Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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 [The mufti of Jerusalem] 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."^{[1] [2]} In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements^[3] 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". ^[4][the reference is to Sachar]". 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. While this is an unfortunate consequence, he seems to be in good spirits, and I feel that it would be in our best interest to recognize his viewpoint nonetheless. At this point, I think we should discuss. The parties are obviously the ones who will have something significant to say, and I will ensure that the discussion remains civil and peaceful.--Sean|Black 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Current issues

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

The British

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

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

On the alleged Mufti quotation

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

1. Since Pearlman is a proven liar and Schechtman simply copied from Pearlman, no real evidence has been provided that the quotation is genuine. I will demonstrate below that in fact it is not genuine.
2. No evidence of any sort, or even an opinion to that effect from a historian or contemporary source, has been provided to demonstrate that the Mufti's war-time broadcasts had any significance to the 1948 war. On the contrary, the mere fact that the vast majority of book-length accounts of the war by historians do not even mention the topic demonstrates that the bulk of professional opinion is that there was no significance. What we have here is a textbook example of "original research" and it should be excluded according to Wikipedia 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 [is] a series of transcripts from Nazi radio stations that cast a dark shadow over any moral precepts Haj Amin might have claimed. Here he is, for example, addressing a Balfour Day rally at the Luftwaffe hall in Berlin on 2 November 1943: 'The Germans know how to get rid of their Jews...They have definitely solved the Jewish problem.' And on Berlin radio on 1 March 1944: 'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.'

As it happens, my library has a copy of the BCC transcripts. During the period 1942-1947 they were called the "Daily digest of world broadcasts", and are a standard primary source used by historians of this period. There are hundreds of reels of microfilm with no index, but they are organized according to country and date so checking specific claims such as Fisk's is not very difficult. The German transcripts run to 10-30 pages per day and cover about a dozen radio stations. Some broadcasts are copied in full, but mostly there is a partial transcript and a summary of the remainder. Everything is in English regardless of the original language. (See BBC Monitoring and [5].)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero, While I would agree with you that some people are indeed prooven liars, it could very well be that you are correct and Fisk is one of them. This however, does not change what we do here in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 [6] ? 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 Wikipedia ? 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: [7] and what was said in the rest ? It clearly says "very bad reception" - I trust the verifyable sources. let's move on. Zeq 13:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero, We have sources saying he said that. Unless you have sources that proove he did not say it I suggest you move on. As far as I can see even Fisk admit that on one occation he said that and your "rulling out" on one specific broadcast based on partial transcript (done in bad reception condition) froman unkown "my library" does not count as refutal of the sources we provided. as you can see here [8] even others fell for even better looking scans of old documents. WE have academic sources saying he did and that's is good enough for every othjer Wikipedia article. you will not be able to use new standrads here just because the sourced info does not fit your POV Zeq 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

When there is a factual dispute: Wikipedia Policy

Disputed information should be placed on the article's talk page. Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper, otherwise the information should remain out of the article. [9] The content and sources of the following section are disputed

Meanwhile, from exile in Egypt where he was avoiding trial for war crimes due to his collaboration with the Nazis, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War. A segment of the Palestinian forces were loyal to him and were commanded by his cousin. The Mufti, one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs[10],[11], [12],[13] 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."^{[14] [15]} In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements^[16] by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy. [17],[18],http://www.think-israel.org/eder.naqbah.html]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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