Talk:Fawzi al-Qawuqji

Unjustified deletion

you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish"."

your reason: "behaviour issue : wp:point ; content issue : wp:undue - Qawuqji said many things and there is no reason to focus on that one."

You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".

It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV. Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about your conduct. Ykantor (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Undue has nothing to deal with the fact there would be WP:RS source that say the contrary.

WP:Undue means the information is unrelevant for an article or doesn't bring any interesting information.

I was not told anything. This is one of the nuemrous "advices" you built in your "forum-shopping". Pluto2012 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ykantor on the content issue: the quote in itself seems notable and it is reliably sourced. If there are other notable quotes by Qawuqji that your sources point to, please feel free to put them in the article.

You should additionally stop accusing others of WP:POINT if there is no evidence for this.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

To what accusation of WP:POINT do you refer to exactly ?Ykantor made a WP:POINT here in adding that quote because he wants to prove that "the Arabs" would have initiated the '48 war when material was provided to his attention that this is a very controversial issue.

In the current case, the citation is given out of any context and is selected among many others. Why giving weight to this one ? Did some historians focus on that ? If so, why ? Currently, this quote belongs to wikiquotes.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between the two things you said at all. Please don't accuse other people of breaking policy if you don't have the evidence to back it up. As you may recall, not so long ago you got especially angry when I accused you of braking policy when I did have evidence. If you have a history of bad interactions with Ykantor, please solve this problem in another forum. Please also apologize for your recent edit summary about "POV pushing".

Regarding the content issue: I don't personally have a list of Qawuqji quotes, and the source provided in the article lists just one. If you have many notable quotes by Qawuqji, please feel free to add them to the article or provide them here. It is no reason to remove the previous quote.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It was proven that I had not broken any policy.

On your side you have been caught of using on numerous articles books published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence (but that you forgot to mention this) and you call "military historians" people who like Moshe Givati were former military administrators in the occupied territories or paid advisors to the Department of the Primer Minister. You are not in a situation to give lessons to anybody. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? Because that is where you can find the most "belligerent" quote from Qawuqji. (..btw, the footnote is cited to an anon official from the "Jewish Agency": not necessarily an objective observer.) And even Morris´ own explanation on the background for the quote has been omitted.

(Also, the quote, from 1947, is now mention under ALA, which was formed in 1948, independently of Qawuqji. Alas, the article now gives a false impression that there is a direct link between the two: Qawuqji belligerent words, and the formation of ALA. This is simply false. ALA would have been formed, even if Qawuqji had never been born.)

There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic). I would say how al-Qawuqji performed in the war would be far, far more relevant to his biography, than the above quote. But that is only partly mentioned in the article at present, and not sourced at all! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• yours "even Morris´ own explanation on the background for the quote has been omitted.". What would you add to the text concerning the background?
• yours: "the quote, from 1947, is now mention under ALA,".OK. It should be moved to a previous section. Ykantor (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The main point of Huldra is that it is WP:Undue to select this quote under many others.

Another point is that dropping a quote without contextualizing this is not acceptable because it doesn't comply with the first pillar : we write an encyclopaedia. Pure quotes are for "wikiquote". In an encyclopaedia, the context is what is around this quote and why historians think it's worth mentionning it. And of course, the contributor who would add this has to add all the points of views from all wp:rs here regarding this context, not just what he thinks or the point he wants to advocate or even worse, the points of views of the Ministry of Defence.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

*To Ykantor: I assumed you had the book, how else can you argue that one should use this quote, and this quote only, from the book? Just to recap; the quote is a part of the propaganda war at the time (or attempting "blackmail", as Morris puts it). Also, the first part is referenced to Qawuqji, but the last part of the footnote (="It would be a “holy war,” the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into “World War III”) does not even have anything to do with Fawzi al-Qawuqji. (Or can we just add any quote to the article, as long as it was attributed to "an Arab"?) And to repeat: you have not answered why this quote (p. 61) ...is more important than what is written about al-Qawuqji on pp 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348?

*There is presently important info, basically correct, but unsourced, in the article. I will remove the cherry-picking, and source these statements, unless anyone can give me a good reason not to. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

nada

The quote is impeccably sourced, to a professional historian published in one of the world's top academic presses. It directly ties Qawuqji to the ALA. The editors who keep edit warring to remove this impeccable material from the article are reminded that at WP:AE such behavior has resulted in topic bans. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

to Huldra: yours "why this quote (p. 61) ...is more important than what is written about al-Qawuqji on pp 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348?". You are welcome to add whatever you find appropriate. No one says that this quote is more important. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

...or important at all, without the "surrounding" story, ie the context? That has been one of the problem all along: the quote appears without a context. And, personally, I am not prepared to write that context (it would have to involve the whole propaganda/information/misinformations in the period leading up to May-48)...are you? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

to Huldra: You want the context, but you do not want to mention ALA which is a part of the context. So what part of the contect you would like to have? Ykantor (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Eh? ALA was not the context of this quote; it is (aptly) in a chapter named "The UN steps in", which is mostly about "the political game" or verbal sparring, if you like, (especially surrounding the Nov. 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). That is: pre-war. ALA came later, when the Arab faction felt they had lost the voting. (And lose they did. As Morris rightly notes: the Arab faction completely and totally underestimated the effect of the Holocaust on Western opinion.) Please read the first half of p. 65: this sums up why, after the Partition plan was passed, war was an inevitable outcome (seen from an Arab view). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

what part of the contect you would like to have? Ykantor (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I went back to the initial version. The rationale is clear and Ykantor has nothing to add but will keep discussing to make lose time to everybody. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To Pluto: You continue to attack me personally. e.g. "Ykantor has nothing to add but will keep discussing to make lose time to everybody". I have asked you few times to stop personal attacks. This is a conduct issue and should be accordingly dealt with.

I repeat my first post:

you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish"."

You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".

It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV(?). Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about you. Ykantor (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)