Talk:Amin al-Husseini

Richmond

Re this edit

Ernest T. Richmond, advisor to (the) High Commissioner (Samuels) on Muslim Affairs(,) and a staunch-anti-Zionist, persuaded Samuels to choose Al-Husseini as Mufti.(ref Elpeleg 1993, pp. 7–10. Richmond argued to Samuels that in (the) light of the 1920 Arab Riots, the appointment of al-Husseini would be a friendly gesture towards the Arabs. Al-Husseini, in turn, pledged to Samuels that he would use his influence, and that of his family(,) to promotinge tranquility in the land. ref)

Apart from the grammatical and stylistic editors, I see a problem there. It's true that he was a 'staunch anti-Zionist'. One could equally say he was staunchly 'pro-Arab'. But the gravamen of my query is, did, aside from Elpeleg's apparent judgement, Richmond, a subordinate appointed by Samuel precisely because he was known to have pro-Arab views, and Samuels was keen to balance his team, single-handedly persuade Samuels? There are many accounts of this, some bizarre, but those of those I am familiar with do not make out that Samuels was manipulated by or prey to, the opinions of his subordinates. Zvi Elpeleg (ed.translator), Through the eyes of the Mufti: the essays of Haj Amin,Vallentine Mitchell, 2009 9780853039709 pp.181,183 may be worth checking if anyone can. On p.183 he says 'The Mufti owed his rise to Samuels more than anyone else.' (and not to Richmond, though I can't see the rest of the text). Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wise of you to notice this edit. Actually most of it does not appear in the source at all. Elpeleg does not identify Richmond as an anti-Zionist (though some other writers have). Elpeleg mentions that Richmond supported al-Hussayni's appointment, but certainly does not suggest that he was the one to persuade Samuels. Actually Elpeleg lists a variety of reasons, of which the support of Richmond and Storrs was only one and not the major one. Nor does Elpeleg suggest that the appointment of al-Husayni was an anti-Zionist move; more like the opposite. The absurd phrase "in light of the 1920 Arab Riots" is nothing like anything in Elpeleg. It's gone. Zero^talk 10:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. Richmond's a fascinating chap. I did intend improving his wikibio once. Odd that no one seems to have exploited his extensive archives to write a Phd. Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an article on him in this book that I don't have but could get. Also, quite a lot in Huneidi, Broken Trust. Zero^talk 13:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I see I didn't use Huneidi though familiar with his book, but relied on Monk's An Aesthetic Occupation: The Immediacy of Architecture and the Palestine Conflict, for his role here, and Monk also has quite a bit on him. Still, given time and workloads, don't chase that up. If a book comes out specifically on him, we could reconsider. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble about an area I have not looked at closely (yet) but Huneidi ... it should be "her book". Padres Hana (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of the All-Palestine Government

I saw some unsourced paragraph, mentioning al-Husseini as President of the proclaimed All-Palestine government in 1948, hence urging me to check the issue - finding it here: Tucker et.al. and Gallagher. Considering this is true, i think this info is very important for the biography. Some sources are also needed for the term period of his as president.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We can certainly add that, but the actual situation was complex, since it was Egypt alone which convoked the Sept 23 congress at Gaza to form a Palestinian government, as a countermeasure against Jordan. Pre-conference by the Arab League obtained an agreement to have Ahmad Hilma Pasha preside over the government, while giving Husseini a nominal role, devoid of responsibilities. Jordan formally expressed its refusal to recognize any government of the kind in the area of control from the Egyptian lines in Gaza to the north, and opposed a Palestinian government since its declaration would be tantamount to de facto recognition of the partition, On the 30th Husseini was elected unanimously, but had no authority outside the areas controlled by Egypt. Jordan's Abdullah retaliated on October 2 by organizing a Palestinian congress which countermanded the decision taken in Gaza, and the Arab Legion disarmed all militias who expressed interest in placing themselves under the Gaza government.

Nonetheless, Egypt, which manipulated its formation, recognized it on 12 October, followed by Syria and Lebanon on 13 October, Saudi Arabia the 14th, Yemen on the 16th. Iraq's decision to the same was made formally on the 12th but wasnopt made public. Both great Britain and the US backed Jordan, the US saying that the mufti's role in WW2 could be neither forgotten nor pardoned. Thus Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, Fayard, Paris 2007, vol.3, pp.167-169.

Feel free to use this also when you go ahead with your proposed edit.Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Good one, i shall also add this to the All-Palestine Government article.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Btw, wasn't the congress held on Sept. 22, 1948 (you said 23 Sept.)?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Any idea how long he held the title of President?Greyshark09 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure I read this somewhere. I think that Sadat (or maybe even Nasser during the last years) stopped funding the APG. But in any case I think this information is irrelevant because the All Palestine Government never achieved anything and had no other existence but that of being proclaimed (as far as I know). Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was starved of funds from the outset, and had a brief virtual life. But Greyshark's point is that he enjoyed that title, and it is legitimate to note it. I don't think it lead-worthy. It could go in the body of the text certainly, probably. I'll try and see if there's anything more on this, to respond to GS's request for info re how long he wore titular blazon. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Pluto's our reigning expert on military operations and may have more background, but Laurens says one of the side effects of Operation Yoav was to force the All Palestine Government to evacuate from Gaza which was 'a terrible blow to its credibility' since it was reduced to little more than a government in exile, and, the Egyptians themselves, distrusting al-Husayni, put him under surveillance in a Cairo villa. The few functionaries that the government had were no longer paid. al-Husayni persisted in pro forma actions, like issuing passports (some 13,000 mainly to denizens of the Gaza strip), which failed to be recognized internationally however. Nasser closed its offices definitively (those of the nominal All Palestine Government) in 1959. Thus Laurens, same vol. p.173. Hope that's of help for this and other relevant articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Rank in Waffen SS

Why don’t you write his rank in the SS (Gruppenführer)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.81.128 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for this information it can go in. Britmax (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What about this: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.81.128 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. No serious source about the Mufti claims he had an SS rank. He wasn't even a member. Zero^talk 23:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Shehtman (1965) says that Fauzi al-Kaukaji held the rank of colonel in Wermacht, but his assossiate al-Husseini is described as "greatly honored" and personally responsible for the conscription and operation of Waffen SS Handsaar division, but nothing is said about any official rank for al-Husseini.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Salute???

In the article, there's a photo of him greeting Bosnian Waffen-SS'ers, where the description says he's doing a nazi salute. But his arem isn't even remotely straight. Compare the photo to some people really doing the nazi salute. He's merely waving. Or does the Queen of England do a nazi salute every time she goes out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.3.240 (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he is trying to catch a bird?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a Nazi salute. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's just looking for Kyle. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a Nazi salute, though sloppily executed, but actually in the absence of a good source (which eliminates most of the rubbish sources pictures like this are reprinted in) identifying it ourselves from the picture is a text-book case of Original Research. The word "greets" is too. Zero^talk 00:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a salute. Hitler himself often saluted much more lazily than this. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed material.

None of the removed material relates to the subject. The fact that it has RS does not matter.Animal love match (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)blocked sock of User:Dalai_lama_ding_dong

On the contrary, Al-Husseini's desire to accelerate the Holocaust and to expand the Holocaust to Palestine are extremely relevant. Likewise, the work of his associates is also relevant. Finally, Nazi Germany's plans to utilize Arab support to extend the Holocaust to Palestine are certainly relevant, as they (not surprisingly) coincide with Al-Husseini's wishes.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

WP:OR and it has been removed. Take it to dispute if you want, but neither of these relate to the subject of this article.Animal love match (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the material, Animal love match, you have appeared to engage in edit-warring with a few editors. Although not technically violating 1RR, it's been carried out over the past few days. I'd suggest reverting while further discussion is held. If no discussion is held, it'd probably be acceptable to include after a while. --Activism1234 00:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but its not OR. The sources from which this information is cited are RS and the content is certainly relevant to Al-Husseini. If a Wikipedia editor had added this information without proper sources, or if the information was being used to make a separate conclusion, then you could argue that it is OR. However, in this case, RS sources have contain information relating to Al-Husseini's and his associates in their support for and facilitation of the Holocaust, as well as plans to extend this practice to the Middle East. Since this article is not a BLP, please do not remove properly cited material until this issue is resolved.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

The second of the two paragraphs you want to insert does not even mention al-Husseini. That it is OR is completely obvious. Activism1234: disputed material should remain OUT until consensus is reached, see WP:BURDEN. Zero^talk 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against that, I'm simply saying that there appears to be an edit-warring over a few days going on here, and it should be avoided, whether an uninvolved person comes in and reverts to a full stop or not. It isn't a reason to edit-war and constantly revert, especially when 2 others have reverted. --Activism1234 15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref this It is documented that an associate of al-Husseini's, together with three associates of former Iraqi Prime Minister visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp as part of a "training course", in July 1942. They were shown the ostensible educational function of the camp, the high quality of objects made by inmates, and happy Russian prisoners who, reformed to fight Bolshevism, were paraded, singing, in sprightly new uniforms. They left the camp very favourably impressed by its programme of educational indocrination. At the time, the Sachsenhausen camp housed large numbers of Jews, but was only transformed into a death camp in the following year. This does not concern A-H, only an unnamed associate. From the second sentence on, the text tells how these unnamed individuals were shown a camp which AT THE TIME was not being used for the murder of Jews. This article gives plenty of evidence that A-H was barely involved in the Holocaust, and none that he planned to extend it anywhere. That conclusion is not widely held, and even if it was this text actually reflects that A-H had an associate who was duped into believing that the germans treated Russian prisoners of war well. The whole para needs to be removed. It is not related to A-H, it is a tenous link to a POV theory about him.Animal love match (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)blocked sock of User:Dalai_lama_ding_dong

Lead section

I made an overview of the lead section and stumbled upon a vague sentence, which should be rewritten per source:

From as early as 1920, in order to secure the independence of Palestine as an Arab state he actively opposed Zionism, and was implicated as a leader of a violent riot that broke out over the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

I think that this sentence is a result of hashing two sentences together, without looking at the source. It should be something like:

From as early as 1920, in order to secure the independence of Palestine as an Arab state, he actively opposed Zionism and was implicated as a leader of a violent Palestinian Arab faction, which had rejected the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

If somebody can take a glimpse into the source, currently metnioned, i would appreciate it.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

My gut tells me it's close to that, but I don't know French to read the source. Maybe someone else can. --Activism1234 15:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppe Egypt

This article, Einsatzgruppe Egypt, has a reference to Husseini. See also http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hitlers-holocaust-plan-for-jews-in-palestine-stopped-by-desert-rats-474080.html. There is no reference to that in this article. Is this an oversight or is the sourcing not adequate? Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What Arafat said in August 2002

We are not Afghanistan... We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin Al-Husseini?... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, when they considered him an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 War and I was one of his troops.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC) (blocked sock of User:AndresHerutJaim)

So what is important is :

1. to find one or several wp:rs sources that report this

2. to argue why this would be relevant for the article (wp:due weight), eg in providing biographers of al-Husseini who considered important to make the link.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it may be more relevant to the Arafat article than Husseini. Not sure. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of http://www.militantislammonitor.org as a source is an outrage. Zero^talk 21:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the policy on reliable sources cited by Pluto2012 argues against including this in any article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

As the current leading sentence lack the most important title Al Husseini had, I propose the following change which I see as necessary.

Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني‎, Muhammad Amin al-Husayni;[1] born c. 1897;[2][3] died 4 July 1974) was the president of All-Palestine Government, president of the World Islamic Congress, which was founded by him, a Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine.

[2]--Tritomex (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine" best describes his role and should be sufficient for the opening sentence. We don't want the sentence to be too long. "president of All-Palestine Government" sounds more important than it really was. Same with "president of the World Islamic Congress". --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As per Frederico. No. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It does not meter how it sounds, this explanation can not justify the negation of facts. He was the president of All-Palestine Government and the president of World Islamic congress and how this sound is totally irrelevant. This has to go to the lead.--Tritomex (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

All-Palestine Government is already in the lead. No facts are being negated. The question was whether All-Palestine Government and World Islamic Congress should be added to the opening sentence. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

Quote

I have moved this here :

Al-Husseini speeches, calling for the extermination of the Jewish people were aired by German Nazi radio. In his memoirs Husseini 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"

— Haj Amin Husseini −

My mind is that Jack Fischel is at the same level than Dalin and cannot be considered reliable. I remember reading at several places that the Mufti took high care of what he wrote in he 'memoirs' so I have some doubt about this. Did somebody read this somewhere else ? And what is the due weight of this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[3] He seems to focus much on new-antisemitism and the modern Israel, which is not a good point to consider him as an wp:rs on this contentious topic. He doesn't seem to have studied deeply Husseini's history or Holocaust history but rather to have read other secondary sources about this. But this has to be investigated. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

He is now teacher at Messiah College that reading this cannot deliver a reliable or neutral teaching on any topic dedicated on the relation between the Muslim world and the Western/Christian/Jewish world. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked for the sources of the "dictionnary of the holocaust". In fact, there is simply none. This gentleman is a teacher-historian and has no particular expertise in this topic. He doesn't give his source and therefore the material cannot be considered reliable. Conclusion : another source must be found.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As Segev wrote in the NYT, "there is an official German record of his meeting with Hitler that contains no such statement. In fact the mufti did not achieve his major goal: Hitler refused to sign a public statement of support for him." [4] (In fact there are several records, none of which support this claim.) These sort of fringe claims from low-quality sources need to be kept out of the article. Zero^talk 08:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to contest Fischel as RS, lets do it on RS noticeboard or I will do it. User:Pluto2012 you have no rights to remove well sourced material, because you do not like it. I will report this if you continue with it. Jack Fischel is a historian and a former chairman of historic department of Millersville University of Pennsylvania.--Tritomex (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are further sources

1.The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress By Chuck Morse

[5]

2.Israel on Israel - Page 71 Michel Korinman, John Laughland

3.Jihad as-sagir. Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen: Ein Beitrag zum ...By Thomas Tartsch

[6]

4.#A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic JihadBy David Patterson

[7]

I am sorry but you cant keep this out from article only because you don't like the facts. Also Pluto please refrain from POV and WP:OR with comments like " He seems to focus much on new-antisemitism and the modern Israel, which is not a good point to consider him as an wp:rs "--Tritomex (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That isnt POV or OR. This is a topic of history, one that has been extensively studied. We aim to use the best sources, not whatever you can find on google. The most comprehensive and scholarly sources on al-Husseini do not include this claim, and if it were true they would have. We do not need to resort to using low-quality sources in this article, it isnt exactly breaking news. nableezy - 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy Based on what you determined what is "low quality sources" and what is "The most comprehensive source". Points of view of a can not heighten or reduce the validity of any source. Fischel is a well respected historian and there are numerous other authors mentioned above. If someone dispute Fischel as RS, beyond explanation there is RS noticeboard. However. no one will go there as such claim would be non sense and as we all know that Fischel is RS.Tritomex (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, this is an issue of scholarship, not partisanship. nableezy - 17:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Zero0000, Even the article you presented clearly indicates that Husseini in fact wrote this sentence in his memoirs, it dispute only whether Hitler really promised the Jews to Husseini, or Husseini lied about it,(although this was not subject of my edition) however even your source clearly supports the quotation as taken directly from Husssini memoirs.--Tritomex (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact he would have written this is not enough.

In more of that, you have to argue the due weight.

For this, you need 2nd reliable sources on this topic who gave weight to this.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added another academic source so I hope know its ok.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is David Patterson another one than the ones that are refered on wikipedia ? If not, I will revert you in a few hours.

Argue this is a reliable source for an historical article and argue the due weight to give to this information. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Its reliable source he is Holocaust expert [8] the book was publishing in academic publishing house--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"PhD, Comparative Literature, University of Oregon, 1978".

It doesn't start very well. Comparative litterature is not the right field of expertise. Je is not an historian and he is at this stage a self claimed expert.

I did the homework of Tritomex and Fischel is not wp:rs.

Do your homework. Gather arguments pro- and contra- and inquire deeply the question and then we can move forward.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Waouh... This one at least received a review. As expected the review is very bad regarding Patterson but given there is review, it could be argued he is reknown... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Its appalling abuse of interpretive method, and Patterson’s transparent promotion of an analytically blinkered political and religious agenda, have no place in anything with pretensions to academic work." Ouch. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that it doesnt even support the material. It does not say anywhere on page 41 that he visited Auschwitz. nableezy - 19:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't searched the archives, but David Patterson was discussed there somewhere, if I recall correctly, and I think it was shown he used Dalin as a source. I.e., a non-area expert used a notoriously unreliable source to assert something about Husayni. Neither Fischel nor Patterson are appropriate to this page on Husayni's diaries, which are scrutinized by many specialists, such as Schwanitz. Get that sourced to one of the many Husayni experts (and many are highly critical of him) and the text can be entered

Shrike never checked the introductory remark that has Husayni calling for the extermination of the European Jews, which is in manifest contradiction with what many other notable authorities on this page state. He did an automatic revert without reading the whole page and its evidence, to see if Tritomex's poor edit made sense, on the page, and in context. Can editors try to resist the temptation to use any fucking source they google, that looks like it wipes out the hated figure, and simple learn to walk over the minefield of Husayni studies without setting off useless polemical explosions?Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy the claim that Husseini visit to Aschwitz was not documented by Petterson is falls. In fact Simon Wiesenthal is used as a source here, so we can attribute this claim to him through Petterson:

[9]--Tritomex (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read where he got his evidence from, Tritomex? It's there on p.116. Dalin and Rothman whose book has been mocked as trash by many reviewers. And if Patterson sources his comments to them, ipso facto, he too is unreliable. This has to be reverted, therefore. If you want that ofte repeated passage here (a) look at the quality sources on Husseini, and cull it from one of these texts.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact Petterson clearly states that Simon Wiesenthal was the source of this claim. Every book has its critics. Considering Dalin and Rothman to label them as "trash" is unacceptable. Not to mention that I posted 4 additional sources. I am strongly thinking about RS noticeboard as I see here POV regarding who is "acceptable" and who is not.--Tritomex (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are additional sources which I will add regarding Husseini visit to Aushwitz: A testimony of Aushwitz survivor: [10] Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Center [11] [12]--[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]

I will also add other sources mentioned above+this [13]--Tritomex (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Dalin and Simon Wiesenthal's organisation are not sources of standards high enough for an article that is sourced with academics and biographers who have directly studied the life of al-Husseini particularly given (as sourced and explained in the article), he is the subject of a propaganda war in the I-P conflict.Pluto2012 (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you will not. Absent a consensus, continuing to repeatedly add this material is edit-warring, which can and will be brought to administrators' attention. This is a historical topic, and the sources used in this article need to rise past the level of whatever you can google up. nableezy - 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of serious historians of al-Husseini to draw from. NONE of them give the least credence to the story that he visited Auschwitz. Most of them, such as Elpeleg, don't even consider it worth mentioning. Keep this rubbish out of the article. Zero^talk 22:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if it's still there, that statement Tritomax added about Auschwitz should be immediately removed, along with the other trash. Anything devastating about al-Husseini will turn up in the many excellent scholarly sources, some written by scholars who find his politics repulsive. We have no problem with that kind of work.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who disregard academic scholars has to prove at least with references f such claims. There are no "serious historians" and non serious historians. To describe one academic as excellent scholar only because it support someone point of view and disregard others for same reason is POV: I did not saw any evidence presented so far, which claims that Husseini did not wrote, what he wrote in his memoirs. Even the source presented by Zero000, aimed to challenge my editions, clearly supported the quote from Husseini. BTW Nishadani, his name is Al-Husseini, not Husayni a you called him many times. --Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I will be removing your POV tag to the lead tomorrow. Please don't be disruptive. You can't tag away without a cogent argument. I see no argument here as to why the lead is POV. It has stood the test of time and many editors, and if you are alone on this, argue the case. Don't splatter the text.Nishidani (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani at least read the talk page, you are also participating in dispute regarding the lead, which is currently taking place above this section.(Changes to the lead) Therefore do not remove the tags as the discussion is ongoing.--Tritomex (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Its interesting how those who claimed that Deshowitz is "an activist" introduced Ilan Pappe a self proclaimed antizionist activist to this article as reliable source. Also, those who claimed that Dershowitz as a Harvard and Yale Law professor or Fischel and Patterson are not RS, believe that Efrat a non academic anthropologist is reliable source for Arab-Israeli conflict. Huge section of this article is POV, even beyond the censorship established on me, for clearly RS, i have presented . I will go in coming days for rfc and RS noticeboard for beginning. The explanation for the removal of Fischel and Patterson was that "they are not mentioned by others" This is almost unbelievable. WP:NPOV!!--Tritomex (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this review by Segev does not confirm anything from al Husseini's memoirs. That is a misreading. Segev is just noting what source Dalin and Rothmann used to justify their claim. In fact, if this is about al Husseini's meeting with Hitler as Segev interprets it, al Husseini's complete account of that meeting was published already in 1947. A translation of it appears in Joseph Schechtman's book "The Mufti and the Führer". Needless to say, there is nothing like the stupid statement "The Jews are yours" in it. I have a scan of the Arabic if anyone would like to see it. Tritomex, you seem to have no idea what a reliable source is, nor do you seem to have studied the core policy WP:NPOV. Zero^talk 08:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tags and given a source. There is, Tritomex, no ongoing discussion. There are just a bundle of incomprehensive statements by you, and several poor sources you wante discussed, which suggest you do not know how to tell RS from run-of-the-mill meme-recycling books. Several editors have told you you are using poor sources, and your tagging is frankly incomprehensible. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani You have no right to remove tags based on your self-evident qualifications of thousands of bites of discussion which already took place here. Tags can not be removed when the neutrality of an article is disputed and they will be restored. Also you can not declare Finchel, Patterson unreliable without any source or prove given, and without even reading them, just because they do not fit your desired perceptions, personal opinion or claims.--Tritomex (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(a) your editing shows you haven't read the article (b) you edited in he'd visited Auschwitz, when the article shows the scholarship says there is no evidence for this (c) you adduced poor sources and were told by several established editors they were unacceptable (d)you didn't read the archive discussions, which show why Patterson is unacceptable. We discussed him yonks ago. You are just repeating an argument (e) you don't listen to anyone (f) there is no discussion this point, just your insistance against a wall of reasoned 'no's. (g) you apparently tagged the last line of the first para of the lead, which requires no citation because it sums up the subsections where the uncontroversial statement is amply documented as obvious. (h) Pluto showed extensively why Finchel is as useless as tits on a bull on this issue, esp. for an article that takes particular care over best sourcing.(i)the neutrality tags should indicate that on the talk page there is a specific set of reasoned comments listing or bulleting potentially contentious phrasing, in the lead. You did not do this. No one, from either side, has for some time found the lead 'problematical'. (j) Since you are the only one plastering POV tags here, against consensus, and on incomprehensible grounds, they can be removed. (k) A POV tag on a whole section, because one editor cannot find any sympathy for his desire to insert into it one dubious piece of information, is silly. It means 'because this section lacks one item I want in there' it is POV. POV is where an article or section is so slanted as to compromise NPOV. An absence of questionable information is not proof of manipulative disinformation. etc.etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nishdani,weather you declared Patterson unacceptable or acceptable is totally irrelevant. You did not show any prove that he is unreliable, except your speculations that he was once discussed by someone, somewhere and something was concluded there by someone. He is reliable source. The same is truth for Finchel. This article do not "takes particular care over best sourcing" but is full of POV, while academic historians like Finchel are being censored by you with explanation that historic facts mentioned by him, are not mentioned by source which support your POV.I don't know what kind of " either sides" you are speaking about.Consensus is not needed for POV tags, POV tags are used mostly in cases when there is no consensus. If "there is no discussion at this point" than please explain what are you currently doing on talk page. Everything in Wikipedia, needs citations, so your removal of citation template, without providing sources, is yet another violation of W.guidelines.--Tritomex (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I presume you have a background of science, from your remarks (mostly erroneous) on Ashkenazim and genetics. That means you have a grasp on math. Do the math for Pluto2012, Zero, Nableezy, Frederico1234and Nishidani. I think that means 5 editors say you are using poor sources. Shrike did a revert in your favour, but then disappeared. There is a reasoned consensus that you employ bad sources and don't understand wiki policy.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If further proof be needed that you don't read what you talk about, take this remark

Everything in Wikipedia, needs citations, so your removal of citation template, without providing sources, is yet another violation of W.guidelines

This shows that you don't even check the page. I did no such thing. To the contrary-

I replaced the citation template with a source that provided the information requested here, exactly the opposite of what you impute to me. So, stop wasting everyone's time.Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Still, not a single piece of evidence was presented that Finchel is not RS. An academic historian and a professor of history was simply censored because as it was claimed that the details he wrote are not mentioned by selected sources which are allowed in this article, I rely do not know based on what criteria beyond POV. The fact that someone do not like what Finchel is writing about does not make him unreliable.--Tritomex (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that simple case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Both of you have ignored Pluto2012's three remarks on Fischel's work, the undistinguished, strongly religious-orientated college, Messiah College of no known distinction, where he is employed; that his book is a pastiche of material picked up and not footnoted, in other words drafted in such a way no one can see where he got his ideas, and the fact that he specializes in a kind of polemical defence of a state. If none of you can understand how ridiculous it is to place his hodgepodge of 'material' in with work sourced to Raul Hilberg, Francis Nicosia, Zvi Elpeleg, Renzo De Felice, Peter Novick, Avi Shlaim, Martin Sicker, Bernard Lewis, Howard Morley Sachar, Benny Morris, Philip Mattar, Henry Laurens, Walter Laqueur, Christopher Browning etc., then you don't understand what quality sourcing is, and should do a refresher course. It's a bit like someone from the peanut gallery complaining that Mickey Mouse's view on the theory of relativity is being ignored as Freeman Dyson, Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow are holding the floor.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Fischel, a Millersville University of Pennsylvania History professor also teaches at Jewish college, does not discredit him as historian. It is not "undistinguished" to work in Jewish institutions, and your labeling of that Jewish college is WP:OR. Also you still failed to present a single piece of evidence that Prof. Fischel is unreliable beside WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Based on same

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT you removed tags from this article.--Tritomex (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I see of the sourcing, the impression that I get is that the Husseini quote at the top of this section fits the definition of "apocryphal." Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources regarding al-Husseni quote

Further sources regarding Al-Husseini quote:

1. A. Dershowitz; [14]

2.The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress By Chuck Morse

[15]

3.Israel on Israel - Page 71 Michel Korinman, John Laughland

4.Jihad as-sagir. Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen: Ein Beitrag zum ...By Thomas Tartsch

[16]

5.#A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad by David Patterson

[17]

6.Zionism, Post-Zionism & the Arab Problem: A Compendium of Opinions By Yosef Mazur

7.Sachar (1961), p.231

8. Numerus newspaper reports, blogs etc

Not a single article, document or claim was presented here, claiming that the quotes from Al-Husseini memoirs are falls.--Tritomex (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

None is reliable or of enough standard for an article related to history except Sachar. What is Sachat (1961) ? Where this information comes from ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)