Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust

(copy-paste from above)

@Pluto2012: "Anyway, do you have a link to "the long passages and multiple paragraphs that discuss the Mufti's 'nationalist' motivations vs. the 'anti-Semitic' accusations" in the "'Encyclopedia of the Holocaust" Great question! Unfortunately I haven't found an online version. Fortunately I own the four-volume set, so here's a few passages from my copy's article on "Husseini, Hajj Amin Al-" by Irit Abramski-Bligh :

The story of Husseini's ties with the Axis powers, and especially with Nazi Germany, covers only a fraction of his far-flung political activities, but it has been the subject of much speculation and a variety of interpretations. Some believe that Husseinis's collaboration with the Germans was designed to obtain support for Arab national goals from a power that seemed to have very good prospects of winning the war and that had no colonial view, Husseini mainly sought a strong ally to replace the consistent support he had had from the British in the 1920s and 1930s.

Others link Husseini's sympathy for Nazi Germany to his enthusiasm for its policy on the Jews, and particularly its plan for the "FINAL SOLUTION," Husseini did not confine himself to the struggle against a Jewish national home in Palestine, but set "world Jewry: as the target of his fight, because in his opinion the solution of the "Palestine question" depended upon a solution of the entire "Jewish question."

Some go further and perceive a general ideological affinity between the totalitarian Fascist and Nazi theories and Islam, as conceived by Husseinis. Hitler's unchallenged position of central leadership and authority may have appeared to Husseini to have much in common with the all-embracing leadership that the caliph had exercised in the Muslim world, and it may have inspired hi to seek a similar position of leadership for himself. Most importantly, National Socialism's wold view corresponded to Husseini's Pan-Arabic policy (and also to his Pan-Islamic views for the more distant future). Paradoxically, this basic ideological affinity may account for Husseini's relatively small success with the Nazi and Fascist leaders; his global ambitions, even though restricted to Muslims, had a negative effect on government circles in Berlin.

Ronreisman (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That excerpt is very interesting. That sounds to me much more neutral than what Peter Novick states and Idith Zerthal reports from him.

From my point of view, we should take care of what is written in the article about the way the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust talks about the Mufti.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think all of the positions outlined in the quote above by Irit Abramski-Bligh are covered in the article. Correct me if I am wrong.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that what Abramsky-Bligh writes in well-described in the article.

My point is more directed to Novick. Reading the excerpt here above of the EoH, I find EoH less biaised than what could be concluded from Novick (and Zerthal).

Anyway this doesn't concern directly the article given the material from Zerthal was removed and what remains from Novick doesn't contredict what EoH writes.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations Needed, in English whenever available.

It's time to start cleaning up this article.

First of all, we should insist that editors use footnotes to cite sources for factual statements. Some editors have inserted multiple un-sourced statements, and seem to think that footnotes should be primarily used to provide 'context' rather than to provide reference.

Starting from the top:

Consider this long biographical passage from the lede, all attributed to a single reference which is not available in English.:

After receiving an education in Islamic, Ottoman and Catholic schools, he went on to serve in the Ottoman army in World War I. At war's end, he positioned himself in Damascus as a supporter of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. Following the fiasco of the Franco-Syrian War and the collapse of the Arab Hashemite rule in Damascus, his early position on pan-Arabism shifted to a form of local nationalism for Palestinian Arabs and he moved back to Jerusalem. 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.[6]

We need to find another ref for these basic biographical facts. The current footnote ref is one of Laurens' poliemical works (as opposed to his more respected and less controversial scholarly publications) and is (as far as I know) not available in English. It is improper to use sources in the English wikipedia that are written in French and are not available in English translation, particularly when there are so many other English RS that contain the same information. If the information is not readily available in an English publication, or if a non-English publication is internationally recognized as a uniquely seminal work on the subject, then it is acceptable to use such non-English material. This is not the case with that particular Laurens book that is used in footnote 5. The replacement RS should be from history book, not an editorial interpretive essay on power-politics and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again, if some editors are confused about these issues please feel free to contact me and I'll offer guidance.

(1) Nope. (a)That para is as per WP:Lede summary style, the basis biographical facts are in the sections below. (b) Laurens is not 'polemical'. You obviously have not read his work.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani's comments are counter-factual. WP:Lede requires the lede to be "carefully sourced as appropriate" and WP:LEADCITE (aka WP:CITELEAD) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations ) specifies: "....there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Nishidani (unwittingly) argues against using Laurens when equivalent English sources are available.when he writes: "Laurens is not 'polemical'. You obviously have not read his work." Although Nishidani was apparently just casting aspersions on a fellow editor (me :-) with his comment, a reply is relevant: I am aware of Lauren's reputation as an 'Arabist' (as I believe he calls himself), scholar, and activist, and have seen some of his volumes (in French) in Stanford's Library stacks, though (and this is the relevant point) i could *not* properly appreciate them because there were no English translations. The most basic and non-controversial rules of WP:RS apply in this case, eg WP:NONENG ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources ). which specifies: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." Ronreisman (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I cited WP:Summary style

Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it.

In several years, only you are saying that the lead is thoroughly contentious. No one has made an exception to anything except the very last line of the lead. Since you can't see that the lead summarizes statements below that are themselves sourced, or when not sufficiently sourced in your view, have been expanded, you can't now say citational policy is violated, unless you can adduce specific proof of this. You made an absurd statement about Laurens, and when I corrected you (you don't make judgements on scholars you have not read) you take this as a personal attack ('aspersions'). That is silly. It is even sillier to call one of the ranking Arabists of our day is an 'Arabist' only because he calls himself such. As to WP:NONENG., well, Laurens has written the most comprehensive, multi-volumed overview of the history of Palestine 1800-2000. French is not an inaccessible language.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ron,

It is a pity that you don't understand French. But hopefully we are on a collaborative encyclopaedia. So if you have some questions about a text in French, I (and others) will be pleased to help if we can.

Laurens is not an activist. In the current case, Arabist means that he speaks and studied Arab culture in depth; Per WP:AGF, you should trust us when we state this. WP:NONENG states other sources should be preferred. If you find a source of equivalent or better quality than him, it is welcome but Laurens being certainly in the top-5, that will not be easy. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 : Please provide WP:RS that states that Laurens is "certainly in the top-5" and also the English translations. If you cannot produce the latter, then the non-English sources are unacceptable as the primary WP:RS citations for facts in this article, and right now there are >50 footnotes that require translations. Since you write "So if you have some questions about a text in French, I (and others) will be pleased to help if we can" does that mean you are volunteering to fix this issue by translating the French citations? If so, when do you think you'll be done?Ronreisman (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The non-English ref problem is overshadowed by the much bigger problem of multiple statements that are never bolstered by any references at all. I'm sure everyone can appreciate that statements of fact must be referenced by footnotes. Some of our editors, however, seem to have forgotten this basic requirement. Consider the next paragraph in the lede:

His opposition to the British peaked during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, evading an arrest warrant, he fled Palestine and took refuge in, successively, the French Mandate of Lebanon and the Kingdom of Iraq, until he established himself in Italy and Germany. During World War II he collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping Germans recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. At war's end, he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution.

Not one footnote for any of these statements of fact.

See again WP:Lede summary style and my note above.

Nish, please read WP:Lede and WP:RS. According to WP:LEADCITE contentious biographical material "must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Ronreisman (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nish is right. The Lede is a summary. We don't need a quote that we would copy/paste for each statement. We have to comply with copyright laws.

Anyway, your complain seems to be more theoretical that practical. What information is problematic in the lede. If none is problematic, that would mean you are performing WP:POINT, which I am sure you don't.

So please, could you tell us what sentence is not right according to you ? He never established in italy ? He never met Hitler ? You claimed you are a scholar on the topic, didn't you ?

06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing 'contentious' about that biographical summary. It is all written directly from the text in the body of the article.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The third problem that may be seen in the lede is the use of footnotes by some editors to defend and apologize -- essentially adding more textual statement rather than properly referencing statements that are already in the article. This is not an acceptable way to provide context. For instance, consider this sentence in the lede:

Starting in 1921, al-Husseini was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, using the position to promote Islam and rally a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism.

See WP:Lede summary style

The 'citation' contains a quote on a tangential subject that is twice as long as the sentence it footnotes:

Kohn, p. 58.To a British official who spoke of the Christians and Jews as minorities he replied: 'For us it is an exclusively Arab, but a Mohammadan question. During your sojourn in this country you have doubtless observed that here there are no distinctions between Mohammedan and Christian Arabs. We regard the Christians not as a minority, but as Arabs.'

Hans Kohn was a Zionist in Palestine at that time, and went on to become one of the foremost authorities on nationalism. Thanks for highlighting this because the page cited is incorrect and should be 53, not 58.

The footnote [8] does not refer to a text like Mattar's authorized biography (which is properly cited in the 'Early Life' section), which documents al-Husseini's use of the 'Grand Mufti' office to promote Islam internationally, his Palestinian Arab Nationalist and anti-Zionist career, etc. Instead the footnote cites a fairly obscure 1929 book by Hans Kohn on 'Nationalism in the East' contains a reference to passage that represents the Mufti as being tolerant and non-discriminatory toward Arab Christians, implying that he was not a bigot by quoting his claim that Christians should not be considered a 'minority,' though the Mufti made no such 'tolerant' statements concerning Jews. I suppose this footnote may be an attempt to make the case that the Mufti's anti-Semitism was explicit and clear from the very beginning of his career, and though that may be true, these tangential ideas should not be introduced in the form of a footnote that supposed to document a much simpler, non-controversial, and factual set of statements.

The fact that Christian Arabs played a key part in Arab nationalism (and indeed were responsible for some of its emerging imitation of Western antisemitism) is very well known, Ron (George Antonius, A Hourani,et5c.) True, the Palestinian Christians tended to allign themselves as time went on, particularly after 1929, with the Nashashibi family, Husseini's family's political adversaries (and their 'National Party'(al-Hizb al-Watani), which was in part bankrolled by Zionists intent on splitting their adversaries), but one problem is that sources on this for the Mandate long accepted the British colonial authorities insistance that Arabs were primarily either Christian or Muslim. It's far more complex that this, since prominent Christians continued to back Husseini (There is very good microhistory of all this Noah Haiduc-Dale, Arab Christians in British Mandate Palestine: Communalism and Nationalism,1917-1948, Edinburgh Univerity Press 2013, cf.69-70, for the point above). Zionism's own history is riven with dissent in the ranks, despite a commongoal. Therefore Kohn's statement is not exceptional, i.e. Isa Daoud Isa and many others. Bulus Shehadah, a Protestant Palestinian and cofounded of the al-Hizb al-Watani was critical of Husseini's use of the Supreme Muslim Council and his Islamicization but was defended by Hebronites, the most conservative islamicists at the time, and he copped flack for his attack. His response to Islamicist rhetoric identifying his dissidence with his Christian roots was:-

your right in this country is not greater than my right because you are a Muslim and I a a Christian . .we are, all of us, citizens of Palestine . .You are trying to make Palestine a country of Muslims and Christians and I am trying to make Palestine an Arabic county, since here is no liberation for us except as Muslims and Christians are Arab before all things.' (p.73)

A lot of this divisiveness was caused by a very simple economic factor: the British stacked Christian Arabs disproportionately in the Civil Service, and Muslim families were angered that their qualified sons were suffering an injustice. A lot of politics was family politics.

Kohn's quote represents Husseini's attempt to present a common 'Arab' front to outsiders, beyond the sectarian divisions which, practically, his own politics (and those of Zionism) tended to exacerbate.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Although all the above would make a fine topic for dinnertime conversation or in a Wikipedia article on (say) 'History of Palestinian Nationalism', it is completely inappropriate for a Lede on the Grand Mufti, and even more inappropriate to hide this 'teaser' factoid in a footnote that does not provide a citation for Lede-text and instead presents a point drawn from arcane political and sociological history. Please let's not have more disruption over this very simple matter. Remove the inappropriate footnote. Make your points (above) in the appropriate articles, not where it clearly doesn't belong. Ronreisman (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ron, in the exemple that you provide, the footnote sources the affirmation that the Mufti tried to rally Muslims as well as Christians.

A secondary source specifying this would be better than this primary source but if we don't abuse primary sources, that is acceptable.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Kohn is a secondary source, written by a Zionist scholar resident in Palestine when that statement was made, citing Husseini precisely on this issue. Not enough? I provided another secondary source which has the appropriate generalization. Response? I am using too many footnotes, but my response was to satisfy your request for footnotes?!!)*-+x?Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course the {citation needed} conventions for the lede are arguably different from the main body of the article, though the problems noted above may be observed throughout this article.

Moving from the top down we see that 'Early Life' is pretty well-documented and does not appear particularly problematical.

The next (second) section "World War I.' however, is representative of the kind of problems that run throughout the article. The first two sentences are un-cited, and there is already a [citation needed] acknowledging this issue. A couple of sentences later we find:

"The British and Sherifian armies, for which some 500 Palestinian Arabs volunteered, completed their conquest of Ottoman-controlled Palestine and Syria in 1918,[18] alongside Jewish troops."

The footnote [18] is to another French text by Laurens (the translated title would be "The Invention of the Holy Land" Is this another one of Lauren's polemical works?). I have not found a an English version of this book. Again, there are numerous RS in English that could be cited for this statement, so it is clearly inappropriate to use a restrict the readers of the English Wikipedia with a 'not-available-in-English' citation. Also, not the the closing clause 'alongside Jewish troops' does not appear to be referenced in Laurens 1999, so this clause also needs a citation.

It's pointless you challenging Laurens. He is far less tilted that the majority of the books we cite here.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Laurens work are not polemical.

If there are numerous English versions, please just provide one but take care the author should be considered more reliable than Laurens too. Googling and getting and unknown guy who published one book on a tangential [sic] topic would not be acceptable. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The point, Nish, is that you are in violation of WP:RS when you disrupt the editing process by insisting on these unacceptable citation practices. Please either quote Lauens' works that have been published in English, or else use equivalent works that are published in English. Also, since please note that WP:NONENG specifies: " ... editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page" so I am now requesting that you provide English translations of all relevant portions of the original sources of all non-English citations you've inserted into this article. You may, alternatively, replace them with sources that the readers of English Wikipedia can easily verify (in accordance with WP:VERIFY ) -- which means English RS whenever available. We thank you in advance for your cooperation, non-disruptive attitude, and look forward to seeing the quality of your edits improve. Ronreisman (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ron,

Regarding violation of WP:RS, you complain here above about a quote in a footnote. On your side, you added many quotes in the core of the article of Qawuqji without consensus and reliable secondary sources. You should keep a low profile. There is not stronger argument than "ad hominem". Don't ask to make what you don't make yourself. And even worse, don't complain about this.

Regarding WP:VERIFY, fel free to ask the support of French editors if you have some issues with foreign langages. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be very good if the editors who have introduced these flaws into the article would fix their own work, eg add citations where required, replace non-English RS with English RS wherever appropriate, and not add new information in citations (footnotes) that do not substantially reference the text that the citation is supposed to cover.

Given the low level of quality exhibited in these edits, editors who continue to demonstrate an inability to adhere to these minimal competency editing requirements should not continue to degrade the quality of this article. it is apparent that some editors' first language is not English, and that some are obviously not familiar with the actual process of Peer Review publication. Since I'm older than most wikipedia editors, and have decades of Peer Review experience (my first Journal publication was in 1982), editors who are unclear on the concepts of 'citation' and 'footnote' may feel free to contact me if they would like guidance.Ronreisman (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You are exaggerating. I'm a peer-reviewed scholar (as is Zero0000 for that matter), so the suggestion I don't know how to adopt these criteria here requires proof, not generalizations.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nish. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In case the meaning is obscure, this is an English expression that signifies that the quality of the work-product is the figure of merit, not the boasting of the author. This discussion is about demonstrably poor quality work product. Let's not let defensive ego-trips disrupt improving the article, please. Ronreisman (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your "demonstration" is not convincing.

Henry Laurens is an expert in the field and not at all polemical.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ron. It's extremely hard to follow what you are doing. You argued (against me) that this lead is an undocumented mess, and then complained of the Koln quote at length. I.e., you asked me to do work. I did. I added a note to Koln showing that Husseini's remark is seconded in the literature. What is your reply in the edit summary?

Undid revision 599750304 by Nishidani (talk) Nish: stop filling the lede with inappropriate footnotes. Please stop disruptively filling this overlong article with tangential info

It was not inappropriate. You wanted a footnote for a 'contentious' statement (Husseini was both islamicizing, and a builder of cross-sectarian nationalism) and I provided a further one (there are plenty).

Having spent months trying to lengthen the article with meaty additions to the detailed antisemitism and WW2 part of his life, you now complain it is too long. You need to figure out what your problem is here cogently and coherently, because I at least can't understand what your beef is (other than wanting the article to fit more closely the webhysterical vein of non-neutral witch-hunting about this hisorical figure).Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and @Pluto2012: The WP:LEDE rule that applies is "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The footnotes you've inserted contain information (Palestinian Arab Nationist toleration of Christian Arabs, Muslim-Christian Associations, etc.) that is never mentioned in the remainder of the article. Again, if you want to include this information in the article, then it should covered in the main body, not exclusively in the lede. Ronreisman (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and @Pluto2012 : Please stop casting aspersion on me, and stop making counterfactual statements about me and what I've written and requested. Ronreisman (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani : "Having spent months trying to lengthen the article with meaty additions to the detailed antisemitism and WW2 part of his life, you now complain it is too long." You, Nish, were the editor who complained it is too long (see this Talk page) and then removed information on antisemitsm and the WWII part of his life, but also added rambling verbage to justify these aspects. It is not clear that the article benefits from your tangential points, and we could probably improve quality by paring down some of your 'explanations' for the behavior of Waffen SS, the Mufti's support for Nazi genocide, and his attitude toward Jews. Nish; you don't need to interpret those facts for Wikipedia readers; they should be allowed by editors to draw their own conclusions. We'll deal with those content issues, however, after we've cleaned up the more egregious problems in this article, starting with the many French citations you've inserted into this English WIkipedia article which are therefore not available (and therefore not verifiable) to readers who don't have French, and your refusal to either translate the French sources or to provide equivalent English RS. Please review the appropriate Wikipedia regulations and if you have an alternative interpretation then please provide citations that support your logic. We may disagree reasonably about content, though we are all obligated to play by the basic rules governing Wikipedia. Ronreisman (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Another example. You say the lead is unfootnoted, then say the Sherifian statement is sourced to Laurens, but Laurens is unsatisfactory for 'here are numerous RS in English that could be cited for this statement'.

Have you any idea of how absurd that comment is? You complain of (a) inadequate or insufficient sourcing. )(b) instance a statement you think 'contentious' as sourced (c) but you dislike the source and argue (d)that numerous English RS say the same thing as Laurens.

Nish: Please stop making counterfactual statements about me. Your statement (above) misrepresents me. Again: You cite many Laurens references which are not available in English, and therefore these citations are not easily available to non-French speaking readers of English Wikipedia, so their content cannot be easily verified by English Wikipedia's readers. The WIkipedia rules and conventions (which I've cited and quoted) make it clear that this is not acceptable practice. If there are other RS in English that contain the same information then these English RS should be used instead of the non-English RS, unless a translation of the cited text is made available to the readers. Nish: I haven't counted all the non-English citations you've inserted that require translations, though it appears that there are over fifty. Please explain how you intend to remedy this situation, and if you feel that you don't need to translate nor to replace with English RS, then please let us know ASAPractical. Ronreisman (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a kindergarten sandpit. If Laurens states a commonplace in English RS, then what he is cited for cannot be contentious, which however is what you say it is. That is completely irrational.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless an independent, experienced and knowledgeable editor in this field backs all of those templates now spattered over the lead for obvious commonplace generalizations that are everywhere in the literature, or at least justifies one as legitimate, I will remove all of them today.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Are you stating that you refuse to honor the request of another editor (me) to translate the citations you've inserted (mostly Laurens) that have no available English translation? Is this your final answer? Ronreisman (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Another example. You want to rid the page of Laurens because he writes in French. When I proposed using more German documentation, in the section above, you thoroughly approved. These examples of contingent complaining without any coherent internal logic suggest to me you are becoming a problematical editor.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked the refnec and sorted them as follows :

wp:point that can be removed given the information is trivial and not contentious

• After receiving an education in Islamic, Ottoman and Catholic schools, he went on to serve in the Ottoman army in World War I.[citation needed]
• his early position on pan-Arabism shifted to a form of local nationalism for Palestinian Arabs and he moved back to Jerusalem.[citation needed]
• 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.[citation needed]
• During World War II he collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping Germans recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS.[citation needed]
• He died in Beirut, Lebanon, in July 1974.[citation needed]

information not often known but that can be found in the article

• On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home. At war's end, he came under French protection, and then sought refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution.[citation needed]
• [He] formed under the aegis of the Arab League, formed his own militia, al-jihad al-muqaddas.[citation needed]
• Historians dispute whether his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.[citation needed]

Globally, Ronreisman is just blocking the article and performs Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and WP:POINT. He is already responsible of the "flight" of user:Huldra. Time should not be lost with him any more.

You have my "green light" for a global revert. (I did so this morning but I was in infraction with 1RR when I did so; so I reverted myself.) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing some checking myself. My impression from all this is that RR does not have any grasp of the historical periods, let alone the way wiki articles are written. I'm sorry to hear about Huldra, and hope she doesn't feel driven off. She has a magnificent record of detailed building of wikipedia's article data base for Palestinian culture, and is still indispensable. I didn't even know of that A/1 complaint, which was completely misread, by the way. Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the contributor who analysed the stuff. He had not edited wp for 1 month at the time. He has even not made 20 edits since. One more sock. And the worst : he was congratulated by an admin. So what ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit:) Nish, you don't need to provide references in the lead. Doing so, I think you harm the readibility of the article. Ronreisman is just wrong and he just perform WP:POINT. There is no reason to follow him. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 : Are you casting aspersions on a fellow-editor and an administrator? Are you accusing the editor of being a sockpuppet? Ronreisman (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop wasting editorial time. All experienced editors know that there is the phenomenon of the curious pop-in, a low-edit registered user who, out of the blue, suddenly weighs in on an A/I case or in a AfD or voting case and then, after flourishes of opinion, functionally disappears. That's the profile, and this may be wholly coincidental, but Pluto does well to remark, after the event, on the pattern. The incident is over. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012 : Citation Integrity & Veracity Issues

@Pluto2012 : You have accused me of driving away editor Huldra (see above). That is contrafactual. I wasn't aware she was gone, and have had relatively little correspondence with her. Now that you've brought up the subject, however, let's make the record clear about one incident:

Huldra misrepresented the contents of source in an effort to disqualify WP:RS from use in improving the Fawzi al Qawuqj article.

This is apropos the above discussion about hard-to-verify (untranslated) NONENG citations (over 50!) that you and Nish push as this article's primary sources, Nish's attempt to disqualify Black via OR and SYNTH, and your statement that we should simply 'trust' you regarding citation integrity issues.

The exchange is found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#Felmy_as_a_source:

.... And that new " secondary sources" you have brought up have "issues", as even pro-Israeli blogger can see: "The criticism I refer to suggests that the book is part of an Israeli propaganda movement"[1] Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Huldra : Thank you for providing the URL to the article that you claim presents a case that Mallman, et al are possibly 'Israeli propaganda' and then using this citation as the rationale for disallowing any mention of their work in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you appear to have quoted a snippet that is completely out of context, since the passage actually endorses the quality and relevance of Mallman, et al. In fact, you have completely misrepresented the content (unintentionally, I'm sure), and the source you cite makes it clear that Mallman, et al should be considered a source of the highest quality. The context of the quote is the book reviewer's criticism of the book's original title from 'The Crescent and the Swastika' to the English title 'Nazi Palestine' The reviewer makes it clear that he respected the book itself, he's just critical of the title change because it provides an opportunity for untrue accusations of the book. The reviewer writes that the change in title "leads to supporting a politically motivated criticism of the book that is simply not true two reasons" Interestingly, Huldra omits this introductory phrase, and then clips the next sentence, which the author presents as a patently *untrue* "politically motivated criticism." Just to make sure there's no more mix-ups on this issue, here's the full quote, starting with the snippet that Huldra quoted to argue that the work is academically worthless and should be disregarded:

"1 The criticism I refer to suggests that the book is part of an Israeli propaganda movement. The truth is that the original title reflects the clear-headed analysis contained in the book of the relationship between the Muslim world (the Crescent) and the National Socialists (the Swastika). It describes how the common value of Jew-hating and anti-Zionism made Palestine a ripe prize and rallying point both strategically and politically for Islamists, Arab nationalists, and Nazis. In a personal communication, the editor for Enigma Books told me that “The title was picked by Enigma Books, not the translator; it means to indicate what would have happened if Palestine and the rest of North Africa had been conquered by the Germans.2 The book does paint the disastrous probable outcome of a 'Nazi Palestine,' but it is much more than that. It is a book about what did happen, not a fantasy. It makes clear that the outcome of a success of the Arab/Nazi coalition in WW II would have been genocide of the Jews, led by Germans and enforced by Arabs."

There are, of course, much better and cogent criticisms of the book, e.g. Achcar, or Nicosia. None of these criticisms go so far as to falsely accuse the book of being propaganda, or of mis-using quotes out of context to completely misrepresent the work as being part of some nefarious conspiracy. The bottom line is that this book, written by tenured professors of Modern German History, is certainly *not* propaganda. All of the responsible critics respect Mallman, et al, as fellow academics with whom they may have some disagreements or find some shortomings. No responsible critic has questioned their qualifications or peer-review publications, etc. See: Klaus-Michael Mallmann for a brief review of his qualifications and expertise. Please Hudra, the next time you quote a sentence, please keep the representation in context. We'll all be more productive, and we'll avoid these unreasonable and unjustifiable 'undo' episodes that deprive the Wikipedia readers of access to factual information. Cheers. Ronreisman (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I had very little contact with Huldra after this episode. Cheers. Ronreisman (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this nonsense at the time.

The bottom line is that this book, written by tenured professors of Modern German History, is certainly *not* propaganda. All of the responsible critics respect Mallman, et al, as fellow academics with whom they may have some disagreements or find some shortomings.

This is ridiculous after nodding in the direction of Achcar and Nicosia as critics of Mallmann and Cueppers' book. It's only by virtue of stretching one's tolerance that we still retain a book written by two authors with no knowledge of Arabic, full of what Achcar calls 'flagrantly anti-Arab propaganda'; replete with 'gross errors';'the multiplication of references to sources that are themselves unreliable seeks to give the reader an impression of scholarly rigor'; a book that 'makes no distinction between anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and even anti-imperialism;' that is 'blind to nuance and unaware of what it means to put facts in context'; with an 'inability to draw elementary distinctions'; equating Arab nationalism with 'the historically and culturally rooted antisemitism in modern Germany and the rest of Europe;' with an 'indiscriminate demonization that inevitably leads to anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia' (Gilbert Achcar,The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, Macmillan Palgrave 2010 pp.172-3)

Mallmann's book on these grounds alone (like Black's) should not be on the page. It is dismissed as of the same level as the screed by Chuck Morse. Huldra was dead-right, and it looks once more Ron like you are attempting to defend indefensible pseudo-scholarship. Compare what you say in defense of Mallmann's credentials, with your judgement that Laurens, one of the finest regional scholars of our times, is 'polemical' while admitting you haven't read it.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

While you was in infraction with WP:1RR once more, you wrote on your talk page :

"I'll take this as confirmation that y'all do, in fact, work together to suppress and distort facts in the service of propagandistic POV. This is very interesting, and thank you for bringing this to my attention. You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap. Thanks for the invitation. Ronreisman (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"

You should have been warned for this. And Huldra never came back since.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never driven away any Wiki-editor, including Huldra; your accusations against me are counterfactual.

Again, to make the record clear and honest, Huldra was tag-team reverting with two other editors, and posted this message to my talk page:

You have broken 1RR: you should know better that edit-war with 3 other editors. I you do not rv, I will report you: You know the rules by now. Huldra (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And you need to revert it all, if you are to avoid a report, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)\

My comment "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap. Thanks for the invitation." was my way of responding to Hulda's threat, signifying that I intended to become more familiar with Wiki-rules and particularly on the dynamics of how certain editors (and we won't mention any names, Pluto2012 :-) work together in tag-team edit-warring.

It's also worth noting that Pluto2012 reported this incident, which was reviewed by several other editors and administrators. The net result was that Huldra and Pluto were found to bring the complaint with 'unclean hands' and received several warnings for their mis-behavior, and I was cautioned to learn more about Wiki-conventions and to tone-down my verbage, though it was made clear that Pluto's language was found to be just as offensive. In any case, I have taken those warnings to heart, have toned-down my language, and was motivated by these interactions to delve into the world of Wiki-rules&regs. If you have any more unresolved issues over these event I invite you share your feelings and perhaps we can communicate sufficiently to put this behind us and move on with improving the quality of Wikipedia with collegial respect. Ronreisman (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: you've accused editor 'gnuish' of sockpuppetry a few times. Just for the record: he's not a sock, and his opinions are his own. You may want to consider apologizing to him for your false accusations, regardless of whether you agree with his statements. There's no need for you to concur with his views; respect and refraining from casting aspersion on other editors, OTOH, are not optional in the Wiki-community. Just a friendly, respectful suggestion. Ronreisman (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem

Fritz Grobba wrote on 17 July 1942:

I reported considerable concern ... about the participation of members of the entourage of Prime Minister Galiani [Rashid Ali] and of the Grand Mufti in SD [secret security police] courses and site visits to concentration camps ... The visit by three assistants of the prime minister [Galiani] and one of the Grand Mufti at concentration camp Oranienburg had already taken place. The visit lasted about two hours with very satisfying results ... the Jews aroused particular interest among the Arabs.... It all made a very favorable impression on the Arabs.

It is not clear from this that (a) the favourable impression on the Arabs refers to Sachsenhausen and (c) the reputed visit by the mufti to 'Oranienburg', which of the two lasted 2 hours etc.etc. Oranienburg concentration camp was closed in 1936 and Sachsenhausen replaced it, in the same district. Another danger of using unvarnished primary source citations. As I said Black is not reliable, and the Gensicke cite so far unverifiable. The Oranienburg visit, together with that to Auschwitz, in Himmler's company, is an as yet unconfirmed rumour. Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Edwin Black is not WP:RS for this article. There are dozens of scholars who published on the Holocaust and the Mufti. Black is a journalist and writer and not a historian. His book is even not dedicated to the Mufti. Any information coming from him that is not reported and confirmed by historians cannot be considered as reliable. The interpretation of Grobba (primary source) is not acceptable either. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani : This is (at least) the third time on this Talk page that you've made unsubstantiated claims that Edwin Black's work is not WP:RS. Again you do not present any WP:RS (or any other secondary sources) to support your original research and synthetic 'logic.' Please refer to:

Waffen SS 13th Handschar+ 21st Skanderbeg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haj_Amin_al-Husseini#Waffen_SS_13th_Handschar.2B_21st_Skanderbeg.2C and: Ron again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haj_Amin_al-Husseini#Ron_again

As we explain in those sections, an editor must present more than "I said Black is not reliable," to counter decades of professional awards and international recognition of merit (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Black#Selected_literary_awards ). Your OR and SYNTH are not sufficient. Please either produce WP:RS that provides evidence that 'Black is not reliable' or please cease claiming that his work is verboten.

Even if Nish believes that Black is a biased or opinionated source, he would still be WP:RS according to WP:BIASED ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources) which states: "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Furthermore, if an editor (eg Nish) suspects that a secondary source is partisan, then "In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Quotations )

In this case the Grobba quote is corroborated by Gensicke. Nish's statement that Gensicke requires 'verification' is counterfactual. Gensicke is unquestionably WP:RS. and not even Nish has suggested otherwise.

If Nish wants a third citation, incidentally, then we could follow the guidance to cite "the original source being quoted." In this case the source is:

Grobba an Auswärtiges Amt. Referat D II, 17.7.1942, Archiv des Instituts für Zeitgeschichte München, Nürnberger Dokument NG 5446.

Translation: Grobba at the Foreign Office. Unit D II, 07.17.1942, Archive of the Institute of Contemporary History Munich, Nuremberg Document NG 5446th

Nish: Please restore the Black citations that you deleted. Please refrain from continuing your disruptive edits.

Please let's not revisit these issues again. Ronreisman (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You've ignored the discussions, and have ignored the points I raised. This is a collaborative and collegial enterprise, but walls of confused memories of what was said about what and where is not conducive to building anything. Stick to the point. Oranienburg as a separate place can't have been visited by the mufti since it was closed in 1936 and replaced by Sachsenhausen. Gensicke p.119 must therefore be verified (meaning getting someone to examine p.119)etc., and primary documents used through secondary sources. Black is not an archival historian, uses demonstrably unreliable secondary amateur sources and therefore is, esp. on this kind of controversial figure, to be avoided. The field has numerous experts, and they form the basis of the article. I have no problem with partisasn sources, as long as they are written by competent specialists. Black is neither competent nor a trained historian in this area.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nish, if you find WP:RS that supports up your (very doubtful) points, then please produce the WP:RS, otherwise your speculations are OR and SYNTH. You are ignoring the most fundamental WIkipedia rules when you place your own speculations above WP:RS. Since you have not produced any WP:RS that supports your attacks against Black, there is no basis (other than your own OR and SYNTH) for disqualifying him as RS. If you can't cite any RS to support your position then you simply don't have a case. Please stop this disruptive pushing of your own POV and please address yourself to the issues you've created via your hard-to-verify (NONENGLISH) citations, which (as noted above) are in violation of WP:RS and other WIki standards. Ronreisman (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Nish, your technique of trying to discredit Grobba's testimony about Holocaust History by bringing up a specious non-issue concerning place-name reminds me of techniques used by Holocaust-deniers, eg the Institute for Historical Revisionism (IHR). That brings up another point: please remove your edits which bear uncanny similarity to the content found on the IHR website, eg your ending the section on Husseini's antisemitism with a Novac quote stating his opinion that "it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians." and that "post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained." This former point does not belong in this article (certainly not as an unbalanced declarative statement) and the latter point is simply untrue, as evidenced by the Grobba quote you seem intent on removing from the article, and on many other sources, some of which are cited in this article. Your edit is too similar to IHR's citing of the same Novick quote to make the same point you appear to be pushing; see: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n4p11_Okeefe.html You seem intent on keeping this IHR-compatible quote as the closing statement of this article. Well, if you want to start a new section on Jews' attitude toward Husseini, then perhaps the Novick quote may fit there, if there are also balancing POV from WP:RS. The ending section, however, is about Husseini's anti-Semitism, NOT about whether Jews spend too much time worrying about him. The Novick quote does not belong in this section at all, and it certainly should not be the closing 'take-away' paragraph of this article. Please remedy this situation, or explain the reasoning behind this (very questionable) edit. Ronreisman (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no sign here that you read with precision and accuracy what I write, here and on the article. I am not, for example, contesting Grobba but the incoherence of the quote. Your not too subtle insinuation that I edit in the manner of Holocaust deniers is duly noted, and will be cited in an appropriate report if you continue to personalize our differences. As for your proposals, convince other editors. Those who have tended the article for several years know the subject as intimately, if not indeed more so, than myself, the main drafter. We don't squabble: we do the homework of close source scrutiny required under wikipedia's policies, and the standards for articles riddled by a history of POV pushing and poor sourcing like this one are now very high to avoid edit-warring and political spinning.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well.

• Edwin Black is not an historian
• He didn't publish on the Mufti

He can only be wp:rs for information reported by other historians.

We cannot interpretate primary sources (Grobba) provided by Black. That's usual. A good way of working consist in using 2nd and 3rd sources and 1st only to illustrate points that we are sure of.

Any "scholar" should understand this. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: No editor is allowed to suppress a source like Black without WP:RS that clearly disqualifies him, or (alternatively) if there is editor consensus, and clearly there is no editor consensus on downgrading Black. A 'tag-team' is not a consensus, and since I haven't been persuaded by your arguments, there is (by definition) no consensus. Again. if you think he's not WP:RS, then please produce sources that argue this view (I promise to keep an open mind), and please note your concerns in the Wikipedia article on this award-winning historical author. My guess is that you will not be allowed to make such accusations (particularly against a living personality) without substantial WP:RS citations. If you can make your case, then please do so. The tag-team agumnent by Nish & yourself that your own opinions (with no other source) is sufficient to suppress Black's contributions are untenable and prohibited by multiple Wiki-rules. Please do not use your own OR and SYNTH to discredit legit WP:RS. Ronreisman (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fisk Achcar Novick

This is a matter of style above all else. How to end a narrative. My sense of prose suggests that of the three Novick is the natural candidate, because he touches on more points, and surveys the whole controversy in differences of approach, the link to the I/P question, and the peculiar role he plays in dispute. The other two are focused on the enigmatic or in laying at his doorstep the plight of the Palestinians. We need criteria to determine which of these goes last.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Novick is hardly neutral, the points he makes are extremely controversial, and the notion that there is 'no proof' that Mufti was involved in the Holocaust is simply and patently untrue, as evidenced by the content of this article and the WP:RS. His collaborations with Himmler to recruit tens of thousands of Muslims into the Waffen SS who then perpetrated crimes against humanity against Serbs and (when they could find them) Jews is indisputable. His 'Kill the Jews' propaganda during the height of the Nazi killing of the Jews is also undeniable. We could go on and on. Please read the contents of this article. Neverthelss you tendentiously push the ssme POV advanced by IHR (and others) that the 'take-away' message regarding the Mufti is that the Jews falsely accused him of these acts in order to distort the record for Zionist advantage. This is not an article about Jewish paranoia, it is about the Mufti, and we should not end his article with such a questionable (and frankly offensively false) quote. Please cease your continued tendentious pushing of this particular IHR-compatible POV. Ronreisman (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide WP:RS:

• statig that Novick is "extremely controversial"

Well, perhaps we could start with the headline from his New York Times obituary, which states: "Peter Novick, Wrote Controversial Book on Holocaust, Dies at 77" The opening sentence states: "Peter Novick, a history professor at the University of Chicago who stirred controversy in 1999 with a book contending that the legacy of the Holocaust had come to unduly dominate American Jewish identity, died on Feb. 17 at his home in Chicago." (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/peter-novick-wrote-divisive-holocaust-book-dies-at-77.html?_r=0) If you google him you'll see other articles where the word 'controversial' is used to describe his work. He even acknowledged himself as 'controversial' in the end quote of his own NYT obituary, although he followed this up by defending himself. His strong POV doesn't mean he's not WP:RS, of course, just that we should recognize that he is not (by definition) undisputed, since he intentionally sought out controversy. Ronreisman (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• giving proofs that Muslims Bosniacs collaborated to the Holocaust (deportation of Jews to extermination camps or mass murders of Jews)
• giving some more exemples as suggested by the "we could go on"

It is not "Jews" who falsely accused him of these acts; it is the Israeli historiography and governmental propaganda that forged the collective mind of Israelis and Western world.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pluto: Now *this* could be the start of an interesting conversation. Please re-read the sections in this article on Husseini & the Holocaust, the camps, propaganda, recruiting Waffen SS (and we haven't even covered the larger number of Muslims he recruited for the Ostbattalione), the 'kill the Jews wherever you find them' meme, the meetings with Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop, etc., the post-War Nurnberg 'Trials' Testimony, etc. Recall the passage from Black (deleted by Nish) that describes how Handschar tormented and then killed the few groups of Jews that were left in Yugoslavia (most had already been deported), at least whenever they found them. You may also want to review the record of 'crimes against humanity' (mostly directed against Serbian civilians and partisans) committed by the Handschar who were recruited by Husseini. Recall also that Jews were not the only victims of the Holocaust. The Handschar (and Muslim members of the Ustasha, who worked alongside their Catholic comrades) took part in ethnic cleansing (ie genocidal operations) against the Serbs, mass-murdering perhaps 400,000 of them. Please explain how these facts may be reconciled with Novick's central statement: "...claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained." If you have the time, you may want to read Achcar on this subject, and particularly his analysis of those who continue to defend the Mufti in this regard. Achcar points out the that Mufti's own pride wouldn't allow him to deny the Holocaust, and in fact the Mufti's writings counter the claims of Holocaust-deniers. The Mufti does not apologize about this, and in fact proudly points out that the Jews suffered many more losses (particularly when seen as a percentage of total population) than the Germans, ie. that Jews lost much more in WWII than the Nazis. You may also want to read the minutes of his famous meeting with Hitler, particularly the part where they talk about treating the Jews of Palestine in similar manner to the way Germany was dealing with European Jews. We could go on, and on, and on with more evidence that the Mufti was aware and supported the Nazi campaign against Jews, though it may be more interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter first.Ronreisman (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Historiography

Placing the historiography section at the close is probably appropriate, given the historiographical controversy surrounding the Mufti, though none of the three quotes are appropriate summations. Nish: you have several times disparaged the Mufti as an incompetent, etc. Well, that is not only a defamatory statement, it is also very difficult to defend, IMHO. Husseini was a heroic figure to both the Palestinian Arabs and to many others in the Musslem World from at least 1920 to 1948. You may, or may not, personally approve of his style of leadership, or of his political views, or the choices he made. Nevertheless, his leadership position in so many areas is a undisputed fact. The current staff of the al-Quds Waqf still revere him, and many of the things you've said about the former-Mufti would offend them. It should not matter if we agree with the Mufti's POV or not. He was honored by multitudes, by Arab Nationalists from Nassar to Arafat, and by Muslim Nationalists across the globe. He was a world-historical leader who should be granted the respect that he earned, and we should needlessly and carelessly offend the large number of people who still respect him. That doesn't mean we should suppress the fact of his biography in order to make him more 'respectable' of course. Many of his admirers (in my experience) don't think his collaboration with the Axis or his support for the Holocaust (as preferable to letting them live in Palestine) is anything to be ashamed about. They won't be offended by the facts of his life, though they may be (rightfully) offended if we insert OR and SYNTH to unjustifiably diminish the measure of this man. This doesn't mean I've become any fonder of Haj Amin, it's just that I feel strongly that we need to be truthful and 'give the devil his due.' The historiography section should capture some of this complexity. Ronreisman (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've collected the diffs. The first suggesting I am pushing a line identical to those who publish on the Institute for Historical Review, a double whammy insinuation of antisemitism and holocaust denial. I warned you against doing this, and you have now repeated it. Since this is serious (it's not just WP:AGF, it is a smear to insinuate my edits are motivated by racial antipathy), I will mull overnight whether to take this to arbitration. As you may see if you check the history of such accusations detailed at the top of User:Nishidani, that tactic has been tried, disastrously, by some editors before you, and you should be aware of the implications. As to your blogging here, it appears pointless to reply, since we have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and your every other comment personalizes what are technical issues and considered choices per WP:RS, WP:Undue etc., and your interpretation of what scrupulous editors are doing here ive a strong appearane of being grounded on malicious suspicion. If you strike out and apologize for this behaviour, I will of course reconsider my option tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The "picturing of the Mufti as incompetent" is neither from Nishidani, nor antisemites or holocaust deniers, it is from historians and is eg the thesis of Mattar's biography. It is a good point that Ronreisman can read this from Nishidani's edits. It just proves that Nishidani complies with NPoV in reporting fairly what secondary WP:RS state.

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mallmann and Cueppers

Does anyone want to defend their retention? I'm sure anything we harvest from them can be found and sourced in Schwanitz and Rubin. Achcar and Nicosia's reviews condemn the book out of hand.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Gensicke to the conrary is RS. But we use him for one quote, Grobbe, on the mufti's visit. We're at a point where we should try to consolidate sources and remove those which are used once or twice to document facts already probably mentioned covered in other more comprehensive volumes Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mallman and Cüppers are less reliable than Achcar and Schwanitz.

Per the argumentation provided by Ronreisman here above to remove Laurens, feel free to remove references from them if Achacar or Schwanitz can be used.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nish: Please see note above, when Huldra also tried to suppress Mallmnan & Cüppers, and then presented false information to back up her claim. Achcar's comments in 'Arabs and the Holocaust' do not disqualify them. Full Disclosuer: I'm personally fond of Gilbert, and have had very pleasant correspondence with him. Nevertheless, he is hardly an unbiased source, and has a very well-developed POV (as he would be the first to admit). There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a POV, and Achcar's work, though debatable in parts and certainly controversial in some of its claims, is a great resource. Nevertheless, his opinions on other writers must be taken with a grain of salt, as evidenced by his treatment of Benny Morris. He spends an entire chapter attacking poor Dr. Morris, calling him all sorts of names and making all sorts of accusations that impugn the man's character and motivations. Nonetheless, are any of us tempted to argue that Morris is not WP:RS.? Nish, Pluto: I really don't think that even you would want to try to disqualify Morris's work, regardless of Achcar's opinion.

I hesitate to bring this up in public, incidentally, because IRW I've been shy about mentioning this to Gilbert and truly hope he's not offended, since I have great respect and fondness for him, and am very grateful for his book (and other works). It it not necessary to agree with a book in order to appreciate its quality, and in any case Dr. Achcar doesn't require or request the approval of anyone (least of all me :-) for the formulation of his own opinions. In fact, Achcar makes searingly insulting comments about *many* people in that book, and that's part of it's charm and (in the best sense) entertainment. There is no evading the author's POV in that volume!  :-)

Nevertheless, we should note in passing that in the entire chapter devoted to attacking Dr. Morris's political views, there is never a mention of Morris's own explanation of his own view of the 'demonization' of Israel, even though these views were well known, widely-published, and often repeated:

"the demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies—much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two." (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris#Political_views, or )

Of course, there much, much more criticism (from both Left & Right, Israelis & Palestinians) of Morris than has ever been directed against Mallman & Cüppers. Since no one, however will argue that Morris is not WP:RS, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ronreisman (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mallman & Cüppers are professors at German Universities who specialize specialize in German history, and therefore they are certainly qualified to write about their own field of specialty.

Please present either present legitimate WP:RS that (actually) argues that Mallman & Cüppers are not WP:RS, or else please stop trying to use your own OR & SYNTH arguments to disqualify sources. Please stop violating WP:RS. Ronreisman (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

They are WP:RS, as Laurens is WP:RS.

If we have better than them, let's use better. Else, we can keep them.

If we have better or equivalent than Laurens in English, let's use the one in English. Else, we can keep Laurens

That's what you asked yourself.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pluto: Again, for the record, that not 'what you asked yourself.' I've asked for translations of NONENG citations so that the readers of English Wikipedia will be able to easily verify each footnoted statement, in accordance with WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. The current situation leave people who can't read French in a situation where they cannot easily verify the citation integrity of more than 50 different citations in this article, and that's simply not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Ronreisman (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what was answered to you ?

Whether you agree or not, could you just repeat what was told to you about this ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pluto's native language is French. He has Laurens. He corrected me recently on a hasty oversight in one of my translations, because he checks my use of French sources. We don't share the same POV. We share down to small details a commitment to neutral editing, high quality sources and careful weighing. You don't trust him, I guess. I always use Morris, though privately I reckon I could run a bulldozer through his interpretation of his own evidence. He is an impeccable archivist, whatever his POV, and therefore my personal views must not affect my continual recourse to his data. As to Mallmann and Cueppers I disagree with Pluto. They are German historians who, according to the paradigmatic approaches of such varied scholars as Gilbert Achcar, Francis Nicosia, Götz Nordbruch, Yekutiel Gershoni, James Jankowski, Gerhard Höpp, Peter Wien and René Wildangel, are totally out of their depth in contextualizing the historical material within what we now know of the Islamic world (Götz Nordbruch, 'The Arab World and National Socialism,'), in that their reading is profoundly ethnocentric and politicized. I disagree with Pluto on this, for the same reason I concur with him and others re Ilan Pappé, and never cite him (though I sympathizise with his readings). The POV slant is too partisan, and better sources exist. This criterion is true of Mallmann and Cueppers, (and of Gensicke). Schwanitz and Rubin appear to have all of the 'dirty' interpretations resuscitated in their new book, which qualifies as WP:RS, and supercedes the other objections because Schwanitz is an Arabist (though his POV is strongly disfavoured by scholars of this sector of Islam).

Generally, articles like this are the finest testing ground of an editor's neutrality, and are wracked by contentious editing because most coming to it want to prove a point, demonizing the subject and showcasing him as a premier example of why Israel does well to be wary of the Arab world. This is evidenced by your own words below:

He was honored by multitudes, by Arab Nationalists from Nassar to Arafat, and by Muslim Nationalists across the globe. He was a world-historical leader who should be granted the respect that he earned, and we should needlessly and carelessly offend the large number of people who still respect him

I.e. you are citing as much material from poor sources to 'prove' he was deeply implicated in the holocaust, while touting the view that he was a 'world historical figure' who commands widespread respect in the Arab world. This translates out as:'The Arabs revere a man who deeply approved of the Holocaust, ergo, the Arab world has the same intent as the Nazis'. That is the cartoon view of complex events, and fits only one known POV, a national one.

Those with a less hysterical approach to the subject know that the finest historical works on the subject, by Mattar and Elpeleg, manage a minor miracle in managing to see beyond the polemical use of history: they give you Amin warts and all, but the warts do not produce a rash of hives or anxiety attacks when you examine them. They show you a dangerous fool who, for much of his life, was out of his depth, blinded by stupid calculations, as callous as his adversaries, in a milieu where catastrophes were the norm. There is no need to make him a figurehead, positive or negative. The bare, closely documentary record of his life is more than sufficient for our readership to draw whatever conclusion they like about him, without our pulling them one way or another. That is what WP:NPOV is all about, and that is what you consistently fail to grasp, since you have explicitly said you embrace a belief that several editors here are tagteaming to promote a shared POV. The POV we share is functional: i.e., that we write to history as that is written by its finest exponents, those who have, unlike Schwanitz and Rubin, no particular case to make, no bilious defence to mount, no sneaky urge to succumb to the instrumental uses of facts. You're not obliged to believe this, but your behaviour is problematical because that conviction of an editorial ganging up here makes you consistently misread most of what editors write here. Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"discredited" in lead section

The bit in the lead section about him being "wholly discredited" is chronologically vague and potentially misleading. The WW2 / Cold War major powers had no more use for him after WW2, and some Arab leaders grew tired of him in the 1950s, but he retained a cadre of strong supporters for a long time. For better or worse, he was the leading (or at least most publicly prominent) Palestinian political personality down to at least 1964 (and of course he always remained Arafat's personal hero). If there ever came a time when he was "wholly discredited", it must have been quite late in his life... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like "wholly discredited" since it doesn't say in whose eyes he was discredited. However there is near-unanimity among his biographers that his influence waning strongly after 1948 and became negligible after 1964; it should say something like that. Zero^talk 09:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That depends in what context. According to Husseini, any effort to establish any kind of Palestinian Arab state or entity of any kind which did not have as its main goal elevating him to power over said state or entity was vile treacherous plotting and scheming. Abdullah of Transjordan rejected this view from day one, while the other Arab leaders were always more interested in enhancing their own power than enhancing Husseini's, and by the 1950s mostly didn't take him seriously as a future ruler. However, he still had a prominent public role as quasi-figurehead of the so-called "All Palestine Government" (until even Nasser tired of him), and many Arab supporters, and there was no one who could realistically even attempt to challenge his role as Palestinian leader until Nasser elevated Ahmad Shuqayri... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Palstinian politics was (and still is) riven by clan divisions, so you have to look at (a) clan rivalries (b) the larger Arab states which meddled, interfered or often expressed their own interests by backing or withdrawing backing from, various Palestinian clan leaders (c) International great power manipulations. For the last two, after 1948, the mufti was dead meat politically, hated by, manipulated by, and manipulating desultorily by turns Jordan, Egypt and other regional powers: when you say his role as 'Palestinian leader' was unchallenged, - he even opposed the PLO in its early days (as did Arafat, since he saw it as a Saudi vehicle) and as late as 69 was complaining that its secular cast was inadequate and urged the formation of an Islamic Fatah. Buty his nephew sided with Arafat? What leading did he do after 59? He had to live off his figurehead status. He had some rhetorical value as one who 'resisted' Zionism, but he himself after 59 refused many attempts to reengage him in politics, according to Robert Fisk. He played a very important branding function in early Zionist historiography because his involvement with the Nazis enabled propaganda to tar every later Palestinian with the same brush. Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't read it as saying that he was wholly discredited: the lead says that his claims to leadership were wholly discredited. I don't think that is the same thing. Britmax (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Husseini "French"??

I don't see anything particularly French about the spelling "Husseini" (a transcription with strictly French vowel values would actually be "Housseini"). In fact, "Husseini" is just a popularizing or journalistic transcription (while "Ḥusaynī" would be more a technically linguistic transcription)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the standard biographies (I think it was Mattar but my memory is poor) said that his family prefers Husseini rather than Husayni. Zero^talk 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be the case, but neither one is very French... AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We should just harmonize spellings: Kamil al-Husayni. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies place most common name considerations above strict consistency... AnonMoos (talk) 08:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your initial assertion.:'"Husseini" is just a popularizing or journalistic transcription '. Husseini is how French diplomatic reports from Palestine transcribed his name in the nineteenth century (Laurens, vol. p.84). I confirm what Zero notes, that the form Husseini was how his francophile family is said to have preferred to transcribe their name.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I know Laurens is the source for this, but note 5 is wrong. There is nothing on p.19 vol.1. stating that, so I'll have to check. Evidently in endless reediting something went astray. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it was really a French transcription, then why wasn't it "Housseini" with a "u"?? AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In French, both "u" and "ou" exist and are pronounced differently even if they are close. I don't read nor speak Arabic but reading fr:Hussein I deduce that the right pronounciation of the Arabic of Hussein in French is "u" (or "au") and not "ou". Pluto2012 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012 -- In ordinary French spelling, "u" indicates a front-rounded or "umlaut" vowel pronounced like German ü, while "ou" indicates an ordinary back rounded vowel like German u without diacritics. If French-speaking people ever use a notation in which the spelling "u" indicates the non-umlauted [u] sound, then it's generally in a technical linguistic context (not ordinary spelling), or as an undigested foreignism. Furthermore, standard or classical Arabic simply does not have front-rounded or "umlaut" vowels. I can't say with absolute certainty that there isn't some obscure spoken Arabic dialect somewhere with a front-rounded vowel in its inventory, but as a general rule front-rounded vowels are not a prominent feature of Arabic speech varieties.

All this being the case, a transcription of Arabic حسيني by French speakers for French speakers would be expected to be "Housseini", not "Husseini". If the French use "Husseini", then they would appear to be using an English-based transcription (or perhaps German-derived) rather than anything distinctively French... AnonMoos (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here you can search several Jewish French newspaper sources of the period. Although "Housseini" occurs, "Husseini" is more common. Le Figaro also used "Husseini" more than other spellings. So did L'Humanité. I'm not arguing about the reasons, just pointing out that French newspapers did not use "Houseini" very much. Zero^talk 12:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi AnonMoos, I am a French speaker ;)

'umlaut' is interesting to explain my point but I think we understand each other. In French, we say "Hüssein[i]" (DE) and write "Hussein[i]", which is French is different from "Houssein[i]", which is not used. In German, they write "Hussein[i]", which should be translitterated in French "Houssein[i]", but it is not the case.

I don't know arabic so I cannot state who is wrong or right. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that most common name is important, but that doesn't make the decision easy. "Husayni" is popular among modern scholars, which is due to an attempt within the profession to standardise the transliteration of Arabic. We would be justified in using it. In earlier times, "Husseini" was near universal. It was essentially the only spelling used during the British mandate and for some time afterwards: I checked tons of British documents, the British newspaper archive, and several Jewish newspapers in English and French and couldn't find "Husayni" at all. I think that if we just took the majority of reliable sources without considering their age, "Husseini" would win by a mile. We would be justified in using that too. Zero^talk 10:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sahar Huneidi

Is this the same author who wrote Your Fortune in a Coffee Cup? Possibly not, but the name is identical and so is the gender; and in the foreword to the book on Samuels, the writer speaks of the main author as a "she." So what are her credentials? And her thesis seems to me dubious in the extreme, that the Samuels administration was Zionist, disguised as British. If he was a Zionist, why on earth would he overturn the vote for Grand Mufti and appoint al-Husseini, who even at that time was known as an anti-Semite? Why would Samuels give such a man any power at all, if he was acting in the interests of the Zionists? I really don't think this is a particularly good source, that is, it is a highly partisan source, and one should make the reader aware that its judgements are subject to the caveats one would take on in using any highly partisan source.Theonemacduff (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sahar is a common Arabic female name, so gender adds nothing. One Sahar studied engineering in the USA and the other studied history in the UK; ergo, different people. Your reasoning re Samuels is rather defective in that it judges Husseini with decades of hindsight that Samuels did not have. Your statement "even at that time was known as an anti-Semite" is simply false. Anyway, if we were to remove biased authors from this article we should start with paid Revisionist hacks like Schechtman. An occasional Palestinian historian among the legions of Zionist historians is good for us. I reviewed what is here from Huneidi and only see uncontroversial claims. For example, about Samuels' wish that the Palin report not be published, here is his telegram. The last sentence is significant; he seems to have forgotten to mention his consultation with the Arab authorities...

Understand that report of Jerusalem riot enquiry has been sent to you. Have not see it but irrespective of contents I strongly deprecate publication. There is a new administration, amnesty has been declared, passions have subsided and atmosphere at present excellent. Publication must necessarily revive controversy. Eder, Zionist commissioner agrees. (Samuel to Curzon, July 21, 1920, E8434/56/44 in FO 371/5121). Zero^talk 06:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The book is a doctoral thesis at Manchester University published by I. B. Tauris, based on raw archival research. That most of Isaac Newton's time was spent dithering over esoterica like biblical chronology and alchemy doesn't give us warrant to question the universal laws of gravitation.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification of obscure ref required

Copied from Archive 15:

ref name=princeton>Princeton Papers. Department of Middle Eastern studies. Vol 9-8: pp.217-221

This is poor referencing. That is a journal, the volumes are 9-8, which seems back to front, and in any case if so, one cannot give a page number to 2 volumes. The journal has an editor unnamed, and presumably this is to an article, unnamed, with an author or two, unnamed. I'm removing it until this can be fixed. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Solution: this is a compilation of articles reprinted as "Germany and the Middle East 1871–1945", ed. Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, and the particular article cited is by Gerhard Höpp. I'll fix it. Zero^talk 08:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's been a problem for several years, and I've never managed to track it down. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Changes by Nishidani

• In restoring the site, al-Husseini was also assisted by the Mandatory power's Director of Antiquities, Ernest Richmond, a Catholic (my version)
  *In restoring the site, al-Husseini was also assisted by the Mandatory power's Catholic Director of Antiquities, Ernest Richmond (your version)

I believe your changes are not for the better. "Catholic Director of Antiquities" implies that the religion in question is an inherent component of the position, and places too much emphasis on this sectarian curiosity.

• Seven officers opposed this decision and the measures taken (my version)
  *A circle of 7 officers opposed this decision and the measures taken (your version).

What is a "circle" of officers? A "group" would be better but there is nothing wrong with "seven officers"

it is quite normal English.

• In an agreement signed by Husseini and Himmler on 19 May 1943 (my version)
  *In an agreement signed by Husseini and Himmler on May 19, 1943 (your version)

If the style is dd/mm/yyyy, then that format should be consistent

• {{harvnb|Laurens|2002|p=467}} (my version)
  *{{harvnb|Laurens|2002|pp=467}} (your version)

Plainly p=467 is correct as there is only one page; pp would be more than 1 page. Minor I know, but since you went to the trouble of changing it back, I am curious as to the reasoning.

Yours, Quis separabit? 17:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply to each, but digestive exigencies of the most imperative kind, to judge from an urgent request from a neighbor that I dine there, preempt rapid answers at the moment. Best.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope I've fixed those. I simply missed them, tired eyes though I can, though I hope not too often, prove to be a dickhead or as Terry Thomas would have said, an "uttah shah".

Generally, this article has been, at least for sourcing sifted with a fine tooth comb (to mix metaphors). It was mainly composed rigorously with sources at the elbow for everything, down to minutiae. I have an image in my mind of, for example, seeing a remark in Laurens discussing the family preference for spelling the name. It failed, however, verification when questioned (Laurens 1999 p.19) from a memory that still haunts me. I keep reminding myself to search through the several hundred footnotes of the first two volumes of his magisterial work to discover where I read it (if it was Laurens) but still haven't had the time. Several editors here, Zero and Pluto, beat me by a mile in their mastery of the subject and conscientiousness. The result is a bias (nothing to do with ownership) to regard warily any removal or rewrites that substantially alter a passage and that is why I generally reverted. Your point in the edit summary seemed querulous, and the question re Husseini's refuge in Cairo to avoid prosecution ignored the French source on this lower down the page, while the request for source clarification on 'preachers and teachers' being appointed was in Milton-Edwards, already cited on the page (though not for that detail, the point being that a simple request on the talk page, rather than an edit, would have given you precise replies to each. Best (thanks for the invaluable ce, and my apologies for the tardiness in replying: I have a vegie patch that, in April, is jealous of my time) Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to the family's preference for "Husseini" rather than "Husayni", I'm pretty sure it comes from Mattar. Next time I stumble across his book I'll report back. Zero^talk 00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Would be much appreciated, no hurry.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

1929 riots and 1936 revolt sections

The 1929 riots section is huge. Since this topic has its own article, and Per ~, it should be trimmed down considerably. A paragraph that summarizes the main article on the topic and maybe a couple more with information that's specific to Husseini. The same goes for the 1936 revolt section, although that is somewhat shorter. I think there are people here who could do this better than me. Would anyone like to have a stab at it or should I? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The same could be said for the WW2 section, but even there I would not trim it down. It's detailed because the early pre-Holocaust case against Husayni as a demonical figure in Zionist historiography made much of its argument around these events, where Husayni's role in Palestinian nationalism was questioned. These events are still widely misreported in the literature, so it's only natural that we give as full a picture as possible. That the other pages are inadequate is no reason to trim this down, but rather a reason to expand them.Nishidani (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The content should be copied from this article to the main articles where possible of course. "These events are still widely misreported in the literature" does not sound like a Wikipedia policy/guideline based argument for not following the MOS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

To scale back the details here, without first ensuring that all of them are transferred to the other articles, would be deeply problematical. Once I see a complete revision of those all but useless sister articles, in such a way that we have the comprehensiveness editors have tried to achieve here, then your suggestion might make sense. As it stands, it would only in practice, cut out a notable amount of material that is not reproduced elsewhere on Wikipedia, a destructive measure.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, the material should be moved to the main article as it is removed from here. The comprehensiveness is great, but this isn't the place for it. People looking to read about the 1929 riots go to 1929 Palestine riots, they can't know there is a better treatment here. That's why we have WP:SUMMARIZE, which is part of the MOS, which is an encyclopedia guideline that we all must strive to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The main article for the involvment of al-Husseini in the 1929 Palestine Riots is the article about al-Husseini, ie this article. WP:SUMMARIZE would apply if Involvment of Amin al-Husseini in the 1929 Palestine Riots would exist. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the comparable Hitler bio. It is absolutely in its detail on the decisive year 1933 on a par for detail with this. This, as distinct from the related sister articles, has been intensively worked by several editors for 8 years, which makes it more comprehensive on the key events Husayni was involved in, than those articles. As far as I am concerned, it's up to other editors dissatisfied by the comparison, to roll up their sleeves and improve those articles, independently. Shifting stuff from one article to another always means accommodating by excision, to the detriment of the source article, without a guarantee of improvement to the others. My advice therefore is, if you think the other articles need this degree of analysis, to work them, and build them up independently of this article. Unlike many editors, I profoundly disagree with the idea one can 'poach' one article to another, because articles should be built with source by source verification of the authenticity of the material per WP:V, and this is rarely guaranteed by just lifting stuff unexamined from one wiki article to another. It usually takes at least 3 to 6 months to build an article, that is in a poor state of development. Give it a try. This one is in a moderately definitive version, and large scale cutting and excision bodes ill for the article, and the labour its construction cost several editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If that article existed, then both this and the 1929 riots one should have a summary and a link to it, because it would be the main article about this topic. As things stand, the 1929 riots is the main article and should contain any information that doesn't exist anywhere else. This one should contain a summary and maybe a couple of paragraphs of stuff that's specific to Husseini. Seriously, read the "prelude" section, which is huge, and tell me that all that text belongs in this article.

Is there a board that deals with MOS stuff? I'd be happy to ask there. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the modern palestinian flag,on the page. but it was not this flag in 1930/1945.. this was the real palestinian flag in 1930/1945: you can read "palaestina", the palestinian flag with arabs palestinians in 1940: [img]http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/899174image.jpg[/img] thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.116.124 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)