Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zeq (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 18 December 2005 (→On the alleged Mufti quotation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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Due to their length, previous discussions have been archived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 practive of using links to web sites did not suit his editing standrads. I don't accept his claim web sites (which he argue are "propeganda") 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 insrted this:

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

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

But let us look at the source: http://www.allthatremains.com/MissionStatement.htm - this is clearly a propeganda 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 warnning 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 and 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 charterzation of the New York Jewish times as "propeganda" and it lists the books it uses for ref. of thr 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 see what you talk about, maybe I missed it (I looked here: . In any case 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 irelevant 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 is making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the mufti 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 be 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 diosallow facts he does not want in the article but keep other he want (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 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 delte 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:

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 diosallow facts he does not want in the article but keep other he want (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 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)

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...The 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.

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.

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. I trust the verifyabvle sources. Zeq 13:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)