Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 31 December 2005

Template:FAOL

Due to their length, previous discussions have been archived

/Archive 1 - to October 28 2005

/Archive 2 - to November 28 2005

Use of web sites as source

There was an editor who reverted few days ago because the common wikipedia practice of using links to web sites did not suit his editing standards. I don't accept his claim web sites (which he argue are "propaganda") are a valid source and we should evaluate the specific link and data (instead of "blanket denial" of any material that come from web sites.

Yet I was suprized to see that the same editor inserted this:

http://www.allthatremains.com/Maps/MilOperOutUN.jpg

The problem with this link is that the content is too vauge (the drawing) and the words "zionist forces" imply a POV.

But let's look at the source: http://www.allthatremains.com/MissionStatement.htm - this is clearly a propaganda web site with a mission. On that, there are those who might say: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" or more to the core issue: Read the policy and you will see that you have no right to deny proper material from web sites. (even in your monds they are not legitimate source of info. That is your biased POV - not the policy. Zeq 12:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• To Ian: I suggest you carefully read this cause what you are now doing against policy. Zeq 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ian, this is another warning that your actions are violation of this policy. Zeq 07:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsuitable material to this page. Links to propaganda websites are not appropriate, nor is material from old propaganda works that have not been read or even consulted by the editors trying to insert this stuff. We now have a whole section on this peripheral character, which contains more than enough information for anyone wanting to know more. Considering that we don't have a single word on the perspective of the individual Arab states involved in the war this article is becoming decidedly unbalanced. --Ian Pitchford 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think they were attacked by Israel feel free to add it (and source it). I do not accept your characterization of the New York Jewish times as "propaganda" and it lists the books it uses for ref. of the facts in the article. What you are doing is disruptive. Please restore what you deleted and add any balancing fact you can source. Zeq 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, I just wonder: How many times are you going to delete the same sourced info ? Zeq 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How many times are you going to claim that rubbish from Zionist websites and claims with no references at all belong in an encyclopedia? --Ian Pitchford 22:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You are entitles to your views and you can present the other view on the article but not to violate WP:Point . If you think you can just drive poeple out of articles by calling their work trash or rubbish you are wrong. This is a personal attack. Zeq 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, your edit summary made it look like you did something "according to heptor comments" but there were no such comments. Instead you operated according to your long disruption iof deleting sourced material from this article something you now do regularly 3 times a day (at least on some days) Zeq 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Zeq, look again. There's even a link to the comments. --Ian Pitchford 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to, maybe I missed it (I looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=30154316&oldid=30153402. In any case I suggest you discuss here instead of sending us on a wild goose chase. Zeq 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I see Heptor has deleted the comments from his talk page (which is considered bad form by the way), they read: "You have broken all of the footnotes in this article and also you have provided no source or explanation for these claims:

• The Mufti, one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs
• In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders
• along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history
• led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy

If you can't find a reputable historian using appropriate evidence to support these claims please do not include them in the article. You have already admitted on the talk page here that "indeed, sources should be provided", so please provide them. Additionally, much of the material is duplicated in the section already on Husayni in the article and there's no reason to repeat it. --Ian Pitchford 22:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)"

Ian, I am not part of and not aware of what you wrote about above. I insretd sources to the claims and you should not remove relevant sourced edits. That is all. Your arguments with other editors about what is or is not on their talk page are irrelevant to what we do here. Zeq 19:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian wrote:

Kriegman, I have just noticed that you have added disputed claims to this article once more. I am copying my message to Heptor and Zeq below as I suspect there is some confusion about the nature of references. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

and,

Zeq, Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the Mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the Mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is, there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who's making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the <ufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The specific claims you are disputing were made by me, so I will respond. Regarding the problem of Palestinian leadership, I would cite numerous sources that show that the Mufti was a recognized, major leader, including Mattar: despite what you claim, it has been amply documented that the Mufti was a major leader. Regarding the lack of clearly identified leadership, I could also cite numerous sources, foremost among them being Ian Pitchford who has documented (using sources) the chaotic state of Palestinian organization and the lack of clear leadership in this period. A clearly identified leader in a chaotic situation in which no overall leadership was formed---and in which you have only listed one possible contender (the primary leader of the poorly formed Palestinian military alliance)---indicates that the Mufti was one of two? three? (if so, who), or four? (again, if so who) identified leaders.

For the next claim re: radio broadcasts, the books and page numbers are on this talk page above. You can follow the links given above and read the actual pages yourself. Page numbers can be added when the edit war dies down and we don't have to recreate every improvement to the article every few hours. The violent antisemitism of the Mufti is in those books as well as numerous other books (I can think of three more, off hand). I thought it was obvious from the quotations and his Nazi collaboration. Indeed, I think the facts speak for themselves and putting in a quotation regarding his antisemitism---which again can be done if that is part of a solution that will end this edit war and won't have to be recreated every few hours---would be insulting to readers who can see the face validity of the statement.

The notion that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy is in numerous retrospective reports discussing the "push them into the sea" notion. I believe I can find numerous specific citation linking the Holocaust aftermath to this belief. Again, this can be done (if really necessary) after the edit war dies down, though I believe it would be a mistake as documenting the obvious makes the Misplaced Pages seem pedantic and patronizing to the reader.

Regarding references and the use of web sources, I think Ian has some points here. Some of the web references should be eliminated or we open up the use of innumerable sources for all sorts of claims. However, as noted, web sources are not all equal, just as books are not all equal. The authorities Ian cites are often clearly, highly biased. However, if they have an academic position and must be able to defend their scholarship, they typically don't just make up facts. Rather, they leave out inconvenient facts and color their interpretations of what they report to suit their bias, e.g., Mattar.

So we have a problem. Books aren't necessarily less biased. But if a mainstream university is standing behind an academic's scholarship, it is unlikely that he/she is just making things up. In general, that means we should trust factual statements in such books (even if they are also written for propaganda purposes) more than web sites and pure propaganda tracts. So some negotiation is in order over the sources we cite. We need to negotiate this on this talk page and to end blanket reversions that make incremental changes impossible. Kriegman 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To summarise, you have no evidence to cite other than a photocopy of pages 150-151 of a book by Schechtman giving a quotation that you want to use and another photocopy of something that can't be identified, but is supposed to be a book by Pearlman supporting the existence of the same quotation . Other than that everything you want to add to the article is attributable to you and no one else. Is that right? --Ian Pitchford 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kriegman. The Mufti was even described by Yassar Araffat as the leader of the Palestinian army in 1948. There are many citation and Ian can not use a new yardstick to disallow facts he does not want in the article but keep others he wants (in this and in the nakba article. On the other hand I welcome Ian's willingness to discuss instead of just disrupt and any compromise that Kriegman and Ian would agree to will bind me as well. Zeq 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, you still aren't citing any sources. We have compromised by including a whole section on the Mufti. We aren't going to have yet another section on him including claims without references. If that concession is made then it implies that anything can be added to any article by any editor. --Ian Pitchford 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There are now 15 sources, many of them cite books and other sources. Enough Ian. You asked for sources, you got them. Let's move on. I dod not accept your interpretation to Misplaced Pages rules. If you do not agree with the methods which are used in this article and are common for refernce do what ever you feel you should do. Any delete of source material will be restored. If you suggest an alternative way to summerize the info on the mufti from these 15 web sites we will listen but if you remove the material factsthat are there now I will restore these facts. Zeq 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not Zeq. There are still no references at all for the claims made about the Mufti as I have explained on your talk page . You must cite verifiable, reliable sources rather than material from websites. Anybody can post material on the web and claim that they have read the sources. --Ian Pitchford 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There are. If Misplaced Pages can not use Web sites 99% of articles could not exist. If you have sources saying the Mufti was not Nazi, that he did not lead his people in calls for kicking the jews to the sea please feel free to Bring the other POV. As for the material that is now in the article it is well sourced, I suggest you spend your time reading it I am sure it will teach you an important chapter in History. May I recomend the "self inflicting Nakba" for example? Zeq 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian: What we now do here is guard this article against your attempts to vanadalize it. In Misplaced Pages most vandalizing attempts are discovered and fixed. Your test has workd, Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Zeq 04:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, your edits

Zeq, please respond to the questions I posted on your talk page here --Ian Pitchford 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I responded already in the relevant talk page and left you a note where to find my Reply which was:

I agree with Kriegman. The Mufti was even described by Yassar Arafat as the leader of the Palestinian army in 1948. There are many citation and Ian can not use a new yardstick to disallow facts he does not want in the article but keep others he wants (in this and in the nakba article. On the other hand I welcome Ian willingness to discuss instead of just diruppt and any compromise that Kriegman and Ian would agree to will bind me as well. Zeq 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To Zeq: as biased as Ian appears to be (to you and me), I think he honestly believes he is being objective. I think he believes that the facts show that---more than is typically expected in violent conflict---the Palestinians have been brutally mistreated by nasty, deceptive Israelis who have bamboozled the world into seeing them as the defensive victims of Arab aggression and antisemitism. Putting aside the facts that (outside the US) the world seems to see the situation in the opposite light, and that the Israelis have committed less violence against the Palestinians then would be expected by an overwhelming military force (the third strongest army in the world after the US and China, I believe) in a similar historical situation in which the weaker side continues to inflict terrible damage on the stronger side, Ian seems intent on straightening out the "anti-Arab Jewish propaganda." While I believe he is factually wrong in his view, he does have some points and we may need to struggle with them, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

To everybody: in order to end this edit war at some point, it behooves all of us to avoid sarcasm even though we feel the other is simply trying disrespectfully to strongarm his bias into the article.

Regarding the reference, Ian, you are suggesting outright fraud on the part of the French fellow who maintains the web site and posted the Pearlman jpg. While it is possible, in the course of investigating this issue, I have been in direct communication with him numerous times and it seems unlikely to me. If you don't believe him, why don't you ask him if he can provide evidence that the page is from the Pearlman book? If you want me to do it, I will. But in the meantime, it seems that we would be highly biased in demanding every source that might mitigate anti-Israeli sentiment be photocopied from a book and the photocopy must be verified, or that quotations must be directly heard by the sources who report them (as demanded above), etc.

There is a high likelihood (i.e., a certainty) that your highly thorough scholarship applied in a one-sided fashion biases this article. You scour sources and insert information supporting an anti-Israeli view (even if those sources are known to be biased) while leaving out (or not presenting as strongly) information from those and other equally valid (and biased) sources that would balance the picture. Because your scholarship is truly diligent, people who cannot keep up with you don't check out each source you cite and the manner in which you use it to the same degree that you challenge pro-Israeli notions. The result is that pro-Palestinian points inserted by dedicated, biased researchers (like you and Zero) receive relatively little scrutiny, while you and Zero jump all over any pro-Israeli notion with all sorts of claims of bias and raise the bar much higher than it is for pro-Palestinian notions.

Note that I am not suggesting we lower the bar for verification. I am suggesting that because of the presence of two "extreme researchers" in the creation of this article---both of whom have an editing pattern that is unmistakably strongly pro-Arab in a disputed area where the truth almost certainly lies in the middle---this article is almost certain to be biased against Israel. The solution is for us to challenge you and Zero as carefully as you challenge us. We have to go to the sources. See how biased they are. See how you are using (and if you are misusing them). And find other equally valid sources that present the other side.

Unfortunately, this will take time. In the meantime, we have a problem. While we cannot lower the bar for accepting sources, we also do not want the Misplaced Pages to become a propaganda source for the most fanatic editors who can bias articles with overwhelmingly detailed (but highly biased) research. So we have to negotiate point by point and compromise. If you raise challenges to those sources, as you are doing with the Pearlman pages, we have to do the research to verify them (i.e., come up to the level of the bar). However, you and Zero cannot simply delete anything you disagree with, while we are responding to your challenges and coming up with plenty of reasonable sources.

And, Ian, you cannot keep presenting scholarly sources from very biased partisans as if academic positions indicate correctness and overall accuracy in the history created. While academia can to some degree protect against outright fraud and lying, it certainly does not eliminate bias; noted scholars are often wrong and even more often (like almost always?) have an ax to grind. So you cannot hide bias behind academia or use a finding of bias to proclaim inaccuracy and dismiss the source. The issue is far more complicated than that. Even though I agree with some of your concerns regarding sources, a compromise between your position and Zeq's is in order. And that compromise has to be based on some scrutiny of each source, rather than categorical rejections. Kriegman 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As i said: The edits are not "mine". They were addd by someone else and I just added sources when Ian claimed they ar not sourced. If we will accpet ian new crtiria we can just delete all articles about the israel-Palestine conflict and start new with Ian's new rules. I have said before that I will agree to a compromise that would keep essential facts such as why would the jews fearfull from someone who ciooperated with the Nazis and suggest kicking them out to the sea, when that person is the leader of some of their enemies. Zeq 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say that after reading Kriegman full note I wonder: How come Misplaced Pages mechanism seem to fail when it comes to the Israeli-palestinina conflict ? and why no one seems to care ? Zeq 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

None of this helps Kriegman, because you haven't offered any sources at all, good or bad, for the bulk of your claims. I don't care what you add to the article as long as it is relevant; that you have a good source and that you give the full reference. Please respond to my questions about sources posted on your talk page here --Ian Pitchford 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, your questions were answered. So Ian, what do you think we should do: Accept your biased edits all over wikipedia and delete everything that does not fit your POV - all that just because you insist ? Th answer is : No. You asked for sources. You got them. Time to move on. Zeq 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, please point out the sources for each claim identified on your talk page here. --Ian Pitchford 20:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, the Pearlman source was given above. I then responded to your critique of it with suggestions and an offer, both of which you seem to have ignored and then, in bold, wrote you haven't offered any sources at all. It is impossible to engage in a dialogue if I respond to you and then you ignore the response and merely reiterate your claim, with added emphasis. What is it you really want? Kriegman 20:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, We are not in any court, and you are NOT cross exmining a hostile witness. I refused to be asked in this way. Zeq 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq,Kriegman. I am talking about the questions asked of both of you on your talk pages. Are you going to provide sources for those claims or not? Only claims supported by references can remain in the article. --Ian Pitchford 21:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources has been provided. I refuse to accept your tone (bold considred shouting) and the constant abuse. You asked for sources, they are now in the article. Zeq 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please list the references supporting each claim mentioned here. I am glad to endorse the addition of all relevant material supported by reliable sources. What is the problem? --Ian Pitchford 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is at first you edit-faught, then you declare that web sites are not verifaibale sources. and now you think you can "shout" at us with bold to get it your way ? No. We are civilized people, you asked for sources, we provided them. Move on. Zeq 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to ask you before referring the matter to the Arbitration Committee. Are you going to abide by Misplaced Pages policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? If you cite credible sources for the changes you have made I will support them. --Ian Pitchford 09:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking to me ? If so first be polite and civil. second I have made no changes other then provide sources for edits which were here before and you reverted in the argument of "no sources" and later " sources that I don't accept" Fell free to "refer it to the arbcom", indeed your behaviour, not just in this issue but also your personal attcks and the edit war should be reviwed by someone with maturity. You have been suggested by Kriegman another alternative (which I support):

Review the sources we provide. (all 15 of them) If based on these sources, you feel the text does not correctlu summerized the sources (after that is all we do here, since we do notdo our own research) feel free to suggust an alternative text, discuss it is talk. If you and Kriegman will reach an agreement I will accept this agreement. So there you have it: Although you are in the minority I am giving you the ability to infulance 50%. Work it out with Kriegman or if you want to rush to arbcom instead of trying to resolve it using reason - be my guest. Zeq 10:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, you made four reverts in less then 24 hours. Please revert back --Heptor 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I just went to the Jerusalem Post archives in search of the article that, above I reported, I had found referenced on a web site. Not trusting biased web sites, I bought a copy of the article. This is in the article: "In his memoirs wrote: "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.' " Sarah Honig. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Apr 6, 2001. pg. 08.B

Now, unless there is some reasonable objection, I will be placing this quotation in the article as supporting the veracity of the statement he made during his Nazi broadcasts. By the way, in this article, that quotation is translated somewhat differently: "Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor." But I will wait for a chance to discuss this here before I put this material in the article. Kriegman 00:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that either "quotation" is accurate. Just because some journalist can copy something from a book or off the web doesn't make it suddenly become true. Sarah Honig is/was one of the JP's most right-wing commentators. Where do these quotations actually come from? The chance that Sarah Honig actually read the Mufti's diaries is nil. --Zero 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What you "believe" is between you and your God. here we place sourced info. If you have a source contradting the facts, this is fine. Bring all sourced info to make this article NPOV. Zeq 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is protected and .... No one from the reverting side seesm to accept my offer to propose a compromise.

You asked for sources. sources were given but now you have removed them and asked for protection so now that the page look like you would like to keep it you don't have any incentive in working a compromise. I guess it is not enough the assume good faith it should also be practiced. Jayjg if no compromise offer is suggested please remove the useless protaction. Zeq 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• BTW, what this OR has to do with anything: "Sarah Honig is/was one of the JP's most right-wing commentators. Where do these quotations actually come from? The chance that Sarah Honig actually read the Mufti's diaries is nil.--Zero 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" Zeq 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation, summary of the dispute

Hello folks, I've been approached by Zeq to mediate this dispute. First, however, I think it would be best if we could have a simple, concise summary of the current dispute. If all parties could present there arguments peacefully, I believe we can reach a conclusion.--Sean|Black 00:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Heptor

This is how I understand this dispute. It was meant to represent views of Zeq and Kriegman as well, hope I didn't get anything wrong.

The discussion is about the mufti, or supreme (Muslim) religious leader, of Jerusalem. He seems to be the closest Arabs in the region had to a secular supreme leader as well, at least I didn't see any other important leaders mentioned. All editors do agree that he collaborated with the nazis during WWII. the dispute is about the extend of his collaboration, and what consequenses it had.

The core of Ians objections (diff link) seems to be the following paragraph:

Meanwhile, from exile in Egypt where he was avoiding trial for war crimes due to his collaboration with the Nazis, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War. A segment of the Palestinian forces were loyal to him and were commanded by his cousin. The Mufti, one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, had spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.

He replaced it with following text in the footnotes:

# For examples of the propaganda surrounding the mufti's wartime collaboration with the Nazis see: Pearlmanm, Maurice (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem. The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Gollancz; Schechtman, Joseph B. (1965). The Mufti and the Fuehrer: The rise and fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini. New York: T. Yoseloff. ISBN B0006BM7WW; What happened in Palestine during World War II?; Working for the Nazis; The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection Bosnian Moslems recruited the Nazi SS by Yasser Arafat's 'Uncle'; Photographs and Documents; The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection; The Nazi Origins of Modern Arab Terror

Also, Ian wishes to change "On the same day, however, the Arab League Secretary-General, Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". ". He wants it to be "Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha reportedly announced, "This will be a war of extermination....."

Evidently, credibility of historians Pearlman, Schechtman and Sachar is the source of Ian's concerns. I had a discussion about Pearlman with another editor, Zero. Ian and Zero cooperated closely on many articles in Arab-Israeli conflict, so I believe Ian has similar or same arguments. Zero claimed that Pearlman is a liar, evidently because in one of his books Pearlman wrote that in a report by the Shaw commision about 1929 Arab revolt "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned", while only the minority report made that conclusion. The majority report concluded, based on the same findings, that "The outbreak was not premeditated". Because of this, Zero claims that "Pearlman is a liar, , so why should I believe this?" I do not know why Ian questions credibility of the other historians I mentioned above.

Also, sentence "In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy." is disputed by Ian, on the basis that it is not verified that such statements did lead to the believe among Israelis that they were facing a genocidal enemy. Both Zeq and Kriegman are willing to compromise on this, but they also pointed out that pro-Arab statements are not subject to such scrutiny.

-- Heptor 01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: Ian has threatened to submit the matter to the Arbitration Committee for a while ( example), but never did. He did however asked Jimbo Wales to intervene. In the end he reverted the article to his own version (in violation of 3RR, as you already know), then asked for the article to be protected. Quite sleazy done, I would say. -- Heptor 11:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

true. It is said that Jayjg unknowingly took part in this step, but it is all on the record so I wish he will go with it to the arbcom. It is time that Ian and Zero will get some feedback on what they do. Zeq 12:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Statment by Zeq

I appariciate your effort and understand your situation. We all have to balance our time.

There is a systematic problem in this area. IMHO clear Misplaced Pages policies such as NPOV are not followed and also editors such as zero0000 use "complex reverts" to argue that their imature revert war are "edits" and not "reverts". Someone (who ?) is letting them get away with it. (see repeat violation of him on the 3RR notice board)

Anyhow, the 3RR is not the main concern, the syetematic bias is. Different yardstick is applied to any edit which seems "pro-israel" and that is the cause for the revert war, Ian, Zero "disqulaify" sources that does not fit their POV while such sources are used all over wikipedia. The problem extend tio other articles (see Nakba in which there is almost "ownership" by pro-Palestinians editors. I am sure they see it exactly the other way and think that my edits are anti-Palestinian.

The point is that colboration had failed. It had failed systematicly. Pro israel editors have been systematiclly banned. All together while I look for compromise (and where able to work out few with Ramallite and few others) The other side mostly look for conflict, for ArbCom and for revert wars. Misplaced Pages must allocate the time to mediate this complex subject all over different articles. The bias is clear all over and usual policies have failed. They must be applied to many articles at the same time. I hope the mediation will work but I think eventually it will take an arbcom decision to correct this situation.

As I have stated even before the "protect" I will accept any compromise that Kriegman and Heptor would work out.Zeq 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is Ian?

How long are we supposed to wait for Ian, anyway? With him abscent, there is no dispute to be resolved. Me, Zeq and Kriegman mostly do agree on the contents of the page, and we can work out the minor differences in our views. What do you think, Sean?-- Heptor 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page. Unfortunately, Ian seems to have stopped editing at least for the moment. I will send him an email and see what he says.--Sean|Black 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Short Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I know I have been absent from this debate for quite awhile but I feel like I should quickly chime in here. Ian and Zero continually delete statments that go against their line of reasoning while adding material that is usually far more extreme than what they delete. Their reasoning is always more or less the same- That they must delete "obvious pro-israeli propaganda" and that they have to add passages "that assure that the palestinians' viewpoint is represented". Both Zero and Ian seem to believe that a properly sourced passage is automatically valid unless of course they disagree with it. We all know that that it is easy to find sources from every single viewpoint of the Israeli-Palestinan" conflict, what matters is whether or not the source is valid. So if Zero's and Ian's sources are to be taken at face value then Kriegman's and Heptor's must as well, since they are considerably more neutral.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. I would like to add that in my opinion Ian has remained respectful and polite throughout the entire conflict, the same cannot be said about Zero though.

Ian's response

Ian has mailed me back saying that he no longer wishes to contribute to Misplaced Pages. While this is an unfortunate consequence, he seems to be in good spirits, and I feel that it would be in our best interest to recognize his viewpoint nonetheless. At this point, I think we should discuss. The parties are obviously the ones who will have something significant to say, and I will ensure that the discussion remains civil and peaceful.--Sean|Black 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get in touch with Zero and get his viewpoints in lieu of Ian's.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Current issues

What are everyone's current problems with the article, if any?--Sean|Black 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The British

The British played both sides. They were friends with each side, play both sides against the other. This section cann not focus only on their connections with the jews while the comader of the Arab army (and all high ranking officers) were in fact British. Zeq 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The British played both sides in order to retain control of its colony and later to preserve its influence in the region. There was no Arab Army as such, but I think you are referring to Transjordan's Arab Legion, which did have British officers. Those officers were ordered by London to abandon their posts if the Arab Legion was asked to advance into territory allocated by the UN to the Jewish state. --Ian Pitchford 07:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

On the alleged Mufti quotation

Considering the paragraph that claims to quote the Mufti from 1944 and and claims that it had some importance to the topic of this article, the following comments are in order:

1. Since Pearlman is a proven liar and Schechtman simply copied from Pearlman, no real evidence has been provided that the quotation is genuine. I will demonstrate below that in fact it is not genuine.
2. No evidence of any sort, or even an opinion to that effect from a historian or contemporary source, has been provided to demonstrate that the Mufti's war-time broadcasts had any significance to the 1948 war. On the contrary, the mere fact that the vast majority of book-length accounts of the war by historians do not even mention the topic demonstrates that the bulk of professional opinion is that there was no significance. What we have here is a textbook example of "original research" and it should be excluded according to Misplaced Pages policy.

And so to the veracity of the quotation. After looking unsuccessfully in a large number of places for this quotation, I was surprised to find it on page 444 of Robert Fisk's new book "The Great War for Civilisation" along with another standard "quotation". More interestingly, Fisk gives a source for them:

...in the archives of the wartime BBC Monitoring Service a series of transcripts from Nazi radio stations that cast a dark shadow over any moral precepts Haj Amin might have claimed. Here he is, for example, addressing a Balfour Day rally at the Luftwaffe hall in Berlin on 2 November 1943: 'The Germans know how to get rid of their Jews...They have definitely solved the Jewish problem.' And on Berlin radio on 1 March 1944: 'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.'

As it happens, my library has a copy of the BCC transcripts. During the period 1942-1947 they were called the "Daily digest of world broadcasts", and are a standard primary source used by historians of this period. There are hundreds of reels of microfilm with no index, but they are organized according to country and date so checking specific claims such as Fisk's is not very difficult. The German transcripts run to 10-30 pages per day and cover about a dozen radio stations. Some broadcasts are copied in full, but mostly there is a partial transcript and a summary of the remainder. Everything is in English regardless of the original language. (See BBC Monitoring and .)

Here is the complete report on the Balfour Day speech given by al-Husayni (German Telegraph Service 2.11.43, 18:05, in German) scan:

BALFOUR DECLARATION: BERLIN ARABS DEMONSTRATION   Berlin: "Jews and Allies plotted against us and agreed to solve the Jewish problem at the expense of the Arabs and Mohammedans" declared the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hadj Mohammed Amin el Husseini, to Berlin's Arab colony at a protest meeting held in Berlin yesterday on the anniversary of the Balfour declaration, which was signed 2nd November 1917. "If Britain had any consideration for 70,000,000 Arabs and 400,000,000 Mohammedans, it would not have committed that shameful act." He pointed out that the Balfour Declaration, envisaging the establishment of the Jewish national home in Palestine, was signed less than 12 months after Britain had concluded a pact with the late King Hussein recognising Arab independence. Britain during one year made two contradictory promises to two different nations. The Grand Mufti added: "History knows of countries which have been wiped out, defeated, or oppressed, but it does not know of a country which, inhabited for many centuries, has been taken away from the natives and handed over to another nation." He then sharply attacked the Jews: "This people who from of yore has plagued the world and been the enemy of Arabs and of Islam since its foundation." What the Prophet did 13 centuries ago was the only remedy today, namely to oust Jews from all Arab and Mohammedan countries. Hence the attitude of Arabs and Mohammedans, within as well as outside Palestine was plainly opposed to British policy.

So we see that the words "Germans know how to get rid of their Jews" simply do not appear in this source and Fisk is mistaken to claim that they do. In fact there are no words even similar to Fisk's words. It appears that Fisk has been taken in by some other source which misrepresents the facts. al-Husayni made some strongly anti-Jewish remarks but in the end proposed to expel the Jews, not to kill them. We should also note that this was not a direct broadcast of the Mufti's speech but a report by the tightly-controlled German radio (think Joseph Goebbels), so we should be careful about believing it at all.

Now we turn to the second quotation. In this case there is a short report only (German Overseas Service, 1.3.44, 17:30, in Arabic) scan:

Appeal by Arabs by "A distinguished Arab Personality" (18 mins)
No power was strong enough to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. During the last war, Britain, despite her strength, failed in this undertaking. Every Arab would rise against this menace. "Moslems! Arabs! Live with honour or die, rise and stand firm against your enemies; sacrifice yourselves to overcome the ever-increasing Jewish menace. Inflict heavy damages on his war effort and kill as many as you can of your enemies - Jews and Anglo-Saxons - and Allah is with you!"

Note a number of things. First, the monitor did not identify this as al-Husayni. This is very odd since al-Husayni was very well known and would have been even more well known to an Arabic speaker. Describing a broadcast by Al-Husayni as by "a distinguished Arab personality" would be like describing a broadcast by George Bush as by "a leading American politician". Perhaps this was al-Husayni, but there is reason to doubt it. Second, the words used by Fisk (and by people here) are clearly related to the actual words but they are not a quotation. The omission of Anglo-Saxons as amongst the "enemies" is a serious distortion, as is the omission of the context of the ongoing war. At this moment in history, all leaders were urging their followers to kill their enemies wherever they could be found, and al-Husayni's choice of enemies "Jews and Anglo-Saxons" is what a radical Palestinian nationalist would be likely to choose. Again, we see that Fisk is not reporting what his alleged source actually says, but is most likely reporting a distorted version written by someone else. Note that Pearlman gives the same date, so there can be little doubt that reference is to the same broadcast.

I am writing to Fisk about his error and will report the answer if I get one. --Zero 09:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zero, While I would agree with you that some people are indeed prooven liars, it could very well be that you are correct and Fisk is one of them. This however, does not change what we do here in Misplaced Pages which is: "No original research". What you have done is OR - we have no ability to listen to all the BBC tapes and see if you did not miss anything, or maybe something got mis fild in "your libraray" (what Libraray is it ?) really "yours" ? can I have access to this libraray ?). What you need to do is maybe find a cademic source that would do what you have done (if you are an acdemic why don't you publish it yourself under your real name and quote your article after it went through peer review ?)

We here in Misplaced Pages, do not have the tools to conduct research or to check your own research. All we can do is quote from sources. If there are other sources who claim the opposite we quote them as well. So what ever you letter to Fisk end up, we will keep the quotes and when your paper comes out we will add it side by side to the already sourced material on the article. I am sure you understand that this is how wikipedia policy work. In General policies are for uniformity, equality, no one (including you) can apply the policy (or the yardstick by which quotes are measured) differently based on how much the quote fits his own POV. The (sourced) quote stays. Zeq 09:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As I expected, you have nothing to say except hot air. Btw, there are no tapes mentioned, and I have never heard of anyone claiming that there are recordings of these broadcasts in existence. There are only transcripts. The BBC transcripts are well known and can be found in many large libraries. Maybe even one near you. If not, you can get your local research library to obtain copies of the parts you need: reels 116 and 125. --Zero 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As I expcted: Original research with no wilingness to let us verify the source. There is no such library near me: Where is "your" library ? maybe I'll drop by . Zeq 12:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

why is this change  ? is this where the missing quote is ? And seriously: Find an academic source that present the POV that is opposite to the sourced quotes and maybe we can include both claims. If you want us to verify what you claim we will need to contact the lib. Zeq 13:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zero, this is interesting stuff you write, but, as Zeq says, there is no way for anyone here to check that you didn't miss anything, or got it wrong in some other way. This is not intended as an accusation of any sort, but for what we know, you may even have done so intentionally. After all, are we supposed to trust you or Pearlman and Schechtman? I make no presumption as to who is right and who isn't, just that it is impossible to verify.

When you say that you personally have a large collection of historic documents on Middle East, I presume you hold an academic position of some kind? Your findings are certainly interesting enough to be published. Why don't you submit it to some historical journal, so we can see what kind of response it gets?

Heptor _talk 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zero, I wrote you a note: To prove that he did not say it we will need to go over hours and hours and days of broadcast services recording. So please stop this nonsense and find an acepatble verifiable academic source that can be trusted. Why don'y you write a "peer reviwed" article about it ? Are you afraid that your peers will know what you are up to on Misplaced Pages ? Zeq 13:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zero, this is getting laughable, no wonder why you don't publish it in a peer reviwed paper This is 100 words out of 18 Mints long speech: and what was said in the rest ? It clearly says "very bad reception" - I trust the verifyable sources. let's move on. Zeq 13:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To Heptor: Now I uploaded scans so you see what I can see. Yes, I have an academic position but this is not my specialty. All I have done here is to extract information from a published source. It is not original research and a historical journal would reject it as uninteresting. Academic historians do not regard books like Pearlman's (or Fisk's) as serious history books so there is no credit to be won by refuting them. To Zeq: You are so pathetic I can't believe it. --Zero 14:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I can see the scans, but this is what I can't see that worries me. But even from those scans: "Inflict heavy damages on his war effort and kill as many as you can of your enemies - Jews and Anglo-Saxons - and Allah is with you!" This is does look very similar to the quote we are currently discusing, though the later goes somewhat more far: "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."

Given this, it does sound quite probable that he used the second wording somewhere too. -- Heptor _talk 14:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Probable doesn't count. The proof of the puddling is in the eating. In my opinion, the passages are so similar that they must be versions of the same thing. But, even if he said much the same thing but in the Pearlman fashion as well, the BBC transcript provides additional context that shouldn't be ignored. --Zero 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The source for the quotation is Pearlam; I do not know why you consider him a liar, but the fact that quotation was probable strengthen his credibility. It would be interesting to find additional context to his speech, but it doesn't seems that that the quotation is so much out of context either. What is the context? "Hi, I am an Arab leader speaking on Nazi radio. I may or may not know that the Nazis are already killing Jews by millions, but let's go and fight Jews, kill as many as possible."? -- Heptor _talk 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A little on the side, I think it totally improbable that the Mufti didn't know about the Holocaust. The Nazis were not specially secretive about Holocaust, and he worked with them a lot during his time in Bosnia. Would they keep him in darkness about it? I think not. Well, just my personal, non-notable opinion. -- Heptor _talk 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zero, We have sources saying he said that. Unless you have sources that proove he did not say it I suggest you move on. As far as I can see even Fisk admit that on one occation he said that and your "rulling out" on one specific broadcast based on partial transcript (done in bad reception condition) froman unkown "my library" does not count as refutal of the sources we provided. as you can see here even others fell for even better looking scans of old documents. WE have academic sources saying he did and that's is good enough for every othjer Misplaced Pages article. you will not be able to use new standrads here just because the sourced info does not fit your POV Zeq 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When there is a factual dispute: Misplaced Pages Policy

Disputed information should be placed on the article's talk page. Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper, otherwise the information should remain out of the article. The content and sources of the following section are disputed

Meanwhile, from exile in Egypt where he was avoiding trial for war crimes due to his collaboration with the Nazis, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War. A segment of the Palestinian forces were loyal to him and were commanded by his cousin. The Mufti, one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs,, , had spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy. ,,http://www.think-israel.org/eder.naqbah.html]

Additionally, the information in the first two sentences already appears here and doesn't need to be repeated and the whole section is also included under the section "Third phase: May 15, 1948 - June 11, 1948", although none of it is relevant to this period. I propose that we apply Misplaced Pages policy unless or until we find a source by a reputable historian for this information. --Ian Pitchford 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian: It is sourced. You may not like the sources but they are sources non the less. The info will stay. As I said all along I will be interested to see what compromise you suggest, moving the info to another paragraph or what ? Zeq 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is a dispute is not in dispute. Which procedure for resolution do you want to pursue? --Ian Pitchford 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If your interpretation of the dispute policy is to be taken seriously, it would mean that any editor may demand removal of any information he wish, simply by questioning the sources of that information. Don't you see that?

By the way, where have you been when the article was under mediation?

Heptor _talk 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think further debate will help. Do you have a preference for resolution? --Ian Pitchford 18:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask Sean to come back and mediate? -- Heptor _talk 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's your preference. --Ian Pitchford 18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Preference to what? -- Heptor _talk 19:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. If I'm understanding corectly, the problem is that Ian doesn't believe that the sources are reliable? If so, then the best compromise is to come up with another source that Ian deems suitable. Does that seem reasonable?--Sean|Black 19:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome back, it looks like your services are needed after all. I agree that it would be ideal, but it is not like there is an infinite amount of sources easily available. And how can one guarantee that Ian wouldn't deem those sources unreliable as well? Could he at least point out what he thinks is wrong with Pearlman, Schechtman and Sachar?

There is a confirmation from Zero that Mufti did say something similiar: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/BBCreel125.png

but it seems that he believes that Mufti never used the exact wording.

Heptor _talk 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You need good scholarly sources for major historical claims. The quotation you mention above is not attributed to the Mufti. --Ian Pitchford 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So what is this quote ? It was brought by zero as "proof" to what the mufti said. Zeq 19:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I want a reliable scholarly source for the claim inserted into this article by you, Heptor and Kriegman that in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War there was "a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy". In my view this is racist nonsense. --Ian Pitchford 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This quote is attributed to a "distinguished Arab Personality". I didn't notice that. Not that there were many distinguished Arab Personalities in the Nazi Germany at the time.

Still, I undestand neither why you consider this quotation to be major nor why you don't consider those three historians not to be scholar enough. It is already established that Mufti was a Nazi collaborator, who, among other things, helped Nazis fight Serbian partisans. A quick search on Schechtman shows that he was publishing mostly on New York Oxford University Press. Not that that everything printed on a university press is true, but they would probably dismiss the worst lies. He wrote many other books as well, you can read one of them, "European Population Transfers 1939-1945", here: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78330086 -- Heptor _talk 20:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No one has been cited for the claim that there was "a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy". --Ian Pitchford 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

So what are you proposing as compromise ? Zeq 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is a major fact about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War you should be able to cite one reputable history of that war in support. --Ian Pitchford 20:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Before we continue, you should obey policy and be civil. We allow you to come back to mediation which you first refused. Discuss changes Here not by reverting the article, and Never remove sourced info - Are we clear ? Zeq 22:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I took the care to copy the policy in full at the beginning of this section. It says that disputed material should be removed to the talk page. It's here. Now please abide by policy and address the question above. --Ian Pitchford 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Before we continue, you should obey policy and be civil. We allow you to come back to mediation which you first refused. Discuss changes Here not by reverting the article, and Never remove sourced info - Are we clear ? Zeq 05:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comply with the policy and answer the query above. --Ian Pitchford 05:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No where in the policy I saw that you can take unilateral changes while we are in mediation. You can put the info on talk but at the same time don't remove it from article. You question hav all been answered in full. Zeq 05:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop talking around the issue Zeq. I am insisting that this policy is implemented. Inserting disputed claims without sources is not acceptable; nor is inserting fifteen dubious web links into a single sentence. --Ian Pitchford 05:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We have implemented this policy which clearly sais "Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper" You dispute the validity of the sources but that is not disputing the content. Nothing that you have shown shows that these sources are any different from sources used all over Misplaced Pages. We mediated this issue but now you are accepting the results of the mediation or not ? Zeq 08:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the policy reads "Disputed information should be placed on the article's talk page". This policy must be implemented. Major claims about historical events must be supported by references to good sources. I don't believe that there are important claims about the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that cannot be supported by reference to a respected historical source. No history that I have makes the claims that you are trying to insert into this article, even those by Chaim Herzog and Martin Gilbert. Typically, histories of this period acknowledge Husayni's minor role as a figurehead and nothing more. You must accept Misplaced Pages policy and cite good sources if you want this dispute to end. --Ian Pitchford 10:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, if your interpretation of the dispute policy is to be taken seriously, it would mean that any editor may demand removal of any information he wish, simply by questioning the sources of that information. You still don't see that?

Heptor _talk 11:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Heptor, why don't you see that all I am asking is that you open one or two good histories of this period and quote or paraphrase what they say about this issue? Don't you agree that Misplaced Pages readers deserve this standard of work from editors? --Ian Pitchford 11:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Ian, but what I see is that you are trying to remove sourced information because you don't like it. Now by making some wild interpretation of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution policy. -- Heptor _talk 10:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

what are you disputing: History ? Policy ? or the result of the mediation ?

We have implemented this policy which clearly sais "Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper" You dispute the validity of the sources but that is not disputing the content. Nothing that you have shown shows that these sources are any different from sources used all over Misplaced Pages. We mediated this issue but now you are accepting the results of the mediation or not ? Zeq 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The material you are inserting into this article will be deleted until you cite a scholarly reference. --Ian Pitchford 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No Ian, it will not. You will not apply different standrds than those used on all other Misplaced Pages articles.

You asked for sources and you got them. You refused mediation still we allow you to come back to it. If you dispute this further go to Rfa. I am not planning to argue with you about sourced material any more. Zeq 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Last Comment on Sources

It's disturbing that you pretend not even to know what question has been put to you after it has been asked more than a dozen times here and on your talk page. I want a scholarly source for the claim that there was "a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy" otherwise we are not having this racist nonsense in the article. As for your position on web links it leaves you with no argument against those who would add multiple links to the likes of Stormfront and other neo-Nazi sites in support of their racist claims and so please stop telling us that this is a serious position on sources. It would take me precisely ten minutes to put up a web page saying that you are one of the mufti's collaborators and little longer to put up fifteen. Would that make it encyclopedic material? Of course not. Misplaced Pages standards and policies on sources and disputes will be upheld for the benefit of this article and for the benefit of every serious contributor and reader. --Ian Pitchford 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, as you can see, Ian fels strongly about this. Would it be alright if we were to remove some of the intertnet sources, preferably adding in some other (non-internet) material as well?--Sean|Black 21:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

He certainly does! I mean, accusing Zionists and Israel of war crimes is one thing. It is both reasonable and expected that someone does that - unfortunatly, war crimes have been commited in most of the wars that have ever been fought. But comparing Zionists and Israel to the Nazis is totally unreasonable. -- Heptor _talk 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That said, I do agree that some of the web links should be removed. It is not even necessary to have so many links, the fact that Mufti has collabed with the Nazis is not disputed. -- Heptor _talk 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The time it takes Ian to put up a web site or how much he feels is not the issue. This section talks about the frame of mind of the jews in the years after the holocaust and thir fear from a man that cooperated with Hitler, escaped to egypt to avoid war crimes and called for their anhilition. If there is a different way to write this (maybe this quote from a website about a scholarly book: "Hajj Amin al-Husseini has become the hero of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization, the founding father of the radical Palestine National Movement, and the inspiration of two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitler’s war against the Jews.

David G. Dalin is a professor of history and political science at Ave Maria University. This article is adapted from his new book The Myth of Hitler’s Pope. " ?

I must say that actually I don't see the specifc quote that Ian object too nithr racist nor so important to the article so any other way to describe the situation I think would work. Can you propose a different wording ? Zeq 22:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of "there was a popular belief..." " has stated that there was a popular belief...". Is that acceptable to all?--Sean|Black 22:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable Sean and in fact I said that here on the talk page some weeks ago to no effect. --Ian Pitchford 22:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Zeq 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you for mediation Sean. -- Heptor _talk 10:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's ok but what is this "reliable source"? None has been suggested so far. Also the Mufti "quotation" has been brought into considerable doubt by the evidence I introduced above and so can't be used. A more general statement that the Mufti had been a Nazi collaborator would suffice. --Zero 10:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Publish your research in a peer review article and we will gladly add your reservations Zeq 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly respectable and desirable: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". --Ian Pitchford 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Zero is not merely quotes from original sources. What he did was that he found a book by Robert Fisk, where that same quotation that is disputed here appears with a reference to a BBC transcript of a speach made on German radio on a particular day. Zero checked those transcripts and found that even if Mufti did call for killing of Jews and Anglo-Saxons whereever they were to be found, but he, in that speach, didn't use the exact wording in the Fisk's book. It should be noted that Robert Fisk is not refered to in the current version of the article.

Don't misunderstand, I do think this is interesting stuff Zero found. But Zero did much more than just referencing to primary sources. Maybe Fisk simply got the date wrong? Maybe Zero got something wrong, and the exact quotation is hiding on the next page?

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that Mufti is confirmed to have called for killing Jews and Englishmen, makes it very probable that he also sometime did that using the wording provided by Pearlman et al. If someone says "let's burn the witches", he probably did sometime say "let's boil the witches". We have to consider things like that when evaluating credibility of our sources. To state that logically, my statement is that "Pearlman et al claim that Mufti said A. This claim is strengthened by the fact that BBC transcript from some date claim that Mufti said B, which is similar to A" (And not that "Mufti said B, because he said A". The latter is logically invalid)

Heptor _talk 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No one had provided any evidence at all that the quotations are genuine and even if they are genuine the position is as Zero summarised above: "No evidence of any sort, or even an opinion to that effect from a historian or contemporary source, has been provided to demonstrate that the Mufti's war-time broadcasts had any significance to the 1948 war. On the contrary, the mere fact that the vast majority of book-length accounts of the war by historians do not even mention the topic demonstrates that the bulk of professional opinion is that there was no significance." Speculation can't take the place of relevant sourced research. --Ian Pitchford 21:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• We understand Ian that you just reject all the sources we provided for that. otherwise you could not claim that there are no sources. Zero has well spent time to disproove the sources and show them wrong. So let me sumerize: You are re-writing Misplaced Pages policy and Zero is engage in Original Research. Zeq 04:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I don't have found any sources about this braodcast but it is well known that all arabs leaders made many "strong" declarations during this period. This "citation" illustrates at best the image they wanted to give even if there are many historians that remind that arab leaders -and especially Azzam Pacha- knew they had few chances to win the war against Zionists. I think this could be interesting to add and comment.

Another point : I think the part explaining the collaboration of jewish forces with britain forces during 1936-39 period is not important and certainly political. Nevertheless if you think it is important I think it should be emphasized that there were also arab forces working with the British. I have a source for this :) : Ilan Pappé (who is not particularly pro sionist !) writes in his book about the 1948 war in Palestine (pp176 in the French version) that several units of tranjordanian army served in Palestine during mandate in the police force ! (he writes this to explain they were better prepared than other arab forces)

Hi, and thank you for your contribution! I too heard something about Arabs fighting the Nazis, side by side with the British. If you have a reliable source that have this information, you should definitly include this information into the article! An English source would be strongly preferable, but French will do when nothing else is around. You can put your contribution directly into the article, but, because you are new, I would recomend you to put it on the talk page first, so it could be discussed. Personally I read about this Arab force on some pro-Palestinian web page, and it specified neither their numbers nor any details on when and where such involvement took place.

As to Pasha's quote, things are getting more controversial. Victory of the Zionists was far from obvious at the time. In the beginning of the war most people actually thought they didn't have a chance against the invading Arab armies. You can read more about this controversy in the article, but what we know is that Pasha said that the victory would be an easy task. It is simply not up to an encyclopedia to decide whether he meant it or not.

On a more formal note, if you wish to make further contributions, it would be preferable if you register. It only takes a minute and it will allow you to identify yourself more easily. You can sign your posts with ~~~~ (four tildos). It will be automatically replaced with your username and date.

With Best Regards

Heptor _talk 23:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned very briefly in the article that Palestinian Arabs were recruited to the British Army. No figure is given, but I believe it was something like 9,000 - around one-quarter to one-third of the Palestinian Jews recruited. I'll look for a reference. The Israeli government was initially very concerned about the intervention of the Arab armies, and without the arms deal with the Czechs the struggle would have been much more different. However, within a month Ben-Gurion was discussing the invasion of Arab lands, but was, of course, aware that any such move could trigger a war with Britain, something the new state was very keen to avoid. Azzam Pasha was privy to high-level negotiations and knew that Egypt had no intention of being seriously involved in the War, other than to thwart Abdullah's ambitions for a Hashemite "Greater Syria". This they did by some token fighting, by diplomatic means, by blocking recruiting to the Palestinian forces and the Arab Liberation Army, and by blocking arms shipments to the Arab Legion. --Ian Pitchford 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The British created the Arab legion and glubb Pasha was it's comandr (he is a british officer) many other Brits faught against Israel during the 48 war. It must be reflected ciorrectly instad of trying to create an impression that the Brits were pro-israel. Zeq 08:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already answered your question about the Arab Legion above. Many British also fought with the Israelis (notably with Yitzhak Sadeh) and a British gentile, Gordon Levett, organised the key Operation Balak. The British were, of course - with typical colonial brutality - pro-British, not pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. --Ian Pitchford 09:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I will soon subscribe to wikipedia. I want also to apologize bec. English is not my mother tongue.

Concerning British involvment in the conflit : I agree with all you wrote. I think a neutral vision would be to underline that :

- Some Brits fought personnaly for both Arabs or Jews.

- British position were during the whole war in favour of their more fidel ally : Hachemite Kingdom of Transjordania they supported diplomatically during the whole conflit.

Concerning their interests, as far as I know they didn't care the conflit execpt not to be involved in it and to keep Neguev under allied hands.

Concerning 1936-39 revolt I really don't think this is a good point to describe this that much in this article on 1948 war. Of course some elements are interesting, as for example the fact Zionists had been trained but the general feeling after reading this is that British and Jews were allied... during 1948 war, which is completely false.

I would suggest to remove this but to refer to another article discussing discussing the revolt.

If the purpose is to be more objective concerning the balance of forces, we could add another chapter in this article that would be named "balance of forces" and that would explain how in theory the balance was in favour of arabs but in the facts that it was in favour of Sionists (better training for much troops - better organisation - more funds gathered for armement - not full involvment of arab neighbours reflected by few troops engaged beginning of war).

Thanks for these comments. Your first point about individual Britons fighting for both sides is already mentioned in the article. The second point about the British position is not correct as the British officers in the Arab Legion had instructions from London to abandon their posts if ordered to attack land allocated by the UN to the Jewish state. British involvement, directly and via Transjordan's influence on Syria, Iraq and irregular forces in Palestine limited the conflict. The revolt and its particularly brutal suppression by British colonial forces is generally mentioned by historians as one of the key reasons for the Palestinians' defeat as institutions were destroyed and leaders were exiled to the far corners of the British Empire. Statistics on forces are already in the article. --Ian Pitchford 12:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think anons concern regarding forces was presenting their quality, not just their numerical strength. The former is just as an important factor as the latter, although it is arguably easier to present the numbers in an objective and neutral manner than the quality. With good sources though, it shouldnt be too hard to describe differences in quality in terms of equipment, morale, funding, leadership, tactics, experience etc. --Cybbe 13:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There's always scope for more information on these topics. Perhpas I'm just assuming that readers can make a sensible inference about these things based on the information in precisely those sections anon objects to, i.e., those on th uprising and security collaboration. I suppose it is always best to make things explicit. --Ian Pitchford 15:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to assume that... We can not think for readers, even if they can not do that for temselves. Misplaced Pages should, perhaps with some exceptions out of concern for readability, only state facts and let the reader do the thinking.

Heptor _talk 12:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation results

I have now altered article according as I believe was agreed during mediation. I also hope that if someone wishes to apply further controversial changes, he or she will discuss those changes on the talk page first, rather then start a new edit war. -- Heptor _talk 03:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There was never any concensus, mediated or not, to include the "quotation" from the Mufti. It is just as unacceptable as it ever was. There is no evidence for it except Pearlman, whom I proved to be unreliable, and the primary evidence shows that it is most likely a distortion. As for the 1940 "quotation", are you going to tell us that "From Time Immemorial" is a reliable source? That's where the citation points to. --Zero 07:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have contributed little to the debate since 18 december, many people, Sean included, thought there was a consensus. Why didn't you maintain your objections during the mediation?

As I understand it now, you consider Pearlman a "liar". Your reasoning is that in one of his books he wrote that in a report by the Shaw commision about 1929 Arab revolt "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned", while only the minority report made that conclusion. The majority report concluded, based on the same findings, that "The outbreak was not premeditated". Personally I don't consider this to be enough to make a total character assasination, should we ask someone to mediate? -- Heptor _talk 14:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if an editor consider a source to be "a liar" it is still a source. It is very clear in wikipedia policy that we do not do our use original research to evaluate academic sources. We find other source that claim that the first source is wrong. So the issue is not at all Perlman or nor Perlamn the issue is what the mufti said. On one hand Perlam sais he said X and on the other hand we need an acdemic source in that field to say he did not say it or was misquoted. It is important that the source will be someone in that field. If for example we have a Biology professor saying that Perlman is wrong this does not count. So instead of dealing with Perlman credentilas Ian and Zero should look for sources on what the Moufti said. Zeq 15:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's summary. Misplaced Pages policies on reputable sources must be upheld. If editors aren't prepared to comply then there's no alternative but to settle the matter via arbitration. --Ian Pitchford 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds to me, Ian, that "reputable sources" = "sources that fit Ian's opinion." Come now, grow up. --Leifern 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The mediation accepted citing sources like in any other wikip article and that what Heptor has done. Zeq 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Heptor and you are still including the fundamentally racist claim that "Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy" without sources as well as fake quotations and links to propaganda. All of these additions violate Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. --Ian Pitchford 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Both of us agreed to remove that part but by trying to remove more than was agreed you rolled us back to square one. Read above, I agreed to remove that part (""Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy" ) but the sourced quotes of the Mufti stay. When we have a Prof of history saying the mufti said what he said this is good enough source for me and no other non-History profesror can claim otherwise unless you find a source in the field of history that claim the othr way. Zeq 19:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, which history professor are you talking about? --Zero 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been quite clear all along that reputable sources must be cited. You don't have a reputable source for your quotations, for the link between those quotations and the War, for your claims about the Mufti's role in the war, or for your claims about what Israelis believed about the war. It's all original research. --Ian Pitchford 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I am the anonymous who wrote 2 times before.

NB the litigeous sentences are not from the Mufti but from Azzam Pacha

- Many pro-zionist authors refer to this sentence but none of them is neutral.

- This sentence is quoted by Perlman who is an academic source.

- There doesn't seem to have other references for this

- No (academic) author claims this sentence is not true

- No pro-palestinian author claim this is not true or falsified.true or falsified.

- Arab leaders are reported to have uttered such threat towards Israel

I think there is enough to leave this in the article

Christophe Greffe 11:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if it was true that zero "proved Perlman to be a liar" which he didn't and it is laughable that he asserts this, it would still not mean that every single thing he has written is invalid, using Zero's reasoning, Chomsky, Fisk, and virtually every single person that writes on controversial topics could not be included in wikipedia, since it is just as easy to show instances where their assertions may not have been compleley true. Zero has taken poisoning the Well to a new level, good job Zero.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The litigeous quote can be found in "O Jerusalem" - Lapierre & Collins (p 606 in the French edition - it would be easy to find this in any edition using book's index). Lapierre & Collins is a semi-neutral source : it had no a apriori versus any protagonist. Nevertheless they received more cooperation for their book from israli than from arabs and can have been influenced. But I don't think it can be considered they wrote such a sentence without guarantee. They also wrote their book in 1971, ie only 23 years after the conflit and could discuss with many protagonist of the conflit. Christophe Greffe 11:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good you decided to join, Chritophe. There are probably tons of different sources for that quotation, the mufti didn't exactly try to hide his opinions - on contrary he was literally broadcasting them. Anyhow, Ian Pitchford has submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee. We'll se what it decides. -- Heptor _talk 12:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I think I misunderstood the reason of the dispute. I thought it was due to this :

This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".

A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or sources for the information in this section.

but the dispute is about what Haj Amin Al Husseini told.

Whatever I think this article is very poor due to the too long background. The 36-39 revolt has not its place here as well as all that is told about jewish forces and of course what concerns Hajj Amin Al Husseini. Haj Amin Al Husseini is a protagonist of 1948 war but he doesn't deserve a paragraph and even his proved antisemitism doesn't. Other like Ben Gourion or Abdallah are far more important that Al-Husseini. This article is assumed to deal with 1948 war not settle the responsabilities of Israli-Arab wars.

I still think background should be shorten and all other information of the backgournd paragraph should be gathered in a paragraph dealing with the balance of forces.

I think it is an important information to explain and describe what where the real forces involved and to fall in one of the myth about this war ("David vs Goliath" on one side - "the protected and over supported jewish" on the other side).

Sionists were less but better trained and organised. They had very poor material but organised their supply from CZ. Palestinian never existed in that war. Liberation army were unprepared but numerous (6000 is much). Arab Legion was highly powerful (equiped and trained) but there were a secret treaty between Abdallah and Ben Gourion and they only fought for Jerusalem and not in the remaining of Palestine. Syrian, Iraki and Lebanon were not significant Egyptians forces were powerful but unprepared. Christophe Greffe 13:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, Christophe, including that the Azzam quotation is probably genuine. (It is useless as a description of Azzam's role, though.) Unfortunately, some people think that the purpose of this article is to paint Arabs as Nazis and no amount of common sense or Misplaced Pages rules will stop them in this quest. --Zero 14:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello zero. Thank you for your comments. Honnestly when I read the whole article I have the feeling than there is a mix of pro sionist and pro arab propaganda in this.

I even wonder if this would not be interesting in this article in wikipedia to underline that 1948 war history is currently a battle field between pro israeli and pro palestinian thinkers. In France where there are important jewish and muslim communities this is the case. I assume this is the same in the USA. Christophe Greffe 20:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but this is not anly a weakness of Misplaced Pages, it is also its strength. An article may get poor editoral quality when many people add stuff supporting their point of view. But this process also adds information to articles. When the information in the article becomes stable, one could create a separate article, say "Background of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War", and link to it from the main article. I believe this ultimatly is good for Misplaced Pages.

By the way, the dispute over mufti's quotation is currently decided by the Arbitration Committee. You are one of the few persons who actually read what the dispute is about, so if you have the time, it would be helpfull if you dropped a statement. It doesn't have to long, in fact too many people wrote way too much. You can just put under Statement by party 6. -- Heptor _talk 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Heptor. This is done. Thank you for indicating this. As new user I was not aware of what was happening and exactly where.

I have read this in your comments : "the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War." that Ian deleted. I think he is right because sentence is completely false. Mufti was not appreciated at all by Arab leaders. He was not invited to any important meeting of Arab league. Abdallah of course didn't like him at all because he was an dangerous adversary in his project to annex Arab Palestine. Only Egyptians supported him allowing to establish a "government" at Gaza during 1948 war. But their support was also politic just to weak Abdallah. Christophe Greffe 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember this "all-palestine goverment" was supported by many other arab countries. The list came up on talk somewhere, I think it was Syria, Iraq, the Emirates and some others (certainly not Jordan), but I dont remember exactly. Sounds quite high-level to me. Abdallah hated him, but there were other leaders who were willing to talk to him.

The All-Palestine Government was formed at the end of September 1948, by which time it was clear to everyone that Israel had won the war. --Zero 01:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you also state that it was obvious from the beginneing(that isaral would win)? In any case, this aws still during the war, wasn't it?-- Heptor _talk 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been obvious in the beginning to ordinary Israelis-to-be, since they didn't know what they would be facing. It is only obvious in retrospect given what we now know about the relative strengths. However, by the end of September it would have been clear that there was no longer a danger of losing the war, even though the amount of territorial gain was still uncertain due to battles that remained to be fought. --Zero 03:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is very important to understanding of the topic, because if Israelis believed, or even suspected, that blood-mongerers like the mufti would have it their way if Arabs were to win, they would fight much more desperatly. -- Heptor _talk 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can think of some way of paraphrasing this sentence? Anyhow, this has never been discussed before, so we can probably work something constructive out of it. -- Heptor _talk 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have source that clearly indicates that Mufti had no credit at all among Arab leaders and I think they can be consider neutral on this precise topic (Pape). On the other hand I agree with you that *if* Israeli thought Mufti was listened they would have fought even more desesperately... Nevertheless this is "alternative history".

Another aspect of alternative history is that sionists should be aware that if the war was won by Arabs, it would be their end and that much massacres would have been committed againt them. They were too much arab frustration accumulated (as prove 1936-39) revolt and former massacres (from both sides) indicate this too. The speech from "Azzam Pacha" is also clear about what could be expected for the jews.

Nevertheless I don't have precise understanding or know-how of what the sionists really thought at that time. Sometimes I have the feeling they were very confident. At other times they feel very pessimistic. Journal of Ben Gourion only can answer that question...

Christophe Greffe 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

They had good reason to be pessimistic in the beginning of the war, but that probably changed after a few months. Would be nice to get our hands on Ben Gurion's journal here :)

What does Pope say? Is it something Israelis would have known in 1948, or is a post-factum ananysis? We can not analyze what was going on in the heads of the Israelis, so it will always be a subjective case, but if some event was notable and verified, it should be included. Israeli editors here clearly believe that those statements were widely known in Israel, and it is not like Misplaced Pages is running out of space. -- Heptor _talk 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say.

I think following sentences could be an appropriate way to handle this aspect : "Due to some massacres of Jews and due to the numerous declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders and even if these latter didn't reflect their intention it can be assumed that most jews had the feeling that they would face a genocide war. Whatever this has acted positively on the moral of israeli fighters . It must be pointed that nothing indicates the jewish leaders had that feeling even if they met major difficultes and some despair at the beginning of the war . By the same way it can be assumed that due to massacres of Arabs and even if these had not be planned by jewish leaders but also due to some declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders Arab Palestinians had the feeling that they also had to face a genocide war that push them to flee often even before they had to face israeli troops . . Christophe Greffe 09:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is good. I made a few comments where you wrote sources; I presume we drop statements when there are no sources.

I think following sentences could be an appropriate way to handle this aspect : "Due to some massacres of Jews and due to the numerous declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders and even if these latter didn't reflect their intention it can be assumed that most jews had the feeling that they would face a genocide war. Whatever this has acted positively on the moral of israeli fighters ]. It must be pointed that nothing indicates the jewish leaders had that feeling even if they met major difficultes and some despair at the beginning of the war . By the same way it can be assumed that due to massacres of Arabs and even if these had not be planned by jewish leaders but also due to some declarations and broadcasts of Arab leaders Arab Palestinians had the feeling that they also had to face a genocide war that push them to flee often even before they had to face israeli troops . . Christophe Greffe 09:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We can implement this as soon Arb Com makes a decision, and protection is lifted. The statement by al-Husseini should be moved to Haj Amin al-Husayni article, and large part of the background should be replaced by the text you proposed. -- Heptor _talk 13:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

I hope the protection period proved productive. I am prepared to unprotect now. Any objections? El_C 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the dispute has been brought before the Committee and was requested to leave the page protected for the duration of the case. I am inclined to accept this and prolonge the protection accordingly (within reason, though). Thanks everyone. El_C 01:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

New background

Discussion for the redaction of a new background Christophe Greffe 11:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)