Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Pov flag

The introduction is not accurate and due to this, poved.
Indeed :

• introduction could make people think Husayni had stopped his activity after 1945 while he is the most known for its activity during 1948 war;

&& He is well known for being an antisemite, colaborator with the nazis, he came up with the idea to kill the jews in the holyland and exported it to Germany - we should add all this as well. Zeq 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• introduction could make people think he is "mainly" known for his antisemitism and that it is what the most caracterized him. The fact he was pictured as antisemite cannot be denied, the fact many historians consider him as such cannot be denied but "mainly" known for that is part of the israeli historiography and propaganda against him. Controversed matters should not be introduced as truths.
• "al-Husayni fought against the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.". As Zerthal explains, this is part of the israeli paranoia. Husayni fought for the establishment of a Arab independant state on the whole Palestine and, as a consequence, fought against the establishment of a Jewish state. The introduction mispresent events.

Alithien 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative. Hornplease 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written this on your talk page. Alithien 10:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I remove the tag. Alithien 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mallman-Cueppers

I have removed (a) dead links (b) expatica, which is not RS and (c) the press release in German, as well as all data based on it. I would like to see analysis of this claim, as well as mainstream historical reviews of Mallman-Cueppers' findings, rather than reports in the popular press. Anything less is unbecoming of the encyclopaedia and of the gravity of the statements. Hornplease 07:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Expatica link was quating AFP and DPa - both are relaible sources. The Mallman-Cueppers is not only a RS source but also an academic one. Do not remove those agaian. If you find a dead link - search the web and you will find a new one with the same content. There is no doubt on what the Mallman-Cueppers book sais .

We should also ask - well never mind. Zeq 11:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am yet to find a single review of the book in the scholarly literature other than a mention in the "recently published" section of the Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The Expatica link is not reliable in and of itself; however, I suspect that it was not quoting AFP, but a the press release from Stuttgart. At least, I think I've found a reference in the London Independent.

In general, whether or not there is 'no doubt' about what the book says - and I must say that there is doubt, since the only source is a university press release, and not an academic mention, let alone an English-language review - it should be presented as new and as yet unconfirmed research. Certainly, a claim that Husayni, however unpleasant a character, was actually in the loop about genocide, both planned and what was being executed on the ground, is a claim that can only be classed as extraordinary; if the only secondary source is the press release, I would like to see the text revised to indicate that.

Also, please feel free to either complete your thought, or to strike it out. Hornplease 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur on Al-Husayni's (lack of) religiosity

Fascism made certain inroads in the 1930s among secular elements in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It should be recalled that Haj Amin al Husseini the Mufti of Jerusalem spent the war years as Hitler's guest in Berlin. But in retrospect there are doubts with regard to the depth of Haj Amin's religiosity. He requested for instance the bombing of Jerusalem by the German air force. It is unlikely that a truly pious Muslim would have acted this way.

"The origins of facism: Islamic Facism, Islamophobia, Antisemitism", Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press, 25.10.2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 23:39:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I think it is more a pov from Laqueur on Islam and religiosity than on Al-Husseini.

His point is less that Mufti was not pious than people that would bomb a city are not good Muslim.

Alithien 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted

It looks like someone really did not like the image of the Mufti and Hitelr Zeq 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how to get it back and who deleted it. Alithien 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The file was hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, but the uploader could never prove his assertion of "having permission", so it was deleted as a fair use violation. You could try again here, but given the image's history, it'd have a pretty high hurdle to meet in order to remain, given its past issues. Tarc 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong !!!v This is clearly falls within the "fair use" the image is of historical importance now. No copyright could hold once an image become such a public image. If they could use the photo: http://yahel.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/libro-historico-los-nazis-planeaban-una-extension-del-holocausto-en-palestina-con-ayuda-de-los-arabes/ and it is all over the web: http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&q=hitler%20mufti&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi there should not be any problemZeq 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was hosted on commons, it is not strange it was deleted. Other will soon follow. Fair use is not authorized on commons. Alithien 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly the dlete of this imge is using 'wikilayering" to prevent an imgae that is not comfertable to their POV. People who edit from such dep bias should not be editing this article. Zeq 07:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you think should be fair use does mean that it actually is fair use. It is a messy, ugly subject on the Wikipedia right now, as images are being deleted en masse across the spectrum. If you want to dive in, then head on over to WP:NONFREE. Tarc 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "cabale" against some images. All wiki has forbidden fair use and on commons they have started a chase against any image that is not 100% free. They go too far but I will not try to put me in front of the administrators group performing this job. THey don't discuss much and block very fast. Alithien 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal that could "close the case" ?

Would the following sentence be relevant for the introduction ?

Until today, Al-Husayni has been seen as a hero by the palestinian nationalist movement and pictured as a virulent antisemite by Israeli historiography.

Alithien 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Post-war influence

"Afterwards, he lost most of his remaining political influence and died in 1974."

That's a major oversimplification at best. Non-Arab governments weren't really interested in anything he had to say after 1949, but he still remained the undisputed single most publicly-prominent leading Palestinian Arab political personality down to 1964 (when Nasser elevated Ahmed Shuqeiri to a position of leadership). AnonMoos 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is possible but then the information should be first added in the article... Alithien 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

why do people who don't read the article's of anything serious about the subject matter insist on making edits? i think this edit is an error.^[13][14]

"Greater Syria was to include territory now occupied by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel" - [15]

this is from the article, obviously, there's room to expand, but if you don't know the material don't have the right source, why force false information in? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm still contesting this, but i'll take my time before i collect proper citations for evidence and represent my reservation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian is an editor in good standing in Middle Eastern related articles, and from what I have seen is quite knowledgeable on these subjects. These are obviously contentious issues, but accusing long-standing editors of not knowing anything about it or of inserting false information just because their views happen to differ from your own is not helpful. I suggest you reexamine your attitude here. Tarc 12:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

some editing to tone down the language, thank you for the serious comment you had a good point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou,
In '48 Abdallah wanted to take as much of Palestine as he could but indeed, his ambitions was to get as much as he could of great Syria. But Husseini only fought against his ambitions on Palestine, he didn't mind what could arise in Syria, even if Syrian and/or Egyptians did ! Alithien 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll only ask a question, who here read a biography book on abdullah the first?
p.s. Alithien, if you have a sources for this, it would be far better than a statement that's just as good as my statements. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A source of what exactly ? On what do you complain precisely ? I only read 10 books about that war and there is no problem to discuss about the ambitions of Abdallah on Great Syria but this article is about Al-Husseini. What is your point ! Alithien 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

this revert is unreferenced. if you have a good reference for it, then our argument would probably end. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mufti's antisemitism

At the time I gathered 12 references arguing that the Mufti was antisemite, posed antisemitic acts or pronounced antisemitic discourses.
Nevertheless, Idith Zertal, in Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood explains that -true or not- this "antisemitism" has been excessively emphasized.
I don't think this "alleged antisemitism" is relevant but I think the "emphasize of this antisemitism, true or not", is.
We can leave the reader decide by himself, reading the facts, if he was antisemite but the emphase should be explained.
I underline that user:Ian Pitchford doesn't share my mind as far as I know. Alithien 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are basing one writers view as to whether or not this man is an antisemite. His antisemitism certianly is relevant, and his biography enthesizes his antisemitism. What evidence is there that he is not an antisemite? Yahel Guhan 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a defining characteristic, and certainly does not belong in the lead as this gives it undue weight. The antisemitism claim should be and already is covered in detail in the body of the article. Tarc 05:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

and since it is covered in detial within the body of the article, it disserves mention in the lead. How is it giving undue weight? Yahel Guhan 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yahel,
Given we don't know him, I don't see how we could state he is antisemite or not, so we must base on reliable sources.
You claim that his biography "enthesizes his antisemitism" but in that case, why his biographie (Elpeleg and Matter) do not claim he is antisemite.
"What evidence is there he was not antisemite ?". On the contrary, if we want to state he is antisemite, we have to provide the reliable information and the reliable sources that prove this (b: Pearlman is not one, and Schechtman neither, nor is Ben Gurion...).
I don't sayt they don't exist but I don't have them.
Qu: Tarc, where do you consider the antisemitism is covered in the article ? Alithien 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#The_Holocaust, last paragraph. Tarc 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole issue of antsemitism vs antizionism was dealt long ago (I think it came out of my first arbcom case) and Fred Bauder and others agree he was clearly an antisemite[16]. The compromise with Ian was for "known for" instead of stright "antisemit". I really don't rememeber the exact deatils of the discussion but I do remeber clearly the outcome "known for antisemitism". After that compromise a scholarly book (Kupers) came out in it clear indication that he was active in plans of extrmination of the jews. I think this ends the discussion (Kupers is based on documents from the Nazis themselfs) this also show that Adit Zertal caraterization about so-called "israel wanted to show him as antsemit" is totaly wrong. Zertal is entitled for her POV but she has no proof to base it on. Zeq 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

we should also go back to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-11_Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni . Since they actually removed the sources of Mulman and Kupers from the lead where they belong.

"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.

DPA "

DPA is German news agency Zeq 17:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure Ian refuse any compromise where "known for his antisemitism" would have been written.

I don't mind Fred Bauder's mind. He doesn't know anything about the topic.

Don't attack Zertal too fast. First she is considered as a reference by all historians from all wings and she doesn't say he wasn't antisemite. She says he has been exagerately pictured as an antisemite.

What you quote is already in the article. It doesn't justify to write the Mufti was or is known as antisemite.

Alithien 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say Zertal is an antisemit her self. She has political views - about cooperation between Jews and Arabs - which I actually share. However, such views can not influance the past only the future. Zertal also try to change the past with her views. She is enetiled to her views but in this ebecclopedia it is called POV. She is in a minority POV that can be ignored. Most scholars agree colaborating with neo-nazis is anti-semitic in nature. the mufti is indeed known for being anti-semitic. Zeq 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write you would have written Zertal is antisemite ???

But anyway, she has not a minority view. I don't know any negative critics against her work.

Do you have any ?

Alithien 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding Zertal, it does seem like a minority (and possibly fringe) view. She isn't notable by wikipedia standards. She has no wikipedia article, and there is no evidence presented about her scholarship, if she even is a scholar. Yahel Guhan 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Many say he was anti-semite. She sais Israel over emphasiosed his antisemitism for political reasons. I would say that put's her in the extreme minority. Zeq 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot put her where you like :-)

Here is a link in the Israeli academy

She is well-known on the topic and all the critics are read are positive. Her book has been published by Cambribde University Press

She has 145 references in google books

Alithien 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

right|thumb|250px|Not like Dachau. Is it. Herr Mufti. Caricature published in NYTimes 16 May 1948

Haj Amin al Husseini’s anti-semitism is reported by several of his contemporaries, historians having studied his biography or Nazism, journalists and politicians :

• In her book « Eichmann in Jerusalem », Hannah Arendt who was Professor at Princeton University writes : « The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East »

• In « The Grand Mufti », a biography that is considered paradoxically « as rehabilitating him in emphasing his contribution to the palestinian cause » , historian Zvi Elpeleg writes: « His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by the Nazi’s final solution. »

• In an interview granted to Haaretz, Dr Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior , reports that « In 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, met with a number of Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, hoping to get them to side with the Arab cause and even to extend anti-Jewish measures to the Jews in Palestine. In his meeting with Hitler in November 1941, al-Husseini obtained the statement from Hitler that "Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere." The phrase used by Hitler in this conversation, "Vernichtung des...Judentums," is one that was used in connection with the Holocaust. Moreover, al-Husseini worked to stop the rescue of Jews, engaged in broadcasts for the Germans, and in 1943 helped organize a Bosnian Muslim division of the Waffen SS that was implicated in atrocities against Jews, Serbs and others in the Balkans. »

• On the website of Simon Wiesenthal Center , one can read : « Hajj Amin Al Husseini (1895-1974) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and important Arab leader. He supported the Nazis, and especially their program for the mass murder of the Jews. He visited numerous death camps encouraged Hitler do the extend the "Final Solution" to the Jews of North Africa and Palestine. »

• In an article published in New York Times, journalist Edwin Black, author of « IBM and the Holocaust » , writes in reporting events of 1941 : « His venomous rhetoric filled the newspapers and radio broadcasts in Tehran. The mufti was a vocal opponent of allowing Jewish refugees to be transported or ransomed into Jewish Palestine. Instead, he wanted them shipped to the gas chambers of Poland. »

• In his book « Mufti of Jerusalem », Moshe Pearlman, historian close to Ben Gurion writes : «Arabs...were called upon, in the name of the Koran and the honour of Islam, to sabotage the oil pipelines, blow up bridges and roads along British lines of communications, kill British troops, destroy their dumps and supplies, mislead them by false information, withhold their support. The exhortations usually included the suggestion that they could save their souls by massacring the Jewish infidels in their midst.... »

• In her controversed book « From Time Immemorial : the origin of the Arab Jewish conflict over Palestine », Joan Peters, reports that « In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. »

• In his book « The Gramsi Factor », Chuck Morse, journalist and Massachusetts candidate for US Congress writes : « On 1 March 1944, in a radio Broadcast to the Arab people from Berlin, the Mufti stated : "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them »

• In « Israel, Islam and the church », Paul Carlson, who taught Scripture classes on Old and New Testaments, , refering to Michael Bar Zohar writes : « Blood was what the Mufti demanded in his speeches broadcast from Cairo... (…) And no sooner had the United Nations announced their decision that the Jihad started. The outcome was not difficult to see with 40 millions Arabs fighting against 650,000 Jews. »

Notes and references

odd category addition

What is the reasoning for the Category:Palestinian terrorist incidents in Europe add? I am not seeing a fit here at all. Tarc 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This must be a mistake. Alithien 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for more co-operation

Instead of fighting on antisemitism or antizionism I decided to join those who expended the lead. I hope highlighting known and documented parts of his life will help the reader to decide for themself. I still think we should put the label antisemit back in the lead but it does not make sense to do it now as this is being reverted. I am sure we can cooperate more on this article and eventually reach consenus. After all his role is undsputed and well documented. Zeq 04:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote is undue:weight and not consensus. Alithien 06:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I just added few years from his life that were for some reason absent from the lead. You can not erase the man history between 1936 to 1947 just because he did things that you may not want to highlight. Your point of undue wieght is not accepted - any simple observation about the war years to his biography will show that it mneeds to be included . Zeq 10:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zeq,

Please, refrain from "personnal attacks" : things that you may not want to highlight.

If you want to add something to this consensual version, let's discuss this before on the talk page. As I am currently doing about the antisemitism matter. Alithien 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attck on you at all.I am sorry you read it as such. It is clear that you want to avoid mentioning the war years in the lead - that is after all what you have done twice now. Please self revert. Zeq 10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He was sent to exile in 1937. The remaining is not relevant. Alithien 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly he was pro-Palestinian. His going to Germany doesn't necesarrily mean he was an anti-semite like the Nazi's were anti-semites. Were Stern Gang members anti-semites when they asked the Nazi's to fight together against the English? --JaapBoBo 11:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Original research, in any case his antisemitism is clear from what he said and what he did not from his trip to Germany. And btw, I think the sten gang were antisemit but that is irelevant and OR as well. Zeq 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As is the alleged Mufti antisemitism irrelevant...

Alithien 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. the stern gang is irelevant. The Mufti antsiemitism is of course relvent but you keep reverting it... Zeq 12:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would Mufti alleged antisemitism be relevant ? Alithien 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because scholary sources describe him as such. Zeq 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This prooves the information is reliable, not relevant.

What is the proportion of scholars books concerning the Mufti discussing its alleged antisemitism ?

I made the job and I can tell you a few lines only and barely using the word "antisemite". Alithien 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Zeq, a solitary source in a travel magazine says he was an "absolute antisemite". That is hardly a preponderance of all historians. This is a recurring problem you seem to have in many articles, in that you wish to jam the most damning and controversial information into the article lead where it simply does not belong. Tarc 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A scholary source is not "a travel magazine". This is an academic book. The book was quoted by DPA and AFP (news agencies) the fact that the only link remained refernced in the article is for the DPA report on expadica web site does not reduce the creadability of the book itself. If you think Malman and Kuppers are not good sources you should raise it with the german university in which they are professors... Zeq 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said he was not "antisemite". But all historians do not claim so and the relevance of this information for the introduction is not proven. Alithien 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

University source

Here is the source and an english trnaslation. This is actually already in the article so can we now say in the lead that he was antisemite ?

http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/aktuelles/presse/2006/36.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/aktuelles/presse/2006/36.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNationalsozialisten%2Bplanten%2BHolocaust%2Bin%2BPal%25C3%25A4stina%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DRNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,3930019,00.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,3930019,00.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNationalsozialisten%2Bplanten%2BHolocaust%2Bin%2BPal%25C3%25A4stina%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DRNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en

this is what it say (scholary source):

" Over Final Solution

Der erklärte Antisemit el-Husseini floh 1941 vor den Briten nach Berlin und plante zusammen mit den Nazis die Judenvernichtung. The declared anti-Semite el-Husseini fled in 1941 before the British to Berlin and planned together with the Nazis, the Jews destruction. Bei mehreren Treffen mit Adolf Eichmann seien Details der geplanten Morde festgelegt worden. In several meetings with Adolf Eichmann were details of the planned killings has been established. Und Hitler versprach er, genügend willige Araber zu mobilisiern. And he promised Hitler, enough willing to mobilisiern Arabs. Sie sollten als Schergen die Endlösung übernehmen - über die Art und Weise lässt sich allerdings nur spekulieren. They should be seen as henchmen of the Final Solution-on the way can only speculate. "Aber es wäre wahrscheinlich weit mehr in militärischen Formen abgelaufen, denn die Juden Palästinas waren auch bewaffnet", so Klaus-Michael Mallmann. "But it would probably be far more in military forms expired, as the Jews of Palestine were also armed," said Klaus-Michael Mallmann. "Es wäre zu wilden Schiessereien gekommen, dominant Araber gegen Juden in Palästina." "It would be too wild shoot come to dominate Arabs against Jews in Palestine." "Die Geschichte des Nahen Ostens wäre völlig anders verlaufen und ein jüdischer Staat hätte dort wohl nie gegründet werden können, wenn das Vorhaben von Deutschen und Arabern gemeinsam in die Tat umgesetzt worden wäre", schreiben Mallmann und Cüpppers. "The history of the Middle East would be entirely different story and a Jewish state there would probably never be established if the project by the Germans and Arabs together in the deed would have been implemented," write Mallmann and Cüpppers. Ausweitung des Massenmords Expansion of genocide

Nur die Niederlage Rommels Ende 1942 in Ägypten gegen die britische Armee habe eine Ausweitung des Massenmords verhindert, so die beiden Historiker in ihrem Aufsatz in dem gerade erschienenen Sammelband "Deutsche, Juden, Völkermord - Der Holocaust als Geschichte und Gegenwart". Only the defeat of Rommel at the end of 1942 in Egypt against the British army was an extension of the genocide prevented, the two historians in her essay just published in the anthology "Germans, Jews, Genocide - The Holocaust as history and the present." Im Herbst erscheint von gleichem Autorenduo ein ganzes Buch zum geplanten Holocaust in Palästina. In the fall of the same appears Autorenduo an entire book on the planned Holocaust in Palestine. "

translation:

"Over Final Solution

The declared anti-Semite el-Husseini fled in 1941 before the British to Berlin and planned together with the Nazis, the Jews destruction.

In several meetings with Adolf Eichmann were details of the planned killings has been established.

And he promised Hitler, enough willing to mobilisiern Arabs.

They should be seen as henchmen of the Final Solution-on the way can only speculate. "But it would probably be far more in military forms expired, as the Jews of Palestine were also armed," said Klaus-Michael Mallmann. "It would be too wild shoot come to dominate Arabs against Jews in Palestine."

"The history of the Middle East would be entirely different story and a Jewish state there would probably never be established if the project by the Germans and Arabs together in the deed would have been implemented," write Mallmann and Cüpppers.

Expansion of mass expansion of genocide

Only the defeat of Rommel at the end of 1942 in Egypt against the British army was an extension of the genocide prevented, the two historians in her essay just published in the anthology "Germans, Jews, Genocide - The Holocaust as history and the present." " In the fall of the same appears Autorenduo an entire book on the planned Holocaust in Palestine. "

Zeq 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you are (per usual) giving undue weight to a solitary source. Leave it covered in the body of the article where it is now. There's simply no need and no call for what you're trying to jam into the lead. Tarc 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More NPA from Tarc. This is not a solitary source. In any case it is a scholary source, others source claim the same - otherwise Zertal would not need to come out and claim he is not an antisemite. I ask aagin that you applogize for your PA and revert back to a reasonable version that ddescribe his action during and before the war. All are well documented facts. Zeq 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have brought quotes from another scholary source: [17] - he researched the mufti life extensivly and documented it in his book and here: http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/hitlers-legacy-islamic-antisemitism-in-the-middle-east Zeq 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy around this gentleman doesn't talk for him.

It is not what could be called a reference for an historical topic.

Alithien 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you added material in the introduction once again without commenting here before as was asked to you.

I note also that once again you threat a contributor.

It has been explained to you that :

• this introduction was reached out of a consensus. You already tried to modify this some months ago
• if you want to add something you are asked you several times with civily to come on the talk page first. you don't respect this requirement
• what is gathered in the article and in the introduction should respect DUE WEIGHT

Alithien 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithein,

I edit with good faith and I don't make threats. I don't accept the way you see how DUE WEIGHT should apply here. The subject of this article is viwed by some as Hero of Arab freedom and by others (including many scholary sources) as an antisemite colborator with the Nazis.

I was willing , for the time being, to postpone the discussion on the antisemite label but since more facts about his life were added from what you call "the consensus version" I have decided to expend a bit more on the years which were not covered.

So far, you have not offered any enclopedia reason for your stream of reverts. It is my right to be bold and edit this article. I don't have to ask your premission. On the other hand it is you, if you decide to revert, that should explain why you delete other editors work. Please respect other editors and stop deleting their work. Zeq 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD suggests that one can go ahead and make changes, yes, but it isn't a shield that you can use to protect your editing from scrutiny and reversal, if warranted. Again, the problem isn't so much the content; rather it is the placement. As I've said far too many times to count now, you frequently try to put too much into the lead that simply does not belong. That's where the undue weight problems arise. Tarc 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you object an edit - you should discuss it on talk instead of just reverting. The Lead should stand on it's own - see WP:Lead . as such, all aspects of his bio should be included. You can not erase streaches of 6-7 years with no good reason - so far you have never discussed why you think those years should be ignored (excpect claiming DUE WEIGHT - which I don't accept since those years are covered extnsivly in the article and as such should be refelcted in the lead. Zeq 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is collaborative encyclopaedia.

The fact you -alone against everybody- want to change this introduction -refusing to discussion this before- cuold make people think that you "don't look for collaboration" but uses WP principles as a shield to add what all the contributors of this article who have some knowledge consider as pov-pushing.

In more of what was written before and that you don't take into account (consensus, civility, due weight), I add that the link in wikipedia about him show your source in controversed.

Other historians doesn't share this "mind".

Controversed material should be detailed as such and not put in the introduction of the article.

What you added will be removed.

Alithien 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I had already asked you to write Alithien and not Ali. So, please, write Alithien.

First off, we are discussing it here, so that crutch of a point of yours is moot, and has been some time. Second, please stop referring people to WP:LEAD when you do not even appear to grasp it yourself, esp "...and briefly describing its notable controversies". Note the words "briefly" and "notable". You trying to put in every quasi-controversial thing al-Husayni ever did is what is running afoul of those guidelines. Tarc 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

furthermore, you should not be diving into specific allegations and charges in the lead that require citations. This is supposed to be a broad introduction to the subject matter; not a place to make claims and assertions with footnotes. Tarc 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, please read WP:Lead. The lead should stand on it's own as a mini article. You can not highlight some aspect of his life while surpresing others. All parts and aspects of the bio should be given equal weight. The fact that he organized a revolt in Palestine is equaly important as the one in Iraq. His hatred for the Jews, his colaboration with the Nazis is important and since it spaned many years must be described correctly. Off couse the real nittygritty details are in the article but the lead should stand on it's own - see WP:lead Zeq 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "...please stop referring people to WP:LEAD" did you not understand? The way it is now already provides a concise introduction to the subject matter. What you are trying to do goes above and beyond that, unnecessarily and against the guidelines for articles leads. Tarc 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc,

1. you are again insulting me. claiming that I don't understand what I quote. I ask you for the 4th or 5th time to stop personal attcks and appologize.
2. here is a quote from WP:Lead that I was refering to:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

• We should describe the context in which he operated (Nazi Germany rise to power while British rule palestine), notable contversies (his role or alleged role in the 1920 pogroms, in being the instigar pushing Hitler to extrminate the jews, his help to Hitler, his orgenizng the revolt against the Britsh in Iraq etc..We should also explain why is he important (for some he is a great leader while for others he is a despised colaborator) - all this in NPOV fashion. His life are looked at very diffrently by his supporters and by those he opreated against. We should reflect, in the lead, both views. Zeq 07:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you do not understand the guidelines on article leads. It stands on its own, it introduces the topic, then the body of the article goes into detail. You are trying to stick in too much detail into the lead. Tarc 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again here is a quote from WP:Lead

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Zeq 13:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of the name

If the spelling of the article is changed, then it must be changed in the article body too and also for all the articles of his family members.
Please, be civil and do not proceed before discussing here to evaluate the job and the interest of such a work. Alithien 06:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the name was changed in all the places I found. If I missed anything this is not a reason to revert everything I did. It seems you are not respectfull of othjer people work and you just revert the article again and again. Zeq 07:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed it once. There remained more than 50 other cases in the article and there are 4 articles with the same spelling. I started to correct and then I was a little bit upset. You have been asked 5 times to comment here -before- any change you would like to make.

So, I remind you for the 6th time to respect what is asked you and to discuss any modification in that article before you proceed to this. This request is remainded by the flag on the top of this talk page that has been there for months...

Alithien 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no obligation on me that you also don't have on you. So far you have reverted and reverted and reverted - even the spelling of the article name. If you want to start acting civil set an example. Self revert and from there discuss any change you want. I have always discussed my changes but I don't have to do it just because you demand it. Zeq 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not just me. This is the tag on the top of the article.

But if you openly refuse to collaborate, that is your matter. Alithien 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I am the one that seek coopreation and you are the one reverting all the time. So act based on the same rulls you want others to act. I have discussed my changes in adavance . Now you can self revert your revert and suggest the changes you want. My comments/discussion are above this section. you don't even bother to answer. Let me make a suggestion: discuss the subject of this article not me. Zeq 11:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed spellings (except for direct quotes) to Husayni to match the article name. Let's see Zeq provide some proof that Husseini is "more common". Tarc 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In google a search on Amin Husseini give 176,000 entries. all other versions of his name give less thann 30,000 Zeq 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't even the correct way to search. Put the full name in quotes and you'll see that that al-Husseini comes to 5,510 and al-Husayni comes to 4,630. A negligible difference, especially considering the inexactness of google tests. So unless there's something else compelling, I see little reason to change from what it already is. Tarc 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Many places are encclopyic and they write Hesseini, Haj Amin etc... - so by all means do conduct a full search and report back. Zeq 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

try this:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22Amin+Husseini%22+OR+Haj+%22Amin+al-Husseini%22++OR+%22AL-HUSSEINI%2C+AMIN+%22+++OR+%22AL-HUSSEINI%2C+HAJ+AMIN+%22&btnG=Search

61,500

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22Amin+Husayni%22+OR+Haj+%22Amin+al-Husayni%22++OR+%22AL-Husayni%2C+AMIN+%22+++OR+%22AL-Husayni%2C+HAJ+AMIN+%22&btnG=Search

3,000

but if you have more variations let's try. Zeq 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my results are more definitive. Thanks, though. Tarc 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why ? Zeq 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning flags at the beginning of the article

A flag was added at the top of this talk page to warn people to discuss here any modification of the article before they proceed to this. Zeq, could you please respect this policy (5th request) ? Alithien 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of relevance

The introduction must reflect the relevance of each information with its due weight. This is currently the case. Alithien 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I always discuss changes . Please see this: [18]. It seems to me it is you who revert everything including spelling of words in forign languges - to which there is no "right" spelling. It seems you insist to just have the article your way. Zeq 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Results so far

[19] shows that reverters sometimes win. The article lead is in great need of improvment but the reverters (2 of them) have so far resisted any change. there were several attempts at compromise (the first debate was on the anti-semitism label) but even without that label no change is possible to this article unless more cooler heads will join the edit. I think this result totaly defeats the spirit of Wikipedia of cooperation in edits. Zeq 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, it shows that facts win over opinion, and that following established Wiki guidelines on the lead wins over trying to get your own way. Tarc 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No. it does not show that. Wikipedia is eveolving and the fact that over 58 changes by 5 editors, you and Alithein were able to resist even the smallest of changes, including ones that has to do with a more conventional spelling thatn the one you choose - this shows that something is wrong and that your reverts and edit-war paid off for now. It also shows that the two of you are not willing for even the smallest compromise - this does not bowed well for any future compromise.

PS the fact, that you still call your POV "fact" and other people POV "Opinion" shows you are not really willing to accept WP:NPOV. I will give you few days to review policy and decide if you want to include only your version of the "facts" in articles you edit or you are willing to accept that there are two sides and both must be presented. For example, there are clearly those who see Husseini as an antisemit....There are clearly scholars who think that his riole in the holocausr is important (if not the most important) part of his biography. Zeq 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Tarc 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, it seems to me that you want to trap us and prepare an ArbCom rather than to make this article evolve and really to discuss.

Maybe it will work, maybe not.

But if you want to make changes in that article, for the 7th time, I suggest you respect the collaboration spirit and discuss them first here, as I did concerning the "Mufti and antisemitism" section I want to add and as the flag at the top of this talk page suggests contributors to do.

Alithien 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to trap anyone. Given my background it would be stupid of me to want another ArbCom, however if needed I will do it. It has been shown in the past that both sides in Arbitration have potential what to loose so it is wise for everyone (and for the project) to avoid that and try other ways of "dispute resolution". In respect of the collaboration spirit I am giving Tarc few days to re-think his attitude to this article. You have been more cooperative in the past and I am sure that without Tarc attitude you and I I can reach a compromise. I hope Tarc would also want to take part in a compromise. You have few days to think, you can use them to suggest compromises or add to the article lead - I will stay away from iot for few days. Do your best to be fair maybe I will not need to edit at all. Zeq 07:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to check with Alitein and Tarc if they have used the time out to think what they are willing to change in the article lead section. I suggest they review what I put together in the RFC and previous versions that they reverted. I am giving them more chance to actually be the first and make the changes to include those missing years from his bio into the lead. Zeq 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, I have edited this article in accordance to my interpretations of WP:LEAD. Your suggestion that either I or Alithien need a "time out" from edits that we believe are constructive to this article can be construed as a violation of WP:AGF. Shall I drag you before the AN/I now, or do you plan to apologize here first? Tarc 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Is this a threat ?
  • If you would bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I said that I am taking a time out from editing this article. I wrote above:

    "I will stay away from it(i.e. the article) for few days"

  • My only suggestion to you is that you use my time out to think how to become a more cooperative editor (and as i wrote "think what you are willing to change in the article lead section") - if to suggest that is a violation of some sort - by all means "drag you before the AN/I now".... Zeq 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, your initial "I just wanted to check..." post above was needlessly inflammatory, in that it is suggesting that other editors are doing wrong. We have a difference of opinion as to what WP:LEAD is calling for. If you wish to graciously step away from the article for the time being, then that's your decision. Your away-time is not going to change my opinion; this isn't a matter of "cooperation", it is a matter of a guideline interpretation. Let's see what commentary the RfC brings from 3rd parties before proceeding any further. Yes?

And please, calm down wit the "OMG threat" business. If I feel that you're violating AGF then I'd certainly be entitled to report it, wouldn't I? Just as you or Guhan are. Tarc 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"inflammatory" - no way. I just wanted to check if you are using the time out to see what you are willing to change. This is not an acusation or anything. If you think the article is just prefect and you are not willing to consider any change (you have after all rejected all my proposals) and you think that the years that are not covered in the lead should not be covered in the lead - just say so. If on the other hand you want to cooperate and suggest your own version for the needed modifications - please feel free to do so and suggest how to make the lead confirm better with WP:lead Zeq 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

a Quote from WP:Lead: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." . The lead of this article is still coming short of the policy and need to be changed. I am, still taking a timeout(from my editing) hoping others would make an effort to enhance the lead. Zeq 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Except the controversy around his alleged antisemitism (ie, that -true or not-, he is pictured as a virulent antisemite, everything is in the lead).

The real degree of his antisemitism is not relevant except somebody finds a consistant scholar analysis that would analyse the consequence and importance of Mufti's antisemitism.

All that I have on that topic is a comment from Ilan Pappé considering the Arab leaders antisemitism lead them to underestimate yishuv, at the contrary of Abdullah who was aware of its real power. Very few for the article. Unthinkable for a lead. Alithien 08:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So please read the article body again, pleanty of information. Also look at the sources I added and Tarc deleted. Pleanty of info that need to be refelcted in the lead. Zeq 08:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's proceed step by step.

Could you select *1* example in these and write this here below. Alithien 09:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[20] which you reverted in it's enetirety. Zeq 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Step by step

jewish state or jewish homeland in Palestine ?

• Why do you want to replace "Jewish state" with "Homeland for the Jewish People" ? Alithien 10:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that is what it is and that is what the balfur declration is about and that is what the Mufti objected.

Jewish state (Judenstadt) is more relevant and more used.

What differences do you see betweeh both these expressions. Alithien 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

see this for the exact terminlogy used that time: Balfour Declaration of 1917 Zeq 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Judenstadt is the name all historians used.

Homeland for the Jewish People is longer and doesn't bring anything.

It sounds with a strange romantism

Husseini and Arab leaders were not opposed that Palestine would become a "homeland for the Jewish People" (in an Arab state) but they were opposed to massive immigration (later to any immigration) and to a Jewish state on what they considered "Arab lands".

If you still don't agree, please answer to all 4 points; not only one.

Alithien 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(...)

Alithien, take it one by one as you requested. The issue of "Jewish state" is well explained and the languge I used is taken form the balfour declaration which was used at that time. also don't use French here I have no idae what you say. Zeq 14:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

can someone xplain what this means:

I don't agree any "coup de force".

The Time is not relevant when scholar learns us that histography has been modified.

We would need the source of the Time to judge this.

In Righteous Victims, Benny Morris clearly explains that the murder lead provoked the british decision to arrest all arab leaders.

I don't think the issue of "how many times a specific word apear in teh lead warnts any further discussion" We will use WP:Lead and follow WP style and will end up with what ever we end up. Anyone who starts counting how many times the word "nazi" apear in an article might have a problem because that word may fit some articles more than others. Zeq 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I find the arguments here surprising. Isn't it true that Wikipedia's guiding principle is NEUTRALITY? Obviously, this means that a reader should not be able to tell if an article is written by friends or opponents of any person, party or movement. And this is not really the impression one is getting here.

A question to Zeq: Do you really believe that the zionist movement did not want to establish a Jewish state? Or are you saying that al-Husayni did not oppose this? If the answer to both questions is 'no', then what is the relevance of the wording of the 1917 Balfour Declaration? Paul kuiper NL 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality means that if there are conflicting views both should be represneted. Zeq 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"A question to Zeq: Do you really believe that the zionist movement did not want to establish a Jewish state? "

The Zionist movement is secular movment. It wanted ot establish a "national homeland for the Jewish people" . I wonder how many more times in this discussion I have to refer people to the text of the orginal Balfour Declaration of 1917 which show exactly what the Zionist movemnet wanted - it is in the declartion in simple English.

Is it too much to ask that people will make themself familiar with the background of the subject or the discussion here ?

"are you saying that al-Husayni did not oppose this? "

Hussenein opposed creating a "national homeland for the Jewish people" in palestine.

"If the answer to both questions is 'no', then what is the relevance of the wording of the 1917 Balfour Declaration?"

Why did you ask your last question in double negation in a way that no person can give you a simple yes/no answer ? I am not in court of law and I can expect that you make an effort to be clear and know the subject matter and the relavncy of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to the subject. Zeq 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

► Dear Zeq, I am afraid that you are not well-informed. The Balfour Declaration was not the programme of the Zionist movement, it was a letter by the British Foreign Minister to Lord Rothschild. The objective of the Zionist movement was: establishing a Jewish state. Herzl stated this clearly from the beginning (the title of his book was: 'The Jewish State'), and we all know that the Jewish state WAS established in 1948. This is what the zionists wanted, and what al-Husayni opposed. The Balfour Declaration is of course of some historical importance, but here it has obviously no relevance at all. You'd better come to terms with this simple reality. Paul kuiper NL 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• You don't expect me to argue history with you when the 1917 text is so clear - read it, it speaks of what the zionist goals are: Balfour_Declaration_of_1917#Text_of_the_declaration. your 1948 argument is irelevant to events that took place immidetly after 1918 (the start of the Mufti career) Zeq 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• and here is a quote from a latter the Mufti wrote to the Germans asking them to elminate the "Jewish national homeland in Palestine" [21] Zeq 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• everytime those objections are arised I search and find even better sources - so now for his own words : [22]

I think thse sources establish a much stronger and clear lead to what the Mufti goals were and with whom he went to bed with to accomplish them....Zeq 19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq. I answered you above *before* your tried to force your choice but you unfortunately didn't answer there.

Alithien 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, what you wrote here: "Husseini and Arab leaders were not opposed that Palestine would become a "homeland for the Jewish People" (in an Arab state) but they were opposed to massive immigration (later to any immigration) and to a Jewish state on what they considered "Arab lands". " is your own OR. There is no source that supports that. In fact there is clear evidence, in the Mufti own words - such as his letter to the Germans - that he opposed any ""homeland for the Jewish People" in Palestine. Further more the words ""homeland for the Jewish People" and "Jewish state" are mostly sysnonymous (except that the term "Jewish state" is confusing since one can not know if this is a state for the jewish religion or a state for the Jewish people. The goals of zionism have always been a state/homeland for the Jewish people and this is what the balfour declartion is all about and this is what Husseieni objected.

presonall note: I can understand his objection - he feared that such a homeland might deprive the Arabs from rights they claim their ownand would intreduce a non-Islamic rule on lands they consider islamic. Nowhere did I see (so far) that he had anything against the Jewish religion as a religion (as long as people practicing it act as Dhimmis in a mulsim control state. He did object Zionism and establshing a homeland for the Jewish people. Zeq 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No this is not my personnal OR.

The fact is that I cannot each time somebody finds an article from an "anedoctical scholar" goes back in the litterature to find counter arguments and quotes.

If I find 2 extremely well known scholars who talks about jewish state in this context will you stop there ?

You didn't answer me : what is the difference in your eyes between a jewish state (which is what wanted the Zionism) and a homeland of the jewish nation ? Alithien 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1937 escape

• Why did you [23] wrote in the lead that he was "exiled" while the article text is clear: he had an arrest warrent and escaped to avoid arrest. Zeq 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a mistake from my side. It should be corrected.

This is due to the fact that I read that he was allowed to go back from exile in 1947.

I suggest we write :

"When British arrested all palestinian leaders in 1937, he escaped to Lebanon".

Alithien 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should we write something that is a) not 100% true and b) partially irelevent ? Zeq 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant to understand how/why he left Palestine to Germany.

What would you suggest we write directly related to this ? Alithien 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The facts are already in the article. We should apply WP:Lead to these facts and enhance the kead - here is a suggestion: [24] . Zeq 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So you added : "He was declared "wanted" by the British and fled the country in October of 1937"

What do you think about :

"In 1937, when British wanted all the Palestinian leaders who participated to the revolt, he fled the country."

Alithien 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about him, I don't see how that is relavent. He was wanted, he was the main figure we should just say that. Zeq 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let's just write "In 1937, he fled the country to Lebanon". Alithien 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And leave out why he fled ? wnad what he did later ? and what he did in lebanon (where he fled too) ?

How about:

In 1937, following the murder of the British Commissioner, the Mufti was declared "wanted" by the British and fled the country to Lebanon. Two years later, he fled from Lebanon to Iraq - where he orgenized an coup against the British. 89.1.190.78 13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He was not wanted because he would have organised the murder of the British Commissioner of Galilee.

He was wanted with all the other palestinian leaders.

And I think he fled in 1937 and not 1939, am I wrong ?

If we don't write why he was wanted I don't why we would write why he fled.

More he didn't organize anything in 1941.

And I also think this lead must be short.

I think : "He left Palestine in 1937 and collaborated with ..." is enough so that reader understand that he was any more in Palestine.

Alithien 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try what does Time magazine say:

"In 1937, after a murder, he was wafted out of Palestine, where a warrant still exists for his arrest. During the war, he was accused of trafficking with Hitler and Mussolini, of fomenting the Iraq revolt of 1941, and of urging on Germany a systematic policy of exterminating Jews."

Or do you want a "sofetr" version in which we drop the murder but add the other leaders: "In 1937 the Mufti and other Muslims leaders of the revolt were declared "wanted" by the British for their role in the revolt. The Mufti fled the country to Lebanon. Two years later, he fled from Lebanon to Iraq - where he orgenized an coup against the British." [25]

maybe we can combine the two:

"In 1937 the Mufti and other Muslims leaders of the revolt were declared "wanted" by the British for their role in the revolt. The Mufti fled the country to Lebanon. Two years later, he fled from Lebanon to Iraq - where he fled after the failure of an pro-Nazi coup - to Iran before ending up in Europe - colborating with Hitler and Mussolini, and urging the Nazi leadership for a systematic policy of exterminating the Jews." Zeq 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of jewish state. Because I don't agree any "coup de force".

The Time is not relevant when scholar learns us that histography has been modified.

We would need the source of the Time to judge this.

In Righteous Victims, Benny Morris clearly explains that the murder lead provoked the british decision to arrest all arab leaders.

There is no reason so that the word nazi appears more than once in the lead. It is currently there and explains he collaborared with the Nazi.

The lead is a synthesis. We don't write the article once again.

Alithien 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

RFC template corrected to use actual section name. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comment

While the RFC is specifically about the lead of this article, I would like to point out an issue that should be of concern to both parties in this disagreement: While the article quotes many people about what they thought of the Mufti, al-Husayni is himself never quoted. The only POV relevant to this article is the POV of al-Husayni, and it is never represented. From the little I know of the man, I know that he spoke extensively, was never reticent or apologetic about saying what he thought, and would certainly want any biographical article about him to use his own words as much as possible. Was he antisemitic, or only anti-Zionist? Let the man speak for himself, and let the readers decide.

I personally have a problem with the term "antisemitic". I know that in common usage it has come to mean anti-Jewish, but in this context I find it odd, since al-Husayni was first and foremost a Semite.

• note by Zeq: The fact that Arabs are semit has nothing to do with the term "anti-semite". Antisemitic is being against the jews. Was Husseinin against the jews ? I think the answer is self evident. Zeq 12:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand from reading the talk page that there was a dispute over use of a photograph of the Mufti in Germany. The issue was whether the use of the photo in this article was justified under the "fair use" rule. I just want to point out that fair use is not an issue - the photo is over 50 years old, so is in the public domain and can be used freely. See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country. If you want to undelete the photo, you can ask an admin to do so, but it might be simpler to upload it again and use the correct copyright tag. (Whether it is germaine to the article is another question, which you editors must battle out on your own.)

Having carried on about everything except the question at hand, I would say this about the introduction. Regardless of what al-Husayni's views were, Israelis and historically-informed Jews worldwide regard him as the embodiment of anti-Jewish sentiment and Arab-Nazi collaboration. Regardless of the accuracy of that perception, I think that that notoriety in itself is worthy of reference in the introduction.

--Ravpapa 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the photo is in the public domain. Any search http://images.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&resnum=0&q=mufti%20%20hitler&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi will find it freely available. Just one more way in which people try to wikilayer to prevent this article to give true representation of who the mufti was : An Nazi colaboratot and inciter who is regarded by many today as a great fighter for Arab freedom. (both POV are in this case true and should be represneted in the article)

As for the Mufti own words - How about "Kill the jews" ? would this be OK to put it into the article ? (he made the call prior to the 1948 war) Zeq 12:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More quotes from the British report

It was very difficult to believe that, in spite of its own doubts, to which M. Van Rees had just referred, and despite the delicate manner in which those doubts had been expressed, the Commission had been able to conclude that there had been no premeditation or organisation of the disturbances on the part of the Arab leaders. It was even more surprising that the Commission should have extended this conclusion to cover the Head of the Supreme Moslem Council, the Grand Mufti Haj Amin El Husseini, referred to in several quarters as one of the principal organisers of these disturbances.

On page 71 of its report, the Commission stated that the Mufti had been implicated in the troubles which had occurred in the month of April 1920. The accused had been condemned in his absence by the Military Court to a very severe term of imprisonment. The Commission also quoted a letter dated August 22nd, 1929, on page 75 of its report inciting the Arabs in unequivocable terms to take part in the attacks on the Jews which were to begin on the following day. The Commission observed in this connection (page 76) that this incitement to attack the Jews had been wrongly attributed to the Mufti. It had confined itself, however, to that declaration and had refrained from stating whether the origin of the letter quoted had been made the object of serious enquiry.

On the other hand, the Commission noted on page 77 that the Mufti had not scrupled to bear false witness. The Commission, however, had drawn no conclusion from this.

Account should also be taken of two facts which M. Van Rees thought particularly significant.

According to a secret letter from the Chief of Police at Jerusalem dated August 23rd, 1929, a facsimile of which had been forwarded to the Permanent Mandates Commission,3/ a black list had been drawn up as a result of a conference of police officials held on July 2nd, that was to say, a little before the outbreak of the disturbance. The first name on that list was that of Haj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti.

In the British Parliament, the attention of the Government had been drawn to the fact that the Mufti had, on April 17th, 1930, sent a letter to his colleague Sheikh Mustapha Ghalaïni, President of the Moslem Council at Beirut, urging him to incite the Arabs in Syria to rebel against the French authorities. Zeq 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - stop the reverts

Your last revert interduced a link to a propeganda organization (www.antiwar.com) which is not a WP:RS. I have removed it.

also: You have ask for a reason to an edit I provided a reply. since that time what you wrote (in French) is unclear at best.

Finish the discussion. Once you undestand me and I understand you we can discuss what to put in the article. So far you have not made a reply on talk which can be understood. Please make an effort to explain your objection about the text without using metaphors in French. I suggest you read Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 before you continue to push the "jewish state" issue. Husseieni was against the national homeland for the jews. This is very clear from his history. His emergence into the political public areana started right after the 1918 Decalration. Zeq 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not me who introduced antiwar link. I just reverted you. If you stop to try to force your mind and we finish the discussion, there would be no problem. You did right to remove that link. You still haven't answered my questions and so I will go on reverting you. Alithien 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Like my previous timeout that tried to avoid edit war and let you decide how to change the lead, this time I am staying away from the dispute and giving you the opposrtunity to self revert. Please make sure you edit according to wikipedia policies and review the various sources pointed out - they are very clear. Zeq 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not self revert. What we want to modify in the lead must be discussed and we must find a compromise before anybody modify this. Alithien 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly (see here:[26] - it was you who interduced the propeganda source: www.antiwar.com) Don't do that again - this is a violation of WP:RS.

The one trying to force things is you as you have revrted any change to any section that was made to this article by several editors. I suggest you reconsider your behaviour. Zeq 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Here is the truth

2. Here is the mediation result you want to break

Given your attitude, we will go on this discussion in 1 week.

Alithien 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above, there are new sources that came after the mediation and we should take them into account. Zeq 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, please!

This debate is more and and more surprising. To any unbiased reader, it seems obvious that the whole article is heavily biased. There is an apparent desire by some of the contributors to portray the Mufti as negative as possible, and there is certainly not a balanced accounting of facts.

For instance, it seems incomprehensible that the Mufti's alleged connections with Eichmann are just stated as facts here, while there is no mentioning of the fact (quoted above) that the famous Jewish scholar Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book 'Eichmann in Jeruzalem': "The trial revealed only that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded". ('Eichmann in Jeruzalem', 1994, p. 13). The formula of Wikipedia is: Neutral Point of View. This is not exactly observed in this article! Paul kuiper NL 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are newer sources than came about after 1961 (the trial after all was about Eichman not about the Mufti).

In thse new sources his role in formulating or contrubuting to Nazi actions is very clear.

We must take into account what the comeplete set of sources (available to us now) say. We can not stop at what was the state of the art circa 1961. that is nearly 50 years ago. Zeq 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I get very much the same impression. "Mufti" means "advisor to a Sharia court", a trivial title given to him by the British with no influence over anything the administration concerned themselves with. The Muftis power was choosing teachers in Islamic schools, his budget was the payroll of the same teachers - perhaps their gratefulness extended to letting him use the Gestetner to run off leaflets. Morris says the British gave him money (not very much, by the sound of it) while the Zionist agencies paid off the Nashashbibis, his real historic enemies. Neither side had any powers to raise taxes - quite unlike the immigrants, who'd been granted this vital function under Samuel when they were 10% of the population. PR^talk 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"the Nashashbibis, his real historic enemies" - what do you mean and what did the Zionists pay them ? Zeq 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Need section name-change.

I've added material to "Mufti role in creating anti-Jewish feeling among the Arabs" which makes it clear that the mufti was not on some kind of unreasonable campaign to deprive others of the use of the Western Wall, but that there was a long-standing problem. What I've not done is change the name of this section, which is clearly prejudicial, and has no place in the guy's bio. PR^talk 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put a new section name on top of my latest conribution. Paul kuiper NL 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The name is accurate and describe what he did. I suggest you review sources before you change section name. I have also removed part of a section that is unrelevant to the Mufti (see WP:Undue ) Zeq 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what my book says - which is that all the Holy places were targetted by the immigrants (as they had been for at least 7 years) and gangs with batons seized the Western Wall. The mufti was generally very ineffective - but on this occasion, he was able to stop the theft. PR^talk 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Book - is it a WP:RS and it is relevant ? if so bring it inmto the article - as long as it discuss the Mufti.

As for the section you have re-added: It does not discuss the Mufti. Since you brought it in order to contredict a view by a source you are really offering your own OR. ( a source sais one thing and you bring facts which you claim contradict the source. This is not how Wikipedia works. You need to find a source which contradict the first source - not your own interpretation of the fact.) I am sure you can dig and find a WP:RS that will claim what you are trying to show so please don't take the OR short-cut. Zeq 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The OR is the absurd title of this section "Mufti role in creating anti-Jewish feeling among the Arabs". There were real problems over the Holy Places, they'd been reached international attention 7 years before 1929 and were triggered by violent attempts to seize control of the Western Wall in particular. That's what the RSs say, and that's what needs to appear in the article. PR^talk 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not an absured title. It is a description taken from that time, froma comitee which investigated what the Mufti was doing. Everything you say was surly known to the sources that investigated the issues at that time and they were much closer to the subject than you. I suggest you read the sources.

btw, Your description of "violent attempts to seize control of the Western Wall" is pure propeganda and is unrealted to what the mufti was doing except in (maybe) one connection: If you find that the Mufti made that claim than we know how this false rumor started: By the Mufti himself. Zeq 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What in this section is about the Mufti (other than the words "Mufti-inspired disturbances" ? :

"Benny Morris documents the frequent anxieties, in propaganda and formal petititons to the authorities, expressed by Arabs over a possible loss of their traditional rights over the Wall to Jews whose claims and innovations were seen as challenging those rights. In 1922 the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj had declared: 'the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions'. On September 23-24, 1928 the Supreme Muslim Council complained about the setting up of a screen at the Wailing (or Western) Wall to separate men and women. The Mandatory constabulary used force to protect the ownership rights of Muslims over the Wall and the adjacent passage used by the Jews, but there was increasing pressure from 'Right-wing Zionists' to take control of the Wall. On August 14, 1929, a demonstration of some 6,000 Jews in Tel Aviv, chanted 'The Wall is ours'. That evening, 3,000 gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, 100s of Jews - including members of the extremist Betar movement - demonstrated at the wall with batons. The mufti-inspired disturbances shook Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration, but by early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Chaim Weizmann in London had rescued the status quo ante."

 ?? Zeq 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The RS sources originally exonerated Husseini from any blame eg Shaw report: "...in the matter of innovations of practice [at the Wailing Wall] little blame can be attached to the Mufti in which some Jewish religious authorities also would not have to share. ...no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement. ... After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder.".

Our WP article (and the ethnic cleansing supporter Morris) tell us that later researchers think he did inspire some of the rioting - but not for the purposes claimed "of creating anti-Jewish feeling" as is in our account. And the references we have for this are hate-speech nonsense "Hitler’s Mufti: The Dark Legacy of Haj Amin al-Husseini".

The obvious and correct thing to do is take an ax to this article and chop out everything that's not properly referenced - which is most of it. PR^talk 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)