Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner

Why is Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner deserving of citation? There is nothing in his article to suggest he has any knowledge of the subject or any relevant expertise. This clearly fails WP:WEIGHT. Zero^talk 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He appears to be cited in a scholarly book on the subject. Am I missing something?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a scholarly book, it's a scholarly journal. But anyway, why does being cited make the case? Scholarly articles cite lots of people from ignoramuses to geniuses, it doesn't automatically mean we can extract the citation from its context and present it here. In this case there is another problem, maybe worse. The quoted sentence without its context does not properly convey Hutner's position. Here is a longer explanation of Hutner's position from the same source (quoting Jonathan Sacks): "The Mufti himself was not an avowed enemy of the Jews until pressure began to be applied for the creation of a Jewish state. Hence Zionism brought about for the first time a collaboration between the Christian West and the Moslem East to destroy the Jewish people. Zionism was the cause of the Holocaust. It is reported that his view now prevails in mainstream yeshivah circles in America." If we want to include Hutner's claim that the Mufti initiated the Holocaust somehow (regardless of historical fact), we should also mention Hutner's belief that Zionism was to blame for the Mufti's actions and that this belief is commonplace in some circles. I'm still happy to leave Hutner out of this article, though the Haredi response to the Holocaust is something that ought to be covered properly somewhere in this encyclopedia. Zero^talk 21:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If his position is cited positively by a scholar in a RS it is no worse than if the scholar himself had taken the same position. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Utterly inappropriate here, and if retained, as Zero argues, relevant only for a wiki page on rabbinical views on the Holocaust (caused by Zionism, caused by the impact of the haskalah, caused by lack of attachment to the Torah, caused by YHWH to punish his wayward flock etc.etc.etc.). In summing up these sectarian opinions, Lord Jacobovits called views like Hutner's ‘isolated’... ‘props to the faithful rather than as stabs directed at the wayward’(Religious Responses to the Holocaust. p.33) The views are not cited 'positively'.

Your argument, Brewcrewer, is outlandish. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection was, Arthur Koestler once argued, one of the four pillars of unwisdom of the modern science of man (The Ghost in the Machine (1967) Pan Books 1970 pp.15-16. Koestler, though erudite and widely read in science, was not competent to judge. His opinion has been cited by a specialist in embryological development, Wallace Arthur, in his recent, Biased embryos and evolution, Cambridge University Press 2004 p.71, but that does not put Koestler's opinion, as your outlandish premise suggests, on the same level as Wallace Arthur's.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First, without identifying Hutner as a Haredi rabbi, his inclusion is entirely meaningless. It is only his status as a rabbi that makes his opinion notable, as he was neither a historian nor a witness. Second, as I pointed out, the given sentence is misleading without the anti-Zionist aspect of it. Third, quoting the full sentence from the source isn't much use as it adds only the phrase "from those quarters" which means nothing if we don't know what quarters those were. Fourth, Jakobovits did not cite it "positively" but only descriptively. Fifth, it misrepresents the views of Hutner's peer group, as Jakobovits lists several opinions from them differing from Hutner's. Zero^talk 10:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not about the Holocaust and I have no idea why it is being brought up. It is about Haj Amin al-Husseini and an opinion regarding Haj Amin al-Husseini is cited by a reliable scholarly source. If this opinion is disagreed with, that proffer the disagreeing opinion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct your syntax, which makes for a garbled, meaningless sentence, and you might get a reply.Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, you added a sentence about the Holocaust and then you say "this is not about the Holocaust". You really need a better argument than that. Zero^talk 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

2 points

• Zero. I think the earlier text said Mattar gave out his probable date of birth as 1895. We had two notes, one in lead, one in the opening para of his life. I've tried to harmonize, hope without distortion
• I changed this, which keeps popping back:

Husseini was and remains a highly controversial figure. Historians debate to what extent his fierce opposition to Zionism and support of Nazi Germany was grounded in Palestinian nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

It simply won't wash, because it is phrased to wash Palestinian nationalism with antisemitism, (b) Husseini was for a good part of his career a pan-Arab nationalist, not a Palestinian nationalist (c) Palestinian nationalism in wiki articles, is insistently given as arising relatively later than Husseini's floruit. The alternative statement therefore is distinctively POV-tilted. Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed

Historians dispute whether his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

For the record, that formulation was agreed on a few years back as a NPOV way of describing two distinct currents in post-war historical work on the Mufti. No one minimally familiar with the literature would deny that Pearlman and Schechtman, to cite but a few, dye him deeply in the anti-Semitic tradition. In the 1980s, both an Israeli and a Palestinian wrote influential biographies which altered this, and argued his opposition to Zionist was nationalist (Elpeleg and Mattar). You'll find a huge amount of books and articles, most written with an eye to the geopolitical fallout of the image you concoct, still keeping alive the antisemitic line, while specialist scholarship accepts the framework of Elpeleg and Mattar's nuanced line, that his objection was nationalist (pan-Arab rather than strictly Palestinian). For these reasons I think it a fair synthesis of the rift in the historical tradition. it could be removed from the lead of course. Perhaps someone could come up with a meta-source that further analyses the facts. But I don't think this is controversial enough to require a tag, even though Greyshark is certainly within his rights to ask for a source.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Asking citations, i merely asked for sources which tag him as antisemite and the ones saying he was only a nationalist, so readers would compare. Nevertheles, there is some problem claiming that "Historians dispute" - is there a specific citation regarding argument among historians? I think not. Seems to me the better version would be:

Though al-Husseini is accused by several historians that his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in fierce antisemitism, several other historians claim it was grounded either in Arab nationalism, or a combination of both nationalism and antisemitism.

Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As all serious modern biographies show, al-Husseini became an antisemite. It is simply not in accordance with his biographers to repeat, with the early Zionist literature, that his opposition to the movement was grounded in anti-semitism. If so, all Palestinian Arabs who opposed the settlement of their land by Zionists would be antisemites. They were nationalists. The text has gone to great pains to get the nuances right. The early prewar and postwar Zionist hisoriographical tradition argued he was motivated by antisemitism. Modern Israeli and Palestinian scholars see him as basically an Arab nationalist whose position led him to antisemitism. The line as given (I think worked out years ago by myself and a pro-Israeli editor) gives both alternatives, and then allows for the complexity of both elements in his unfolding attitudes. This is commonsense, coherent with the best literature, and NPOV.

This is why I think the citation tag should be removed. For it is obvious from the text throughout that this generic summary as per WP:LEAD gives the gist of scholarly contentions and polemical differences in the literature. ?Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is your private interpretation and editorializing (removal suggestion). And just for record - when you are saying If so, all Palestinian Arabs who opposed the settlement of their land by Zionists would be antisemites, you are implying that Jewish population of Southern Syria and later British Palestine was on "Arab land", hence making you clearly an Arab nationalist yourself. It is a bit problematic - i don't really appreciate nationalists of all kinds because of their strong POV.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you kindly not 'personalize' our interchanges. There is, everyone knows this, an early Zionist interpretation insisting he was a native antisemite, and a more modern specialist interpretation (Elpeleg, Mattar, Laurens) that sees his later antisemitism as an outgrowth of his political failures in Palestine. This has nothing to do with 'private interpretations'. Your second point is an inferential non-sequitur, and incomprehensible.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, i need not involve personal remarks.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the sentence in the article now is fine, considering it's in the lead and is supposed to summarize the sourced information in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NMMNG. I'd still be happier if I could get Greyshark to see this as a fair summary of the various positions in the last two sections (which might be conflated). I've just edited part of that for compression, because I think a few more scholars and their various positions could be added there. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, your edits are fine and actually as most of the time you do a great work on referencing. I guess i was mostly just pissed off by some other editor at the same time. Sorry for that and i will try not to involve personal remarks as well suggested by you.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I have the same regard for your own work here, which is, as far as I have seen it, pretty scrupulous and avoids tendentiousness.

And I didn't take that remark badly. We all have our days. I hope you keep on board here. There's still quite a bit of work to be done. This is one of the hardest articles to write per WP:NPOV. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Was Amin al-Husseini a "leader" of the Muslim Brotherhood?

I note that this article is listed under Category:Muslim_Brotherhood_leaders, but there is nothing in the article mentioning an association with the Muslim Brotherhood. The main Muslim Brotherhood article describes an association, which is supported by a single reference to an overtly biased book review in Front Page magazine, but is not supported by any NPOV scholarly source directly. Can this be corroborated and corrected if necessary?Jemiljan (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for raising it. I hadn't noticed that this had been added. Husseini met Hasan al-Banna's brother in the mid thirties, but that's all I remember. I haven't read anything that suggests al-Husseini was a leader of that organization though. It would surprise me, though in the late 40s no doubt, when he did come back to Gaza via Egypt there would have been contacts. Needs checking.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as i know, al-Husseini was not an official representative of the Brotherhood, though it is possible he was a member or had some kind of relations with the movement. In any case, the Brotherhood had its strongholds in Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but had mediocre support in Mandatory Palestine, where the Palestinian Arab national movement led by rival Nashashibi and al-Husseini clans was the most dominant, whether secular in first case and semi-religious in the second.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Elpeleg's book on the Mufti mentions some informal connections he had with the MB and support he gave them on some occasions. Calling him a "leader" of the MB is certainly going too far. Zero^talk 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jemiljan, provisorily, that suggests to me we can remove it, since there is a consensus all round by long-term editors here. I'd wait though for several hours for further imput, just in case. If a source (a strong source - those that mention the connection are all poor polemical books not noted for accuracy) is found to justify it, then it can go back. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all of your for your thoughts; I appreciate the input that all of you have given. Amin al-Husseini said and did plenty of controversial things that can be easily corroborated, so when I notice that certain polemical sources embellish his already colorful track record, much less declare him to be a "leader" of a group whose association may have been only in passing or vague, general terms, then I immediately have to question the veracity of it. At the same time, perhaps these exaggerations warrant mention in the article? Also, not only the Category listing, but also the reference to the main Muslim Brotherhood article should be fixed to reflect as well. I haven't brought up the issue there, but it should be. I have to stop editing for a period as I'm under several work deadlines, so if any of you are game, then please pursue it.Jemiljan (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We only mention 'exaggerations' if the secondary literature contains meta-analyses of the way his biography has been the object of tendentious trends, from whatever side. In any case, the article does mention this, succinctly and adequately I think, in the references by Rouleau (perhaps we should translate the French footnote?) and Novick at the end. Of course, if first-rate articles or books are forthcoming that analyse this aspect in more depth, they'll certainly be read and evaluated for whatever insights they may contain.Nishidani (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Verification of obscure ref required

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)

McMeekin

• Sean McMeekin is used as a source (The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power, HUP 2010 p.360). It has all of the hallmarks of RS yet on the page cited, clearly he has no knowledge of what he is talking about, and therefore is probably not RS on the Mufti, let alone his role in Iraq: The relevant passage is this:-

'The Mufti was a pioneer in race-murder, having incited Arab mobs to lynch hundreds of Palestinian Jews in Jerusalem riots in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936. Al-Husseini had excelled himself in organizing the anti-Semitic pogrom in Baghdad in June 1941,'p.360

That itself is sheer nonsense, unsupported by serious historiography. His source is Dalin and Rothman whose screed no reviewer of standing regards as RS, as determined in our archives. Therefore I will remove this. The Baghdad pogrom and al-Husseini is covered by historians who specialize in the subject. We should restrict ourselves to them,Nishidani (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't find any reference to Dalin and Rothman in McMeekin's book on page 360. Sean McMeekin is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University in Turkey and is widely used throughout Wikipedia. That particular book has been very well received. see Harvard catalog. Please reinsert deleted material or at the very least source the fact that he uses Dalin and Rothman as his source. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As said, anyone who can write:The Mufti was a pioneer in race-murder, having incited Arab mobs to lynch hundreds of Palestinian Jews in Jerusalem riots in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936, isn't going to get on this page. He's not a reliable source because he gets all of the primary facts wrong, and his assertions are inane, according to modern specialist scholarship. Period.Nishidani (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You sidestepped my challenge of your assertion that McMeekin used Dalin and Rothman as his source. If you cannot support that, you need to strike it. No one should claim that a historian "gets all of his primary facts wrong" without showing at least one primary fact that is wrong. The idea that the Mufti incited Arab mobs to kill Jews is a primary fact supported by most historians (as opposed to historiographers). It appears you do not want to use this author as a reliable source because he expressed an unpopular and unflattering opinion of the subject, one that numerous historians share. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani is correct. The quoted sentences are nonsense contrary to the great majority of good sources. Zero^talk 12:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You are no doubt correct. The following sources that collaborate McMeekin are probably either no good, or part of the tiny minority who agree with such "nonsense". Some fools have awarded some of them history prizes, Pulitzer prizes, chairs at prestigious universities, and diplomatic positions at the United Nations. What would they know?

• Richard S. Levy
• Gilbert Achcar
• Ian Denis Johnson
• Robert S. Wistrich
• Bernard Lewis
• Douglas Porch
• Conor Cruise O'Brien
• Matthias Küntzel
• Simon Sebag Montefiore
• Klaus-Michael Mallmann

76.179.5.174 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny. Achcar says that Husseini was not an extremist in his early career and in support cites an article of Pappe that argues he was a moderating influence. (p.129). A Nish said, anyone who uses ridiculous expressions like "pioneer in race-murder" doesn't belong here. Nor does anyone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "lynch". Zero^talk 03:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Achcar says on pg 203: "It is, however, undeniable that the mufti espoused the Nazis' anti-Semitic doctrine, which, as we have already seen, was easily compatible with a fanatical anti-Judaism cast in the PanIslamist mold." I would remind you that the "Nazi's antisemitic doctrine" included what McMeekin refers to as "race-murder." As to when he came to his racist opinions, Richard S. Levy says, "Already during the 1920's, the Mufti began casting Palestinian Arab opposition to Zionism in terms of a struggle between Islam and the Jews." 76.179.5.174 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Webster's, lynch = "to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction." According to Levy's Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution" pg 366, "The [1929] rioters massacred 129 Jews and injured over 300 more, most of them defenseless members of the old religious communities in Hebron and Safed...." I suggest to you that McMeekin's use of the word "lynch" was quite appropriate, and perhaps he is not the one who doesn't know the meaning of the word. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read the relevant articles, or, more importantly, the relevant literature, and neither has McMeekin. McMeekin speaks of 1920, 1921, and 1929. There are (a) official enquiries for each event (b) the secondary scholarly literature on this decade and the archival evidence. In those years there is no official or unofficial documentary evidence that Husseini pioneered race-murder by Arab mobs to lynch hundreds of Palestinian Jews. Race murder is something essentially alien to Islam, as opposed to Judaeo-Christianity, which found theological sanction for it, and invented it, in the Tanakh/OT books like Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua, and then refined it with modern pseudo-science. He incited to get the Jews lynched in his 1940s broadcasts. He did, if official investigations are to be trusted, no such thing in the 1920s. He broke with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, according to one view, after the 1929 episode precisely over this question.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, you make a number of unsupported points . Your original post accuses McMeekin of having "no knowledge of what he is talking about" and that "His source is Dalin and Rothman." Now you claim with equal basis that McMeekin has not read the relevant articles! Searching his book there is not a single reference to Dalin and Rothman. This assertion by you was made to justify removing the reference to his book and seems to be without proof. Why should we accept the rest of your assertions regarding this author?

His Bibliography can be accessed here and any fair reading will show it to be complete and extensive. Two of McMeekin's books have been published by Yale University, and one by Harvard University. This particular book was published by Penquin Books/Allen Lane, the same company that publishes Ian Kershaw. Mr McMeekin teaches history (not historiography) at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Yet for some reason you take it upon yourself to claim that he has not read the relevant articles, "has no knowledge of what he is talking about, " his opinion is "sheer nonsense" and unsupported by "serious" scholarship. What do we have except your personal opinion to support your aspersions? If every historian were disqualified because he makes what some people would consider "outlandish" statements, there would be few references available.

You keep listing credentials. McMeekin has no knowledge of what he is talking about in the quoted statement, which ignores the relevant scholarship on Husseini by Arabists, be they Israelis like Elpeleg, or Palestinians like Mattar, or historians of Palestine and al-Husseini like Laurens, to name but a few. He's reliable in his own field (German-Ottoman relations), but this topic is outside of his specific research topic, and he uses sources there that are demonstrably not academically respectable.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of outlandish statements, this one by you, qualifies, though it is out of the purview of this article: "Race murder is something essentially alien to Islam, as opposed to Judaeo-Christianity, which found theological sanction for it, and invented it, in the Tanakh/OT books like Deuteronomy and the Book of Joshua, and then refined it with modern pseudo-science." 00:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.5.174 (talk)

Again no argument, no sources, no knowledge of what you are talking about. Deuteronomy 7:1-5. 20:16-18, Exodus 23,24 etc. 'These texts mandate a holy war of extermination against Canaanites because of the threat they pose to Israelite identity.' Sandra L. Gravett, Karla G. Bohmbach, F. V. Greifenhagen, Donald C.Polaski, An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: A Thematic Approach, Westminster John Knox Press, 2008 p.217. The ethnic esclusivity outlined there, and later canonized in halakhic law, was challenged under Christianity (Galatians 3:28) and Islam (Qur'an 5:18) as contradicting the universality of God (ibid. p.234). Of course, the latter two dispensations, in their critiques, drew on Hebrew prophetic critiques, of those views redacted after the exile to affirm ethnic exclusivity, so no one comes out with a clean nose on this. But what I said is just basic biblical knowledge, and amply corroborated by modern scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The confusion here is, generally (Bernard Lewis and Wistrich apart), between narrative history by generalists, and historical monographs and books on theme written by accomplished area specialists, which is what wikipedians dedicated to hauling what was an actrociously written article in 2007 out of its slough of partisan despond, are doing here. Simon Sebag Montefiore is a wonderfully readable narrative historian whose books are sensitive and even-handed, for example. But if we take the passage you think he approves of, because he, in your view, 'corroborates McMeekin', you're dead wrong.

'The Mufti was' a pioneer in race-murder, having incited Arab mobs to lynch hundreds of Palestinian Jews in Jerusalem riots in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936. Al-Husseini had excelled himself in organizing the anti-Semitic pogrom in Baghdad in June 1941,'McMeekin p.360

That is an ontological statement about who Husseini fundamentally was. If you examine Montefiore, you will find, certainly, mention of his early 'rabble-rousing' (but then rabble-rousing and incitement is amply documented for his adversaries in those early years). But you will also find thumbnail sketches like this:

'Husseini belonged to the Islamic tradition; Nashashibi to the Ottoman. Both opposed Zionism but Nashashibi believed that, faced with British power, the Arabs should negotiate; Husseini, in a meandering and capricious journey, ended up as an intransigent nationalist opposing any compromise. At first, Husseini played the passive British ally, but he would ultimately reach far beyond the anti-British stance of many Arabs to become a racial anti-Semite and embrace Hitler’s Final Solution to the Jewish problem.’ Simon Sebag Montefiore,Jerusalem: The biography, Random House, 2012 p.569.

McMeekin's language, drawing on sources that ignore modern scholarship and that have failed the RS high bar we observe here, defines al-Husseini as a sanguinary antisemite from the outset. Montefiore's nuanced language gets it right. He became an antisemite when he made a pact with the devil, Hitler, some 20 years into his life as a Palestinian nationalist. Montefiore has used judgement and wide reading to suggest to his reader that Husseini meandered into an alliance with the Nazis and in the end (nota bene) became a racial antisemite, which is diametrically opposed to the unhistorical undocumentable account McMeekin has served up.

Montefiore's adjective there (racialist) is probably dead-wrong, but the overall interpretation is fair. The most comprehensive up-to-date and neutral analysis of both the history of modern Palestine and of al-Husseini within the context of 1920-1948, written by Henry Laurens, and now, in its 4th volume, stretching well beyond 2000 pages, though barely down to 1982 so far, can find not one scrap of evidence that Husseini's antisemitism at the end had anything racialist about it. He came to hate the Jews because they were, in his view, a people who had robbed and wrecked 90% of the pre-Balfour population of their natural rights to a state and nationhood (no justification, of course. But, as Fisk says, Churchill and Roosevelt made a pact with the devil precisely at the same time as Husseini committed himself to Hitler. They formed an alliance with Stalin, who had committed genocide in the Ukraine, and an industrial scale holocaust of the innocent in the gulag archepelago where 5 to 10 times the number of victims of the shoah perished, in full knowledge he was a murderous thug. For in war, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, precisely the dictum many Arabs adduce to explain why Husseini, against sensible advise among his own ranks, threw in his lot with Hitler and Mussolini. It was a geopolitical calculation, made with Nazis and fascists who despised Arabs, but were ready to support him against the British with regard to Palestine. The same reasoning led Abraham Stern and Yitzhak Shamir, a future PM of Israel, to try and forge a temporary alliance between the Stern gang and the Nazis).

We do well therefore, to edit with a cold eye to any hypocritical POV tilting which would simplify the inhumane complexities of history. We only manage to do this, with a notoriously controversial figure like al-Husseini, by expecting that an article like this will require years of close source-control, maximum care in checking even what otherwise good sources say, so that we can get past the propaganda be it simplistic smearing or apologetic defensiveness, to make a nuanced and balanced summary of the best modern evidence. McMeekin, who has no qualifications in this specific area, fell foul of the noisy recitative of a subgenre of historical writing going back to Pearlman and Schechtman, as all of those who have worked this article and the relevant literature, would note immediately. So no matter what the credentials of people using him for anything on al-Husseini, their status has no authority on wikipedia, for he has no credibility on the subject of Husseini, as the puerile generalization, with its counter-factual assertions cited above shows.Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Now with respect to this statement by you:

"Simon Sebag Montefiore is a wonderfully readable narrative historian whose books are sensitive and even-handed, for example. But if we take the passage you think he approves of, because he, in your view, 'corroborates McMeekin', you're dead wrong."

From: Jerusalem the Biography:

"In his memoirs written in his Lebanese exile, he [Husseini] reviled in the fact that Jewish "losses in the course of the Second World War represented more than 30 percent of the total number of their people whereas the Germans' losses were less significant" and citing the Protocols and the World War One "stab in the back" myth, he justified the Holocaust since there was no other way to scientifically reform the Jews." 476 On the same page Montefiore quotes Achcar saying: "He entered into the Nazis' criminal delirium about 'the Jews' as it burgeoned into the greatest of all crimes against humanity."

What has this to do with the price of fish? In his old age Husseini was an antisemite? No one is denying that. Antisemitism was not what dictated his politics from 1920s down to the mid-30s. To say so, is to use the cheap argument that a colonial people opposing a mass demographic invasion under an imperial power of foreigners who happen to be Jewish, could have no motivation other than the anti-Semitism which was characteristic of Balfour and most of the European powers. They couldn't possibly be motivated by the universal desire to live in their own country and not be swamped out or evicted by imperial fiat. There were several hundred pogroms in 1919, killing several thousand Jews in 1919 in the Ukraine alone, and as soon as Palestinians expressed outrage at the way European racism and imperial colonial rule disposed of their Jews on their Arab homeland, the Arabs must be (a) antisemites (b) interested in pogroms. Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you think him even-handed,, but if that isn't collaboration for McMeekin's view I'm not sure what would be.

You again err. In writing 'collaboration' you mean 'corroboration', and that one historian uses another historian's work for a fact or a perception never translates into evidence or proof that the former is collaborating with, or corroborating, everything his colleague writes.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to determine the exact year(s) in which Husseini became a "racial" antisemite strikes me as irrelevant in the extreme. We don't inquire this of Hitler or Himmler or Goebbels do we? Why do we consider it relevant for Husseini unless it is to somehow excuse or pardon it in some way? To claim as you do that race-hatred is foreign to Islam and therefore Husseini was not a racist is at best an unsupported prejudice.

There were numerous red herrings in your response, including such things as the geopolitical alliance of the west with Stalin, which has nothing at all to do with this article except to serve as an apologetic. Even those with the briefest history background are aware that Stalin perpetrated "an industrial scale holocaust" though your figure of "5 to 10 times the number of victims of the shoah perished" is debatable. On the whole, however, the killings were not on "racialist" lines as with Hitler. Hitler could be said to be a "pioneer in race-murder", along with his henchmen and supporters (including Husseini).

While you may not like McMeekin, or what he has to say about Husseini, you have proved not one thing of your assertions against McMeekin, but only your own bias. Of course you and your friend have already said there is no way that you would permit McMeekin a voice in this article, "period", and since you have not put up a convincing rationale with 3rd party proof, I have nothing further to say. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically you want to take a few polemic sentences out of a book mostly about other things and use them to replace the findings of highly detailed works by historians who specialize in the subject. This simply can't be allowed. This article already treats Husayni's actions during the Mandate period and his collaboration with the Axis during WWII, both at considerable length. What we don't need is a violent and vituperative summary, any more than we need a laudatory one (which could also be extracted from a "reliable source", I have a large collection). Zero^talk 03:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zero0000. A polemic sentence taken from a book not dealing with the topic and contradicted by sources from scholars who studied directly the topic should no be used. This even less given the Mufti attitude towards Jews during the Mandatory period and his collaboration with Nazis is perfectly described. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking more at McMeekin's book I see Joan Peters style atrocities everywhere. What about: "The most notorious of the Mufti's death squads, the Handschar SS division, 'slaughtered 90 percent of - 12,600 - of Bosnia's 14,000 Jews". In fact, the Handschar did not go into action until 1944, long after most of the Bosnian Jews were dead. This is easy to check, not disputed by anyone, and is proof absolute of the unreliability of McMeekin as a source. (And the Handschar was not the Mufti's squad either, that's ridiculous.) As professional support for this assessment, this review can be cited. The section of the book that this appears in is called "a political rant, rather than a historical, scholarly piece" due to its almost exclusive reliance on Dalin and Rothmann's "questionable study". Zero^talk 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

reviled in the fact. 'Revile' is not a synonym, but an antonym of 'revel', which is what you perhaps intended to write.

'Husseini became a "racial" antisemite strikes me as irrelevant in the extreme. We don't inquire this of Hitler or Himmler or Goebbels do we?'

Actually we do, if we refers to scholars. See Brigitte Hamann, Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship, Oxford University Press, 1999 pp.347-359.

Since you 'have nothing further to say,' while the reason, 'lack of third party proof' ignores the substantial arguments from the specific scholarship on Husseini used throughout the article, we can I guess just drop this. Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One final point for the edification of anyone else who might read this. The actual offending sentence that was removed, along with any McMeekin reference, was "When the Anglo-Iraqi War broke out, al-Husseini used his influence to issue a fatwa for a holy war against Britain. As the British advanced on the capital, al-Husseini excelled himself in organizing the Farhud pogrom in Baghdad,[123] - This sentence was removed because of a quite different sentence that was found in McMeekin's book that is fully supported by other historians. This is a bit of tendentious editing at its worst. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Edification. The sentence you complained was removed is still there. Per WP:NPOV we're obliged not to espouse any one empire or state or tribe's point of view, as the phrasing of that sentence does. If you think that, as in an early postwar fairy tale, Husseini was this evil Pimpernel, with extraordinary charismatic and political powers, who just kept miraculously popping up, in Syria, Iraq, Italy, and Germany and (a) organizing the political coup in Iraq, (b) then singlehandedly setting up the Farhud pogrom (c) then inspiring the Germans to go ahead with the Holocaust, travelling around concentration camps to urge on the extermination of Jews and (d) organizing Bosnian Muslims to root out the Jews and kill them etc., then probably you read too many wiki articles (all the articles touching on the above are barely above the farcical), instead of reading the academic literature on each of these distinct events, which are far more complex, and deny to Husseini the kind of Moriarty-like role, as the alpha spider at the spinning heart of the web of Western antisemitism.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

@Nishidani- You made a number of small grammatical/spelling errors yourself, but since they added nothing to your argument, I didn't find it necessary to point them out. After all, we are not writing a thesis here. At least I am not. 76.179.5.174 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Some comments for the lead

Hello,

Great job if we compare this lead to what it was 4 years ago...

There are two sentences that I disagree with (but nothing critical) :

• "He was promised the leadership of the Arabs after German troops had driven out the British.[7]"

That is contradictory to what I read. I am quite sure having read that Hitler (and Nazi establishement) refused to give this promise to him not to harm the position of Vichy France and Italy in the Arab world. I think Fist is not wp:rs enough for such a statement.

• [T]he British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division told an American military attaché that the Mufti might be the only person who could unite the Palestinian Arabs and 'cool off the Zionists'.[8]

That may be true that it was stated but I think this is wp:undue for the lead. Who cares what CID could have told to an American attaché ? More, this is also highly controversial (and that his analysis from a primary source is false) : the struggle between Husseini and Nashashibi and the remnants of 36-39 were so deep that no one could have united Palestinian Arabs. It can be pointed out that Abdallah did so more efficiently for this other side and united Nishidani affiliated Palestinian Arabs under his banner but with more political pragmatism (and British support).

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points. Zero^talk 09:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a very long and intricate account in de Felice of al-Husseini's negotiations, and the fact that he failed to get any concessions from either Hitler or Mussolini on the only point that really interested him, their backing for Arab and Palestinian independence. I've never got round to fixing that, because I stopped short of the heavy groundwork required to go through the 1941-45 section. Fisk is clearly not adequate, and I am (ir)responsible for the second WP:Undue addition Pluto objects to. It should have gone down in the relevant section. I added it, if I recall correctly, because it showed some trace of British antisemitism, and stupidity at a crucial point, and I though the lead required some indication of the manoeuverings not only of the Axis Powers, but also of the victorious allies, whose behaviour had questionable aspects. I'll remove the second bit immediately. We can hunt for an improvement to the line with the Fisk citation. I'll try to do that later if I survive a Sunday dinner in Italy, which is usually devastating to clear-headedness.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(a) The Atlas Affair and (b) De Felice

(a) The Atlas Affair all goes back to Primary documents published in one source before the UN declaration in 1947. It's not as cited as frequently as one would expect. Perhaps we could document it better?

(b) De Felice's archival readings of the Italian and German dealings with the Mufti highligh the idea that Germany toyed with the Mufti, but refused to budge, on his requests since Gaylani offered them better prospects in Iraq. The Italians preferred the Mufti, whom the Germans found intransigent, and too insistant on what they would never concede, the independence of Arab countries (besides Egypt). It's a complex story over a 100 pages long that needs boiling down to a few lines. Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand - you suggest De Felice as a source?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

°Sorry about that, GS. No. They are two separate matters. I have all of De Felice's several volumes and will take care of anything there. Apologies for slipshod phrasingNishidani (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Mufti in Iraq

Recently, McMeekin (McMeekin, S. The Berin-Baghdad express: The Ottoman Empire and the Germany's bid for World Power. Harvard University Press. p.360) was removed as a source. I'm not into this right now, but shortly is that a WP:RS or a citation not in the source?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Zero and myself contested McMeekin's reliability. I removed the egregiously incorrect statement he made, but left in the rest, but removed him as RS for both. There are many sources for Husseini, Iraq and things like the Golden Square, the pogrom, his activities in Iraq by Iraq history specialists. It's just pure distraction or laziness on my part that I haven't supplied the necessary RS for this passage from McMeekin that's still there. Well, I've also been reading in desultory fashion, several books on the period, and don't like to edit before I've got the full picture, irrespective of that one point.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I 've read the above discussion on this, thanks for clarifications.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur sentence

Could someone rewrite "However, following the fiasco of the Franco-Syrian War, his early position on pan-Arabism shifted to a form of local nationalism for the Arabs of Palestine along lines set out in and he moved back to Jerusalem" in the lead so that "along lines set out in" goes somewhere? Britmax (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have hung over from a former edit. Have removed it. Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's usually the case. Britmax (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think i have originally written it, but apparently something went wrong, now looks ok.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Richmond

Re this edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidency of the All-Palestine Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done

Rank in Waffen SS

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

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

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

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

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

Removed material.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nazi Salute???

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Arafat said in August 2002

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

So what is important is :

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^{Superscript text}

Sources regarding al-Husseni quote

Further sources regarding Al-Husseini quote:

1. A. Dershowitz; [3]

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

[4]

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

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

[5]

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

[6]

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

7.Sachar (1961), p.231

8. Numerus newspaper reports, blogs etc

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

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

Einsatzgruppe Egypt

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

Based on my reading of the rules on reliable sources I now see that the sourcing for this at present just isn't sufficient for such an inflammatory statement. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. 19:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluto2012 (talk • contribs)

It was mentioned in a documentary that I saw on the History Channel a few weeks back. That occasioned my interest in this article. But the evidence is lacking. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You can find more information in the book that is talked about here : [7] but please crosscheck your sources and read this with criticism because this is highly pov-ed. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Despite the imprimatur of the Holocaust Museum, I think that rigorous sourcing is required for something quite so controversial. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wisliceny

Please quote the exact testimony or remove the instigation allegation. --41.151.44.163 (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote

I have moved this here :

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

−

"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours"

— Haj Amin Husseini −

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

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

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

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

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

As Segev wrote in the NYT, "there is an official German record of his meeting with Hitler that contains no such statement. In fact the mufti did not achieve his major goal: Hitler refused to sign a public statement of support for him." [9] (In fact there are several records, none of which support this claim.) These sort of fringe claims from low-quality sources need to be kept out of the article. Zero^talk 08:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Here are further sources

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

[10]

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

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

[11]

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

[12]

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

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

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

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

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

The fact he would have written this is not enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its reliable source he is Holocaust expert [13] the book was publishing in academic publishing house--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are additional sources which I will add regarding Husseini visit to Aushwitz: A testimony of Aushwitz survivor: [15] Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Center [16] [17]--[[User:Tritomex|Tritomex]

I will also add other sources mentioned above+this [18]--Tritomex (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Still there are no evidence that Jack R. Fischel is not WP:RS and as his book reference was removed, although under WP:NPOV has place in this article, and it is secondary source despite the name encyclopedia, because it is classical historic book I have to reopen this dialogue as I intend to challenge the claim that Fischel is not reliable. I intend eventualy to chalange this claim on RS noticeboard--Tritomex (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Classical historic book", you are kidding. It's a popular encyclopedia all but ignored by serious Holocaust scholars. To see its nature you just have to realise that it first appeared in the mass-market "A to Z" series under the name "A to Z of the Holocaust", alongside more than 100 other titles like "A to Z of Jainism" and "The A to Z of New Religious Movements" and so on. The absence of sources is also a sure indicator that it is a tertiary source. There is nothing wrong with that and on the whole I think it is a good encyclopedia. But when we are dealing with a subject that a large number of specialist historians have written a large amount of serious literature on, we don't need popular tertiary literature. What it comes down to is, should Wikipedia articles reflect the very best of scholarship on the subject or not? Zero^talk 00:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if I am wrong on my assumption that this is historic book the "Policy is that "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other "I presented above numerous secondary sources, so the question here is wetter Finchel book is reliable or not.--Tritomex (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)