Significance/relationality of this legal inheretness, that is. El_C 21:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Not yet, and it has been a week since the issue first erupted. It's out for now, pending some sort of notable opinion linking the two. Jayjg (talk) 06:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I'm removing the npov tag for now. El_C 06:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it is reasonable to require a source for the juxtaposition of the Great Uprising and the 2 intifadas relative to the inherited British suppression laws and regulations. I will not return it if I cannot find one. SIGH oh for a few short hours to do some wiki research. If I never see another airport again it will be too soon. --AladdinSE 07:36, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * And you may well find it. Glad we can establish consensus. Safe flying. El_C 22:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photos leaders of the Revolution
Arab guerrillas in the British mandate of Palestine during a period of unrest. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/arab-guerrillas-in-the-british-mandate-of-palestine-during-news-photo/2635376

Irgun attacks on the British during WWII
In the subheading "Impact on the Jewish Yishuv" the last sentence reads "During the War over 30,000 Jews joined the British forces and even the Irgun ceased operations against the British" Regardless of the source, this is not true. The Irgun attacked British targets in September 27 and 29 in 1944. This statement is also misleading as it implies that members of the "Jewish Yishuv" were supportive of the British yet the Stern Gang for example was still very much actively involved in attacking British targets during the war.

Correct the name of an article within an article: 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
Please correct the title of the article Battle of Nur Shams to the Battle of Anabta In the main article 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Selfstudier Nishidani.

This article
This is a very flawed article. It focuses on Arab action against British colonialists and the British response and tells very little about the murderous Arab terror against innocent Jewish repatriants and natives in the country ("Palestine"). Thus, it gives readers a very distorted impression of "just and innocent Palestinian Arab rebels, persecuted by Britis and Jewsih occupants", blasphemously idealizing these terrorists and murderers. What do I need to do to be able to edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:3A1:E700:D048:2A1:1B15:99C5 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to (1) get an account, (2) get 30 days of maturity and 500 edits outside of Arab-Israeli article space, (3) bring reliable sources to support your edits. Zerotalk 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do it need to have 500 edits(why not 50000?) "outside of Arab-Israeli article space"? Why has the Wikipedia's administration taken such great measures against editing this pro-terrorist (at the moment and for a long time) article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A041:3A1:E700:B8C8:56:BF03:104D (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can read the details here. Zerotalk 05:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2023
The flag attributed to " Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine" in infobox seems to be a flag of a certain "Ladonia" and nothing is cited to support this claim, i suspect vandalism therefore this (which uses a flag of so-called nation named "Ladonia")

"* Volunteers from Arab world Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine (October 1937 – 1939) "

in source should be

"* Volunteers from Arab world Cactus Ronin (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Central Committee of National Jihad in Palestine (October 1937 – 1939) "
 * ✅ thanks. Zerotalk 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Name change
I would change the Name of this article to
 * 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Mandatory Palestine.

The current variant sounds like there was a independent "Palestinian" state. AstroSaturn (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrongly cited source -- requesting someone make a small change on my behalf
The article states that "By one estimate, ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population between 20 and 60 was killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled." It cites pp. 21 and 35 of Rashid Khalidi's 2001 text, The Palestinians and 1948 (link). This is incorrect. The proper pages are pp. 27 and 35. I cannot make the appropriate edit as I have not made enough contributions to Wikipedia, so I'm hoping someone will help me. Gkroth (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Picture
Can you please upload a newer version of this picture? through. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If allowed, then yes. Can you advise on this? We have an image in Wikicommons I uploaded from the archive of photographer Mohamed Ali Eltaher (archive link) dated 1937. There is a better quality version of the same image in the above-linked Aljazeera English article. Can we simply replace or is the improved version not public domain like the original? Al Ameer (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the same picture from the same year so still in public domain despite the quality. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem here, for both versions, is that it's not where it was taken that determines the copyright, but where it was published and by who. It is possible it was first published in the UK or such, which would make the situation more complicated. The caption in the Arabic version says it's a Getty image. Perhaps this information can be tracked down there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, here is the Getty caption: "This photograph was found on the body of Nur Ibrahim a well known leader of the Arab rebellion, who was killed by a patrol of the West Kents (Photo by Popperfoto via Getty Images/Getty Images)". This page says "This picture was found on the body of Nur Ibrahim, well-known leader of the Arab rebellion, who was killed with four of his men in the hills by a British patrol. November 16, 1938. Photographer:Sydney Morning Herald", which is obviously incorrect, but it may be where it was first published. But if it's true, then it is public domain per Australian copyright laws too. It's a bit complicated, so perhaps it's a good idea to ask at Commons, but it can perhaps result in us having a more solid copyright tag and then we can use any large resolution version of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've started a section about it here: FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for going above and beyond on this. I’m keeping tabs on the discussion at Commons and await its conclusion. Hopefully we’re even allowed to use the image in any version. Al Ameer (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, we can probably update to a larger version, we just need to be clear about the authorship issues in its description, and we should probably look for the highest res version available. I wonder if the killed rebel who owned the photo needs an article... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your diligence —I will proceed on that understanding. The highest-quality version appears to be the Alamy stock photo but it has watermarks. The next best might be the one used in the Aljazeera article, which is the one I’ll upload with the corrections about its authorship. Would the 1938 newspaper article need to be linked as well?
 * Unfortunately, so far, I could not find much about Nur Ibrahim (or Nour Ibrahim, Nūr Ibrahīm), at least to start an article, even though the newspaper calls him "well known". There were dozens of such rebel band commanders. Al Ameer (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Doing a Google image search, I found an even larger version and updated the one on Commons, so all you have to do is update the description with the circumstances, and I think you could use any of the links above as source for that. Note I also found there is another version of the image on Commons: FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah glad to see it uploaded now, thanks. It's such good resolution that now suddenly you can see some words written on the flag. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good deal; added info about the circumstances of its discovery and publication, though still not sure identity of the photographer. As for the men in the photo, the Eltaher website claims that the photo shows Abd al-Qadir Yusuf Abd al-Hadi and his men (one of whom could have been Nur Ibrahim?). Al Ameer (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably good to add as much sourced info as possible to the description, yeah. It seems it's ok we don't know the exact identity of the photographer, which might make it an "anonymous work". FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could have, no way to find out I guess. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, interesting that this image appears to show female fighters. Could be nice to find a higher res version and more info about it, to counter some modern stereotypes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, Google image research works like a charm, it's Fatima Khalil Ghazal. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024
Please remove the "dubious" tag from the last sentence of the lead. There is no reason given, and no discussion on the talk page. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9D66:91FE:4F7D:11 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9D66:91FE:4F7D:11 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 (2)
Please change "the immediate spark for the uprising was the murder of two Jews" to "the immediate spark for the uprising was the murder of two Jews ". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9D66:91FE:4F7D:11 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request
This edit in lead has a few grammar mistakes. "Was began" doesn't make sense. I think it would be better if sentence read (changes in bold): The first phase began as spontaneous popular resistance, which was seized on by the urban and elitist Arab Higher Committee, giving the movement an organized shape that was focused mainly on strikes and other forms of political protest, in order to secure a political result.2800:250A:20:768B:17D8:D622:8C9E:E4D5 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you, done. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Change to lead to be discussed and reviewed
I changed the lead from:

"[...] demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a 'Jewish National Home'."

to

"The movement sought independence from British colonial rule and the end of the British authorities' support for Zionism, which sought the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine by means of mass migration and displacement of the local Arab population."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Change biased text
Please, change

The movement sought independence from British colonial rule and the end of the British authorities' support for Zionism, which sought the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine by means of mass migration and displacement of the local Arab population.

to

demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".

The current version is:

1) biased. Is sounds like the Grand Replacement conspiracy theory.

2) incorrect. Only some types of Zionism seek displacement of Arabs. Socialist Zionism, the most popular at that time, demanded one state for Arabs and Jews.

3) Also, the current version doesn't clearly tell the exact aims of Arabs (end migration and ban land purchases).

Thank you! CEO of NYC (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the early Zionist leaders explicitly stated that they were going to replace the indigenous population, and transfer it elsewhere. This was done openly, not conspiratorially. But I suggest you read Matthew Hughes, Britain’s Pacification of Palestine: The British Army, the Colonial State, and the Arab Revolt, 1936–1939, Cambridge University Press 2019 ISBN 978-1- 107- 10320-7, starting with its incipit:
 * "'The Arab revolt from 1936 to 1939 – al-Thawra al-Kubra, ‘the Great Revolt’ in Arabic – was a popular uprising by Palestinians battling British Mandate rule in Palestine and Jewish immigration to the country.' p.1"
 * From the second aliyah onwards, socialist Zionism implemented the substitution wherever possible of Arab labour with Jewish labour recruited from the immigrants. It was intrinsically ethnosocialist, despite a scattering of nice statements.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Also the requested edit offers no sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine


text:
Talk:Index of Azerbaijan-related articles

Azerbaijan is the name of a region in Northwestern Iran. The name of the country which has decided to steal the name of that Iranian region in recent history is the Azerbaijan Republic. Using Azerbaijan without Republic points to that Iranian region not the new country in the Caucasus. --Mani1 22:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Rason

Rason (formerly Rajin-Sŏnbong; ) is a North Korean special city and ice-free port in the Sea of Japan in the North Pacific Ocean on the northeast tip of North Korea. It is in the Kwanbuk region and location of the Rason Special Economic Zone.

In South Korean pronunciation, the initial "R" of the name is pronounced as "N", (나선, Naseon) as per standard Korean phonology. In 2000, the name was shortened from "Rajin-Sŏnbong" to "Rason". During the 1930s, the Japanese called it Rashin; at that time, it was an important port at the end of a railroad line. It fell under the control of the Red Army on 14 August 1945.

Before 1991, Rason was used by the Soviet Union as an alternative warm-water port in case Vladivostok was unavailable. The Soviet naval facilities were built starting in 1979. From 1993 to 2004, it was administered separately from North Hamgyŏng as the directly governed city (chikhalsi) of Rason. Prior to 1993 and from 2004 to 2009, the city had been part of the North Hamgyŏng Province. Since 2010, the city is a "special city", again breaking from provincial control, but different from its older designation as a directly governed city. What this means in practice is unclear.

Rason borders Hunchun county in Jilin province of China and Khasansky District in Primorsky Krai of Russia. China is making investments in the port as it gives it access to the Sea of Japan. In July 2011, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) gave a green light for China's domestic trade cargo to be shipped via its port of Rajin from northeast to east China. Coal is shipped from nearby Chinese mines to Shanghai. A casino by the sea caters to Chinese visitors.

Administrative divisions
Rason is divided into two district (kuyŏk).

Rajin-guyŏk (라진구역; 羅津區域)

 * Anhwa-dong (안화동/安和洞)
 * Anju-dong (안주동/安住洞)
 * Jigyŏng-dong (지경동/地境洞)
 * Junghyŏn-dong (중현동/中峴洞)
 * Changphyŏng-dong (창평동/倉坪洞)
 * Chŏnggye-dong (청계동/淸溪洞)
 * Hahyŏn-dong (하현동/下峴洞)
 * Haebang-dong (해방동/解放洞)
 * Kwangok-dong (관곡동/寬谷洞)
 * Namsan-dong (남산동/南山洞)
 * Tongmyŏng-dong (동명동/東明洞)
 * Sanghyŏn-dong (상현동/上峴洞)
 * Sinan-dong (신안동/新安洞)
 * Sinhae-dong (신해동/新海洞)
 * Sinhŭng-dong (신흥동/新興洞)
 * Songphyŏng-dong (송평동/松坪洞)
 * Yŏkchŏn-dong (역전동/驛前洞)
 * Yuhyŏn-dong (유현동/踰峴洞)
 * Muchang-ri (무창리/武倉里)
 * Huchang-ri (후창리/厚倉里)

Sŏnbong-guyŏk (선봉군; 先鋒郡)

 * Sŏnbong-ŭp (선봉읍/先鋒邑)
 * Tuman'gang-rodongjagu (두만강로동자구/豆滿江勞動者區)
 * Ungsang-rodongjagu (웅상로동자구/雄尙勞動者區)
 * Chosal-li (조산리/造山里)
 * Hahoe-ri (하회리/下檜里)
 * Hayŏp'yŏng-ri (하여평리/下汝坪里)
 * Hongŭi-ri (홍의리/洪儀里)
 * Kulp'o-ri (굴포리/屈浦里)
 * Paekhang-ri (백학리/白鶴里)
 * Pup'o-ri (부포리/鮒浦里)
 * Sahoe-ri (사회리/四會里)
 * Uam-ri (우암리/牛岩里)
 * Wŏnjŏng-ri (원정리/元汀里)

Climate
Rason has a humid continental climate (Köppen climate classification: Dwb).

Port
The Korean People's Navy maintains a naval training base at the Rajin Port in the city of Rason. In addition, a Chinese company in 2017 leased a dock for 10 years at the port.

Foreign Investments
The Rason Emperor Hotel and Casino is a resort and casino in Rason owned by the Emperor Group, a diversified Hong Kong based commercial group.

Oil Refinery
Rajin Oil Refinery is the largest oil refinery in North Korea. Although North Korea itself lacks oil wells, they can and do import oil from other countries to supply their refineries. Large oil tankers are spotted multiple times unloading at the Rajin port.

Mining
Rason has a number of mineral resources within the locality, including coal, iron, magnesite, and clay.

Ship building
Rason is home to No 28 Shipyard Najin, a shipbuilder and supplier to the Korean People's Navy.

Rail
Rajin Station is on the Pyongra Line and Hambuk Line. The Hongui Line was opened in 1959, connecting Rason with the Russian Khasan on the Tumen River; the river is the natural North Korea–Russia border.

Road
The Tumen River Bridge connects between Hunchun and Rason.

Sister cites
Hunchun, Jilin, Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, People's Republic of China.

title: Rason


text:
Talk:Lists of country-related topics

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan is the name of a region in northwestern Iran not the country which has recently decided to call itself like this. The name of that country is Azerbaijan republic. - Mani1 22:47, August 15, 2004 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories
User:Huaiwei has been trying to move all non-sovereign territories to the section titled "lists for subnational entities, continents and other regions" , not a surprising move for he has always been equating the definitions of country and (sovereign) state in his previous edits to other articles, treating them as synonyms. I would like to request for third-party opinion on how this list should be sorted, and on the definition of country. — Instantnood 10:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not making a judgement either way. This list should be a reflection of List of countries.  I think that list is glommed up with extra junk, but that's where the discussion should be. SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Informational vs. navigational uses
Please keep in mind that lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, and categories often have primarily navigational uses: they are there to make it easy for readers to find information. Articles, on the other hand, are primarily informational, and should strive for precision. Such precision is not required, perhaps it would even be counterproductive, in navigational tools. A reader may be looking for information on Lower Elbonia without knowing whether it's a sovereign state, dependent possession, colony, etc. I'm under the impression that the present list exists mainly to aid in navigation, and as such it should be inclusive even if that means sacrificing some precision. There is simply no space here for details, caveats, nit-picking, etc.; all these things can be dealt with in the appropriate articles. There should be many possible ways to find an article on a given topic, including ones arising from common misconceptions, and then those misconceptions can be cleared up in the article itself. So, if in doubt, I'd rather make this list more inclusive. --MarkSweep✍ 01:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. These are lists for what the English word country generally means. It's not a tool to for anybody to illustrate one's point of view over the meaning of this word. — Instantnood 18:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the simple solution to this issue, is to avoid the word "Country", but to use more nuetral terms such as "political entity". "XXX by political entity" is much less contentious than "XXX by country", and it may be the way forward for all related pages/categories in wikipedia.--Huaiwei 05:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's see how many people would consider it contentious not to equate country with sovereign State. — Instantnood 07:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's see how many people would consider "country" more politically nuetral than "political entity". --Huaiwei 08:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned at the CFD, political entitiy can be everything. — Instantnood 08:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And according to you, a country can be everything too. Are they? If you want to insist a country is everything, then wont a political entity be far better?--Huaiwei 08:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Ontario, California, Texas, Bavaria, or Greater London, City of London, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles County are all political entities, but they are not country. — Instantnood 08:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh really? They are sub-national entities, which is classified under the country category. So are they countries?--Huaiwei 08:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:subnational entities was under category:countries. But since I has never been involved in editing these two categories, don't think you have any evidence to say whether I agree or disagree with it. As I've mentioned at CFD, nobody has said ordinary subnational entities are countries. — Instantnood 09:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Dont evade the question. Since you prefer the country category, then I am asking you how feasible it is as a category for all political entities, including that for subnational entities. How is this related to whether you have made an edit in those categories or not? Your nomination for CFD means you are already involved in the dispute. And how is this related to whether anyone is calling "ordinary subnational entities are countries", whatever that means? Quit hidding behind robotic lines, and explain yourself. Your evasive attitude is not helping the situation, and is far from reflective of someone serious about dispute resolution.--Huaiwei 09:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting... you put words into my mouth, and when I denied them you're saying I'm "evasive" and "hid d ing behind robotic lines". :-D (In fact I've already spelt out ordinary subnational entities are political entities but not countries, and you carried on challenging on it with something not quite relevant .) — Instantnood 10:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha...so just what words am I putting in your mouth? Kindly state these exact words for us, coz I simply have no idea which one could fit into your mouth? Now lets see. You say "Ontario, California, Texas, Bavaria, or Greater London, City of London, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles County are all political entities, but they are not country." I suggested moving the "sub-national" category from "countries" to "political entities". You nominated the later for CFD. By this chain of events, do you actually consider them countries or not? Hence my "not quite relevant" question. By your CFD, are you claiming all entities under the "country" category are countries? You have not answered the question, so if that is not being evasive, what is? :) --Huaiwei 10:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You did not suggest to move it, you just moved it. And what I care was that you're creating category:political entities and populated it by moving the children categories and articles which confortably fit into category:country en masse to illustrate a point, I don't pay attention to every single item you have moved. From what I've said anybody can tell I don't agree category:subnational entities being grouped under category:countries. — Instantnood 11:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am so sorry for the wrong words used. But your concerns appear more rooted to your feelings towards me as a wikipedian then to wikipolicies or for the good of wikipedia as a website. Why is the above move considered "illustrating a point", when it was merely an act to put right an NPOV issue? You express reservations over the movement of "children categories and articles which confortably fit into category:country en masse". Can you now claim that all articles in all children categories of category:country fit comfortably in it? Are all enclaves countries? Are all disputed territories countries? Are all subnational entities countries? Are all microstates countries? Are all principalities countries? Conversely, are all the above not political entities? You cannot seem to answer these questions adequately. As I stated in the CFD, I rejected your nomination because you are clearly not nominating based on fact, but doing so because you have personal issues against another wikipedian. By your own statements above, you admit to this fact. Is it appriopriate for the CFD process to be vandalised this way?--Huaiwei 11:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision. While most children categories and articles confortably fit into category:countries, I don't think all fit into it. Category:subnational entities is one, since ordinary subnational entities are not countries. Disruptive behaviour, including disrupting to illustrate a point, is not personal issue at all. — Instantnood 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem very familiar with the arbcoms involving other members. Anyhow, lets now look at that matter-of-factly. Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. If someone is looking for information on any type of territory, will he be looking at it in "countries", or "political entities", irrespective of whatever political viewpoint he may adopt? Insisting on placing all the above categories in "countries" is like insisting placing Golan Heights in either one of those two categories. You say you "don't think all fit into it." So why do you insist on keeping it when a superior classification option is presented? Why are "ordinary subnational entities" not countries, when according to the definition in Oxford dictionary, they could very well be? And would you mind elaborating on "Disruptive behaviour, including disrupting to illustrate a point, is not personal issue at all", because I catch no head nor tail in what you are trying to say?--Huaiwei 12:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Title move proposal
In light of the above disputes, I propose changing the title of this page to Lists of topics by political entity. I would think this will permanantly put an end to all related disputes over just what should be listed here.--Huaiwei 08:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood and Huaiwei Bans
Sorry I missed this one for a couple of days, couldn't be more blatantly obvious that a ban of these two on this article is required as well. --Wgfinley 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the value of these lists?
I just redirected List of Morocco-related topics to Category:Morocco. I undid it because I found this page, but frankly I'd be tempted to just run around and AfD the lot. Why do we need these articles? Surely having categories for the countries is a great way to approach this issue... What value are the lists adding here that the categories aren't? -- cmh 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a matter of preference. Some people prefer to navigate by categories and some prefer to navigate by links. NorthernThunder 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem of incompleteness
Shouldnt all these lists have the "dynamic list" tag on them? i know some of them are very sketchy, and without this tag, wikipedia users may not realize how much more there is. im personally opposed to these lists, preferring to use the category system, which this duplicates poorly. but in any case, even with monumental effort, these lists will always be incomplete. example: Brazilian Press is an American based newspaper covering Brazil. so its a US company, but also Brazil related. its like the question for a bookseller: if you specialize in science fiction, do you carry only science fiction novels and short story collections, or every product that a typical science fiction fan might like to purchase? lots of work to be inclusive. so, does anyone know why these lists dont seem to have this tag on them? (i havent checked them all of course) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Per Talk:Index of Croatia-related articles, I don't see how dynamic list is even a goal - these indices by and large don't seem to have a sources section. So it looks like they are supposed to be contained in a well-defined scope, similar to how disambiguation pages list only entries that have some pre-existing proof of notability. But why don't we define that scope, then? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lists of country-related topics


text: File:2003 Quebec general election, Le Devoir.jpg


text:
Hurricane Donna

Hurricane Donna, known in Puerto Rico as Hurricane San Lorenzo, was the strongest hurricane of the 1960 Atlantic hurricane season, and caused severe damage to the Lesser Antilles, the Greater Antilles, and the East Coast of the United States, especially Florida, in August–September. The fifth tropical cyclone, third hurricane, and first major hurricane of the season, Donna developed south of Cape Verde on August 29, spawned by a tropical wave to which 63 deaths from a plane crash in Senegal were attributed. The depression strengthened into Tropical Storm Donna by the following day. Donna moved west-northwestward at roughly 20 mph and by September 1, it reached hurricane status. Over the next three days, Donna deepened significantly and reached maximum sustained winds of 130 mph on September 4. Thereafter, it maintained intensity as it struck the Lesser Antilles later that day. On Sint Maarten, the storm left a quarter of the island's population homeless and killed seven people. An additional five deaths were reported in Anguilla, and there were seven other fatalities throughout the Virgin Islands. In Puerto Rico, severe flash flooding led to 107 fatalities, 85 of them in Humacao alone.

Donna further intensified to a Category 4 hurricane early on September 6, and attained peak winds of 145 mph twenty-four hours later. The storm then weakened over the next few days, making multiple landfalls in The Bahamas as a Category 3 hurricane. Donna generated severe wind gusts of up to 173 mph over southern portions of the archipelago nation, and prolific rains affected the country and the nearby Turks and Caicos Islands. Several small island communities in the southern regions of The Bahamas were leveled, but no damage total or fatalities were reported.

As it neared the United States, Donna encountered weaker steering currents, turned northwestward, and re-intensified. Early on September 10, Donna made landfall on the Florida Keys with winds of 145 mph, the most severe observed there since 1935. Donna then weakened as it paralleled the southwestern Florida peninsula, making landfall south of Naples with winds of 120 mph. In the Florida Keys, coastal flooding severely damaged 75% of buildings, destroyed several subdivisions in Marathon. On the mainland, 5,200 houses were damaged, which does not include the 75% of homes damaged at Fort Myers Beach; 50% of buildings were also destroyed in the city of Everglades. Crop losses were also extensive. A total of 50% of the grapefruit crop was lost, 10% of the orange and tangerine crop was lost, and the avocado crop was almost destroyed. In the state of Florida alone, there were 13 deaths and $300 million in losses.

Donna weakened over Florida and was a Category 1 hurricane when it re-emerged into the Atlantic from North Florida. By early on September 12, the storm made landfall near Topsail Beach, North Carolina, as a Category 2 hurricane. Donna brought tornadoes and wind gusts up to 100 mph, damaging or destroying several buildings in Eastern North Carolina, while crops were damaged as far as 50 mi inland. Additionally, storm surge caused significant beach erosion and structural damage at Wilmington and Nags Head. Eight people were killed and there were over 100 injuries. Later on September 12, Donna reemerged into the Atlantic Ocean and continued to move northeastward. The storm struck Long Island, New York, late on September 12 and rapidly weakened inland. On the following day, Donna became extratropical over Maine.

Meteorological history
On August 29, a tropical wave exited the west coast of Africa near Dakar. That day, it is estimated a tropical depression developed along the wave southeast of Cape Verde. There was a lack of data for several days, but it is estimated that the system gradually intensified. On September 2, ships in the region suggested there was a tropical storm after reporting winds of over 50 mi/h. That day, the Hurricane Hunters flew into the system and observed a well-defined eye, along with winds of 140 mph. Based on the data, the United States Weather Bureau office in San Juan, Puerto Rico, initiated advisories on Hurricane Donna at 22:00 UTC on September 2, about 700 mi east of the Lesser Antilles. It is estimated that the storm attained hurricane status a day prior. The Azores High to the north was unusually powerful, which caused Donna to move to the west-northwest. When advisories began, Donna was intensifying into a major hurricane, which is the equivalent of a Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale; it would ultimately maintain this status for nearly eight days.

Continuing to the west-northwest, Donna strengthened further, attaining maximum sustained winds of 125 mph at 00:00 UTC on September 4—an intensity it maintained for two more days. Operationally, winds were estimated to be 145 mph. Late on September 4, the eye of Donna moved over Barbuda, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, and Anguilla, and passed just south of Anegada. Donna was then well-organized, described in the Monthly Weather Review as akin to "an intense, idealized hurricane." A weakening trough to the north turned the hurricane more northwesterly, bringing it within 85 mi of the north coast of Puerto Rico. The storm then underwent further intensification to Category 4 status on September 6, and reached its first peak of 145 mph by 00:00 UTC on September 7. At that time, Donna began turning more to the west as a ridge built to its north, and it soon weakened back to Category 3 status. Over the next few days, the intense hurricane moved slowly through the southern Bahamas without defined steering currents, and the eye passed near or over Mayaguana, Acklins, Fortune Island, and Ragged Island.

While passing through the Straits of Florida, Donna brushed the northern coast of Cuba on September 9 with gale-force winds. Subsequently, a cold front moved eastward through the United States and weakened the ridge, causing the hurricane to turn more to the northwest. It re-intensified over warm sea surface temperatures, and the hurricane's minimum barometric pressure dropped to 930 mbar on September 10. Between 02:00 and 03:00 UTC that day, the 21 mi eye of Donna crossed through the Florida Keys at Conch Key, just northeast of Marathon, with sustained winds of 145 mph and gusts to 178 mph. The hurricane continued to the northwest along the southwest coast of Florida, weakening due to interaction with the peninsula, before making landfall on Goodland, a short distance east of Marco Island, with winds of 120 mph. Donna then traversed Naples and Fort Myers before turning inland to the northeast.

At 0800 UTC on September 11, Donna exited Daytona Beach into the western Atlantic with winds of about 75 mph, still as an organized hurricane. Accelerating to the northeast due to an approaching trough, the hurricane re-intensified slightly before making landfall near Wilmington, North Carolina, early on September 12 with winds of 105 mph. At 0900 UTC that day, Donna again emerged over open waters near Virginia, although it had weakened, and the eye expanded to over 50 mi in diameter. Late on September 12, the hurricane made landfall near Brookhaven, New York, as a low-end Category 2 hurricane with sustained winds of 100 mph. On September 13, Donna became extratropical over northern Maine before entering eastern Canada, having become associated with the approaching cold front. After moving across Quebec and Labrador, Donna reached the Labrador Sea and dissipated early on September 14.

Preparations
At noon on September 3, a hurricane watch was issued for the Leeward Islands, which at 6 p.m. was upgraded to a warning. Also at 6 p.m., hurricane watches were raised for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, which at 6 a.m. on September 4, were upgraded to warnings. By 6 a.m. on September 5, hurricane warnings were dropped for the Leeward Islands, and at 9 a.m., southwest Puerto Rico and the Virgin Island's hurricane warnings were downgraded to gale warnings. By noon, all remaining hurricane warnings for Puerto Rico were changed to gale warnings. In Puerto Rico, flood warnings were issued on September 5, although some residents in the region did not heed the notice; many returned to their homes after the hurricane passed to the north. On Vieques Island, about 1,700 United States Marines evacuated to naval ships. Officials advised small boats to remain at port, and thousands of residents evacuated to schools set up as Red Cross shelters. Along the Cuban coast, about 3,000 people evacuated inland or to churches and schools; while in the Bahamas, stores closed and boats were sent to port.

Beginning on September 7, hurricane watches were put in place for the Florida coast from Key West to Melbourne. The next day, the watches were upgraded to hurricane warnings from Key West to Key Largo, with hurricane watches raised on the west coast northward to Fort Myers, and gale warnings issued from Key Largo to Vero Beach. By September 11, hurricane warnings were in effect for southern Florida from Daytona Beach on the east coast to Cedar Key on the west coast, including Lake Okeechobee. Gale warnings were in place northward from Cedar Key to St. Marks, as well as from Daytona Beach northward to Savannah, Georgia. Evacuations in the Florida Keys disrupted traffic along the Overseas Highway. The Air Force evacuated 90 Boeing B-47 Stratojets from Homestead Air Reserve Base (At that time Homestead AFB). At Cape Canaveral, the threat of the storm caused the launching of two missiles to be postponed. Most flights out of Miami International Airport were canceled during the storm's approach. Officials closed schools in Miami and the Florida Keys, and recommended residents in low-lying areas of the Florida Keys and southwestern Florida to evacuate. Ultimately, about 12,000 people in southern Florida sought refuge in storm shelters, two of which were damaged during the storm. In Miami-Dade County alone, there were 77 storm shelters housing 10,000 people.

At 5 p.m. on September 10, gale warnings were extended northward to Myrtle Beach. At 11 p.m., hurricane warnings were lowered in the Florida Keys but extended northward from Daytona Beach to Savannah, Georgia. At 11 a.m. on September 11, all warnings were lowered south of Vero Beach and along the Florida west coast, while hurricane warnings were extended northward from Savannah to Myrtle Beach. At 5 p.m., hurricane warnings were lowered south of Fernandina Beach, while they were extended northward to include the entire North Carolina coast. Gale warnings were issued northward to Cape May. At 9 p.m., hurricane warnings were extended northward to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, while gale warnings and a hurricane watch were issued northward to Eastport, Maine. Ships at dock in Newport, Rhode Island were towed out into the bay to weather the storm. On September 12 at 5 a.m., hurricane warnings were extended northward to Eastport, and dropped south of Cape Hatteras. At 7 a.m., hurricane warnings were lowered south of Cape Charles. At 2 p.m., hurricane warnings were dropped south of Cape May. At 5 p.m., hurricane warnings were discontinued south of Manasquan, New Jersey. At 8 p.m., hurricane warnings expired south of Block Island. By 11 p.m. on September 12, all hurricane warnings had been lowered.

Impact
Hurricane Donna was a very destructive hurricane that caused extensive damage from the Lesser Antilles to New England. At least 364 people were killed by the hurricane and property damage was estimated at $900 million (1960 USD).

West Africa
The precursor to Hurricane Donna brought severe weather to the Dakar area of Senegal. Air France Flight 343, which was flying from Paris, France to Abidjan, Ivory Coast, attempted to land at the Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport as a layover. However, due to squally weather, the plane instead crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 63 people on board. Heavy rainfall was also reported in Cape Verde on August 30.

Caribbean
Hurricane Donna caused very extensive damage on Saint-Martin, killed 7 and left at least a quarter of the island's population homeless. A weather station in Sint Maarten reported sustained wind gusts of 125 mph and a 952 mbar pressure reading in the main airport. Donna killed two people on Antigua. During the passing of Hurricane Donna, Anguilla recorded five deaths, including a woman who died when the roof of her house collapsed.

Despite passing only 35 mi north of the island, Donna caused only minor damage on St. Thomas in the United States Virgin Islands. A station there reported a wind gust of 60 mph. Some fences were toppled, while several houses were reported to have been damaged or destroyed. Electrical and telephone services were also disrupted. The highest daily rainfall total on the island was 8.78 in, causing minor local flooding. On Saint John, several small boats capsized.

While passing to the north of Puerto Rico, Donna produced winds of 38 mph in San Juan. Along the north coast of the island, high tides of around 6 ft and strong waves caused coastal flooding. The hurricane dropped torrential rainfall, peaking at 16.23 in at Naguabo in the central portion of the island. Large areas of eastern Puerto Rico received over 10 in of precipitation. The hurricane left about 2,500 people homeless on the island. Despite advanced warning of the floods, the hurricane killed 107 people on the island, of which 84 were in Humacao.

In Haiti, the southern periphery of the hurricane killed three people in Port au Prince. Later, Donna brushed the north coast of Cuba with strong winds and heavy rainfall, causing damage along much of the coast. In Gibara, the storm wrecked 80 houses.

Turks and Caicos and Bahamas
On Grand Turk in the Turks and Caicos, Donna produced winds of 58 mph, as the strongest winds remained north of the island. However, the storm dropped heavy rainfall of over 20 in, much of which fell in a 12‑hour period. Despite the rains, damage there was minor.

In the Bahamas, the anemometer at Ragged Island blew away after registering a 150 mi/h wind gust. At Mayaguana, where residents evacuated to a missile tracking base, hurricane-force winds raged for 13 hours. The winds largely destroyed the village of Abraham's Bay on the island. Andros experienced hurricane-force winds for a few hours, and winds on Fortune Island were estimated at 173 mph before the anemometer blew away. The strongest winds remained south of the northwestern Bahamas, which limited damage there. Donna cut communications between several islands.

Several small island communities in the southern Bahamas were leveled. North Caicos reported 20 in of rainfall in 24 hours.

United States
There were 50 people reported dead in the United States, with damages totaling to $3.35 billion. Donna crossed directly over United States Air Force radar station Texas Tower 4, causing severe damage to the structure and leading to its eventual loss in January 1961.

Donna was the only hurricane to affect every state along the East Coast with hurricane-force winds.

Florida
The U.S. state of Florida received the most damage from Hurricane Donna. Portions of southern and western Florida received over 10 in of rainfall from the hurricane, peaking at 13.24 in. Strong winds were observed in the state, with a sustained wind speed of 120 mph in Tavernier and a gusts up to 150 mph at Sombrero Key Light. In Miami, winds reached 97 mph. Southeast of the city, high waves washed a 104 ft freighter onshore an island. The highest observed storm surge of 13 ft was reported at Marathon. The hurricane also lashed Southwest Florida, where tides were 4 to 7 ft above normal.

In the Florida Keys, some areas experienced "almost complete destruction". In Key West, one death was confirmed, and 71 people were injured. About 564 homes were demolished, and an additional 1,382 were damaged, 583 of them severely. Farther north, an estimated 75% of buildings were extensively damaged between Marathon and Tavernier. In the former, tides inundated the city and destroyed several subdivisions. Storm surge inundated parts of the Overseas Highway. Six bridges between Marathon and Craig Key had been nearly or entirely swept away. Many boats and docks were severely damaged or destroyed. Additionally, the pipeline supplying water to the Florida Keys was wrecked in three places.

In Miami-Dade County (then Dade County), thousands of low-lying homes in the Homestead area were flooded. The storm also overturned 25 mobile homes and caused one death in the city. While telephone service remained mostly uninterrupted, approximately 152,000 people lost electricity. Donna was the first hurricane to affect Miami, Florida, since Hurricane King in October 1950. Although structural damage in and around Miami was generally light, winds shattered windows and uprooted trees. Heavy precipitation inundated streets. Overall, 857 houses in Dade County were destroyed, while about 2,317 others suffered damage. Significant agricultural losses were also reported. About 100 homes in Broward County reported minor damage. In Boca Raton and Delray Beach, damage was mostly limited to downed billboard signs and shattered windows. Boynton Beach observed wind gusts up to 70 mph at the inlet. Storm surge covered State Road A1A with mud and sand. In North Palm Beach, winds shattered a few windows and destroyed a shopping center sign. A fire destroyed a cocktail lounge in Juno Beach after response teams were unable to extinguish the blaze due to high winds.

Large tracts of mangrove forest were lost in the western portion of Everglades National Park, while at least 35% of the white heron population in the park were killed. The lodge and marina at Flamingo, as well as a ranger's way station near Cape Sable, were virtually destroyed. Tides from Fort Myers Beach southward ranged between 4 and 7 ft above normal. In Everglades City, about 50% of buildings were destroyed due to strong winds and coastal flooding, and roofs were blown off or damaged. Floodwaters reached about 7 ft in height inside the historic Collier County Courthouse, forcing refugees taking shelter in the building to evacuate to the second floor. The city briefly became inaccessible due to inundated roads. Thousands of trees were toppled, blocking portions of the Tamiami Trail. Approximately half of the homes in Chokoloskee were destroyed, while floodwaters entered a number of homes in Ochopee. The community of Immokalee reported about $3 million in damage. In Naples, storm surge entered many high-priced homes, while the 900 ft fishing pier was wrecked. A total of 19 cottages and 12 mobile homes at Gordon Pass were damaged beyond repairs. Throughout Naples, Donna demolished 87 homes and damaged 614 others in Everglades City. The Miami News described Vanderbilt Beach as being reduced to "another welter of splintered homes." Throughout Collier County, strong winds and coastal flooding combined destroyed 153 homes, severely damaged 409 others, and caused minor damage to 1,049 dwellings.

Donna left about $3 million in property damage and two deaths in Fort Myers. A new church in Bradenton was destroyed, while much of the city was left without power. In Winter Haven, 13 homes were destroyed, 100 others suffered major damage, and 2,400 dwellings experienced minor damage. One person was killed in the city. The turn into southern Florida lessened damage in the Tampa area. High winds deroofed in armory building in Dade City sheltering 150 people. In Volusia County, Donna destroyed 10 homes, severely damaged 112 homes, and caused minor damage to 1,100 others, while 25 buildings were demolished, 400 substantially damaged, and inflicted minor damage to 750 others. One fatality occurred in the county.

Throughout the state of Florida, the storm destroyed 2,156 homes and trailers, severely damaged 3,903, and inflicted minor impact on 30,524 others. Approximately 391 farm buildings were destroyed, an additional 989 suffered extensive impact, and 2,499 others received minor damage. Roughly 174 buildings were demolished, 1,029 received major impact, and 4,254 suffered minor damage. Additionally, 281 boats were destroyed or severely damaged. A total of 50% of grapefruit crop was lost, 10% of the orange and tangerine crops were ruined, and the avocado crop was almost destroyed. With at least $350 million in damage in Florida alone, Donna was the costliest hurricane to impact the state, at the time. Additionally, there were 14 confirmed fatalities: six from drowning, four from heart attacks, two from automobile accidents, and two from electrocution. About 1,188 others were injured.

Southeastern United States and Mid-Atlantic
The storm brought minor impact to Georgia. Wind gusts of 50 mph along the coast felled trees and tree limbs, resulting in electrical and telephone-service outages. In Brunswick, GA, a power outage at the power plant caused a minor explosion. Heavy rainfall temporarily flooded some streets in the city. Further north in South Carolina, gale-force winds were reported along the coast, but caused little damage. An F3 tornado struck areas just north of Downtown Charleston, destroying several houses and severely damaging a number of others. There were 10 injuries, some of which were caused by flying glass. Damage from this tornado was over $500,000. An F1 tornado also touched down in Garden City Beach, destroying or extensively damaging six buildings. In Beaufort County, many trees were uprooted, power lines were downed, homes were unroofed, piers were destroyed, and there was significant damage to corn and soybean crops.

In North Carolina, Donna brought two tornadoes to the state. An F1 tornado damaged several small buildings in Bladen County. An F2 tornado in Sampson County destroyed a dwelling with eight occupants, all of whom were hospitalized. Along the coast, wind gusts as high as 100 mph damaged or destroyed several buildings. Additionally crops were damaged as far as 50 mi inland. Storm tides ranging from 4 to 8 ft above normal caused significant beach erosion and structural damage at Wilmington and Nags Head. Additionally, Topsail Beach was reported to have been 50% destroyed. In Southport, the town docks were almost completely demolished. There were eight deaths, including three from drowning, two from falling trees, two from weather-related traffic accidents, and one from electrocution. At least 100 people were injured enough to require hospitalization. Damage in North Carolina exceeded $5 million, with the worst impact occurring in New Hanover County.

In Virginia, the east coast of the state reported hurricane-force winds, while gusts reached up to 89 mph in Virginia Beach. Strong winds toppled trees and electrical wires, which blocked streets. Additionally, buildings suffered roof damage and broken windows; some structures were completely destroyed. Offshore, rough seas sank or destroyed numerous small crafts, while a 12000 t vessel was driven aground. The storm killed three people in Virginia; two of the deaths occurred when a barge collided with a freighter and later sank, and another after a man attempted to safeguard his boat. Strong winds and heavy rains were observed in eastern Maryland. Ocean City suffered the worst impact, with over $300,000 in property damage. The storm also damaged crops in the area, especially corn and apples. Effects from the storm in Delaware were similar, with property damage and considerable losses to corn and apple crops. In Pennsylvania, wind gusts up to 59 mph in the southeastern portions of the state toppled many trees and utility wires. Heavy rains and poor drainage in some areas flooded basements, lawns, and streets. Low-lying areas in Bucks and Montgomery counties were inundated with up to 3 ft of water after many streams and creeks nearby overflowed. One death in the state was reported after a boy was swept into a swollen creek behind his home in Sharon Hill.

Winds as strong as 100 mph were observed along the coast of New Jersey. Rainfall in the state was generally between 5 and 6 in, with a peak of 8.99 in near Hammonton. Damage from the storm was most severe in Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, and Ocean counties, where numerous boats, docks, boardwalks, and cottages were damaged or destroyed. A resort area in Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey saw its boardwalk and tourist attractions destroyed by the hurricane, and the area has never recovered. Losses to agriculture were significant, with damage to apple and peach trees "considerable", the former of which lost about one-third of its crops. Wind damage to corn, Sudan grass, and sorghum resulted in a delay in their harvest. Nine deaths were reported in the state of New Jersey. In southeastern New York, the eye of Donna crossed 10 miles to the eastern tip of Long Island. Heavy rains, hurricane-force winds, and "unprecedented" high tides were observed. Severe small stream flooding caused significant damage, especially on Long Island, the waterfront of New York City, and further north in Greene County. The storm caused three fatalities in the state, two from drowning and another from a person crushed by a falling tree.

The eye of Hurricane Donna crossed near the Connecticut and Rhode Island state line, thus much of the damage in Connecticut was in far eastern sections. Strong winds left 15,000 people without telephone service, while 88,000 homes lost electricity. Along the coast, tides caused beach erosion, inundated streets, and weakened foundations. Four seaside cottages were destroyed. Crop damage was isolated and mainly limited to apples and corn. In Rhode Island, the storm brought a wind gust as strong as 130 mph to Block Island. Telephone and electrical services were severely disrupted. Along the coast, high tides significantly damaged or destroyed about 200 homes at Narragansett Bay and Warwick cove. Damage to these vessels collectively totaled to over $2 million. Agriculture also suffered impact, particularly to fruit, timber, and poultry, especially in Newport and Portsmouth.

Elsewhere in North America
Strong winds were also observed in Massachusetts, with a wind gust of 145 mph at the Blue Hill Observatory. Extensive losses to apple orchards occurred, as the fruit was blown out of trees. Widespread telephone and power outages were reported. The strong southwest winds associated with Donna, in combination with very little rainfall, led to a significant deposit of salt spray, which whitewashed southwest-facing windows. Many trees and shrubs saw their leaves brown due to the salt. However, in other areas, 4 to 6 in of precipitation fell, causing some washouts and local flooding. Waves along the coast ripped small boats and pleasure craft from their moorings and subsequently smashed them against rocks or seawalls.

In Vermont, winds damaged trees, tree branches, and power lines, causing telephone and electrical service outages in a few communities. Rainfall totals ranged 2 - 5 in, resulting in washouts in some areas. Damage to apple orchards totaled $50,000. Along the coast of New Hampshire, many boats were smashed or damaged in some way. Strong winds felled trees and power lines, causing residents in the southern portions of the state to lose telephone service and electricity. Additionally, apple orchards suffered $200,000 in damage. Rainfall in the state peaked at 7.25 in near Peterborough, resulting in local flooding and washouts.

Along the coast, large waves damaged 15 to 20 boats in Falmouth, Maine harbor. Total boat damage was estimated at $250,000. Coastal residents in low-lying beach areas of Cumberland and York counties were evacuated in Maine. Several counties lost power during the storm. In Southwest Harbor, lightning struck the Dirigo Hotel, causing a fire that resulted in $100,000 in damages. Winds caused a loss of telephone and electrical services in the Auburn-Lewiston area due to falling trees or tree branches. Television antennas were damaged, as were several signs, including a Sears sign. In addition, 25% to 40% of the apple crop was destroyed.

After becoming extratropical, the remnants of Donna continued northeastward into New Brunswick, Quebec, and then Labrador. Wind gusts of 53 mph in Quebec snapped electrical poles and trees. One death occurred when a man suffered a heart attack when his home was threatened by a fire. Additionally, weather-related traffic accidents in the province resulted in two injuries.

Aftermath and retirement
Following the storm, President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a disaster declaration for Florida and North Carolina, allowing residents of those states to be eligible for public assistance.

The United States military sent a plane carrying doctors and food from Patrick Air Force Base to Mayaguana in the Bahamas. Crews of doctors and workers with food and supplies left from Key West and Miami to traverse the Florida Keys, bringing aid to affected residents. In Marathon, a large reconstruction program rehabilitated the key by Christmas.

Coral reefs were damaged in the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary by the hurricane. Donna caused a significant negative impact on aquatic life in north Florida Bay. Marine life was either stranded by retreating salt water which had been driven inland or killed by muddied waters in its wake. Oxygen depletion due to animals perishing in the hurricane caused additional mortality. Although salinity levels returned to normal within six weeks, dissolved oxygen concentrations remained quite low for a longer time frame. Marine life was scarce for several months in areas of greatest oxygen depletion. Sports fishing in the area took a few months to recover. Juvenile pink shrimp moved from their estuarine nursery grounds into deeper water about 60 mi offshore, where they were subsequently captured by fishermen. A Caspian tern was swept up the North American coast well to the north of its traditional breeding grounds, to Nova Scotia, which was witnessed four hours after the storm went by Digby Neck.

Because of storm's devastating impact, the name Donna was retired following the 1960 season, and will never again be used for another Atlantic hurricane. The name was replaced with Dora for the 1964 season.

Depictions in popular culture
Nobel Prize-winner John Steinbeck wrote about Hurricane Donna in his 1962 non-fiction memoir Travels with Charley: In Search of America. Steinbeck had had a truck fitted with a custom camper-shell for a journey he intended to take across the United States, accompanied by his poodle Charley. He planned on leaving after Labor Day from his home in Sag Harbor, Long Island, New York. Steinbeck delayed his trip slightly due to Donna, which made a direct hit on Long Island. Steinbeck wrote of saving his boat during the middle of the hurricane, during which he jumped into the water and was blown to shore clinging to a fallen branch driven by the high winds. It was an exploit which foreshadowed his fearless, or even reckless, state of mind to dive into the unknown.

The winds of Donna can be seen in the feature film Blast of Silence (1961); the final scenes on Long Island had been previously scheduled, and the filmmakers decided to go ahead and shoot the exterior scene despite the hurricane.

title: Hurricane Donna


text:
Terrance Dicks

Terrance William Dicks (14 April 1935 – 29 August 2019) was an English author and television screenwriter, script editor and producer. In television, he had a long association with the BBC science-fiction series Doctor Who, working as a writer and also serving as the programme's script editor from 1968 to 1974. The Doctor Who News Page described him as "arguably the most prolific contributor to Doctor Who". He later became a script editor and producer of classic serials for the BBC.

Dicks wrote many children's books during the 1970s and 1980s. He also maintained his association with Doctor Who by adapting televised stories into novelisations for Target Books and in later years contributing to many documentaries and DVD commentaries for the series.

Early career
Born in East Ham, Essex (now part of Greater London), Dicks was the only son of William, a tailor's salesman and Nellie (née Ambler), a waitress. His parents later ran a pub, the Fox and Hounds, in Forest Gate. He excelled in English at East Ham Grammar School and consumed literature ranging from classics to pulp thrillers and adventure stories. He won a scholarship to study English at Downing College, Cambridge, and later performed two years of national service in the British Army with the Royal Fusiliers. Following his discharge from the armed forces, he worked for five years as an advertising copywriter, and started to write radio play scripts for the BBC in his spare time.

His breakthrough into television came when friend Malcolm Hulke, whom he met when he rented a room from him, asked for his help with the scripting of "The Mauritius Penny", an episode of the second series of ABC's action-adventure The Avengers, for which Dicks was awarded a co-writer's credit. Dicks went on to co-write a further two Avengers episodes with Hulke: the second, "Intercrime", was later re-worked for the sixth and final series.

Doctor Who
In 1968, Dicks was hired as assistant script editor on the BBC science-fiction TV series Doctor Who. He was appointed head script editor the following year and earned his first writing credit for the programme when he and Hulke co-wrote the 10-part serial The War Games, which concluded the series' sixth season and the Second Doctor's (Patrick Troughton) tenure. The serial introduced the concept of the Time Lords and initiated the Doctor's exile to Earth, which would be a major theme of the Third Doctor's tenure. Dicks had, however, been the uncredited co-writer of the earlier serial The Seeds of Death (1969), having extensively re-written Brian Hayles' original scripts.

Dicks formed a highly productive working relationship with incoming Doctor Who producer Barry Letts, serving as script editor on all of Letts's five seasons as series producer from 1970 to 1974. During his tenure as script editor on Doctor Who, Dicks oversaw a number of additions to the series' mythology that still exist in the modern era, including the following:

 * The development of the Time Lords and their society
 * The name Gallifrey (augmented from Doctor Who writer Robert Holmes' "Galfrey")
 * The creation of companions Liz Shaw, Jo Grant, and Sarah Jane Smith
 * The term "regeneration" (Planet of the Spiders)
 * An established race of villainous monsters turn to the side of good (the Ice Warriors in The Curse of Peladon by Brian Hayles)
 * Sontarans (from writer Robert Holmes)
 * The Dematerialisation Circuit is vital for the operation of the TARDIS
 * The concept that the TARDIS is indestructible
 * The TARDIS can be remote controlled
 * The TARDIS has a Telepathic Circuit (in The Time Monster)
 * The TARDIS might be sentient (The Time Monster and Planet of the Spiders)
 * The Blinovitch Limitation Effect used as a plot device to explain away paradoxes (Day of the Daleks)
 * Multi-Doctor stories (The Three Doctors)

During Dicks' tenure, the series also delved into social and political concepts. Sometimes these were straightforward and other times they were metaphors. Concepts and topics included the respect for all life (The Silurians), Great Britain joining the European Economic Community (in metaphor in The Curse of Peladon), apartheid (The Mutants), global pollution (The Green Death) and equality for women (with the inclusion of Sarah Jane Smith as companion).

In 1972, Dicks embarked on a parallel career as an author with the publication of his first book, The Making of Doctor Who (a history of the production of the TV series), which was co-written by Hulke.

After stepping down as script editor, Dicks continued his association with Doctor Who, writing four scripts for his successor, Robert Holmes: these were Robot (1975, Tom Baker's first outing as the Fourth Doctor), The Brain of Morbius (1976, for which Dicks was credited under the pseudonym Robin Bland after his displeasure at Holmes' re-writes prompted him to request that it be shown "under some bland pseudonym"), Horror of Fang Rock (1977) and State of Decay (1980), a re-written version of a story originally titled The Vampire Mutations, which had been due for production during season 15. The BBC decided that the vampiric theme would clash with the plot of its new adaptation of Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, which was due for transmission at roughly the same time, and replaced it with Horror of Fang Rock. His final Doctor Who script was "The Five Doctors" (1983), a feature-length episode for the programme's 20th anniversary.

Dicks' other work for Doctor Who included two stage plays, Doctor Who and the Daleks in the Seven Keys to Doomsday (1974) and Doctor Who - The Ultimate Adventure (1989), and an audio drama for Big Finish Productions titled Comeback (2002), which was the first to feature former Doctor's companion Sarah Jane Smith in a significant capacity. He went on to contribute several additional scripts to Big Finish including audio adaptations of his two-stage plays, a Sixth Doctor-era story for the "Companion Chronicle" range, and a Bernice Summerfield story, in 2011, which was the final script of his career.

The first serial aired after Dicks' death, the 2020 Thirteenth Doctor-era story "Spyfall", was dedicated to him.

Books
Dicks contributed heavily to Target Books' series of novelisations of the Doctor Who TV serials, writing 67 of the titles published by the company. As Dicks explains in an interview in the documentary Built for War (included on the 2006 DVD release of The Sontaran Experiment), he served as the unofficial editor of the Target Books range. In this role, he would attempt to enlist the author of the original scripts to write the novelisation whenever possible, but if they refused or had other commitments, Dicks would usually undertake the work himself (although he also recruited other writers, including former Doctor Who actor Ian Marter and former series producer Philip Hinchcliffe).

On one occasion, he enlisted Robert Holmes to novelise his script for The Time Warrior, but when Holmes gave up after writing only one chapter, it was left to Dicks to complete the work. Dicks had better success in recruiting the original writers for the later Doctor Who serials, and was required to adapt only one Sixth Doctor story himself (The Mysterious Planet; he again replaced Holmes, who had died in 1986). Dicks' name appears on the cover of no Seventh Doctor novelisations. His plans to publish a novelisation of his stage play Doctor Who - The Ultimate Adventure were not realised.

As of September, 1980, Terrance Dicks' Doctor Who novelisations had sold three-and-a-half million copies and had been translated into ten different languages.

During the 1990s, Dicks contributed to Virgin Publishing's line of full-length, officially licensed, original Doctor Who novels, New Adventures, which continued the series' storyline following the TV cancellation in 1989. Dicks wrote three Doctor Who novels for Virgin, and continued to write occasionally for the franchise after BBC Books assumed the licence in 1997. He wrote the first of the Eighth Doctor Adventures, titled The Eight Doctors, which was, for a time, the best-selling original Doctor Who novel. World Game, featuring the Second Doctor, is set during "Season 6B". Later contributions to the range were the Quick Reads books Made of Steel and Revenge of the Judoon, both featuring the Tenth Doctor and Martha Jones.

His final Doctor Who short story, "Save Yourself", was published posthumously by BBC Books in October 2019.

A compilation of his work chosen by fans, The Essential Terrance Dicks, was published in two volumes in August 2021.

Other television work
Dicks also wrote for the ATV soap opera Crossroads. He co-created and wrote for the short-lived BBC science-fiction TV series Moonbase 3 (1973), and wrote for the ITC science-fiction series Space: 1999 (1976). During the early 1980s, Dicks served once more as script editor to producer Barry Letts on the BBC's Sunday Classics strand of period dramas and literary adaptations.

When Letts returned to directing in 1985, Dicks succeeded him as the producer of the Sunday Classics, overseeing productions such as Oliver Twist, David Copperfield and Vanity Fair, before retiring from the BBC in 1988 to resume his career as a novelist.

Children's fiction and non-fiction
It was through his work on Doctor Who books that Dicks became a writer of children's fiction, penning many successful titles during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1976, he wrote a trilogy for Target Books, The Mounties, concerning a Royal Canadian Mounted Police recruit. They were followed from 1979 to 1983 another trilogy, Star Quest, which was later re-printed by Big Finish Productions.

Beginning in 1978, Dicks penned The Baker Street Irregulars inspired by the Sherlock Holmes characters; the series eventually ran to 10 books, the last published in 1987. In 1981, he commenced work on a series of six children's horror novels with Cry Vampire. In 1987, Dicks started a new series for very young children titled T. R. Bear, resulting in a further seven books. There followed the Sally Ann series, about a ragdoll, Magnificent Max, about a cat, and The Adventures of Goliath (Dicks' longest series, at 18 books), about a golden retriever. Another five books concerning a St. Bernard dog make up the Harvey series.

Jonathan's Ghost and its three sequels were published in 1988, and the three-part MacMagic series followed in 1990. The Littlest Dinosaur was published in 1993 and The Littlest on Guard in 1994. Other works that Dicks published in 1994 include ''Woof! The Never Ending Tale, the Cold Blood series and the Chronicles of a Computer Game Addict'' series (both in four parts). Between 1998 and 2000, Dicks penned Changing Universe trilogy. In 2000 and 2001, Dicks produced the 12-book series, The Unexplained.

As well as his numerous fictional works, Dicks also penned several non-fiction books for children, including Europe United, A Riot of Writers, Uproar in the House, A Right Royal History and The Good, the Bad and the Ghastly.

Personal life
Dicks lived in Hampstead, London. In 1963, he married Elsa Germaney, a teacher and later a Quaker recording clerk. They had three sons: Stephen, Jonathan and Oliver. Also, three grandchildren: Amy, Nelly Rose, and Rufus.

Dicks died in London on 29 August 2019 after a short illness.

Novelisations
Most of Dicks' Doctor Who novelisations incorporated the prefix "Doctor Who and..." before the title, as did most of the series' novelisations prior to 1981. Several of his novels were subsequently re-printed in omnibus editions, such as The Adventures of Doctor Who and The Dalek Omnibus. In the late 1980s, Star Books issued "2-in-1" collections of selected Target Books novelisations, which included several of Dicks' works.

 * The Auton Invasion (1974)
 * The Day of the Daleks (1974)
 * The Abominable Snowmen (1974)
 * The Giant Robot (1975; re-titled Robot for the 1992 edition; Dicks also wrote a version for younger readers, Junior Doctor Who and the Giant Robot, which was published in 1980)
 * Terror of the Autons (1975)
 * The Planet of the Spiders (1975)
 * The Three Doctors (1975)
 * The Loch Ness Monster (1976; re-titled Terror of the Zygons for the 1993 edition)
 * The Revenge of the Cybermen (1976)
 * The Genesis of the Daleks (1976)
 * The Web of Fear (1976)
 * The Planet of the Daleks (1976)
 * The Pyramids of Mars (1976)
 * The Carnival of Monsters (1977)
 * The Dalek Invasion of Earth (1977)
 * The Claws of Axos (1977)
 * The Brain of Morbius (1977; Dicks also wrote a version for younger readers, Junior Doctor Who and the Brain of Morbius, which was published in 1980)
 * The Planet of Evil (1977)
 * The Mutants (1977)
 * The Deadly Assassin (1977)
 * The Talons of Weng-Chiang (1977)
 * The Face of Evil (1978)
 * The Horror of Fang Rock (1978)
 * The Time Warrior (1978; with Robert Holmes, who is uncredited)
 * Death to the Daleks (1978)
 * The Android Invasion (1978)
 * The Hand of Fear (1979)
 * The Invisible Enemy (1979)
 * The Robots of Death (1979)
 * The Image of the Fendahl (1979)
 * The Destiny of the Daleks (1979)
 * Underworld (1980)
 * The Invasion of Time (1980)
 * The Stones of Blood (1980)
 * The Androids of Tara (1980)
 * The Power of Kroll (1980)
 * The Armageddon Factor (1980)
 * The Nightmare of Eden (1980)
 * The Horns of Nimon (1980)
 * The Monster of Peladon (1980)
 * An Unearthly Child (1981)
 * The State of Decay (1981)
 * The Keeper of Traken (1982)
 * The Sunmakers (1982)
 * Meglos (1983)
 * Four to Doomsday (1983)
 * Arc of Infinity (1983)
 * "The Five Doctors" (1983)
 * Kinda (1983)
 * Snakedance (1984)
 * Warriors of the Deep (1984)
 * Inferno (1984)
 * The Caves of Androzani (1984)
 * The Mind of Evil (1985)
 * The Krotons (1985)
 * The Time Monster (1985)
 * The Seeds of Death (1986)
 * The Faceless Ones (1986)
 * Ambassadors of Death (1987)
 * The Trial of a Time Lord: The Mysterious Planet (1987)
 * The Wheel in Space (1988)
 * The Smugglers (1988)
 * Planet of Giants (1990)
 * The Space Pirates (1990)
 * The Sarah Jane Adventures – Invasion of the Bane (2007)

Original novels

 * Virgin New Adventures (the Doctor):
 * Timewyrm: Exodus (1991)
 * Blood Harvest (1994)
 * Shakedown (1995)
 * Virgin New Adventures (Bernice Summerfield):
 * Mean Streets (1997)
 * Eighth Doctor Adventures:
 * The Eight Doctors (1997)
 * Endgame (2000)
 * Past Doctor Adventures:
 * Catastrophea (1998)
 * Players (1999)
 * Warmonger (2002)
 * Deadly Reunion (2003) (with Barry Letts)
 * World Game (2005)
 * New Series Adventures (Quick Reads):
 * Made of Steel (2007)
 * Revenge of the Judoon (2008)

Original short story

 * "Save Yourself" in Doctor Who: The Target Storybook (2019)

Non-fiction

 * The Making of Doctor Who (1972; co-written with Malcolm Hulke; updated and re-issued in 1976)

Stage plays

 * Doctor Who and the Daleks in Seven Keys to Doomsday (1974)
 * Doctor Who – The Ultimate Adventure (1989)

Big Finish audio productions

 * Sarah Jane Smith audio series
 * Comeback (2002)
 * Big Finish stage play adaptations
 * Seven Keys to Doomsday (2008)
 * The Ultimate Adventure (2008)
 * Companion Chronicles
 * Beyond the Ultimate Adventure (2010)
 * Bernice Summerfield Short Stories
 * A Mutual Friend (2011)

title: Terrance Dicks