Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The removal of content concerning Handschar division

FYI. The contribs of the editor who removed the content concerning Handschar division so far don't show that it has been pasted somewhere. While I agree that most of the text does belong there (somewhere), I wouldn't want us to lose it. I'm returning Haj Amin's Vienna Illustrated cover because I don't see a reason for its removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Humus, I think it was you who uploaded this image. I wonder about the accuracy of the legend. These people look too old to be recruits and they aren't wearing Handschar uniforms (I think). --Zero 09:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did it, and supplied the book and page number. That's about all I know about it. Maybe they were not too picky... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-Nazi"

This is an important aspecy of this person life and work and should be in the opening paragraph.

If there are objection I would like to opem mediation on this subject.

You should ask yourself:

If it gets to ArbCom will they have enough scholarly sources saying he was Pro-Nazi ? Is there evidence for that fact. I think you know the answer so don't remove what you know is true.

Zeq 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be more than evident to you by now that consensus is entirely against your position. WWII German connections and dealings are fully put forth in the article. Inserting "Pro-Nazi" labels is NOT accurate, it is in fact a blatant POV. The man supported the German war effort in order to get rid of the Brits, he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology.--AladdinSE 11:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Questions to Zero

About this diff [3]

Why have reverted ?

1. Do you think he was NOT pro-Nazi ?

2. You have replaced a link to the Nazi to a link about German which leads to the ederal republic of Germany - a country that did not exist at the time the Mufti helped the Nzai germany army. So do you claim that the Mufti helped an army of a country that did not exist in the 1940s (when he helped them ?) or are you just trying to use Wikipedia for propeganda (although ArbCom have told you two years ago not to do it)

Zeq 13:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

On your second point, don't be silly. Germany has existed as an entity since 1871. Germany certainly existed in the years 1933-45. The article on Germany certainly deals with German history from before the Bundesrepublik. --Cybbe 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just click on the link you just added. While the Mufti helped the nazi army you placed a link to germany. Zeq 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Zeq is attempting to hide the fact that he's re-added the Nazi reference. When I looked at his changes, I noted that he deliberately re-spelled a word that had been spelled correctly in a later paragraph. Once an editor spots the error (as I did) and corrects it, Zeq's previous edits won't appear under the (diff) view, and the new edit won't have his/her name on it. It's just a suspicion, however, and I apologize in advance if I've mischaracterized Zeq's edits. Personally, I think the issue of the Mufti's ties with Nazi Germany should be fully explored and mediated. Given his ancestry, I doubt al-Husayni sympathized with Nazi ideology. Instead, he probably saw the Nazis as a tool he could use. However, all of this deserves research, sources, and scholarly analysis and not the shallow treatment provided thus far. Rklawton 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoo ! that was profound. but wrong. The issue was that the Mufti did not had ties with Germany as the link lead you to think but with Nazi Germany. Wikipedia has two different article for those two entities. If you wish to merge them i suggest you will run into some resitence. So don'y tru to do it here. Zeq 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Zeg is simply on war trail here. What regards the term Nazi: it is quite well defined and should not expand to label everything what existed in 1933-45. Pavel Vozenilek 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, and I don't mean any editor here, I suspect that this article works as a magnet and many Pro-Nazi people will read it. So it is important to label correctly who di the Mufti helped. Zeq 12:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The Nazi past of the Palestinian ufti is well knowm. Why do you try to water it down ?

Are there other people who's anti-semite feeling you wish to hide ?

Zeq 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How long do we have to put up with you? --Zero 12:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will not be here for long but nither will you. Zeq 12:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

some historians disagree

I removed the sentence, "Al-Husayni's actual role is disputed: although Zionist historians and the Mufti's own supporters agree that he was a major instigator of the violence, some historians disagree." Not to be too critical of whoever added it, but it really doesn't say much without descriptions of the views of particular historians. I'm also a little concerned with characterizations like 'Zionist' historian. If a scholar is reputable enough to be quoted, it might be better to just quote him as a historian. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi stuff

Articles to be compared to would be Andrey_Vlasov, and of course Quisling. They both are consequently using "German" and not "Nazi". It is natural this article would use German too. -- Heptor _talk 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

He was helping the Nazis. No way around it, it is an established historical fact and no wikipedia article can be used as primary source to disproove it.Zeq 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources to consider

There are pleanty of sources for about this pro-nazi antisemite and this section will include some of them:

http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/mufti5.htm

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/bosnia.html - only for taking quotes from the "encyclopedia of the Holocaust"

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/mufti.html

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_collaboration.htm

More to be added....Zeq 13:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazi material consensus

ZEQ: I am going to repeat what I said earlier: :It should be more than evident to you by now that consensus is entirely against your position. WWII German connections and dealings are fully put forth in the article. Inserting "Pro-Nazi" labels is NOT accurate, it is in fact a blatant POV. The man supported the German war effort in order to get rid of the Brits, he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology. Stop trying to reinsert these labels.--AladdinSE 10:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, he was Pro-Nazi. Nothing you will say will change it. In fact even if you will be succefull driving this all the way to ArbCom and they will agree with you it will just serve as one more proof how worthless Wikipedia has become. So go ahead try to argue and proove what you just said. total BS. Eeven if he was "anti-British" (which I can agree) he was also "pro-Nazi" Zeq 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, you've been complaining about Wikipedia and ArbCom and spouting emotional polemics here and there and you've entirely lost your sense of objectivity, if you've ever had one (I certainly haven't seen it). You can't even grasp the age-old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Replies like "this is just the way it is no matter what you say or what ArbCom rules" is a childish tantrum, not a civilized discourse.--AladdinSE 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, unless can you prove that "he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology", the above will remain a whitewash. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I do not support exuberant labeling, especially in the first paragraph. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the burden is on you to prove he was a Nazi ideologue not just a military ally, to insert labels like "pro-Nazi" which consensus has consistently disallowed in this and in parallel arguments in other articles.--AladdinSE 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

An important source

http://aval31.free.fr/lemuftietlefuhrer/mufti_fuhrer.htm

http://aval31.free.fr/muftiofjerusalem/index.htm

Another source for "kill the jews"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/INGODGH99Q1.DTL

EDWIN BLACK is an award winning, New York Times and international best-selling investigative author of IBM and the Holocaust, The Transfer Agreement, and War Against the Weak. Black's writing has also appeared in numerous newspapers across the United States and Europe, and the world's leading magazines have also carried his work, from Playboy and Reform Judaism to Der Spiegel and L'Express. He is the recipient of numerous awards, and last year won the two highest awards of the American Society of Journalists and Authors: best nonfiction book of 2002 for IBM and the Holocaust, as well as best investigative article of 2002 for his piece on IBM at Auschwitz that appeared in the Village Voice. He has appeared on scores of network TV and radio shows from NBC's "Today Show", CBS's "Morning News", "Dateline", and NPR to England's BBC, Germany's ZDF, and France's TF-1. Zeq 12:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Greetings, I am the mediator working on this case. First I would like a summary of the disagreement from the other editors involved before we get our mediation on. Thanks cordially, Cyde Weys 07:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This diff [4] provides the main dispute.

Zero has reverted the following:

The description of Amin as an anti-semitic.

We can break it to two issues:

Was Amin against the jews ?
If the answer is Yes - should he be described this way in Wikipedia ?

Zero removed "supported the Nazis during World War II" and
Zero replaced it with "A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important official positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council." ... "and it is this title by which he is most remembered."

We can break it to two issues:

Did Amin supported the Nazis in ww-2 ?
Is it worth while to mention the cooperation with the nazis or should Wikipedia focus on his various titles and official capacities instead ? (i'll be glad to provide material explaining the level of such cooperation)

Last but not lease is removing the wiki-link form the word Nazi Germany. In this diff Zero went furthr and put a misleading link to the country Germany which is the Fedearl Republic. Clearly if Zero thinks Germany and Nazi Germany are the same entity he should propse merging these two article (since one is seesm as POV fork of the other).

Since the common Wikipedia wisdom is that the name Nazi ie an NPOV description of the entity Nazi Germany and indeed this is what seprates it from Gearmny I think we should not hide the word "Nazi" where it is true and relevant.

One personal note: Zero wrote that my intentions are to create an equation "Arab=Nazi" - this accusation is not worth an answer . Too low. Zeq 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty, now I'd like to hear what Zero has to say. I noticed two other people were listed on the mediation page ... how exactly were they involved? --Cyde Weys 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Similar types of edits (sometimes a subset, sometimes more): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (last one is a cybbe edit) Zeq 05:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

al-Husayni's role as a Palestinian Nationalist leader and implacable opponent of Zionism is already described in the article. Al-Husayni's cooperation with the Nazis is already described in the article; in fact in proportion to its importance in history this part of his life receives more coverage than any other part. The current wording in the introduction: "During World War II, Al-Husayni conducted propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, and helped to recruit Muslims for the German army." is completely adequate. Every article can be improved but none of the changes that Zeq wants would improve it. --Zero 09:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not "Every article can be improved but none of the changes that Zeq wants would improve it".

The issues are set above, and Zero have not provided his answer to each of these questions.

I would like to add another issue:

Zero first claim that I want to show that "Nazi=Arab" which was never my intention. He now clam my edits do not imrove the article. His edit summaries (such as "Zeq has been vomitting on the article again" [10] are insulting and cause me not tp participate in this mediation (and Wikipedia as a whole) if my work is described in such terms) Zeq 12:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean you will go away? --Zero 13:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. It is impossible to conduct a civilized discussion under such atmosphere. I am very close to going away. Zeq 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero, please be nice. And now Zeq I want to see a specific list of changes you want made to the article (i.e. Wiki-linking Nazi Germany or whatever) and your justifications for each. And then I want to see Zero's response on why he thinks each edit may or may not be appropriate. --Cyde Weys 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The list of changes is already above. can be seen here [11]. I would also want to move the photo of his meeting with Hitler to the start of the article. A good start of dialogue will be to listen to Zero's specific answers to the questions listed above. Zeq 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is you that has to provide the rationale behind making POV edits in the introduction. This being contrary to WP policy, I cant see how the mediation is going to change this. Readers should be left to judge for themselves after reading a particular article, you want to smack your POV right in their face from the very beginning. --Cybbe 09:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, the picture with Hitler isn't nearly the same quality (you can barely make out who's in it), so it wouldn't be good to lead off the article with. Generally, in biography articles, you lead off with a picture of just the person anyway, not that person and other people. As for the list of changes, that link doesn't seem to go where you think it goes. I've gone ahead and wikilinked Nazi Germany in the article because that does seem like a relevant and valid contextual link to make. Now, Zero, you've said that you think Husayni's links with Nazi Germany were a relatively minor part of his life ... do you have any evidence for that? It seems to me like being associated with the Nazis would be a big part of anyone's life. --Cyde Weys 11:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO this is strongly cultural biased toward a Muslim/Palestinian POV:

A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important official positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council. In 1921, he was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. He later adopted the title "Grand Mufti" with British consent and it is this title by which he is most remembered.

This include facts which are not very important, are not central to his role in history. He is most remembered for entirely different aspects of his life (by a large group of people who were hurt by his actions)

His official title, the family he comes from are all aspect that are important - in a society that values such issues. In different socities a persons actions are what counts. We need to include both POVs.

So to make the 1st paragraph NPOV we must highlight all important issues about this person and how he is remembered not just by his proponenets but also by others who have a different view of him. Clearly there are those who see him first and formost as a Nazi-Colaborator and anti-semite who's actions contributed to much bloodshed. We can not hide this aspect of his life. Colaboration with Nazi Germany, being convicted by the British are all not to be taken lightly. Zeq 11:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(trim left) I'm awaiting Zero's response but it does sound like you are onto something here. --Cyde Weys 11:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

al-Husayni's actual importance in history dropped to relative insignificance when he was (effectively) expelled from Palestine in 1937. There was a brief moment in 1947-8 when he may have become important again but that fizzled out when the Arab states side-lined him. His period with the Nazis was not important since in Germany he was a minor Nazi tool, a collaborator amongst thousands of collaborators. In any case, this part of his life is already covered at considerable length in the article. The introduction needs a brief mention that points to the section on that topic. It already does; using the word "Nazi" more than once would be propagandistic. (I never said that the single usage couldn't be linked, but Zeq wanted to add 3 linked appearances and a 4th.) This part of his life is emphasised by the Zionist movement for completely obvious reasons, and who can blame them, but that doesn't mean we should meekly follow along. Btw, he was never convicted by the British (unless we are talking about 1921, at which time a few Zionists were also convicted). On the wording: he is most remembered as "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" by everyone, both his supporters and detractors, as can be easily seen by surveying the literature (or just the web). Therefore the phrase "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" should appear in the introduction; it doesn't matter if the background of that title is moved to later. One more thing: asking whether he was an anti-semite is a childish question for which the answer can never be more than an opinion. To handle it in proper Wikipedia fashion one would have to quote named persons as claiming that he was and other named persons as claiming that he wasn't, and the result would be a useless mess that would destroy the introduction. Biographical articles should avoid name-calling and labeling, especially when that has a transparent political purpose. --Zero 12:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you claim that his role with the Nazis was minor. I disagree and there are many sources that would disagree. (see this for example:[12]). Also with excpetion to the title "Mufti of Jerusalem" all the other roles can be moved out of the 1st paragrph to approriate sections. Zeq 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me as if "Grand Mufti" and collaboration with the Nazis should be in the lead-in, as those by far seem to be the most notable events of his life. Frankly, "collaboration with the Nazis" would seem to be a notable event in anyone's life. And I wouldn't call him a "minor Nazi tool among thousands" - according to sources from the article, he recruited hundreds, or thousands, of fighters for the Nazi German army. That's not insignificant. --Cyde Weys 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Both those things are in the lead-in already and I'm not suggesting they not be. The Nazi period of his life occupies about 1/3 of the article, which is more than it deserves and some of that is quite biased. I'm not suggesting it be reduced however (though some rewording can be beneficial). As for "insignificant", we can argue over what it means. He helped to recruit to the German army, yes, but in the vast operation that was WWII his contribution had little effect. If it wasn't for Zionist writers keeping this episode alive, only a few military buffs would even know about it. --Zero 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Amin al-Husseini was an enormously influential political figure in Palestine from, if memory serves, about 1920 on. His actions, long before the whole Nazi business, were quite important in the political development of Palestine. If anything, he probably had less influence on events during his Nazi period than previously. So to say it is the only, or most important, aspect of his political career is inaccurate. On the other hand, apart from its inherent importance it was quite significant in terms of how it was made use of in Zionist and Israeli propaganda afterwards. The question here is one of getting the right balance. It would also be a mistake to devote most of the article to the Nazi business simply as a result of that being what Wikipedia editors are arguing most about and therefore coming up with most information about from one perspective or another. Palmiro | Talk 11:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide references of as valuable sources as possible that israeli propaganda attacked specifically Haj Amin al Husseini's antisemitism (and in what purpose precisely). Thank you. Alithien 11:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

questions above still need an answer
The role of "zionist propeganda" is not the issue. We are talking about known facts in this person's life. If he did things that now are used by "Zionist propeganda" maybe he should not have done those. His supporters can not delete history just because it is less popular now to be an antisemite.
It is not just his Nazi Recuruitment that is the issue. He met with Hitler, some sources say he had influanced Hitler, some sources say he helped orgenize pro nazi attempts to change the goverment in Iraq, some say in Iran. In all honesty the scope of his involvment with the Nazis is not highlighted enough.
His attitude toward Jews and Zionism, his use of Islam as a way to orgenize riots and attacks on Jews need to be highlighted.
In Hebrew Wikipedia there is a large paragraph on his efforts to orgenize the Arab armies to invade Israel (even prior to formal establishing of the state of Israel.

I hope the above capture how this man is viewed by many. We need to represent this. Of course he was also a great mulsim religious figure and this must be noted as well Zeq 12:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop all these accusations of "Zionist propaganda" and what not? It's not constructive, and frankly, it's probably false. If he did have dealings with Hitler, which it seems like he did, it's important. That's not "Zionist propaganda". Cool it. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That let rephrase that. This is not and should not be an argument between pro-Jews and anti-Jews. We are talking about the relative merits of what should be included in the article only. --Cyde Weys 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What about putting the first sentence as follows: "Mohammad Amin al-Husayni ... was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim religious leader, who collaborated with Nazi Germany before and during the World War II? Looks like no one seriously disputes the fact that he collaborated with the Nazis. Pecher ^Talk 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Zero, what do you think? --Cyde Weys 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This presents as the most important of his individual actions something which is not such. As for Zionist propaganda, I am at a loss to understand Cyde Weys' comments here. I don't see where anyone has accused anyone else here of Zionist propaganda. That Husayni engaged in pro-Nazi activities and that this was later exploited by Zionist propagandists are simply facts, whose importance relative to the rest of his life must be established to ensure that this is a balanced article. Palmiro | Talk 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The argument that some actions are "more important" than others is inherently unprovable. We have no scale to weigh his collaboration against his other actions. Nor does this sentence says that the collaboraton story was "the most important of his individual actions"; it simply lists the activities for which he is notable. I am struggling to comprehend why the opposition to mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis in the first sentence is so bitter and determined given that the article, including the intro, already covers this issue at length. Pecher ^Talk 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

His Nazi collaboration should be mentioned in the introduction (it is), but in the first sentence is too much. The first sentence should focus on the most important fact about him; the fact that makes him notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Namely, he was the leader of the Palestinian Arabs for most of the period of the British Mandate. Incidentally, I don't think it is right to say that he collaborated with the Nazis before WW2. He had contacts with them and tried (with little success) to get support from them for his nationalist cause but "collaboration" is too strong a word. During WW2 he certainly collaborated. Zionists also had repeated contacts with the Nazis (and hostile authors call that "collaboration" too, but we should not play such labeling games). --Zero 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence should focus on the most important facts about him; meanwhile, some of the people in here are saying that his work for the Nazis is one of the most important facts about him. I don't think we should resort to a straw poll here as I think we should be approaching consensus, but if I were to, say, pick the two most important things about Amin al-Husayni to put in the lead-in sentence, it would be leading the Palestinian Arabs and working for the Nazis. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the most two important things are (1) that he was the political leader of the Palestinians, (2) that he was the Mufti of Jerusalem and therefore the leading Muslim figure in Palestine and one of the most important in the Middle East. These two facts are not the same. --Zero 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh* ... alright, let's find out what others think then. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He was first a religious figure. After his political ambitions ran in problems (with the rival clan of the Nashibi in Jerusalem) he used his religious standing to open a hate campaign against the Jews. This has helped him regain his political standing. He clearly went very far with his hate toward the Jews. There are those who say that he (by deeds, words and influence) prevented Jewish refugees from escaping from Europe so in that sense he causes their death. Clearly his views on the Jews, his cooperation with the Nazis, his incitement against the jews and his role in organizing the Arab armies invasion in 1948 are all important. In the Arab world, after being a leader he was cast aside because they understood his leadership has brought disaster on the Palestinian people. His only big supporters (from 1950 until his death at 1974) were his (proclaimed relative?) Yassir Arafat who use to say that he fought the Jews in 1948 because the orders given to him by the Mufti. Out of all this let's figure out what we want to say in the article. Zeq 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if we are converging and compromise is possible here. I sure tried to have one.
So far i did not receive an answer to basic questions above which could be a base for a commonground.
I asked these questions in good faith and I expect a good faith answer.

Thank you, Zeq 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's comments above. If Pecher is right that we cannot tell whether one thing is more important than another, then we would never be able to write any article about anything, as the mere fact of selecting items for inclusion requires a judgement that they are more important than others. I do not see how anyone has proved that Amin al-Husayni's actions in support of Nazi Germany had anything like the impact that his actions in Palestine had. These latter actions are the subject of considerable comment in most histories of the British Mandate in Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro has confused relative importance with notability. All facts that are notable according to the Wikipedia policy must be included into the article regardless of whether we deem some of them to be more mportant than the others. Pecher ^Talk 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't confused anything. You said that it was impossible to prove relative importance. That you accept that some things are notable and others aren't show that when you think about it you do not in fact believe this. Deciding that one thing is notable and another is not is a decision as to their relative importance. Palmiro | Talk 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, notability is an absolute category, not relative one. Things are or are not notable by themselves, not in relationship, to other things. For example, a wedding is usually a very relatively important event in a person's life, but it need not be notable according to Wikipedia standards. It is not possible to argue that a layman's wedding is not notable because it's less important than other events because in this case we have no yardstick that would enable us to first, define which events are undisputably notable and then determine a cutoff point for notability on the scale of declining importance. In other words, we cannot have a workable definition of notability when the criterion for it is relative rather than absolute. Pecher ^Talk 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A qiock note to Palmiro: No one was or is trying to proove anything. The fact that Amin was pro nazi, colaborated with them, made many anti-Jewish calls and actions in his life - all this is undisputed. We are relly discussing here if the POV that emphasised his being a member of the mulsim council is more important than him being an anti-semite. Zeq 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. First of all, his position on the Supreme Muslim Council was a matter of fact, not of point of view. Secondly, we are discussing what is so important, and crucial to defining the importance of this historical figure, that it should go into the first sentence. Palmiro | Talk 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me ? If we are to bring facts: He was as much of an anti-semite and Nazi colaborator as he was president of muslim council. In fact he was still against the jews after he was removed from the council. The issue is not to bombared this article with all his titles. (the word mufti can be mntioned once not 3-4 times) but to give details about who he was based on his actions. Zeq 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that concerning Haj Amin al-Husseini he first was a nationalist leader in Palestine. All remaining is link to that. He became a religious leader for politcal matters. And the fact that he collaborated with the Nazis is not important for itself but more for the consequences this had on his action as political leader after world war 2. But again, this must be relativised. His "collaboration" didn't weaken his position with other arabs leaders (only his political status influenced their mind pro or contra). This is the same with the British who had expelled him from Palestine for his political action and who agreed to leave him come back (except at Jérusalem) in spite of his collaboration with Nazi regime because he was a political leader representative of much palestinian people. This proves they at least didn't mind. This is only in front of the outside world that his collaboration with the nazis had impact in increasing the "capital of sympathy" of the jews and as a consequence weakening the position of Palestinians. Whether you like this or not, I suggest you have a look once again at his caricature of May48 in NYTimes. Alithien 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The British "allowed himm to come back in spite of his collaboration with Nazi regime " - is that really so ? (please recheck) Nither the British nor most of the world (including the rab world) could never ignored what he did ebfore and during ww-2. Zeq 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I confirm nobody ignored what he did during WW2. I saw many article about that in Jerusalem Post of 1946 and have alos in mind that Pearlman published his book in 1947. I confirm that he was allowed to travell in Palestine except in the area of Jerusalem. My source is Pappé, "La guerre de 1948 en Palestine", p.98. Talking about the politicians of the Arab High Comitee, he writes (I translate) : "English had forbidden him to go to Palestine, but later, when this interdiction was limited to the area of Jerusalem, he never went to cities and villages of the Mandatory Palestine." Alithien 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Peppe is the person who in June 2005 published a warnning saying that israel is removing the settlers from Gaza so it can attack Gaza with such a horrible weapon that would harm the settlers if they stay only few miles away from the city. (i.e . he accused Israel for wanting to nuke Gaza...) so I just wanted to make sure you know your sources....But if you want to add something like "according to peepe the British ignored his nazi coloboration and allowed him to come back to Palestine" that is fine by me. Zeq 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The British certainly did not allow him back into Palestine while they were in charge. Did Pappe really claim otherwise? After the British left, the Arab states were also reluctant to allow him into Palestine. The first time he got there was in September 1948 when he went to Gaza in secret for a few days but was thrown out by the Egyptians when they learned about it. (Elpeleg p97). --Zero 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what Pappé writes and he is Prof of History at Haifa and widely published in the french world, more than Morris. I also read that Prof Gelber refused to be published in a review that would publish Pappé. I don't want to comment Morris political analysis about the inevitable ethnic cleansing and the absence of solution to the conflct. These guys are poor politicians but competent historians. Zero, this is an assumption, do you have a reference with a quote because I already inserted this information in the French wikipedia. Alithien 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you have Pappe's context right. Maybe the "later" is referring to a time after the British left. The two books on the Mufti that I have handy agree on the basic facts here. In Mattar p119: "The British sought to 'checkmate' the Mufti regarding Palestine throughout the Middle East. They refused to allow him to return to Palestine. ... In addition, they repeated 'warned' the governments of Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon to 'control' the Mufti's diplomatic activities." Same source p132-133: "he secretly arrived in Gaza on September 28, 1948 - the first time that he stepped on the soil of Palestine in 11 years. ... Within days, the Egyptian prime minister and defense minister ordered the Mufti back to Cairo". Same source p138: "Amin al-Husayni was allowed early in 1967 by King Husayn to briefly visit Jerusalem for the first time in thirty years." Moving to the book of Elpeleg, p96-97: "Haj Amin flatly denied accusations against him that he had avoided returning to Palesine in order to go on enjoying the 'good life' in Egypt. .. He described the attempts that he had made to return...both before and after the British withdrawal. In one of these attempts, at the end of September 1948, he had managed to get to Gaza in secret. He remained there for a few days, until the Egyptians returned him forcibly to Cairo." Elpeleg then states his opinion that the Mufti might have been able to return earlier if he really wanted to, but he never says that returning was permitted. Refering to the 1951 time period, p127: "Haj Amin was prohibited from entering Jordan, and Egypt prevented him from operating in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip". --Zero 10:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for the information. There cannot be no misunderstanding of the context with which Pappe give the information. He is talking about the palestinian preparation to war before 15 may. Most of the chapter refers to period between Nov30 and May 15 with some go back in the years before. In that specific lines, he is blaming palestinian politicians for their uncompetence having "abandon" them: only 3 of 12 members of the Arab High Comitee were in Palestine while other where at Damas. And then he clearly precise that Mufti never went to Palestine while British had limited his restriction of movement to Jeruslam (My translation above is not a summary, this is a word by word translation). Whatever, it is clear that it is a controversial information. Pappé doesn't indicate reference for this information. Alithien 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the topic was : is Mufti first a politican or a nazi collaborator and the point I wanted to underline was that he was not forbidden access to Palestine because of his collaboration but because of his anti british activities (ie political activities) before war. Maybe also because he was an ennemy of Abdallah's (and therefore) British's plans of not leaving the Palestine state born but leaving this be annexed by (Trans)Jordan... That sounds logical but I don't have any reference about that. Alithien 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone has a clear source for any of motives of the British for that did or did not do - we can not get any conclusion about the Mufti life from the hidden British motives. Let's focus on what he did and what he said. Zeq 13:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to the roots

After all the hair-splitting, let's try and return to the subject of the dispute, to wit, how the first paragraph in general and the first sentence in particular should be worded. Arguments were made that because al-Husseini's role as collaborator was less important than his role as a nationalist (some would say, anti-Semitic) leader. No matter how we weigh the relative importance of al-Husseini's several roles, there is still no reason not mention all of them in the first sentence. Take, for example, an article on Isaac Newton, which is a featured article, by the way. The first sentence says: "Sir Isaac Newton ... was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher". It is undisputable that Newton's achievements in alchemy were - to put it mildly - somewhat less important than his contributions to physics and mathematics. Yet, the fact that he was an alchemist is included in the first sentence alongside the descriptions of him as physicist, mathematician, and what not; in a nutshell, everything for which Newton is notable is said in the first sentence. Because Isaac Newton is a featured article, we may be safe to conclude that this is a good example to follow, and by extension, everything for which al-Husseini is notable must be included in the first sentence. Pecher ^Talk 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems reasonable. Everything notable about Husayni should be summed up in the first sentence in as few words as possible. How about something along the lines of, "Amin al-Husayni is notable for being the leader of Palestine, a collaborator with the Nazis, and the Mufti of Jerusalem". --

02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of ending the dispute, I'll agree to that as a basis. The first description "leader of Palestine" is not quite right; it should be something like "Palestinian nationalist leader". --Zero 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

proposal for vote #1

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as Amin al-Husseini) is notable for being a Palestinian Arab nationalist leader, a collaborator with the Nazis and Mufti of Jerusalem.

I think "is" should be "was" (better English) and we don't really need "is notable for". Also "al-Husseini" is not an alternative name but just an alternative English spelling of the same name. Also add a comma to clarify the parsing. Therefore:

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, also spelt Amin al-Husseini) was a Palestinian Arab nationalist leader, a collaborator with the Nazis, and Mufti of Jerusalem.

Proposal for vote #2

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (1895 - 1974, أمين الحسيني, also spelt Amin al-Husseini) was the Muslim Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem and became a Palestinian nationalist leader. During World War II he collaborated with the Nazis and helped recurit Muslims for the German army. Husseini is known for his anti-Jewish views and his strong objections to Zionism.

Zeq 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Other reference sources

This is the complete entry from The Oxford Companion to World War II

Husseini, Hadj Amin el- (1897?–1974), pro-Axis Mufti (a Muslim religious official who issues Islamic law rulings) of Jerusalem from 1921 who led the Arab revolt in Palestine during the 1930s. Forced to flee in 1937 he eventually reached Iraq where he worked closely with Rashid Ali against British influence in the Middle East. After Rashid Ali's revolt against the British failed in April 1941, the Mufti ended up in Germany working as a propagandist and as recruiter of Muslim volunteers for the German forces. See also anti-imperialism.

"Husseini, Hadj Amin el-" The Oxford Companion to World War II. Ed. I. C. B. Dear and M. R. D. Foot. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

This is the introduction from the general article on the mufti in Encyclopedia Britannica:

Amin al-Husayni, born 1897, Jerusalem, Palestine, Ottoman Empire, died July 4, 1974, Beirut, Lebanon, also called Al-hajj Amin - grand mufti of Jerusalem and Arab nationalist figure who played a major role in Arab resistance to Zionist political ambitions in Palestine.

Husayni, Amin al-. (2006). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica.

These should prove useful. --Ian Pitchford 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for vote #3

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as Amin al-Husseini and "Mufti of Jerusalem"), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Sunni Muslim religious leader, who fought fiercely against the establishment of a Jewish state in the British Mandate of Palestine and to this end collaborated with Nazi Germany before and during the World War II. Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support As nominator. The proposed first sentence lists everything for what al-Husayni is known: nationalist and religious leader, his fight against the establishment of the Jewish state, and collaboration with the Nazis. Nothing appears omitted. The link between anti-Jewish struggle and Nazi should not be contentious as it follows directly from the article that when he made his overtures to the Nazis, his primary concern was the fight against the Jews. In addition, his collaboration began in 1938, i.e. before the WWII. Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Support per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have one big problem with it: "Jewish state" is a misleading name. Homeland for the Jewish people was part of the mandate the British got and this is what he faught against. He also caused many riots between Jews and muslims. Zeq 15:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I have fully grasped you argument. Why do you see "Jewish state" as misleading? Because the sentence does not say that its establishment was among the terms of the British mandate?Pecher ^Talk 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That was not thw words used in the mandate. Zeq 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, "homeland" is not as precise as "state", but that's after all, what the drafters of the mandate meant: an independent Jewsih state. For this reason, I would favor "state" in an encyclopedia. Pecher ^Talk 16:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge of 2 & 3:

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as Amin al-Husseini and "Mufti of Jerusalem"), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim religious leader. Husseini is known for his objections to Zionism and fought against establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the British Mandate of Palestine. To this end Husseini collaborated with Nazi Germany before and during World War II and helped recruit Muslims for the German army.

Zeq 15:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't really object to this version, as it looks essentially the same as version #3, just a little bit longer. Pecher ^Talk 17:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not really fought against Jewish state or homeland. I would say Jewish self-determnination instead. Also, I don't know whether Waffen SS in the Balkans can be considered the German army. My version follows below. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as Amin al-Husseini and "Mufti of Jerusalem"), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim religious leader. Known for his anti-Zionism, al-Husayni fought against Jewish self-determination in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine. To this end Husseini collaborated with Nazi Germany before and during World War II and helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen SS.

I'd say that "self-determination" is somewhat too general, especially in that historic context. The British Mandate over Palestine clearly put upon Britain the obligation of establishing a Jewish national home there, which everybody interpreted as an independent state. Pecher ^Talk 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. The merger of proposals 2 & 3 seems to cover all the bases quite well. —Aiden 22:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just getting silly now folks. --Ian Pitchford 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case this discussion is not messy enough, some comments: "Waffen SS" is ok because it is factual (but it was indeed a part of the German army). I object to saying that he collaborated with Nazi Germany before WW2 because the word implies that he did significant things for them at this time, but he did not. He had only offered to collaborate. Also "self-determination" is a bit too vague for my liking, and a tad on the PC side. What he fought was what the Zionists wanted: the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Finally, "Amin al-Husseini" is not an alternative name but an alternative spelling and "Mufti of Jerusalem" should not be placed as if it is an alternative name. It was a position he held so it should go in the list of roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs)

Proposal #4
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively spelt al-Husseini), the Mufti of Jerusalem, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim religious leader. Known for his anti-Zionism, al-Husayni fought against the establishment of a Jewish state in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine. To this end, Husayni collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II and helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen SS.

~~: Works for me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)~~

He clearly cooperated with the Nazis after Munich, and there is even a special section in the article devoted to his pre-war Nazi ties saying he received "financial and military assistance". Otherwise, the proposal is fine with me. Pecher ^Talk 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

add "before and" ... per Pecher - otherwise fine by me. We need to keep in mind that this is the 1st sentence. We would later need to work more on this article. Zeq 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Receiving aid does not imply "collaboration". Collaboration is a two-way process. Another reason I object to that wording is that "before WWII" has no starting point and seems to consume the long period of the Mandate when he was in Palestine (1920-1937). In fact his contacts with the Nazis during that period were less than those of the Zionists and had no practical consequences. Only from 1938 onwards was that not true. --Zero 09:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well this article is about him.Zionist cooperation with the nazis is a different article. He did colaborated with them prior to the war as well. Aid does not just fall from the sky. Zeq 10:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

But it does. Governments, including Germany of 1938, give aid when they consider it in their own best interest. --Zero 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq & Pecher convinced me here. First, 1938 is before WW2. Second, there is a whole lot of unhealthy interest to Zionist "cooperation" with the Nazis. I am for inclusion of the text "before and" or at least something to the effect of "from 1938 onward". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has yet specified how he "collaborated" in 1938. Asking for aid and getting some is not collaboration. --Zero 11:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Collaborated" is a loaded word. I looked it up in the dictionary, and one of the given meanings is: "cooperate traitorously with an enemy." It is POV to suggest that Husayni's cooperation with the declared enemy of the mandatory power, Great Britain, was "collaboration", i.e. traitorous, or that Germany was Palestine's enemy, just because Britain was the mandatory power. I have replaced collaborated with cooperated.--AladdinSE 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin

This is a minor point but for sake of accuracy:

al, el - are both different spelling of the word "the" in Arabic.

so "al-Husseini, el-Husseini" are really "the Husseini" (which is already part of his name)

Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin - are both the same word.

so "al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin" can and should be shortned to "Haj Amin"

The correct spelling should be: Amin Husseini as this is his name. Zeq 12:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We should use the name used by professional historians, which is "Amin al-Husayni" or equivalently "Amin al-Husseini". We should not use "Haj" because that is a title not a name and titles are not used by WP policy. --Zero 12:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept. we need to shorten thism line based on your suggestion. Zeq 13:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

quotes that the Mufti was not antisemit

Could someone provides quotes from as valuable sources as possible that he was not antisemit ? Alithien 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the claimnant. The default position is not that everyone is an anti-Semite unless it is proven otherwise. Although, recruiting for the Nazi army might be enough right there to establish anti-Semitisim. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is well estblished that many of his actions were against the jews, in different occastions he made calls to kill the jews. He is described as an anti-semite in many places. I am quite sure that if he was alive today and asked "Are you against the jews ? " he would proudly answer: "Yes !". Zeq 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I see how recruiting for the German army is proof enough to establish someone as an anti-semite. Being a general in the same army would not be proof of this. And the nature of your claims all boils down to interpretation of motive etc, which can never be more than a POV. It is more than enough to have his actions described, it is not up to WP to draw conclusions from them. --Cybbe 08:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A call to kill the jews is pretty clear. Where I come from actions speak loudly. Many people see him as antisemite based on his actions and words. His pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish actions are by far more than just "recurting" for the Nazis. He is described as "Antisemite" and "Pro-Nazi" by many. Zeq 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Maybe but could someone provide quotes from as valuable source as possible that he was not antisemit ? Thank you. Alithien 11:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt such sources exist. But maybe. If ther are serious scholarly sources we need to see them. I realize off course the burden of prrof in a formal trial is on those making a claim but we are in an in formal discussion, having a crediable source claim he was NOT and antisemite would be helpfull to explain his acts (maybe?) Zeq 12:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Such a question is about as interesting as "could someone provide a quote from an as valuable source as possible that he was not a martian?". Why would a serious scholar go at lengths describing someone _not_ as an antisemite? Stop try to put the burden of proof where it does not belong, and consider WPs NPOV policies. --Cybbe 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read up on WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean that articles cannot contain any POV at all (anti-Semite is a POV). It means that POV must be treated neutrally. If we can find sources showing that Husayni was decidedly anti-semite, or identified as such, it goes into the article. --Cyde Weys 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A source that shows he decidedly was an anti-semite? Please tell me, what would such a source be? If someone makes a claim that he was an anti-semite, and they are noteworthy enough for their opinions to be relevant, they might go in the article, but it can obviously not pass as a fact. The claim must be attributed as such. Opinions are not facts. --Cybbe 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

4 case enables to be so "crude" : 1. when the people refers himself as such, 2. when justice condemned him as such. 3. When there is no controverse about the fact he is such 4. When he made statements that can be attributed to him and that are not controversed as such. For example, Iranian President is anti-semitic because he claimed anti-semitic theories. Alithien 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your alleged cases: 1) Uh, no. If he described himself as such, we could state he described himself as such. His POV is still a POV, e.g. if he had described himself as "a man of peace" it would not amount to a fact. ; 2) Who and what is "justice"? And still, we should only state facts, e.g. "he was convicted of...", or "he was found guilty of..." ; 3) A POV is still not a fact even though a vast majority agrees, e.g. Hitler was arguably an evil man, but stating that as a fact is still a breach of the NPOV policy. 4) Still POV, still goes into interpretations and mind guessing. Again, the correct way is to cite what he has said, if you think it is obvious from the statements that he was an anti-semite, there should be no need to point that out. It all boils down to correct application of WP policy. --Cybbe 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny. I assume there is no one antisemite as a consequence ? Could you please answer ? Please, could you also precise what could be stated about Hitler, you talked about... And also, be consistent with yourself then and go and explain eg to Palmiro just above there is no zionist propaganda, please ;-) Alithien 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not saying there are no anti-semites. Im saying it is not up to us to state as _a fact_ who are and who arent. This is policy, and the example I did on Hitler is taken from WP:NPOV. Oh, and I expect Palmiro to express his POV on talk pages, I certainly do, this place is for discussion. --Cybbe 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but could you please indicate to me who in earth history *is* antisemite ? Alithien 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? This is no tea-party, and as I have explained, it would be of no relevance. --Cybbe 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Cybbe's comments on this issue. --Zero 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you lack knowledge on this topic. Here is one : [13]. Alithien 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who think Mark Weber [14] is a serious refernce is making a big mistake and also hurting his own credability. He is known as holocaust reveionist and argues that laws against holocaus denial are a disgarce to Humanity.....

I'm going to have to agree here. Just because something is online doesn't mean it can be trusted. And seeing as how these people are generally associated with being Holocaust deniers, I don't think we should use anything by them. They seem decidedly POV. --128.8.73.58 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I assume Alithien just did not know who is was bringing as refernce I would just rather ignore it and say that there are no evidence that the Mufti was non antisemitic but there is pleanty that he was. Zeq 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right about Weber's lack of credibility, but I don't see what his opinions about holocaust denial laws has to do with that; plenty of people who would disagree with Weber on every other thing might agree with his distaste for such laws. Me, for example. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we agree about Weber's lack of credability and we seem to agree about him not being a good refernce we don't have to continue this discussion and we can go back to the Mufti.Zeq 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zeq. I perfectly know where I took this reference. I only ask for AS VALUABLE AS POSSIBLE sources about the fact that the Mufti was not a antisemitic to add in the below mentionned articel. Alithien 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sad to hear that you know where you took it from and still decided to use it. Zeq 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, I think you lack jewish humour :-) Alithien 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism

First I want to underline that I am not involved in your dispute. I started gathering these sources far before this dispute started. I don't mind Haj Amin al-Husseini's life. I have gathered all references about people talking about his antisemitism (pro or contra) in the forementionned article. The article is perfectly sourced and all authors are referenced. Everybody who wants to add "well referenced" source is welcome. Regards. I have started gathering information from people claiming he is not. They just have to be added. Alithien 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a constructive comment about the fact that the title is not NPOV enough and should be : Haj Amin al-Husseini and antisemitism. Any comment ? Alithien 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I remind that if somebody has references about this topic, at the condition they are well-sources and referenced, they are welcome. Alithien 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

from Cyde's talk page

Main article namespace is for encyclopedic content only. What you have is a list of references that aren't a standalone article and should either be merged into the main article on Amin al-Husayni or put somewhere in your userspace. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should appear in the main article because it would balance this. I thought it would be better to treat this information an equivalent way as : List of Israeli military operation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war or List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Alithien 08:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

vote at the date of March 6

Delete : 5

Merge or rename : 8

(one Delete or merge not taken into account)

Alithien 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Brief response to Christophe

I'm sure everyone appreciates your going to so much trouble Christophe, but almost all of this material is too poorly sourced to go in the article. I would only be comfortable with Elpeleg and Arendt, and the latter hasn't done any work on the mufti. As a Belgian resident you probably aren't aware that iUniverse and Xlibris (publishers of the books by Morse and Carlson) will publish anything sent to them for a fee. Self-published sources are not allowed in Wikipedia, see WP:V. Most web sites also fall in to the category "self-published" as there is no quality control mechanism. Of your 17 references I see the following,

Self-published books 15 & 17.
Same source: 2 & 3 (only reputable historian cited).
Propaganda web sites: 6, 7, 13.
No relevant content 4, 8, 10, 12, 16.
Unsourced claims: 5 (letter to the Editor (not a biography), quotation disputed by historians), 9.
Propaganda pamphlet: 11 (Pearlman, Haganah spokesman, Lt Colonel in the IDF).

I'm sorry to be so negative. --Ian Pitchford 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

you didn't even read the text...

You don't have to be sorry, just to be honnest...

Note there is no 17 references but only 9. The additionnal notes (the only thing you read as proven by your comment "no relevant content 4, 8, 10, 12, 16) give information about where the information comes from or leave to the reader the opportunity to check what is written.

Sorry you didn't read the text. This would also indicate that your vote for the deletion was a pure act of angryness. Sorry for that.

I strongly underline that this material is NOT poorly source. Everything is perfectly and particularly well sourced. Maybe authors could be controversed (and certainly even for some) but this is WHAT THEY CLAIM. Nuances are important : only their reliability can be discussed.

I numbered them from 1 to 9 for clarity : [15]

1 is Arendt. so is good.

2 is Zvi Elpeleg. so is good.

3 You comment 'unsourced claim'... This is Dr Walter Reich's claim, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior. What can we reproach to him ? Competence ?

4 You comment propagandist website : Simon Wiesenthal is a propagandist. Maybe. I really don't know. I precised his claim, reported this and showed where to find them. Give me a quote that can justify he is a propagandist.

5 For Edwin Black and his book : "IBM and the holocaust", you say quotation disputed by historians. Maybe. Could you provide them ?

---

6 I agree he is a propagandist. Of course. But this doesn't prove he lies. That is why I clearly wrote who he was and give the reference of a book written by Ben Gourion about him... Reader can judge by himself.

7 Of course Joan Peters is controversed. I even wrote why and who controversed her : Chomsky and Finkelstein. But is she controversed for her quotes about Mufti. Not at all according to what I know : it is because she defended the thesis of a land without a nation for a nation without a land. Morris stated in Haaretz Ben Gourion should have attaqued cisjordania in 1949 and he stated that Muslims were barbarians : do we have to remove all of what he writes ? No we just repport what he writes.

8 I hesitated much about Morse but he is neverthless a candidate for the congress of the united states... I hardly see how we could censure claim's from him...

9 I dont know who is Paul Carlson. But nothing indicate he could be a liar. He quotes Bar Zohar who I discover yesterday is quoted on palestineremember and I therefore assume a reliable source. But that was n°9.

---

Alithien 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

about 7, J.Peters

No, Joan Peters is controversial because her book has been shown to be full of untruths and deceptions. That is quite different. --Zero 03:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is also full of deceptions. Still he is a source. If there is a dispute about a specific quote from Peters you should bring the other POV -"describe the controversy" is the way Wikipedia handle if something is POV. The policy sais "NPOV, not "truth" .Zeq 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zero. You must be right. When I read that hypothesis of a land without people for a people without land I can hardly believe the remaining is true. But this is not my problem. This is Joan Peters'problem. I report her claim. If she was the only one, I think she should not be place. Do you have a report from a notorious writer that would indicate she is controversed because "her book has been shown to be full of untruths and deceptions" ? Alithien 09:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your remarks. Of course the fact that Peters' book is widely held in contempt means that it is not a good source for Wikipedia. Out there are many articles and books written by serious professional historians (Peters is not a historian at all but a journalist). We should use them simply because they have a higher chance of being correct. Our aim should be to be as accurate and balanced as possible. --Zero 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree of course WK must be balanced. I agree the more professional a writer, the better. That is not what I mean. The fact reported is not that "XXX is YYY" which is very hard to report a NPOV-way. Even impossible. The fact reported is that "ZZZ claims that XXX is YYY". This is perfectly NPOV. As soon as somebody is notorious, I don't understand how it could be NPOV to decide his mind cannot be reported by wikipedia. Even more, if (s)he already has an article in WK about him, even more if there is already an article about the book. So againt, I insist : the topic of this article is not to state that "XXX is YYY". The topic is to report all the references stating that "XXX is YYY". What it can mean or what people would deduce is not my concern. I am NPOV so I don't have to care about that.

But of course I agree to discuss about this here in the talk page. This could mean 2 things : whether "XXX is YYY" or there are many ZZZ's that want to make believe that "XXX was YYY". I really and honnestly don't know (and don't care). I have my own opinion but this is not important. The fact (and that is important for wikipedia) is that "XXX is densely reported to be YYY". What would be very interesting is to add claims that "XXX was not at all YYY". But I didn't find any. And wonderful, an analysis from a historian that analyse the fact that many ZZZ's report that XXX was YYY and that he thinks that it means is HISANALYSIS. I found 1 I gave you on your talk page and highly contested by Zeq here above. I don't have any argument to refuse to state that "ZZZ, a BLABLABLA, considers that HISANALYSIS" but we will have to discuss about BLABLABLA.

What is "funny" here is that I think Peters is one of the most important reference to add, particularly because she is controversed and therefore balance the article : Peters, a highly critized journalist (source to this high criticism) considers that.

My view of NPOV for controversial topics is to proceed that way as often as possible : ZZZ, a BLABLABLA, claims that HISANALYSIS. That is the fact. What it means, is not my concern (but it means whether XXX is wrong or is right or lies). The only think I can add to this is : ZZZ has been accused of lying by ZZZ2, a BLABLABLA2 or ZZZ's HISANALYSIS is discussed by ZZZ2, a BLABLABLA2. ZZZ's HISANALYSIS is shareb by ZZZ2, a BLABLABLA2.

Why can you not source the point you want to add to the article (or the quotation you want to use) to a good scholarly publication. That's the question. --Ian Pitchford 11:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You admitted yourself the scholar quality of the first 2 ones. Now how would you summarize the point claimed by these 9 men ? Alithien 08:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Elpeleg is obviously fine and the only person in your list who has done scholarly work on the mufti's life. It doesn't strengthen any claim you want to make to cite websites and self-published books. After all, if you insist on self-published sources all anyone has to do to dispute your conclusion is to publish a web page or to pay iUniverse to publish a book making their contrary claims. --Ian Pitchford 12:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian, none of these is anyone. Absolutely none. Elpeled is fine perfect. And he is clear in his quote. I don't think I betray him. This is hte conclusion of a chapter. Arendt was at Eichmann's case at Nuremberg where all the connection about the Mufti were debated. Reference 4 is from a journalist who studied link between IBM and the Nazis regime. There is alos the "caricature" taken from New York Times of 16 May 1948. So once again I ask you : could you please summarize the idea behind all these quotes ? Please answer...

I went deeper into details after your comment about "my point". Pappé wrote in "La guerre en Palestine de 1948" p.158 about Abdallah's policy : "Une autre explication plausible de cette position est l’absence chez lui d’antisémitisme –ce qui le différenciait beaucoup de dirigeants arabes de l’époque– et une communauté d’intérêts avec les sionistes pour s’opposer au mouvement national palestinien". He wrote the forbidden word... Not about the Muti, no... right... just about "most arab dirigeants Abdallah excepted". And I am sure Laurens (French historian) wrote something that sounds like "a source of strength in sionism was in the fact they had the shoah in mind". (NB: Laurens is not controversial, he speaks and reads arab. He explains master plan and refers to khalidi but disagrees with this. Generally speaking he is quite careful.) Alithien 20:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are letting this get too complex Christophe. If you think an important aspect of the mufti's career is missing from the article and you know a good source then just cite it. Having a large collection of dubious quotations just weakens the point. --Ian Pitchford 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Today the point is that the Mufti is reported to be antisemitic by historians (historians, not "the" historians, like in 242) and this is widely spread among others and this should be gathered in an article that has a link in this one. Alithien 06:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Results of nomination for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism

Text of close:

The result of the debate was delete and merge. The current page is a fork, and not a likely search term, so it is not appropiate to retain it even as a redirect. The material may have a place in the parent article. To avoid any GFDL issues, this will be moved to a subpage Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary). If and when the editors at Amin al-Husseini decide to incorporate this material, then decisions can be made regarding how to preserve the licence. If the consensus there is not to merge this material, the page can be deleted by leaving a note on my (or probably any other) adminstrator's talk.
brenneman{T}{L} 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Order of events:

"References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism" moved to Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)
Talk:References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism" moved to Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)
Both resulting redirects deleted.
Contents of "Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)" copied below
"Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)" redirected here.

Copied from "Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)":

This page looks like a POV Fork from Amin al-Husayni. cmh 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good evening. This article is not a pov fork of Haj Amin al-Husseini article. This articles is intended to gathers all references about Haj Amin al-Husseini's anti-semitism : whether they claim this or whether not. No matter. More this is not at all a copy of Haj Amin al-Hussein'es article where I am not involved at all. More it is particurlarly NPOV in introducing the comments and is extrelemy sourced and documented. So, could you argue why you consider it would be whether a pov fork ? Thank you. Alithien 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The very title of this article is a POV-fork. Not a single of these sources even describe him as an anti-semite. --Cybbe 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In my country, the defense of the final solution or the extermination of the Jews is considered as an antisemitic's point of view. What title would you consider more appropriate ? Alithien 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is moderation of these issues going on over at the discussion page for Amin al-Husayni in which you are involved. Perhaps it would be wise to simply continue your discussion over there. According to WP:NPOV all sides of an issue must be discussed on a single page, therefore your creation of a page titled for one side of the controversy is POV regardless of content. cmh 19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't gather references about the fact that he would be anti-semite but gathers all quotes that discuss his (assumed) antisemitism. As a consequence it doesn't at all concern one side of a dispute and the flag you put is not appropriate. Any editor is welcome to add in this article any well-referenced comment about Haj Amin al Husseini's anti-semitism, stating it is true or not. Thank you. Alithien 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be or it may not be, but these issues should be discussed in one place, the page existing about this person. It is inappropriate to create a new page solely for that purpose. cmh 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What may be or may not be ? This is not clear in your comments ? If this is the choice of the flag, please argue about your choice for this. More, what forbids to write an article about a topic that is debated by historians in the different article than the article of the man debated about ? [16]. Alithien 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I refer to your first sentence when I say That may be or it may not be. As for your question of what forbids it is the most basic Wikipedia official policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article. " Further debate as to your intentions for the page are really beside the point. Unless a reason can be presented why this page is not on the same subject as Amin al-Husseini I will nominate it for deletion.

I am not sure wikipedia policy means threat as the one you do. Please argue and prove you don't defend a pov. As explained in the talk page of the article of Al Husseini, there is enough in that article about the man in question. This article deals with a very precise controversial topic which is of course linked to the main article but which doesn't deserve place in it. That is why it is referenced there (and only reference) and that the topic is developed in another chapter. So, there are 2 subjets.Alithien 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

see Haj Amin al-Husseini's talk page Alithien 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Next steps:
Forks are bad, but support articles are good. If the consensus on this page is that this is valuable material, first attempt to integrate it. If there is too much high quality encyclopedic material to fit into this article then it can be split out. Conversly, if the consensus is that this material doesn not belong in this article, the subpage can be tagged for speedy deletion refering to the closed afd.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

next steps

This cannot be deleted. That would be censorship of the claim of these people. Note of them can be censored. They all are notorious, some are even extremely highly reliable. Against all votes, I recommand this not to be merged and not to be deleted but to be annexed to the article with a reference leading to it. This for the global NPOV of the main article. And that was not fork ! Alithien 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Voting polarizes discussions and tends to lock the voters into positions prematurely. We first attempt to make decisions through discussion and compromise. You have some good thoughts but they should be explored more thoroughly before reaching a decision. I strongly urge you to withdraw this poll and continue the discussion about the appropriateness of this content in the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

done. Alithien 17:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

discussion with Ian

I leave this at this point a few days and will come back latter. Alithien 11:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Christophe, but I would like to emphasise once more that using a source such as Elpeleg or another scholar of note will enhance the credibility of the claim you want to make and of Wikipedia as a whole. --Ian Pitchford 16:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am working on this. I agree with you it would be even better. From your side, could you please summarize what the relevant people quoted above such as Elpeled and Arendt mean about Mufti ? Alithien 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll be able to find just the quotation you are looking for in Elpeleg. --Ian Pitchford 18:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Their point is that the Mufti was antisemitic. The only question is to determine how relevant this can be. Alithien 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to interpret what scholars say Christophe - we can just quote them. Where they disagree we can describe the disagreement with reference to their works. We won't arrive at a balanced view by trawling publications - without any regard to the quality of those publications - in a an effort to find material to confirm one particular view. --Ian Pitchford 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ian. You are not consistent :

I have quoted them and only quoted them and you ask their point
The quote are there so I ask you to give their point, you refuse to answer
I give you their point, you say we can only quote.

In French, we would say "tu joues avec mes pieds" (you play with my feet). Please, be consistent and answer the following questions :

3 questions so :

Do you disagree that the point they underline is that Mufti was antisemite ?
If so, what is their (common) point ?
Do you have more information about this topic (Elvpelg's quote ?) ?

Alithien 11:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll make this my final comment as I think this is a waste of time. None of the quotations you mention calls the mufti an anti-semite. I can't find the term in Mattar or Elpeleg. I don't know whether the mufti was an anti-semite or just an opponent of Zionist ambitions in Palestine. With regard to the quotations. Arendt: gives no source for her claim, but I don't see why it shouldn't be cited as her unsourced opinion. Elepeleg: also gives no source for his claim, which is strange given that he says the were "many comments [by the mufti].. that he was very pleased by the Nazis' Final Solution". Reich: There's an alternative account of this meeting in which Hitler is reported to have said that at the moment of Arab liberation "Germany had no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews", not "Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere." Wiesenthal Centre: self-published website with claims not verified by scholars. Black: Unsourced book review. Pearlman: propaganda tract by Haganah spokesman/IDF Lt. Col. in the IDF that you haven't actually consulted and is full of inaccuracies. Peters (but actually Farah): Elpeleg sources the same quotation to the New York Times 31 Jan 1946, but it isn't there. Morse: self-published book by talk show host; Carlson: self-published book. --Ian Pitchford 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As well as NYT, Elpeleg cites the book of Hirszowicz, pp322-3, but those two pages are occupied by a map. It could be that the page numbers refer to the Hebrew edition of Hirszowicz. I'll look around in the book for this quotation. --Zero 23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ian. You don't answer my questions unless you say : all were liars or wrong. Very ironically, may I create an article named : the widely spread ideas around alleged Mufti's antisemitism ? I agree and if so we can proceed to a vote. (I am ironique but serious).

Less ironically I will ask for mediation to see how to go forward.

Today, the only think on which I refuse to negociate is to claim that the promotion of a final solution would not be antisemitism. Alithien 16:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Christophe, you're aware that self-published material and original research can't appear in Wikipedia. Your priority should be to delete this material from the French version of the article. --Ian Pitchford 17:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked 2 mediators to intervene in our different. You are not aware that the way of working is different on French and English wikipedias. There people are more constructive. There are far less conflicts. I have already answered the point concerning self-published. About original research this is not the case here. The quotes are not from me. Concerning lessons, you should think about the high relativity of the notion of "truth" you think to be a defender of. Alithien 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to seem obtuse, but could Ian or Zero explain (from their point of view) what the specific issue is? Is there a paragraph, sentence, or phrase that someone wishes to add to/delete from this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Christophe wants to introduce a large number of quotations to the article - some very poorly sourced - to support the claim that the mufti was anti-semitic. As I have said above I have no idea whether the claim can be sustained, but the introduction of material from unencyclopedic sources that don't even mention the word "anti-semitic" is not going to help. Elpeleg is a perfectly good source. Why will that not do? --Ian Pitchford 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to introduce the quotations in the article but in another article we could reach from this one.

The point I claim is not that the Mufti was antisemite but he is widely claimed to be antisemite ...widely...

About antisetism, I am tired with you attitude. I asked you to tell me how to summarize the point of the 9 people. You refused to answer while I asked several time. From my ponit of veiw promoting A final solution is antisemitic. It is not the case ? Well. Could you please help me and tell me what word that would caracterize a man who is claimed to have said or done what is reported by these nine people, whatever true or not, one step at a time.

The sources are good. It is rather your claims about the poorness (is this English) that are poor.

Here is why, author by author :

Arendt was Professor at Princeton Universtity and the studied the Eichmann case at Nuremberg when the Mufti connection with Nazi regime were "discovered". She knows this topic better than us and the quote cannot be misinterpretated, can it ?
Reich, is a reliable source. [17] and knows the topic. If there is an alternative account of that meeting, it has to be introduced in the article but with references. What are you references ?
Edwin Black is a self published book. Are you sure ? I see an editor and I doubt that the summary you make about him is "npov" when I read the wikipedia article about him. He received the Pulitzer price for this book (among many other prizes and I don't see anywhere he is controversed). With his many publications on the topic, he can be considered as an expert on the topic, even if not an historian. Do you have more information about him ?
This was for the scholars.
2 are "only" notorious and cannot be censored. That is my point here. The claims are so widely spread that even these guys know this. Simon Wiesenthal and Chuck Morse, candidate for the Congress...
2 are "controversed" : Pearlman (historian close to Ben Gourion) and Joan Peters and that is why it must be clearly pointed out they are controversed. I did so. So what do you want to add about that ? As I told you Benny Morris also is controversed. And I would say, even more than these both guys after stating what I summarize that "Muslims are barbarians". Why don't we remove all quotes from Morris ?
About Pearlman, could you provide the scholarly sources indicating that his work was not accurate or honnest ? I also think to add Schetchman, precising who he was of course but simply because he is referring to what he calls the "historiographic work" of Schetchman...
1 is neutral, Carlson, I don't know him, no more that I know you, but he quotes Michael Bar Zohar that you know very well to have written the wikipedian article about him... He is not a admirer of Ben Gourion I think. May we deduce from this he is should at least be neutral about Mufti

Please note I will not be on the internet before sunday maybe saturday Alithien 00:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a sidenote as I don't really want to get involved in the conflict this moment, I think it is wrong for people to always say various versions of wikipedia are better than the English one just because there are more conflicts here, I feel that this is probably because most versions have a much more homogeneous group of people editing than the English version, so there are likely to be many less POVs expressed, I would argue that this is more of a negative than a positive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Christophe, if the sources don't actually describe him as an antisemite, then Wikipedia cannot do so; using a bunch of quotations to "prove" he is an antisemite is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Christophe, Jay make s agood point. First I am sure you can find sources that decsribe him as anysemite, second you can just say he made calls to kill the jews and incited Palestinian political violence against the jews.

You should also look at Nakba how quotes that Jewish leaders say in the 30s were used to create the total Original resarch conclusion that thesecalls about th need to increase jewish majority caused the Palestinians to run away when their armies started to loose the war . What I am trying to say that some original research does find it';s way into wikipedia articles despite the OR policy and against the NPOV policy so maybe whet you learn here you can also apply there. Zeq 13:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully my final reply to Christophe

Christophe, I would have thought my comments above were sufficiently detailed not to have to respond again. However, I will genuinely try to make this my last comment. Firstly, self-published books cannot be cited or quoted in Wikipedia per WP:V#Self-published_sources. I've referred you to this policy several times without result or response. The books by Morse and Carlson are self-published and cannot be used. Secondly, you should cite your sources per WP:CITE, not the source that a book review or a web page claims is the source, e.g., you don't cite Peters if your source is an article on a web page claiming to cite Peters; you don't cite Pearlman if your source is a website. All you have in these cases is one bad source for another bad source. Thirdly, you can't include original research in the article per WP:NOR. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that the mufti supported the Final Solution and was therefore anti-semitic. Reliable sources have to state this unequivocally, preferably with clear evidence in support so that their conclusions can be checked against those of other writers. This is what scholars do. As for Black, see above, I didn't say his book was self-published, but his piece is just an article about his book. Why would anyone use such a poor source to support a major historical claim? Don't you think reliable historians might have something to say about the matter? As for Arendt, I said that I don't see why you shouldn't quote her, but she did no research on the mufti and doesn't support her claim with any evidence. Using sources like that just makes the claim look weak rather than widely supported. With reference to the material from Reich, David Yisrael says that the statement made by Hitler on 28 November, 1941 was that at the moment of Arab liberation "Germany had no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews" (die Vernichtung der das Judentum protegierenden Macht) (Yisraeli, David The Palestine Problem in German Politics, 1889-1945 p. 310 quoted in Browning, Christopher R. (2004). The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0803213271 p. 539). --Ian Pitchford 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a very interesting find about the Hitler statement. So there were at least three accounts of what Hitler said. The most well-known one (quoted in this article) was made by Hitler's translator Schmidt. The full sentence from Schmidt is "Das deutsche Ziel würde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht lebenden Judentums sein.", of which the translation given in Documents on German Foreign Policy is "Germany's only objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power." The account you mention was apparently made by Fritz Grobba. The third is the diary of our friend al-Husayni. For this I don't have a good source at all, but our other friend Joan Peters claims it says "annihilate the power that brings the Jews" (TFI, p438), which is nearly the same as Grobba's version. So, assuming Joan Peters can be confirmed, there are two votes for the Brits being the target of the Vernichtung and one vote for the "Jewish element" being the target. Btw, some time ago I uploaded a fourth description of the meeting but it does not mention this statement. --Zero 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

answer to Ian - 18.3.06

Hello Ian. I agree with the rules you remind but not to the way you link them to the topic.

You write I didn’t answer you on these points. I think I did but not on the “juridical” point of view. I tried to explain you that they didn't concern the topic here. If you want to place this on the juridical’s point of view, the discussion risk to be long. That is not a problem.

You used the work “genuinely”. I read the exact translation in “Robert & Collins” dictionary. That is exactly the word I was looking for. I suggest we try to understand each other’s point genuinely.

So, please, agree a few time to follow my reasoning and try to understand my point instead of hiding behing rules that does apply of course but not the link you made between them and this case.

You don’t understand me : I don’t want to introduce a quote stating the Mufti was anti-Semitic because my point is not that the Mufti was anti-Semitic. (my point is not either that the Mufit was not anti-Semitic). I want to introduce and develop an article about the Mufti reputation of anti-Semitism.

See answer to Jayjg below.

(digression) answer to Moshe-Constantine-Hassan-Al-Silverberg

Hello. I didn’t mean that English wikipedia was better or worse that another one. Ian had written me just above that I should care to remove this npov material form the French wikipedia. Which is a criticism of the French wikipedia and the way it works. I therefore defended the way we work there where editors (with whom I work) give arguments pro and contra each topic. Another solution is that some editors give arguments pro and other contra. I don’t say this is the case on the English wikipedia. I say I have the feeling this the way Ian works with me.

The difference between the two wikipedias (and I assume all others) is really interesting but would deserve another talk’s page and not this one. I am interested by such thought about “different factual work methods based on the same founding principles” (not good translation of “différents methods de travail dans les faits basées pourtant sur les mêmes principes fondateurs”.

Answer to Jayjg

I didn’t answer Ian’s last comments but we know we are blocked in that direction. Jayjg underlines a common point with Ian so I answer him but will answer Ian if he requests (But would prefer he doesn’t request we enter the "juridictionnal" aspect now.

Jayjg : Christophe, if the sources don't actually describe him as an antisemite, then Wikipedia cannot do so; using a bunch of quotations to "prove" he is an antisemite is original research’’

In fact you tackle 3 points :

1. the purpose is to “prove” Mufti is antisemite

2. the sources would not describe him as an antisemite

3. a bunch of quotation is an original reasearch.

1. Purpose

My point is not at all to prove he would be an antisemite. Whatever true or not, the antisemitism he would be or would not be is not important.

Even if Mufti was or would have been antisemite there is no evidence than this influenced his policy. I would say that this is rather his policy that influenced his antisemitism.

See the answer to question 3 to see my point.

2. Sources would not describe him as an antisemite

I thought about your point. I can understand this in a unique sense : we must be as precise as possible in the report we make about somebody. So, if the word antisemite doesn’t appear we cannot qualify him as such.

Not agreeing that the allegations gathered here against the Mufti are not allegations of antisemitism need to take a great distance with the subjet. I warned people 2 times that I didn’t want to go in that direction.

Here is my comments and questions then :

2.1 I understand your point by the need of taking “distance”. Do you have arguments to explain me how promoting “a final solution” or being pleased by this is *not* antisemitism ? And this just to take the 1st two quotes and to keep cool. Because there is also the following : the support of ‘’mass murder of Jews’’, implication of ‘’atrocities against Jews’’, ‘’shipment of Jews to the gas chambers of Poland’’, ‘’killing the jews wherever they are found’’, … (see point 2.3 before answering)

2.2 If the allegations are not allegations of antisemitism could you please tell me how to summarize this in one word or a npov way because I don’t see how. (see point 2.3)

2.3 To try that we don’t take that direction, we can discuss rather if yes or not the mind of this scholar is relevant so that wikipedia could talk about eg the Mufti’s reputation of antisemitism (without commenting about the truth or not of this reputation) :

’’Jews had been further angered by the United Kingdom’s intervention in behalf of the mufti of Jerusalem, the anti-Semitic and Pro-Nazi Arab leader who had been charged with war crimes by the Allies”, Randall Bennet Woods, ‘’A changing of the Gard : Anglo-American relations, 1941-1946’’, UNC Press, 1990. ISBN : 0807818771. He is is Professor at the History Department at the Arkansas University [18]

bunch of quotation and original research

I started by first two topics where I am quite confident of my position. Here I am more cautious. I still have some wonderings about this.

Without doubt, the interdiction of original research means that people cannot develop their own analyses or thesis in wikipedia. Without doubt, this doesn’t mean that we cannot gathers information on a subject which is the basis of each article of wikipedia with the opportunity to see this information grow and the topic develop itself. Where are we in between ???

Another aspect is that an article need a point (even if many others don’t have either, eg all those concerning that are lists). I think this should need a point because people try to put one on it where I didn't personnaly put none yet. I have several ones but I don’t know how to gather all them a npov-way and I think there are not developed enough yet. To develop them the article should be introduced in wikipedia so that contributors could read this and contribute to its development (instead of discussing toom much).

There are different points developed around his reputation :

1a. In her study on the impact of the Holocaust on Israel society, Idith Zerthal (Israel Holocaust and the politics of Nationhood, p.175) explains the role of Mufti Demonization. Without saying accusations were true or not, she talks about (p.100) the “massive references (…) to the Nazi like intentions of Arab leaders” and only points out the Mufti as such. At the same page, she also reports a journalist linking “the put at the disposal of the natinalist arab leaders of the nazi antisemitism and arab leaders
1b. Finkelstein talks about “the starring role” of the Mufti in the “Holocaust secondary litterature” (Holocaust industry p.62). He is also the only one to not to deny but to question about the reality of this “central position of the Mufti in Hitler Final solution”.
1c. A third approach : in her filmography study about Holocaust, Annette Insdorf (Prof at Columbia University) studies the way Holocaust is treated in films. Concerning the exodus she specifically points out that “Exodus insists on the connections between Nazi and Arab antisemitism. She precises that in the film "the Grand Mufti’s urbane emissary tells Taha (…) that they must destroy the Jews".
2a. Pappé, in his book about the war of Palestine in 1948, explains the “opening” of King Abdallah towards Zionism because at the contrary of other Arab leaders, he was not an antisemitic. (Note he doesn’t talk specifically of the Mufti but on a more general point of view).
2b. This reputation (obviously) impacted the “fear of extermination” of Jews in 1948, (this fear and his consequences is analysed by Laurens (a French historian) in his book “Paix et Guerre au Moyen-Orient” (Peace and War in the Middle-East). Kathleen Christison talks also about this “fear of extermination” and its link with the Mufti (without precising antisemitism but only link with Nazism). This 2b should be more developed.
3 Schetchman and Pearlman point of view should -by a way or another- introduced too given it seems they were among the first to report about this and contributed to create this.

Alithien 15:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

break

I will not have time to go on the discussion on this topic in the following days. Anyway there lack a "good reason" to gather these quotes (that are perfectly sourced). As it is today, this is "personnal research". As I don't consider the Mufti's antisemitism is relevant enough in his action I will not introduced this in his article. On the other way; the way his antisemitism was (and still is today) dealt by (first) Israelis is central for israeli society. This should be treated another way. Alithien 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph

The opening paragraph was arrived after a long mediation.

There are many facts about his life that are NOT mentioned and those can be mentioned in the other section of the article.

Aladain - please restore the 1st section to what it was and add any additional info to the appropriate section. Thanks, Zeq 16:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not edited this article for about a month, and was not aware that the matter of the introductory paragraph was referred to Mediation.

Before I restored the Islamic World Congress mention, which was in the article as recently as March 8, I searched the article to see if it was moved to the body somewhere, which I doubt I would have objected to. Since it was deleted altogether, and no arguments in Talk suggested it was incorrect, I restored it to where it was, the intro. It seems all right there, but if someone thinks it belongs elsewhere, well let them suggest where. What I don't get, is why it was deleted. Is it factually incorrect? Was he not the president of the WIC, in fact its founder?

I will describe the replacement of the word collaborated with cooperated up in the subsection "Proposal for vote #3", as that is exactly where the discussion left off.--AladdinSE 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No. We had an agreement. and colaborated is the correct word. Zeq 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We had no such agreement. You must have me confused with another editor. I will repeat what I said above in the proposal 3 section, regarding collaboration: "Collaborated" is a loaded word. I looked it up in the dictionary, and one of the given meanings is: "cooperate traitorously with an enemy." It is POV to suggest that Husayni's cooperation with the declared enemy of the mandatory power, Great Britain, was "collaboration", i.e. traitorous, or that Germany was Palestine's enemy, just because Britain was the mandatory power. I have replaced collaborated with cooperated. Anyway why are we arguing, the edit has been accepted. As for what you added regarding "Met with Hitler", I am removing that, because it is mentioned in the body. The intro paragraph should only summarize. "met with hitler" comes under "cooperated with Nazi Germany". As for moving the sentence about the World Islamic Congress, that's fine with me. I wonder why it was deleted to begin with, instead of moved.--AladdinSE 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is fine. Do we have an agreement now ? Zeq 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --AladdinSE 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil

I once read something about how the reason the British didn't indict him as a war criminal is because of his influence in the control of oil in Egypt.

new study

http://www.ejpress.org/article/7448 Zeq 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

any one adding this to the article ? Zeq 06:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

more sources: http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Haj_Amin_El_Husseini.htm Zeq 09:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

published paper about anti-semitism in the arab's world and talking about Mufti

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm

(no time to read this carefully - seems sourced) Alithien 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

circular reference : how to feed propaganda

I bear your attention to the 2nd link given in the artice (in the beginning): [19] This refers to... the article about Mufti from the en version of wikipedia :-) It also referts to Schetchman. I highly suggests we remove this... Alithien 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

another source

http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=1226

anti semitism

I don't mind this quarrel any more but I want to underline that in the reference I give just 2 posts above, an historian clearly states that Mufti was "antisemitic". In one of the refences given in your edit war, there is also one that clearly specifies this information too as coming from historians. Both sources are different (except that from work published in Germany). I think this should close the case.

I think that the minimum that could be written is :

Haj Amin al-Husseini is considered as antisemite by several historians and commentators who studied Nazism and arabs connections and to refer to some of them. We will never know if it is true but at least this is what is considered such.

Good luck... Alithien 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Or to be precise a number of US Jewish magazines and right-wing news sources claim that a book published in Germany includes that claim. --Ian Pitchford 07:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

last time I checked AFP was not "jewish" or "US" :-) but thanks Ian for sharing your bias with us. Zeq 08:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is US jewish magazine but why do you think it is biaised ? Should we get rid of the "journal of palestinian studies" ? For the one given by Zeq [20], why do you say this is right-wing news sources ? Alithien 08:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian's arguments

After carefully reading Ian's arguments (first that the sources do not include the text, later that the sources are "jewish" and "US right wing") I concluded that there is no good reason not to include the info from the academic sources. The two researchers are exprets in their area, they speak the languge and the direct quotes from their book are given both by AFP and DPA (French and German news agenceies) Zeq 09:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I still think that Mufti's antisemitism was historically anecdotical and so hope it will not cover pages and pages of other articles but it should (here) be clearly specified given it is supported by academicians sources. I think this case is closed. Maybe you could organise a discussion between editors of this article that would be sanctionned to prevent useless edit wars. Why not ask also Fred Bauder to give his mind regarding this source ? He is aware of the matter. Please have both in mind the same topic led of you in front of the ArbCom 3 months ago. Alithien 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom said to use academic sources. These are the source used this time. Zeq 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, you both agree because you don't understand that citing a report of a book is not the same as citing the book. I find this inexplicable. Somehow you seem to believe that news sources only ever produce accurate reports, even when they disagree! --Ian Pitchford 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, if you think AFP and DPA are wrong this would be your 3rd wrong argument:

First, you claimed that the info is not in th source (although it clearly spelled-out in the source)
Next, you claimed the source to be "Jewish" and "right wing US" 9although the source is German and French)
Now, you claim the sources are wrong.

You need to learn to accept WP:V and WP:RS and off course always WP:AGF. If you have valid arguments of course we will always listen to you since we enjoy hearing what you have to say.

Zeq 10:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian now claimed that results of the mediation give him the right for th edit war he wages here. Well, I have informed the mediator and on this talk page when the new book from an academic source has been published and I ask Ian politly to restore the lead paragrpah to the consensus on this talk page. You are now using a 4th argument so I wonder what would be the 5th ? Zeq 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AFP report

STUTTGART, Germany (Agence France-Presse) — The Nazis developed plans to slaughter half a million Jews who fled to Palestine during the Holocaust, according to a new study presented yesterday. A research team from Stuttgart University in southern Germany found evidence that the Nazi occupiers in Athens established a military unit ready to wipe out the Jews who had escaped the systematic genocide in Europe. The troops were under the command of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s Afrikakorps during World War II. Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cueppers of Stuttgart University based their research on three years’ study of German wartime records, notably from the Foreign Ministry and the military archive in the western city of Freiburg. The historians said in their new book, “Germans, Jews, Genocide — The Holocaust as History and Present,” that only Rommel’s defeat in 1942 in Egypt by the British prevented the spread of the Holocaust to Palestine. If Rommel’s army had defeated his enemy, General Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s troops and made it to Palestine, the unit would have received orders to slay all 500,000 Jews there. The units were to work like the task forces that exterminated hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe. The authors said the Nazis were counting on the Palestinians to assist in the plan because of their traditionally good ties with the Germans. ”The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side and an uncompromising anti-Semite,” they said. ”He showed what a decisive role hatred of Jews played in the project to promote German-Arab understanding.” They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis. ”The history of the Middle East would have been completely different and a Jewish state would never have been founded if the plan by the Germans and Arabs had been implemented,” Mr. Mallmann said. An estimated 6 million European Jews were killed under the Nazis’ “Final Solution.”

Zeq 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DPA Report

DPA is German news agency

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=26&story_id=29259&name=Nazis+planned+Holocaust+in+Palestine%3A+historians

Nazis planned Holocaust in Palestine: historians

12 April 2006

STUTTGART, GERMANY - The Nazis made plans to conduct a Holocaust of Jews living in Palestine during the Second World War, according to German historians who have examined secret archives.

The Nazis stationed a unit of ruthless troops in the Greek capital Athens with the task of landing in Palestine and murdering about 500,000 European Jews who had taken refuge there, the historians at the University of Stuttgart said Wednesday. But it never deployed.

The rapid-deployment unit was answerable to the Afrika Korps, the German army in North Africa headed by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.

Klaus Michael Mallmann of the University's Ludwigsburg research team and his assistant

Martin Cueppers said they had spent three years studying German wartime archives including those at the Foreign Office in Berlin.

The Allied defeat of Rommel at the end of 1942 had prevented the extension of the Holocaust to Palestine, they said. If Rommel had beaten the Allies in the desert and invaded Egypt, a push into Palestine would have followed and the unit would have deployed there.

The researchers, whose findings appear in a new book entitled Germans, Jews, Genocide, said the Athens unit was intended to operate like Nazi units that hunted for Jews in eastern Europe and either massacred them or sent them to the Nazi death camps.

Mallmann and Cueppers said the Nazis had planned to exploit Arab friendship for their plans.

"The most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem," they said in the book. He was a prime example of how Arabs and Nazis became friends out of a hatred of Jews.

Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter.

Zeq 09:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing to point out is that you haven't consulted the source, a book published in German. What you do have is three sources, the third of which is nothing to do with the book in question, but discusses material in the British National Archives. Looking at the "sources" one by one:

1. This says only that ""The most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem," they said in the book. He was a prime example of how Arabs and Nazis became friends out of a hatred of Jews. Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter.
2. says " They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis."
3. Is not about this story.

1. and 2. have different stories. 1. says that Husseini was a collaborator of the Nazis, which has always been known and is detailed in the article. 2. says that Eichmann organised the logisitcs of the Holocaust, which again is not new information. Overall, there's nothing new here to include in the article, but the "sources" try to make it sound as though there is. Good propaganda. --Ian Pitchford 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, read the sources again. These are direct quotes from an academic source. Both sources use the same quote. Zeq 10:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They aren't direct quotations because the book is in German, and clearly they don't say the same thing either as they are reproduced above. --Ian Pitchford 10:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there an english problem ? if so I am the wrong person to help you. My english is limited but this is what I read:

Mallmann and Cueppers said the Nazis had planned to exploit Arab friendship for their plans."The most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem," they said in the book. He was a prime example of how Arabs and Nazis became friends out of a hatred of Jews. Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter.

Zeq 10:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

answer to Ian

Indeed, you both agree because you don't understand that citing a report of a book is not the same as citing the book. I find this inexplicable. Somehow you seem to believe that news sources only ever produce accurate reports, even when they disagree! --Ian Pitchford 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I perfectly understand and I am sure Zeq too.

Zeq provided you academic sources stating that the Mufti was antisemite. Nothing prooves of course that what they says is true. Facts are lacking. For example to be an antisemite, somebody should "promote some kind of final solution in the Middle East", as writes Mattar or Arendt concerning the same man.

It is a pity that all our recent discussions showed that you had a "strange" reading of academic sources, Ian as illustrated here, here or the NPOV eg haganah superiority and the variable level of criticism you have depending of the point of view introduced eg in the article Dunkelman.

I cannot interact good in the en.wikipedia due to English. I think you should take more into account some potential bias that seem to influence you unfortunately Alithien 12:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait I don't understand, are you suggesting that to be an anti-semite one would have to propose a "final solution" for the Jews? I don't see how that makes any sense, there are a myriad of well-known anti-semites who never publicly advocated the murder of Jews, just like most slave owners in the 19th century American south never advocated the wholesale murder of all Black slaves, but they would obviously still "qualify" as rascists.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I say that if somebody promote some kind of final solution in the middle east, he is an antisemite but many contributors didn't agree some weeks ago and claimend that to write that somebody is antisemite academicians must have written this. Alithien 09:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Now they did. They also provided clear description how is was involved. Ian, I think you failed to convince anyone here . Zeq 10:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't and in fact this article doesn't mention any involvement by Husayni and this article doesn't mention him at all. I've also pointed out twice now that this story not only has nothing to do with the German book, but doesn't mention Husayni either, i.e., three of the four sources you have added provide no new information specifically about Husayni and two of them contradict each other. Finally, the introduction was agreed after weeks of mediation at your request. If Husayni was anti-semitic it's hardly what he was most known for. Even the first paragraph of the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't include such a reference. --Ian Pitchford 10:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, You have removed sourcec content that you claim does not mention Husseieni but it does mention him - please read the sources This is no longer a content dispute. Since I assume you are operating in good fate I have no explnation to your behaviour. Zeq 11:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should stay as agreed during mediation. If you have material specifically about Husayni then add it to the appropriate section. --Ian Pitchford 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No. New information which bring new academic source onm the person can cause us to change the intro. You have used five different arguments to avoid this change. Do you have a real argumnt or we conclude that th consensus here is to chanmge the intro based on the new research. Zeq 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no new information about Al-Husayni in the study you are referring to. It refers to recent documents which show German plans, not Palestinian. Its focus is not at all at Al-Husayni, at least according to the sources you've provided. The novel argument is not about the mufti.
That they mention Al-Husayni as a collaborator with the Germans is hardly a new fact, and the article already has plenty, and much more detailed, information related to that relationship. Simply no need to include this in the intro.
That these German scholars refer to Al-Husayni as an anti-semite hardly makes it a fact, and their description alone is not worth including, especially not in the introduction.
Don't refer to studies unless you have read them or are familiar with their content.
The introduction has been reached through a careful compromise and weeks of mediating, don't insert value-laden descriptions to push a POV.
If you want to include this information somewhere on Wikipedia, get hold of the study and find or create an article which deals with Nazi plans for Palestine. --Cybbe 18:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources totaly disagree with you. read them. they are just above here on the talk page. Zeq 19:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Even your detailed rebuttal aside, I remain unconvinced (and it was just my two first points that were related to the information in the sources.). But you've yet again demonstrated your lack of familiarity with them. --Cybbe 07:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from PA do you have any other argument that fit the sources quoted above and in the article itself ? Zeq 08:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Cybe (in case you missed the sources above)

"Mallmann and Cueppers said the Nazis had planned to exploit Arab friendship for their plans."The most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem," they said in the book. He was a prime example of how Arabs and Nazis became friends out of a hatred of Jews. Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter."

This is a quote froma secondary source (DPA, AFP) quoting the primary source (an Academic book) - prefect source for Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:V. If you have a different quote let's hear it..... Zeq 08:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And here's your other source, which does not make that claim:

They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis. [21]

As you haven't consulted the German book you don't know which of them is accurate and you don't have an academic source to support the claim. --Ian Pitchford 09:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, just 24 hours ago you claimed [22] that the source you quote above [23] does not mention the Mufti involvment at all .

Now you claim that that source does not include the quote (about antisemitism) from the book .

The fact is that even the source you quote include the same quote from the academic book:

" "The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side and an uncompromising anti-Semite," they said. "He showed what a decisive role hatred of Jews played in the project to promote German-Arab understanding." They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis. "The history of the Middle East would have been completely different and a Jewish state would never have been founded if the plan by the Germans and Arabs had been implemented," Mr. Mallmann said. An estimated 6 million European Jews were killed under the Nazis' "Final Solution." ?

I have been patiant with you removal of sourced content. should you proceed with it I will take all the steps needed to correct your behaviour.

My suggestion: self rvert your own edit war. Zeq 09:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are probably having problems with the English. The first source says that Husseini met with Eichmann to "settle the details of the slaughter"; the second only that he had meetings with Eichmann "the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust". These are completely different claims. --Ian Pitchford 09:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no problem with english. The sources are clear: Please revert your edit war. Zeq 09:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the difference between meeting someone to plan a slaughter and meeting someone who planned a slaughter? --Ian Pitchford 10:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, My english is not the subject of this article or this discussion.

The only issue that we should all focus is : What do the sources say ?

The sources are clear. that all I can tell you. read the sources instead of reverting. 10:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the question? How are the sources clear when two of them don't mention Husseini at all and one only says that he met Eichmann? --Ian Pitchford 10:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that Al-Husayni collaborated with Nazi authorities is not at all new, and that you've found yet at source for it should not change the introduction of this article. The major finding in the study (which you keep referring to but haven't read) was German plans for the Jews in Palestine, not old news about Al-Husayni. And I must remind you, Al-Husayni was never a member of the RSHA, and if of course not responsible for their planning, nor do any of the sources you've provided make such a claim. And if you'd like to include something about a meeting with Eichmann, you certainly should have more than the one sentence, where context is left out, to base it on. And please stop entering all new information you find in the introduction of the article, where it in any case don't belong.--Cybbe 19:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cybe: Just read the sources. I can say to you more than they say and they say different than what you argue here. Clearly they present new info. Zeq 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they present new and relevant information about the mufti? The edit you're trying to include is 1) about German plans for Palestine, i.e. not about the mufti. 2) Old information already known and reflected in the article, and, of course, 3) the word you've tried to include since you started editing this article, anti-semite (which never can amount to a historical fact and is an old claim). There is no basis for including the quotation, and in any case, not in the introduction. You fail to address any of these issues. --Cybbe 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is already addressed here [24] and in the source text itself. Zeq 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your fail to address any of my points. Discussing with you is futile. --Cybbe 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No Cybee it is you who fail to listen. I don't have to "prove" anything. The sources, as well as wikipdia policies is all that you need to look at. Your question were answered before but you refuse to accept the sources , instead, you make claims such as "there is nothing new in the new sources" while the academic researcher them self address exactly this point and explain what is new in their findings. So I suggest you listen instead of accusing others. Zeq 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Husseini was a Nazi war criminal and died in exile because of it

I think the 1st paragraph is light in it's description of this monster. He met with Hitler, was involved with training "Nazi scouts" around the middle east and parts of Europe (Bosnia). He was a convicted Nazi war criminal and died in exile in Egypt because of this, I believe that should be mentioned in the 1st paragraph. unsigned comment

Problems with Zeq's changes to the introduction

These are the four articles Zeq is adding to the introduction and the problems I see with them:

Nazis planned Holocaust in Palestine: historians - This article reports on a book published in German by Mallmann and Cueppers and claims that "Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter." This claim isn't explcitly sourced to the book and other reports of the same study don't mention it,

It does sourced to the academic sources and the DPA and AFP reports clearly say that it is in the Book Zeq 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

e.g.:

Nazis planned to kill Palestine Jews - This report in the Washington Times claims only that "They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis." This is a claim that has been made many times before and might well be true, though others say that Husseini met Eichmann only once, at a social gathering. Eichmann himself said at his trial that he didn't meet Husseini. However, the point is that this report on the German book does not claim that it includes new evidence on a role for Husseini in planning "details of the slaughter". If the book does indeed make that claim then it's a major historical discovery and should be included in the article in due course. I'm not clear from the news reports that this is the claim being made and given the lack of coverage of what would be a major story I am skeptical. Unfortunately I don't read German. However, I have asked Professor Mallmann to let me know if there is a summary of his findings in English.

I have put in the article a quote from the sources. that is all. don't argue with me . It is good you contacted the source. However waht we rely on is the publication not hearsay. Zeq 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazis ‘shipped arms to Palestinians’ - I've pointed out to Zeq many times now that this article is not about the German study and doesn't mention Husseini at all.

Other sources do mention him so what is your point ? That I placed 4 sources about the coopration but only 3 mention him by Name ? Do you ignore him being mention in these other 3 just because the 4th article does not mention him ?

Nazis planned Holocaust for Palestine: historians - I've also pointed out to Zeq that although this article refers to the German study it doesn't mention Husseini.

I would also like to emphasize that the introduction Zeq has changed was the one he insisted on during the mediation (see above) he requested. --Ian Pitchford 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See below, the source you mention explain why this is new information (academic source that was not available before). In any case I would agree to mediation based on the new source. Zeq 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Zeq provided you "quotes" cleary specifying that Husseini was antisemite. Point. If we should prevent the introduction of material due to the fact people sometimes make mistake you would be the first to be banned from wikipedia due to the several times I caught you not reporting fairly historians. The analysis of the facts on which they base their claim is not our matter except when their are doubt it is not clear.

I have been requesting you to find a mediator for more than 4 weeks. Please, respect the rules of wikipedia. Alithien 11:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please address the specific points raised and refrain from personal attacks. --Ian Pitchford 11:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I have never attacked you and I have answered all your questions just above. Zeq 14:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The point concerning personnal attacks was for me not for you :-) Alithien 20:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New information

Ian,

The additions made to the article intro are based on new information. I have informed the mediator several weeks ago on my intenation to change the intro based on this info. I have also placed this new information on talk for several weeks.
"Regarding the question why this is emerging 61 years after the end of World War Two, Mallmann and Cueppers said they simply unearthed something other historians had not found yet." [25]
So for now, the new material will stay in the intro (it is well sourced relevant information) the source for the information is given and conform to WP:V and WP:RS.
If you wish to file for mediation on the new additions. I am not sure what is there to be mediated but I will gladly accept any request to medaition if such a resuest will be filed by you.
As for debating with you what the sources say or don't say this is not working well. I quote directly from the source and still you make claim that my english is bad.
If you chang your claim (again) and raise something that comes from other relaible sources or some other claim that is based on the sources I will gladly listen.
So far we seem to disagree on two issues:

Was he an antisemite (according to the sources he was)
Did he meet with Eichman (according to the sources he did)

Is there any source that make the claim that he was fond of the jews and he never met Eichamn ? If so I want to see that source. Zeq 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered the specific points I raised above and yet again you've cited an article that doesn't mention Husseini [26]. If you don't want to request mediation I suggest that we stick to the introduction already mediated until you can find reliable sources for your claims. As far as I can see the only information in the book on which these articles agree is that it deals with "Einsatzgruppe Egypt". --Ian Pitchford 14:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian,

I have answered your questions. More important I have posted info that fit the sources and explained that this is new info (in the source you just cited the author of the book sais so). Surly you MUST understand what is editing: Not every editor will choose the exact same quotes from the book or from how the authors describe their book.

This is where we as encyclopedia editors come in:

We collect from several secondary sources (such as DPA, AFP, Washington Times and more) and colate the info together.

If in good faith you think that any of my edits does not fit the way Wikipedia edits should be done I suggest you file for mediation and we should address the issue with the mediator. Describe what you don't agree with and lets get it resolved in mediation. I am very willing to let a 3rd party review the sources (after all this is what WP:V and WP:RS are all about. Zeq 14:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We've had mediation and have agreed an introduction. You have changed it without answering specific questions about your sources, such as the simple fact that two of them don't even mention Husseini. As for review by a third party Fred Bauder has already told you on your talk page here that the material probably doesn't belong in the introduction and doesn't support the claims you're making. --Ian Pitchford 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want Fred as the mediator, ask him and let's start formal mediation. Fred was also the person that (even before the new material) agreed that Husseini is antisemite[27] so we should include that as well. In any case, what I suggest is that you file a formal request for mediation and list the exact issues you think need to change. Provide reason (where what I wrote is differenr from the sources you have) and let's get on with it. Zeq 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit by Ian.

All the material deleted by Ian in this edit [28] is properly sourced. This edit is in violation of Wikipedia policy.

This is a 2nd request from ian to retore the sourced material. His continued removal of this information is in violation of wikiepedia policy such as WP:point and more.

If you think this material should not be there you can start mediation. I will accept. Zeq 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian is engaged in "Original Research"

It seems to me that Ian has a reasonable thesis based on his analysis of the sources and the way they are cited and used. Indeed, I would recommend that Ian collect all of his data and write an article or a book on the systematic Jewish/Israeli bias that he believes exists and which leads to a biased, misrepresentation of pseudo-scholarly work that distorts our historical understanding. (BTW, there is no question that the bias he perceives exists. I think that he is wrong about its power to distort history. If anything, a left-leaning anti-Israel attitude is dominant in academia. But that's precisely the issue for scholarly debate.) He should have no trouble getting it published as a there are plenty of left-leaning anti-Israel academic journals, some of which have a good academic reputation. Then, even if those venues have some bias, this debate could take place there, in social science journals, rather than in the Wikipedia.

These facts seem clear.

The "standards of proof" (i.e., the sources and the way they must be cited) that Ian is "requiring" (by dint of his edits) for simple statements about the Mufti FAR exceed that which is found throughout WP.

This constant application of his analytic conclusions amounts to clear Original Research. That is, by continuously scrutinizing the sources and reaching the same conclusion that he believes is the correct one about these sources and their accuracy, he is engaging in Original Research and then applying it to a number of related articles.

There is nothing wrong with OR, and again I encourage him to do it and have it published where it should be debated, i.e., NOT in the WP. Kriegman 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that sources are contradictory is not original research. The rest of the diatribe above is entirely a product of your imagination. I don't hold any of the views you attribute to me, but I have no interest in discussing my views on Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, Where are the sources "contradictory" ? Surly you understand that if Source a says X, Y, Z and source B choose only to quote X, Y this is not a contradiction but a subset.

If Indeed you have found a "contradiction" this is great. This is what NPOV is all about: Provide what source a sais and also the other source which give the other POV. Zeq 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of points of view, but of contradictory accounts. One report says only that Husseini met Eichmann, which is completely uncontroversial and probably true, the other says that Husseini met Eichmann to plan details of the slaughter. If this latter account is correct then the German book is a major contribution to our knowledge about the mufti and we need to know if that is indeed the claim made. --Ian Pitchford 18:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So it is a subset. One source said they met, the other said they met and the reason for the meating.

No contradiction. just a subset.

I have anticipated your claim and only placed the fact that they met. (I did not include the other part, although it is enough to include it if one source sais so) but still you reverted the edit that include even the subset that both sources include: [29]

I stress again: there is no contradiction. There is one source that adds more that the other source choose not to include. In no place do one source contradict the other. Zeq 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And how is a change to the introduction supported by two articles that don't mention him at all? --Ian Pitchford 19:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Two sources mention him as antisemite. use ^F Zeq 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why have you cited sources that don't mention him? --Ian Pitchford 20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For now, we don't need these sources. Feel free to remove them. They will be used later. Zeq 20:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept this press release as a reliable source: [30] and if we can get a translation of the book that would be a better source for a new section in the article. --Ian Pitchford 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not what "you accept" the issue is to follow WP:RS and WP:V. If you continue to remove sourced content this will be an issue for ArbCom to deal with.

As for the book itself (which will be one of the many sources about the new info) - I am trying to get it as well. Zeq 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

translation

From the source:

"El-Husseini habe unter anderem bei mehreren Treffen mit Adolf Eichmann Details der geplanten Morde festgelegt"

"Husseini had several meeting with Eichmann in which the detail of the genocide were determined"

Previous section describe the plans for the genocide of the jews in Palestine. Zeq 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know, that's why I pointed it out with a note that I accept it as a valid source. It's unlikely that a press release from the authors' university misrepresents the book, though of course it would be interesting to see the full evidence presented. However, the introdcution should be reverted back to the mediated version and the body of the article should contain a new section dealing with this new material from Mallmann and Cueppers. Ironically, I see you automatically rejected the source above and threatened ArbCom action! --Ian Pitchford 11:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It is good that you finally accepted whats in the book. I guess another mediation should take place. Zeq 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not practical (or desirable) to have mediation every few weeks at the request of the same editor. --Ian Pitchford 17:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I have tried for a long time to discuss this with you. This discussion leads nowhere. The new information has been presented. You agree now to the sources validity, the info is described as new by the academic sources themself. I will edit the article to include this important new info.

In case you would disagree with me here are the options open to you:

suggest an alternative edit - I might agree
edit war to remove my edits
file for mediation so that 3rd party will help us to resolve the issue

Option 2 will lead to ArbCom. I prefer option #3 but do what ever you want. If you think mediation is not a good ida use options 1 or 2. Zeq 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the new material should be added to the article, under the section for World War II. The introduction should stay as mediated. --Ian Pitchford 18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should represent the article. That is wikipedia policy. It should include the most important facts about the subject. Surly our mediation (done some time ago without the key new info) is noty something that set aside Wikipedia policy.

On the personal level Ian, I wonder how long will you continue this ? you KNOW how this dbate will end up. I am sure you do. The only question in mind is:

Will it take an ArbCom descision against your behaviour to get this article to represent the truth about the person ?

So let's start by a simple question:

Was Husseini antisemitic (according to the sources in front of us) ?

If yes - please revert your edit.

If No - provide proof based on WP:RS to NPOV the acdemic sources that claim he was.

Zeq 18:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just first step in fixing this article. To be continued. Zeq 18:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you try and find out whether there is any consensus for changing the introduction that was mediated just a couple of months ago and whether other editors agree that the article should contain links to material that does not mention Husseini at all. The new material can certainly be added to the section on World War II. You might also want to consider whether any editor will want to mediate anything with you if you don't stick to what's agreed. --Ian Pitchford 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian. I remind you about WP:NPA but let us start by a simple question:

Was Husseini antisemitic (according to the sources in front of us) ?

If yes - please revert your edit.

If No - provide proof based on WP:RS to NPOV the acdemic sources that claim he was.

can you answer the question or you prefer not to answer it ?

Zeq 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion. Did you agree to the mediated introduction or not? --Ian Pitchford 19:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, You are refusing discussion on changes based on the new info - that is understood. I don't agree to it and my view is that the article must reflect the new info. The lead section will also be changed as per WP:Lead.

This is a content dispute and you choose to edit war on behalf of how you want the article to be. That is understood as well. Zeq 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, a mediation compromise is not written in stone. Just like a person that was convicted in court can stand for re-trial and be freed if new information surfaces, also here a mediated introduction should not be forever unchanged just because it was mediated. I agree it should not be done lightly, but since there is obviously new information at hand, and it is both well sourced and relevant, the intro should reflect this.

-Sangil 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there are three relevant points: (1) the mediation was very recent, (2) it was at the request of the person who now wants to change the introduction, and (3) the new information doesn't actually make any difference to the mufti's historical role. The introduction is a reasonable summary of what he was known for, i.e., what makes him of encyclopedic interest. As I've said the new material should have its own section and we can expand this in due course when we know what the actual evidence is. --Ian Pitchford 12:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

about antisemitism section

Hello. As Ian points out, I think a paragraph should be added in the World War II section to deal the topic. Nevertheless I think this should not just mention the "quotes" stating the Mufti's antisemitism but also explain this antisemitism fed the israeli historiography that emphasized this aspect of the personnality of Mufti and all the myths that were developed after the war by "official historians". I think the fact that holocaust encyclopedy entry about Mufti is as long as Hitler's is really an important information (to be sourced precisely).

Given both he "was antisemite" and "his antisemitism has been widely reported and exagerately emphasized", I think the introduction should be rewritten to take this into account. I think, after the writing and the concensus about a potential new section. Such a sentence as "Mufti was also antisemite" is not appropriate I think but the word "antisemite" should appear.

Good work. I will not contribute to this discussion. Alithien 09:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you and sangil. good to know that some people use "talk page" to add value. Zeq 09:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree partly. I would like to see a section on this material and I'd be glad to help write it. The mufti's role in historiography is an enormous topic though and probably wouldn't fit well with the rest of the article. I actually added the material about the Holocaust Encyclopedia some months ago, but it was deleted almost immediately. --Ian Pitchford 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Question: How can this man be antisemitic when he was in fact Semitic? -Teetotaler

Question: Can you *think*? Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: would you prefer Wikipedia just point out he hated Jews? Gzuckier 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This would probably fit more in History anyway. --Lebob-BE 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hitler Book

The Hitler Book was removed from the references because it is not a reliable source. Per the ArbCom:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche#Remedies

If there is information referenced from that book we should be able to find independent sources. -Will Beback 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK Zeq 18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

copy-vio

The paragraph that reads "When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Adolf Eichmann in a trade prisoner-of-war exchange involving the freeing of German citizens in exchange for 5,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and the exchange was cancelled, although there is no evidence that his intervention prevented their rescue.[citation needed]" seems to be a copy-vio coming from here. There may be other copy-vios, too. Any such copy-vios will have to be rewritten or deleted. Bucketsofg✐ 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole subpage on anti-semitism looks like a cut and paste

It needs to be wikified. And it should be checked for Copy-vio. --Blue Tie 13:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni&diff=90949555&oldid=90839676

Ian has been warned in the past by ArbCom to avoid such actions. Is it time to re-open his case ? Zeq 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The ArbCom case was against you and they did not rule that each article must contain every source twice. --Ian Pitchford 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation has been filled

Please be advised that a medaition request has been filed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Request_Information

Ian: Avoid edit war until mediation is concluded (and after) Zeq 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for Ian to join the mediation effort. Zeq 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ian, Zero: Please explain your objections to the sourced text at the mediation page or here. Thanks, Zeq 20:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this request still necessary or can I close it? --Ideogram 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The text Zeq wants to add to the intro is unacceptable. To start with, Expatia is not a recognised news source (it is mostly a travel company), and the linked article has no author and no sources. So its reliability is unknown. Second, there is nobody who believes that al-Husayni was "the most important collaborator with the Nazis". This is in fact completely ridiculous. Are we supposed to believe that al-Husayni was more important than Philippe Pétain, Vidkun Quisling, Maurice Papon, Dinko Šakić, Georgios Tsolakoglou, Ante Pavelić, Döme Sztójay, Ferenc Szálasi, and a hundred other collaborators who played much greater roles? Nor is it correct to say that the linked article really makes that claim; that would be to ignore the context. Within the limited context of Arab collaboration, al-Husayni was no doubt important. Without that context, the insertion is a lie. --Zero^talk 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point as Vidkun Quisling is not mentioned in Wikipedia as Nazi. Does this mean he was not a Nazi ? In any case none of the name dropping you used matter. The issue is what the ACADEMIC sources say and I have quoted from an ACADEMIC source. If you have a different source then by all means NPOV would give you the right to present your source side by side. g'day. Zeq 17:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an article filled with weasel words from an unreliable source has been allowed to remain in this article. Anything that contains a phrase like "...is being considered..." is hardly encyclopedic. Tarc 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Changing anti-semitism to anti-zionism is vandalism. Vandalism will not be tolerated on this page. There is no argument about husseioeninbeing against the jews - his own words are clear. any attempt to hide this is pure vandalism. I suggest that Ian check with Fred B from ArbCom about: 1. Was huseeieni antisemitic (Fred said he was) 2. Is Ian supposed to edit war or based on ArbCom rulling is encouraged to use dispute resolution mechanisms

The last offer for medaiation was refused by Ian and Zero so they both don't have strong footing to stand on in this argument. If we need to bring it back to ArbCom we should and would. Zeq 06:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Unless you can point out a violation of actual policy such as BLP or RS, then simple content dispute is not vandalism.

2) Rejection of mediation does not lessen or diminish one's "footing" in a discussion. Mediation is not compulsory. Tarc 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous mediation

As many of you know since the previous medaition there was a new book (academic source) that was published about Husseieni.

So I have offered Zero and Ian to participate in a new medaition that would take into account the new wp:RS sources.

They refused medaition but instead Ian (and now tarc) are edit warring with the argument of "this was agreed". Well, this is not a bone-fide argument. If anyone wants to rely on medaition results fine let us participate in mediation not decline it. Zeq 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You already acted in bad faith following the Inayat Bunglawala mediation. AGF is out the window here as far as I'm concerned. Tarc 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not and your accusation is irelevant. You were not part of this mediation. All that I understand is that you refuse a new one. Zeq 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed; not from your failed attempt a month ago, and not from last May when you were trying this as well. Tarc 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

The word anti-Zionism used in the lead of this article in the contxt it is used is just a weasle-word. The mufti was anti-semitic and that is how an encyclopedia should charterize him. there are clear acdemic sources that mention he was. [31]

If there are crediable sources that claim he was "anti-zionist" please provide them and we should consider but if not we should not invent new words for him. see similar discussion here: [32] Zeq 10:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Identifying a key historical source

Is the book referred to by Mallmann and Cueppers (external reference 1 and internal reference 7) actually the following: Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Halbmond und Hakenkreuz: das Dritte Reich, die Araber und Palästina. Series: Veröffentlichungen der Forschungsstelle Ludwigsburg der Universität Stuttgart; No. 8; Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, c2006. ISBN 3534197291, 9783534197293? This is the only reference I can find for these two authors writing together, and the date would be correct. However, the book title is quite different and I suspect that the Washington Post has it in error, probably from the AFP source. Itsmejudith 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.de/Halbmond-Hakenkreuz-Dritte-Araber-Pal%C3%A4stina/dp/3534197291 Zeq 12:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to particiapte in mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Request_Information

Ian and Zero:

I wish you would re-consider and follow dispute resolution. Please stop the edit war over this issue. Zeq 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We followed dispute resolution to arrive at the introduction you keep deleting. --Ian Pitchford 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No You don't. Check the link two lines above. Previous mediation was prior to the publication of the book:

http://www.amazon.de/Halbmond-Hakenkreuz-Dritte-Araber-Pal%C3%A4stina/dp/3534197291

As new Academic sources are published the article will be updated - even if previous medaition resulted in an agreed text. Now an offer to renew the mediation (based on the new published academic material) is offered to you.

Zeq 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a relevant book and a reliable source, the contents of which we have already covered in the article as a result of the authors' earlier book chapter. So what's new? --Ian Pitchford 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian,

The key point here is that there is new data that has been presented into the article. This data fits the lead and it is backed by god academic sources.

If you have another POV - please provide sources. If you want to re-open the meiation I would most welcome that. Zeq 18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the source changes anything about the fundamentals and the issue of anti-Semitism was discussed thoroughly by the editors who participated in the mediation last time. Obviously, there's no point in mediation if you aren't going to abide by the outcome. --Ian Pitchford 18:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I was part of that mediation and the new source changed what can be used in Wikipedia.

The article now is sourced to an academic source. If your argument is that a group of wikipedia editors is better than an academic source I don't accept this argument.

Please check Wikipedia policy and find out why we need to accept your view instead of that of an sourced academic source.

If you want to re-open the mediation I am 100% fior it. If not please just follow wikipedia policy and arbcom decsion about such issues:

avoid edit war
use academic sources
you can intreduce a 2nd POV (unless it is a marginal one) if you have an academic source

Zeq 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, "...known for his antisemitism" is weaselish and simply doesn't belong in the lead. It is you editorializing and claiming that the Mufti was most famous for being an antisemite, a charge that is not supported by the source. Anti-zionism doesn't even belong there; it just sounds weak and non-encyclopedic. There is a full section later on in the article that goes into great detail regarding the researcher's claims of his antisemitism. Your claims that others are removing reliable sources is invalid. Tarc 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

what is your view ? what do you suggest the source sais ? Zeq 19:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The source doesn't say he was "known" for his anti-Semitism. He was known as a Palestinian nationalist and religious leader. --Ian Pitchford 19:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. "known for" is weasle words. Let's just go for what he is : Anti-semite and colborator . Zeq 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK Let's go with what the source sais

""The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side and an uncompromising anti-Semite," Zeq 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite, it doesn't say he was known for his anti-Semitism and his collaboration is already mentioned in the mediated introduction. --Ian Pitchford 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian,

What do you mean by "quite" ? Zeq 19:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted the lead based on the exact words of the academic source. Zeq 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Controverse

I never understood why we could not introduce and explain the "controverse" around the "alleged" antisemitism of Al-Husseini. Isn't true that he is considered as a "uncompromising" anti-semitism by israeli historiography and this has been studied by many scholars ? So why not to explain this to the reader ? Alithien 06:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

academic sources please . bring sources and everything should be considered. Zeq 08:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeq. Ian and Zero have all these sources. In the past I brought around 12 quotes from different people that were claiming (which does'nt prove it is true - it is just a claim) he was antisemite. On the other hand they are scholars such as Zerthal who explain this image has been built and others such as Seguev who explain how and why israeli history was fabricated at that time.

The controverse here is also existing between official history and some historians. It should be explained to respect NPoV with statements such as : Husseini has long been considered as ... and ... by ... who claimed ... and saw in him ... His biographers write that ... Historians defends different pov such as ... who considers that ... and ... who points out that ...

That would be good work. Alithien 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support that he was "anti-zionist" ? Discussion about "israeli history was fabricated" are not the subject of this article Zeq 10:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Eg, Benny Morris in "Righteous Victims".

Given the fact that Husseiny's antisemitism has been exacerbated by official israeli historians (source: Zerthal), it is part of the article.

Alithien 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"...Husseiny's antisemitism has been exacerbated by official israeli historians..." Who are these "official Israeli historians"? Never heard of any. And how could they "exacerbate" mufti's antisemitism? Beit Or 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Why is his nisba spelled "Husayni" in this article? Most English sources that I know spell it as "Husseini". Beit Or 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I am going to list this article on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Beit Or 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the Gscholar results. Husayni seems more proper.Hornplease 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the article

The removal of content concerning Handschar division

"Pro-Nazi"

Two Questions to Zero

Disruptive editing

some historians disagree

Nazi stuff

Sources to consider

Nazi material consensus

An important source

Another source for "kill the jews"

Mediation

Back to the roots

proposal for vote #1

Proposal for vote #2

Other reference sources

Proposal for vote #3

al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin

quotes that the Mufti was *not* antisemit

References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism

vote at the date of March 6

Brief response to Christophe

you didn't even read the text...

about 7, J.Peters

Results of nomination for deletion

next steps

discussion with Ian

Hopefully my final reply to Christophe

answer to Ian - 18.3.06

(digression) answer to Moshe-Constantine-Hassan-Al-Silverberg

Answer to Jayjg

1. Purpose

2. Sources would not describe him as an antisemite

bunch of quotation and original research

break

1st paragraph

Oil

new study

published paper about anti-semitism in the arab's world and talking about Mufti

circular reference : how to feed propaganda

another source

anti semitism

Ian's arguments

AFP report

DPA Report

answer to Ian

Answer to Cybe (in case you missed the sources above)

Husseini was a Nazi war criminal and died in exile because of it

Problems with Zeq's changes to the introduction

New information

Recent edit by Ian.

Ian is engaged in "Original Research"

translation

about antisemitism section

Hitler Book

copy-vio

This whole subpage on anti-semitism looks like a cut and paste

Deletion of sourced content

Request for mediation has been filled

Vandalism warning

The previous mediation

Anti-Zionism

Identifying a key historical source

Refusal to particiapte in mediation

OK Let's go with what the source sais

Controverse

Spelling

quotes that the Mufti was not antisemit