Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Musa Alami

Could someone please give the original reference to the Musa Alami-quote? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Source says "And Musa al-‘Alami surmised that the mufti would agree to partition if he were promised that he would rule the Arab state." The key word here is "surmised" which indicates that Alami was making a conjecture, not reporting something he knew. Ykantor's misreporting of this, which NMMNG somehow failed to notice, is shameful. Looking at Cohen's source, a book of Khalaf that seems quite good, we find that this is an assertion made by Alami in a secret meeting with a British representative in which Alami made clear that he detested Husseini. Khalaf remarks "Although the Mufti most certainly had the ambition to be the supreme leader of the the Arabs of Palestine, there is neither evidence nor indications to substantiate Alami's claim that the Mufti would have, under any circumstances, accepted partition." I don't think any of this belongs here; there are enough facts to fill out this page without adding conjectures made by political opponents. Zero^talk 09:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would still like to see to what Khalaf sources it to? The reason I do ask for this; I once read Walter Laqueur: "Dying for Jerusalem", and he extensively quoted from Musa Alami.....except that when I checked the source: he didn´t: he quoted from Sir Geoffrey Furlonge: "Palestine is my country. The story of Musa Alami", .....and several of the "quotes" attributed to Musa Alami were actually from Geoffrey Furlonge. I made some notes, years back, at User:Huldra/WL --- Huldra (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

- I used "according" instead of "surmissed". Will you propose another term?

- It was suggested that had the Mufti be allowed into Palestine at the 1838- 1939 years, he might have accepted the Peel (or Woodhead) partition, provided he would be the leader. If it is important, I'll look for the source. Ykantor (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you did clarify that the 'surmise' came from a hostile source. There are millions of surmises from hostile sources for any historical figure. Basically, in a biography, one strives to stick to the factual record, and not bloat them with counterfactuals.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

- I find myself in a strange position when trying to defend Al-Alami, an avid anti-Zionist and one of the most notable Palestinian leader. Do you have a source for describing him as "hostile"? Zero used the term "opponent" .

Zero wrote:'Alami made clear that he detested Husseini.' To detest someone is to entertain a hostile attitude.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

- Critical views by opponents are not uncommon in Wikipedia. e.g. "Nahum Goldmann criticized Ben-Gurion for what he viewed as a confrontational approach to the Arab world. Goldmann wrote...". Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The page has quite a number of criticisms of Amin. It's fairly obvious to any reader he comprehensively fucked up a lot of things, isn't it. Criticisms are the most facile thing to add to any page: historical facts are what the good editor strikes to nail down, and there are a lot we still don't know much about.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Surmised" indicates the source's judgement that Alami was merely guessing or hypothesising, but "according to" removes that qualification and invites the reader to assume Alami was reporting a fact that he knew. This is the sort of subtle distortion that propagandistic writers like (spreading a belief that has not actually been stated). It can be argued whether this episode belongs here at all, but what is clear that is that NPOV requires the sense of "surmised" to be conveyed and also that Khalaf believes Alami was wrong. That would make the report much longer than this little bit of trivia deserves. Zero^talk 14:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

- I added the term "surmised". I do not have access to Khalaf's book, so I will appreciate it if you add his view to the article. Ykantor (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

- The article: "Husseini, who also had personal interests threatened by these arrangements,[121] also feared that acceptance would strengthen the hand of his political opponents in the Palestine national movement, such as the Nashashibis.[122][123] Schwanitz and Rubin argue that Husseini's rejectionism was, ironically, the real causal factor for the establishment of the state of Israel." So it is not the first time where his personal interests were allegedly damaging the Palestinian case.

- Elpeleg p. 52, "Haj Amin was troubled by the possibility that his rivals in the leadership might exploit the situation to reap the benefit of his struggle, and with the assistance of the British, assume the central position in any new arrangement." I guess that since the British were so powerful and they preferred his opponents, his chance for the leadership in the White Paper proposed state, were rather negligible. Wouldn't it be better to add the British support to the article existing text? Ykantor (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out what the policy/guideline based objection to including this sourced material is. Could someone clarify please? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So am I. No that Ykantor has added the word, "surmised", what objection is there to this sourced sentence? Brad Dyer (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That to include it would require additional material that would cause this to take up more space than it merits (WP:WEIGHT). That the individual and unsubstantiated opinion of one person hostile to the subject of the article doesnt belong here. And I agree with that argument. And absent a consensus for including it, you cant force it in. nableezy - 22:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to make an argument that "the individual and unsubstantiated opinion of one person hostile to the subject of the article doesnt belong here"? For real? Because I'll use it all over the place.

Alami was a recognized Palestinian leader, and his opinion has weight. To add that Khalaf thought he was mistaken is exactly one more sentence and wouldn't substantially change the weight of this in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, use whatever you want wherever you want. Substantially change isnt the threshold, its undue that is. nableezy - 16:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

December 1947

It is proposed to enter the following text. One can cite any number of consul reports either way. I fail to see why this report is useful.

On December 31 1947, Macatee, the American consul general in Jerusalem, reported that terror ruled Palestine, and that the Palestinian Arabs did not dare to oppose Haj Amin, but they did not rally en masse around his flag in the war against the Zionists.

'terror ruled Palestine' indeed. But the text implies both that Amin was behind it, and not behind it. This is Ralph Bunsche's chronology of the period.

• November 14, 1947, Palestine. Jewish terrorists killed two British policemen in Jerusalem and two soldiers in Tel Aviv to raise the total casualties in three days of violence to 10 Britons and five Jews killed and 33 Britons and five Jews wounded. The outbreaks began after British troops killed three girls and two boys in a raid on a farmhouse arsenal near Raanana on November 12. The terrorists retaliated yesterday by throwing hand grenades and firing a machine gun into the Ritz Cafe in Jerusalem.
• November 22, 1947, Haifa. Another Arab was murdered in Haifa by the Stern gang following their execution of four Arabs near Raanana November 20 in retaliation for the British shooting of five Stern gang members on November 12. Arabs retaliated against this killing at Raanana by wounding five Jews on a bus near Tel Aviv on November 20.88
• November 30-December 6, 1947, Palestine. A week of disorders brought on by Arab wrath over the UN’s decision to partition the Holy Land ended with at least 159 killed in the Middle East, 66 in Palestine. While Jews in Palestine, Europe and the U.S. celebrated and began planning their new state and the UN moved to implement its plan, war talk was rife throughout the Arab world.

In Palestine: Jerusalem and the Jaffa Tel Aviv boundary zone were centers of week-long strife which began when seven Jews were killed throughout Palestine on November 30 and the mayor of Nablus, Arab nationalist center, proclaimed jihad or a holy war. British High Commissioner Sir Alan Cunningham warned the Arab Higher Command on December 1 that Britain was determined to keep order so long as it held its mandate, and police stopped Arab agitators from raising crowds in Jerusalem. But Jewish celebrations there were stoned.

• December 2 Arabs looted and burned a three-block Jewish business district in Jerusalem on December 2, the first day of a three-day Arab general strike during which 20 Jews and 15 Arabs were killed. When British troops failed to intervene, Haganah (unofficial Zionist militia) came into the open for the first time in eight years to restrain large-scale Jewish retaliation and also guard Jewish districts.
• December 3 On the Jaffa-Tel Aviv boundary, which also is under around-the-clock curfew, the week’s heaviest battle was a six-hour clash between Haganah and Arabs on December 3 in which seven Jews and five Arabs were killed and 75 persons injured.

It becomes clearly evident that the partition is not going as planned and that although the Jews are pleased, the Arabs are not. There appears to be no way to control the Jews or their determination to drive all of the Arabs out of Jerusalem by force if necessary. The Arabs, initially living in peace with the Jewish minority, have been increasingly victimized by the Jews who, now that the British are leaving, are turning their savage behavior against them. The Jews have redoubled their efforts to build a military force and arm them. They claim that this force is to protect the Jewish population against attacks from the Arab countries as well as the Arab population of Jerusalem but an even stronger argument can be made that the Zionists are determined to drive out the Arab population by armed force. The initial Arab response to Jewish harassment over the past year has been very slow in coming but it seems to be quite inevitable and a terrible civil war is foreseen. The United States Department of State announced on December 5, 1947 that they were placing an embargo on all American arms shipments to the Middle East. It appears that the Soviets have been sending weapons, mostly captured German pieces, to assist the Zionists and accompanying these clandestine arms shipments the Soviets have also sent a very sizable contingent of instructors and advisors to Palestine in months past. As many of the Zionists are Russian or Polish in origin, these Communist Russians have been received gladly by the Jewish extremists and quickly blend in with the local populations.

• December 5 The most violent reactions in the Arab world to the UN partition idea are Syrian and Egyptian. However, it is noted that the worst outbreak of anti-partition violence outside Palestine occurred in Aden, a British colony at the entrance to the Red Sea. On December 5, British military reinforcements were sent to Aden after four days of Arab-Jewish fighting in which 50 Jews and 25 Arabs were killed.

In Syria, public demonstrations by the Arab population paralyzed business in Damascus earlier this week. The Soviet cultural center and Communist headquarters in Damascus were wrecked on November 30 with four persons killed. The Syrian Communist Party was officially disbanded by the government and the U.S. and British Embassy flags were torn down. On December 1, Syria introduced military training into all boys’ schools and on December 2, the Syrian Parliament enacted a draft law and voted $860,000 for the relief of Palestinian Arabs. On the same day Arabs attacked the Jewish part of Aleppo.

• December 13, 1947, Palestine. Jewish terrorists shifted from defense to attack in the second week of conflict with the Arabs since the UN voted for partition of Palestine.
• The death toll for the past 14 days was at least 220 in Palestine and 336 in the Middle East, including 111 in Aden in the previous week.
• December 11-12 Arab retaliatory raids at Jaffa and Tel Aviv had killed 30 Jews and Arabs when local businessmen on both sides arranged a truce on December 10 to effect an orange harvest. On December 11, however, the Arabs renewed their assaults in the Old City of Jerusalem, which was the worst day of the current strife with 41 fatalities throughout Palestine. On December 12, Haganah launched attacks on both the Arabs and British with a death toll of 20 Arabs, five Jews and two British soldiers killed.
• On December 13, bombings by the Irgun killed at least 16 Arabs and injured 67 more in Jerusalem and Jaffa and burned down a hundred Arab houses in Jaffa.
• December 14, 1947, Lydda. Regular troops of the Arab Legion of the Trans-Jordan Army killed 14 Jews and wounded nine Jews, two British soldiers and one Arab when they attacked a bus convoy approaching their camp near Lydda. The Arabs said the Jews attacked them first.191
• December 17, 1947, Nevatim. British troops came to the aid of police standing off a raid by 100 Arabs on the Jewish settlement of Nevatim, seven miles west of Beersheba.193
• December 18, 1947, Khisas. Haganah killed 10 Arabs, including five children in a reprisal raid on Khisas in Northern Palestine.194
• December 20, 1947, Palestine. Haganah carried out another raid on Arabs by attacking the village of Qazasa near Rehovoth. One Arab was killed and two were wounded.196
• December 21, 1947, Jerusalem. The Jewish Agency gave official approval for Haganah to make reprisal raids on Arab villages and “exterminate nests of brigands.”197
• December 25, 1947, Haifa. Emir Mohammed Zeinati, an Arab landowner, was killed in Haifa for selling land to the Jews.198
• December 25, 1947, Tel Aviv. Stern gang terrorists machine-gunned two British soldiers in a Tel Aviv cafe.199
• December 26, 1947, Palestine. Armed Jewish terrorists raided two diamond factories in Nazthaanya and Tel Aviv and escaped with $107,000 in diamonds, cash and bonds. The Stern gang distributed leaflets reporting that Israel Levin, a member, was murdered in Tel Aviv on December 24 for trying to betray a Stern gang member.200
• December 29, 1947, Palestine. Irgun members kidnapped and flogged a British major and three sergeants in retaliation for the flogging of Benjamin Kimkhim who was also sentenced to 18 years in prison on December 27 for robbing a bank. The major, E. Brett, was seized in Nathanya and the sergeants in Tel Aviv and Rishon el Siyon. Each got 18 lashes, the same number Kimkhim received.201
• December 29, 1947, Jerusalem. An Irgun terrorist bombing at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem killed 11 Arabs and two Britons.202
• December 21-31, 1947, Palestine. Arab-Jewish conflict in the Holy Land increased the death toll to 489 from violence in Palestine in the 33 days since the UN decided on partition.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What are you trying to show with this list? That the source is wrong? That an outside observer's observation that Husseini was not popular but people were afraid to oppose him does not belong in the article? Seriously, what's your point? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That a million quotes can go into any wiki biography, and that this is neither here nor there. It is informative about nothing, and does not clarify the nature of the reign of terror, which, in context looks like Amin was behind the terror. In short, it is irrelevant, not cogent being ambiguous, and rather pointless. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's relevant, and gives insight on how 3rd party observers saw the situation. I don't think it implies Husseini was behind the terror. If you have other similar quotes from contemporary 3rd parties, feel free to add them. This quote talks directly about the subject of the article, and comes from RS. Do you have a policy/guideline based objection, or is it just IDONTLIKEIT? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I've written encyclopedic articles, professionally, and know the difference between padding junk and cutting to the chase. This is waffle.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I've written encyclopedic articles professionally too! On the moon! What a coincidence! Too bad there's no Wikipedia policy that says our opinion trumps everyone else's, eh?

Meanwhile, Uri Milstein is amply RS, the text is relevant and specifically names the subject of the article, and you have raised not a single policy based objection to it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the admission you've never written a peer reviewed encyclopedic article and therefore don't know how these are done. Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt this is the first we'd hear of it if you had, but that really doesn't matter. Your opinion is worth exactly the same as everyone else's, despite your personal view to the contrary.

So, any policy based objections or just "I know better than everyone else"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

-@Nishidani: Yours: "the text implies both that Amin was behind it". Will you suggest a modification in order to cancel this implication?. A significant amount of historians state that the Mufti was indeed behind those attacks (not all of them) but this specific report doesn't claim so. Other Arab leaders (e.g. The mayor of Jaffa) tried unsuccessfully to avoid the escalation and tension.

- Concerning Bunch report, the selection of the reported attacks is a bit bizarre. He does not mention attacks of hundred or more Arabs . e.g.

------- Kibuz Efal, near by Tel Aviv at 4/12/1947

------- Tel aviv, Hatiqwa suburb at 8/12/1947

------- Nevatim, in the Negev, at 17/12/1947

------- Kfar Yaabets, in the Sharon at 27/12/1947

------- Convoys: "11 December, a convoy from Jerusalem to the isolated Etzion Bloc of Jewish settlements south of Bethlehem was ambushed by a faz'a of Arab villagers; ten Jews died. On 14 December, a second convoy, headed for Ben Shemen, near Lydda, was shot up near the Beit Nabala military camp: fourteen Jews were killed and ten injured—shot by Arab Legionnaires serving with the British army in Palestine. . (Morris 2008 p. 103,104) Ykantor (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

- He refer to Soviet agents and soviet arms supply. Nowadays we know that both were not true. ( The first Czech arms shipment arrived at April 1948)

- I did not know that Bunch was an antisemitic: "The Arabs, initially living in peace with the Jewish minority, have been increasingly victimized by the Jews who, now that the British are leaving, are turning their savage behavior against them" Ykantor (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Soviet arms. Bunsche's remarks illustrate why you should not be citing consular reports, esp. trivial ones like this which throws no light on anything. Bunsche was evidently referring to the negotiations in October-November 1947 by the Jewish Agency with Soviet Union delegates at the U.N. to get arms, negotiations that led directly to the known consignments in early 1948. Consular reports, and Bunsche's own report, have to be treated with great care. By the way, please respect the sourcing template used throughout the article and (b) if you proceed on your earlier practice, according to which, as you stated some years back, there is one truth, and it is the Israeli version, and therefore you will work to ensure that this truth is present throughout articles, mainly by selective use of sources to underline Arab responsibility for everything, it is probable that most if not all of your contributions will suffer, as occurred in other articles a general revert, as happened at Six Days War.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As to Bunsche. When Richard Crossman asked him directly if he was anti-Semitic, Bunsche replied that it would be impossible for him to be an antisemite having been a negro for 42 years.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

- As for Antisemitism and black Americans, Louis Farrakhan and his colleagues are antisemitic, so Ralph Bunche reply to Crossman, was just a maneuver around the question. BTW What is the source of this Bunche report?

- It seems that Bunche wrote this report at January 1948. If so, Czechoslovakia was still a democracy, and the first Czech- Israeli Arms deal had nothing to do with the Soviet union. i.e "Early in 1947...Czech weaponry might be available...personally approved by...Jan Masarik. Ideology played no role in these initial transaction. They were exclusively commercial" Sachar2010p56

Whatever Bunche wrote about Soviet agents and arms was a pure fantasy.

- "Consular reports, and Bunsche's own report, have to be treated with great care". Sure, even wp:rs should be treated with a great care. e.g. Pape or Karsh. Every source can be biased, but a consul's report is based on his local long term experience and local contacts. When a consul write about local events he is usually very familiar with the issue. e.g. In 1950–51 Baghdad bombings article: "The British Embassy in Baghdad assessed that the bombings were carried out by Zionist activists". Gat proved that this is not true, but the British report is still appreciated. On the other hand, Bunche was not familiar with the local problem and history, and the result was this unreliable report.

- "there is one truth" and there should not be different narratives. Yes this is correct, but the correct description has nothing to do with the so called Israeli narrative. During Israel's first decades there were some declaration like "In 1948 Israel did not expel even one Arab", but nowadays this propaganda disappeared. The Israeli historians are researching independently, and there are some differences among them.

- The main problem is the Anti Israeli historians, who admit that they have an agenda. e.g. Pape, Maoz etc. They simply ignore facts which don't fit into their agenda. Take for example the correct sentence "The Arabs started the 1947-1948 civil war". Those anti Israeli historians agenda is different, so are ignoring for instance The Arab League General Safwat report of March 1948 in which he wrote:"the Jews at present enjoy significant superiority over us...the fact that the Jews have not so far attacked Arab villages unless the inhabitants of those villages attacked them or provoked them first."

- We should comply to Wikipedia rules, that differing opinions should be presented relatively to their significance. Since plenty of wp:rs support the view that the Arabs started the 1947-1948 , how come that user:Pluto2012 violated Wiki rules and deleted it repeatedly ?

References

wrong Haram link

the sentence "Al-Husseini's vigorous efforts to transform the Haram into a symbol of pan-Arabic and Palestinian nationalism" links Haram to the "sinful" meaning; methinks it should go somewhere else or not be a link in that context. 71.190.240.122 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Recruitment section is ridiculous, should be eliminated as its own section, basic info included elsewhere in article, rest in Bosniak SS article

It goes into great detail about Bosniak SS units when they had, at most, a tangental relationship to the Mufti. If worth mentioning at all in this article, a short paragraph, or even a sentence, would suffice with a link to the article about the Bosniak SS units. Why anyone thought it a good idea to include so much information about this topic in a biography of someone who played a very small role in it is beyond me, unless they have an axe to grind against Muslims and want spend lots of time linking Nazism with Islam on any Wikipedia article related to the topic. It's well-sourced and interesting material no doubt, and does have some relationship to the subject of this entry, but it belongs primarily in the Bosniak SS article, not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.54.140 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Stating an existing section is ridiculous should not motivate those who wrote this to have an eye on it.

This said, I disagree with you. It is important to clarify what was this SS unit because a standard reader would extrapolate out of it. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In the news

I´m not sure it´s of any use for the article, but at least it´s CNN. [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has 3 references to the statement, which is enough.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki author link

Pluto, do you know how to make an interwiki authorlink so that Éric Rouleau, and Idith Zertal (in the bibliography) who both have French articles, can be linked? Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Damn it, Nishidani, don't you know the difference between an interwiki link and an interlanguage link yet? Just stick "fr:" in front of it, like [[fr:Éric Rouleau|Éric Rouleau]]; testing: Éric Rouleau. Zero^talk 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I know I dig my heels in by refusing to learn the primers on these things, which, abstractly considered, must be simple. I've a flypaper memory for books but tell me anything technical about this friggen internet formatting, and you've lost me as some mental switch just regears my brain to ADS mode. Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just tried it, and it doesn't work for the authorlink in the bibliography, as opposed to mainspace. Ah well. Back to painting the venetian blinds.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Template:Interlanguage link can help you. (Essayer Modèle:Lien c'est l'adopter !) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Berci meaucoup! I've tried it, as far as I understand it, but it still won't function as an interwiki link when you have an authorlink in the bibliography. But that only confirms I am stupid, I guess.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not this:

{{cite journal | title = Qui était le mufti de Jérusalem ?(Who was the Mufti of Jerusalem?) | last = [[:fr:Eric Rouleau|Rouleau, Eric]] {fr} | first = | journal = [[Le Monde diplomatique]] | date = August 1994 | url = http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/1994/08/ROULEAU/646 | accessdate = 16 September 2011 | ref = harv }}

in order to get this:

Rouleau, Eric {fr} [in French] (August 1994). "Qui était le mufti de Jérusalem ?(Who was the Mufti of Jerusalem?)". Le Monde diplomatique. Retrieved 16 September 2011. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Pluto2012 (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Sells

Michael A. Sells is "John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature; also in the Department of Comparative Literature" in the Chicago University Divinity School. [2] How is he such a reliable source on contemporary history or the Holocaust or Husseini, that he can be used here at all, not to mention unattributed?

This is a ridiculous POV push trying to whitewash Husseini's well known and well documented collaboration with the Nazis, using something published in "Journal of Religious Ethics"? Are you people serious? Where's Zero, who demands only the very best sources for historical articles? This has to be some kind of joke. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What I actually found more interesting is how this source is used, or rather, cherry-picked. The first section of the article is a scathing criticism of Husseini as a vile antisemite ; Husseini "spoke on radio programs broadcast to Arab nations, calling on his listeners to support the Axis in defeating common enemies: Britain, communists, and Zionists or Jews (two groups he conflated as often as not)."; "The judeophobia of the Memoirs is robust."; "[Husseini] admired Himmler in particular and Nazism in general, shared or came to share Himmler’s hatred and fear of Jews, and did everything in his power to promote the Axis cause among Arabs and Muslims. "; He "complained to [Himmler]] about the perfidy of Jews " etc... This did not find its way into the article, of course. Instead, where Sells says the Hussieni's Memoirs employed " the selective use of the Qur’an, hadith, and sira, as well as the Bible and Talmudic literature, to portray Jews as enemies of God and humanity" (i.e -Husseini manipulated these texts to reflect his own antisemitism), the editor responsible for this tripe has made our article read that "Husseini became robustly judeophobic and thought, on the basis of Biblical, Talmudic, and Quranic passages, that Jews were enemies of God, " - i.e - that he was merely reading what these texts say. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The tendentious editing and POV pushing doesn't surprise me in the least. The Wikipedia powers that be are not interested in dealing with that sort of stuff. The thing with the kapos he added[3] was really just the icing on the cake - the moral Nazis punishing the deficient Jews for behaving badly to other Jews - note the source calls that embracing these Nazi professions of moral outrage at the purportedly unchivalrous behavior of the people they were in the process of destroying, but that somehow didn't make it into the article.

The use of a professor of Islamic literature publishing in the Journal of Religious Ethics as a source for Much of the case against Husseini's ostensible key role in the Holocaust emerged in the immediate aftermath of WW2, with those collecting evidence working for the Jewish Agency in the context of an intensive public relations exercise to establish a Jewish state in British [sic] (let's ignore for a second the source does not say this) or In 1947 Simon Wiesenthal alleged that Eichmann had accompanied Husseini on an inspection tour of both Auschwitz and Majdanek, and that the mufti had praised the hardest workers at the crematoria. His claim was unsourced. are easy and obvious RS violations. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000 @Nishidani: maybe it is high time you open an ArbCom case.

One of his speciality is religious violence. He has numerous scholarly publications on the topic: [4] and is widely quoted by his peers [5]. The only question would be to see if he is controversial nor not (such as eg Pappé).

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What nonsense. The guy is a professor of Islamic literature. None of his publications shows he has any expertise in the Holocaust or Husseini.

We have dozens of high quality reliable sources here, and the professor of Islamic literature is the first one to discover Husseini suggested Arab units in the German army to mirror the Jewish units in the British army? Are you serious?

By all means, open an ArbCom case. I'd like to see you explain why you restored information from a source that has been questioned (the onus is on you to find consensus that it's reliable) with material that isn't even in the source (now it's you who put it in the article), ignoring BRD and as part of your tendency to revert my edits without a reasonable explanation, like you did here and elsewhere, not to mention your various statements against other editors (you know which I mean, I'm sure). Do it. I dare you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is pointless haranguing, desperate barrel-scraping for exclusionist pretexts. Unlike Sells, Bernard Lewis was not a Holocaust historian, neither is Philip Mattar, Henry Laurens, Shai Lachman, Benny Morris, Benjamin Netanyahu, Moshe Pearlman, Joseph Schechtman, Avi Shlaim, Michael Bar-Zohar, Eitan Haber etc.etc., all used here, without nitpicking objections from you or anyone else. The same goes for Klaus-Michael Mallmann though his expertise is in Weimar period Communism.You accept without the blinking of an eyelid, defend even, Wolfgang G. Schwanitz (no chair, no academic position), i.e. an Islamic scholar's views in a highly politicized non-RS outlet Middle East Forum but baulk at the infinitely more recognized and qualified Sells? There is no substance therefore to the objections, unless the idea that one of the most gifted historians of his era cannot write on a Muslim's putative role in the Holocaust, because profound expertise on Islam, the crucible in which Husseini was born, raised and militated, is a disqualification. Laughably absurd. Expertise on Islam is not a grounds for excluding relevant scholarship on the Holocaust. I f it were Bernard Lewis would have to be chucked out on the same grounds, another absurdity.

• This curriculum is as strong a testament to the high repute and quality of Sells' scholarship as you could get from any specialist quoted on Wikipedia.
• It includes a monograph, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia. University of California Press, 1996,

which is, precisely, a book on Genocide, Islam in Bosnia which is part of the meat of accusations against Husseini covered in our article. That alone means all the objections above are fiddledfaddle. The case for Sells as an authority is watertight, and it is only as a formality that one replies to silly challenges on this. If you wish to pursue this ridiculous claim, take it to RS/N and try an convince someone. Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The article of Sells is by far the most balanced and well-researched article on the subject that I've seen, and I have practically every word every written on it in English. He is a highly qualified historian who spent a large amount of time researching the subject, including uncovering files in the Israeli archives that never saw the light of day before. The arguments here that he is unreliable are frankly pathetic and absurd, to use the nicest words that come to mind. NMMNG's bulk deletion should earn a topic ban. Zero^talk 09:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The guy is not a historian. His specialty is literature. That you find his work "by far the most balanced" is your POV, not something that addresses his qualification as RS for the historical facts he's being used here to support. The only pathetic and absurd thing here is you letting your POV override Wikipedia rules. Take this to AE, let's see what uninvolved editors have to say. You guys are obviously abusing your numerical advantage, here and elsewhere. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead wrong. Are you reading up on any relevant material here? Sells has a chair in history and literature entitled the 'John Henry Barrows Professor of Islamic History and Literature,';. He was awarded the 1997 American Academy of Religion Annual Book Prize for Excellence in Historical Studies, for one of his historical works, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and Genocide in Bosnia. What you are asserting flies in the face of the factual record. The paper's notes show extensive reserves in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem, and other primary archive resources. Not what purely literary scholars do. Bernard Lewis is used, like many other scholars whose expertise is in Islamic history, not Holocaust history, and if they are acceptable - you have never objected to them - all the more so is Sells. You asked for Zero's opinion, because you respect it, and he confirmed the high quality of Michael Sell's paper. So answer the objections made, and try not to personalize this.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way citing this edit as if I or Sells were trying to put Nazis in a good light, is reading without any sense of the obvious lethal irony. Just in case the obvious might be lost on any reader (as opposed to IP editors, where misreading is normal), the dubiousness was flagged by noting it was 'according to Himmler'. Anyone with a brain should understand immediately the hysterically foul absurdity of an architect of genocide putting it over that he defended Jews against other Jews in the camps he designed for their total annihilation.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not Sells. Sells immediately explains the "foul absurdity" as you put it. Somehow that doesn't make it into your edits.

Also, you can take your ridiculous insinuation that I think Sells is not RS here because his expertise is Islam rather than Literature as I explicitly stated, and stuff it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Perhaps you meant to show the irony of this comment, but somehow you didn't quite get to showing the irony, leaving the reader with the impression that this is valid criticism. WP:UNDUE at its worst. Bad Dryer (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I just want to get this straight, your position is that an article in the Journal of Religious Ethics, published by Wiley and edited at Florida State University, written by a professor of Islamic history and literature at the University of Chicago that is specifically about the topic of this article is not a reliable source? nableezy - 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, and I regard this as a pure formality, because there is absolutely no way this strong a source will be rejected, I opened a discussion at RS/N for neutral outside editors to make a call. See here. Please try to leave that request to RS experts relatively free of bickering.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To summarise my position: As always it is reasonable to debate whether the summary of the source in the article is accurate and balanced, but the eligibility of the source for citation is unimpeachable. Peer-reviewed academic literature has the highest place in the hierarchy of wikireliability and an extremely good argument is needed for making an exception. No such argument has been made here. The claim that he isn't a historian is obviously a false claim. The claim that it isn't his specialty is also insufficient. Historians, like all academics, are not forever condemned to stay within the narrow confines of their dissertation topics. They become experts on different topics by doing research on them, and the success of their endeavor is judged by the peer-review system and other historians. I do find the strength of the reaction here interesting, though. Sells does not dispute any of the solid evidence against Husseini, but instead takes a long-overdue look at the strongest charges that are based on the murkiest evidence. Until now, afaik, nobody has done archival research on the origins of the Wisliceny memoranda that are the only direct evidence ever produced for the most serious charges against Husseini. It is a big advance in understanding. Zero^talk 01:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the gist of Sell's paper. I don't think Husseini was an architect of the Holocaust. He was an enthusiastic collaborator who was not on a level of a decision maker or even an idea giver. That's irrelevant though.

If the consensus is that any academic in any peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source for any information, that's fine. I don't care. It was my impression that this is not the case, and there needed to be some expertise in the field, and that's why I objected to this paper being included, unattributed, for historical fact we get from no other source. Just don't complain when I use the same standards you set here elsewhere in the encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What was extraordinary about the removalist mania was its failure to look at the edits. All 4 editors removed a gem Sells had dug up or added, which the page, and as far as I know, the sources used so far, had not noted, a piece of evidence that would appear to challenge the general consensus Husseini never visited camps with crematoria. I.e.

The one exception is late testimony taken from Emerson Vermaat, in what circumstances is unknown. A survivor of the Monowitz camp (Auschwitz III), Vermaat stated in 2008 that he had observed 50 strangely dressed men accompanied by the SS and was told by an SS officer that they were the Mufti and his retinue who wanted to see how the Jews were killed by work, so he could adopt the practice in Palestine.Sells, 2015 & pp.749-759 and note 35.

That looks like the 'smoking gun' everyone says is lacking. I put it in, and it was taken out successively on the grounds that Sells cannot be used to document Husseini's role in the Holocaust. That's how stupid WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour can be, expun ging even stuff that confirms one's own personal beliefs. Sheesh!Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a fairly clear consensus on RS/N that this article in an academic peer-reviewed publication by a often cited historian is, shocker, a reliable source for this topic. nableezy - 18:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I fail to see any reason rooted in WP policies for deleting sells. A Professor of history at a well-known university publishes a peer-reviewed article for a journal published by a major publisher, and about the area of the professor's research domain. That is about as good as WP:RS gets. The users trying to argue it doesn't belong, while gladly adding politicians and other non-academics are either unable to understand basic WP policies at best, intentionally disruptive at worst. Jeppiz (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Note this article is under WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions. Reverting by an editor (either side) without joining the discussion will be dimly looked upon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit war stops NOW

This article is under discretionary sanctions. No editor who has recently reverted has any business reverting again. If this were to occur, the offending editor(s) may be blocked or banned from the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

architect of the holocaust

The sentence "Some scholars, such as Schwanitz and Rubin, have argued that Husseini was an architect of the Holocaust." is cited only to S&R's book, with no page number. This is unsatisfactory and in fact the book does not make that claim. What the book argues is "By closing this escape route [to Palestine] and discouraging any alternative strategy al-Husseini helped make the 'Final Solution' inevitable." (p160) It is a much weaker statement. Zero^talk 21:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That is Mikics's interpretation of what Schwanitz and Rubin were arguing, not, as you show, what they wrote. (Of course, their thesis is stupid: the British White Paper of 1939 closed off the numbers, and the Nazis weren't in control of immigration to Palestine in any case. How 5,300,000 Jews could have been, had the mufti not objected, shipped in wartime to Palestine is any man's guess. And of course (it's understandable Rubin got things wrong, but not Schwanitz), since the consensus is that the Holocaust was well underway long before the Mufti's November visit, he can hardly be said to have helped make inevitable something that was, in practical terms, already decided and in execution). No wonder the book got, like several others we accept here on this, indifferent reviews.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence relies on the Zionist axiom that Palestine was the only place Jews could go. The piss-weak words "discouraging any alternative strategy" show that Rubin is well aware of this gaping hole in his argument. Zero^talk 21:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's some more information on this subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That's sad. Also uncitable (no author given and not in reliable website). Zero^talk 21:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be uncitable? It's a press release, so you wouldn't expect an author. The MEF consists of several experts (who I know you don't like, but still) and apparently Schwanitz is a member. Not that there's much there that you couldn't find in the book, but on general principle, I think this can be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle East Forum is not a news organization. It is an activist website. Claims appearing on activist websites are not reliable. That article is not in Schwanitz's words, but is a carefully worded bit of propaganda that claims him as authority. Zero^talk 05:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

One could write a wiki article on Netanyahu's mufti speech for the huge volume of comment it has, unusually, drawn from the most competent scholars in Holocaust studies. Schwanitz is way out on a limb, on the fringe here.

Christopher Browning writes:

Netanyahu’s latest lie is part of a persistent campaign to portray the grand mufti as a major Holocaust perpetrator. It’s not true. During the 1930s, the Nazis ignored him entirely, as they gave priority to the emigration of German Jews to Palestine over the objections of Husseini or concerns about the Palestinians. During the war, the mufti was a useful but minor collaborator in disseminating Nazi propaganda in the Arab world. Late in the war, when he was no longer of any use, some in the Nazi regime wanted to cut off the subsidy that the mufti’s entourage in Berlin had been receiving for years. They were deterred from that by a Foreign Office expert who advised that open disregard of their Arab ally would signal defeatism by acknowledging that Germany had given up any hope of affecting Middle Eastern affairs.There were many thousands of Holocaust perpetrators more historically significant than the grand mufti of Jerusalem, but for Netanyahu they have no useful political significance — which is to say they were not Palestinian.

Wolfgang G. Schwanitz writes:

It is a historical fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem al-Hajj Amin al-Husaini was an accomplice whose collaboration with Adolf Hitler played an important role in the Holocaust. He was the foremost extra-European adviser in the process to destroy the Jews of Europe.

It's not a difference of opinion, arguably, as much as a divergence in professional abilities to do first class historical research. Check their respective academic careers.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following you re their respective academic careers. What do you mean? They both seem like accomplished academics.

Schwanitz notes that invitations to the Wannsee Conference were sent out a day after the Mufti and Hitler met. Here's another source with information relevant to this article, which I think you may not like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have used this review of Schwanitz by Robert Fisk at another place: [6]. He describes what in Schwanitz thesis make him conclude the Mufti was responsible of the Holocaust and answers to this. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In the vast scholarly literature on the Wannsee conference, there is barely a squeak about it being anything to do with Husseini. The idea that he was somehow responsible is as WP:FRINGE as it gets. The invitation sent to the attendees even states the background: "On July 31, 1941, I was ordered by the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich, to prepare with the participation of the other relevant central bodies, all the necessary preparations with regard to organizational, practical and financial aspects for an overall solution of the Jewish Question in Europe...". Nor is Husseini mentioned in the Protocol, nor in the testimonies of anyone who was present. The whole idea is preposterous, as the leading Holocaust historians are now lining up to testify. In fact (not sure why nobody mentions this) the only evidence of serious involvement of Husseini in the Holocaust is a claim made by Dieter Wisliceny while he was sitting in prison trying in vain to save his own neck by making himself valuable to the all-powerful World Jewry that he still fervently believed in. Zero^talk 06:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Zero: I am not sure to understand your point...

We know that this thesis is false but Schwanitz and Herf promote this and they are WP:RS. We cannot do anything against this and they are notorious enough so that this thesis has to be introduced and explained. What is interesting with what Netanyahou did is that we now have several historians (WP:RS too) who explained why this thesis is absurd. So we have material to explain the controversy.

Don't you think it is better to explain the polemic in details whether than to reject this as a "fringe" one ? I feel it would on the bad side of WP:OR line... Pluto2012 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If the thesis is false, as you say, then to give it more attention than it is already given would be WP:Undue. If there is some important detail in Schwanitz Rubin not in other sources, then of course, we should consider adding it. So far we've given a relatively fringe suspicion, coming for Wisleceny's single, almost unanimously dismissed piece of assertion, considerable space.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Politically, successive Israeli governments never once acted on the idea that they had a genocidal monster, deeply implicated in the architecture of the Holocaust, right on their doorstep. Had they thought him really complicit, they would have raided his villa a mere 80 odd miles from Haifa and either assassinated him, or whipped him off for a show-trial in Jerusalem, as with Eichmann. Or simply smithereened him with a bombing raid. They never did. Finkelstein made the point a few days ago.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He is not guilty because if he was, Israel would have assassinated him... Finkelstein has really a particular mode of reasonning. Interesting. Brilliant brain. But I think such reasonning is a little bit too much fringe to be used. (@Nishidani: I could not find the source in googling... Could you give me a link ?) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Had the Nashashibis won out against the Husseinis (as led by the Haj) we probably would have as different a world as had Great Britain backed the Rashidi dynasty, instead of throwing their weight behind the Saudi fundamentalists. In both cases, GB backed or promoted political or religious extremists, securing the defeat of an intelligent Palestinian nationalism on the one hand, and the victory of a fiercely sectarian Wahhabite fundamentalism on the other. I don't think Finkelstein's reasoning unusual, except in the fact that he, like Zero, is an austere empiricist, data factually verified and controlled are what prepossess him, as well as the humongous dissonance between the facts and the rhetorical tsunamis that surge over them. As to his specific remark, if you cannot find it in an off-the-cuff remark late into this otherwise stupid debate, let me know, and I'll check back through other things I read recently from him. As to Finkelstein being usable, all of his books while he had tenure are RS. He maintains the same abilities and qualifications, but the several books issued since are from a publisher which probably fails a stringent reading of RS (which his scholarship meets however admirably). That mainstream publishers will not publish him reflects more on the pressures of politics than of Finkelstein's qualities as a pernickety 'forensic analyst'.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! :-)

Regarding Finkelstein and his publications, I share your mind. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Finkelstein did not say he was not guilty: of course Husseini was deeply culpable of many grievous errors and was an incompetent, devastatingtly stupid arsehole (so are several modern and much esteemed political heads of state in the West, who have, as Fink himself repeatedly notes, continued a programmatic devastation of the Arab world with total impunity, bringing about the murderous pathologies we have now). NF said that if Husseini had been implicated as deeply as Moshe Pearlman, Joseph Schechtman and the postwar Zionist hasbara lobbyists had painted him, then the only moral and logical step would have been to have killed him or put him on trial. He served Israel's interests alive, perhaps.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Murderous pathologies indeed. Thank you for your opinion about Finkelstein's opinion and your further opinion about what brings about murderous pathologies. Reading your opinions, I get the impression that there is no Jew hatred in the Qur'an nor in Muslim Palestinian education or media that could also contribute to murderous pathologies. (See Islam_and_antisemitism and Antisemitism in the Arab world for starters. Also MEMRI Antisemitism Documentation Project [7].) But maybe that's just my opinion, and that until Zionism came along Muslims loved Jews, as they have loved all infidels throughout the long, peaceful history of Islam. —Blanchette (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There's dogmatic hatred of other believers in most religions, and it is most characteristic of monotheisms, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The only difference is, the public has its eyes focused on whatever evidence the last of the three yields for various phobias, including Judeophobia. Scholarship of merit is premised, unlike politics, on the verse:'Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye.' Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an example of the tu quoque fallacy, a notoriously weak defense, especially of the terroristic murder of innocents, where even the collectivized "they did it first" argument fails, since the retaliation does not target the perpetrator but any member of the collective, and innocents are killed not by accident but by design. My argument is not saying that your "heads of state in the West" never contributed to murderous pathologies, my argument is saying that Islamic Jew Hatred from the Qur'an on down, some of which documented in the sources I cited, explains far more about the motives of Husseini and other murderous sociopaths than any rational historian could ever attribute to the alleged sins of West. As for the equally muderous psychopaths of the Christian Wars of Religion, for example, studying how they translated their anger into action only fortifies my stress on the roll religious ideology plays in motivating murderous pathologies, like those of al-Husseini. —Blanchette (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, . .yawn, zzzz...Murder is all over the Tanakh, justified as part of God's plans for us. The Qur'an is heir to that, as is Christianity. Anyone screaming 'murder' over the Qur'an just testifies to his partisan perspective and ignorance of the foundational documents of our civilization, which endorse genocide and even infanticide (Psalm 137:Happy shall he be that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones”). This is not the place to discuss Islam.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hiding for 3 months in the Haram?

In the chapter on the Arab Revolt, it says: "In July 1937, British police were sent to arrest al-Husseini for his part in the Arab rebellion, but, tipped off, he managed to escape to the sanctuary of asylum in the Haram. He stayed there for three months, directing the revolt from within", while in the chapter "Pre-war" it says: "A month after his visit to Döhle, he met with the American Consul George Wadsworth (August 1937)... In a further interview with Wadsworth on 31 August..." - These meetings were held inside the Haram? Liadmalone (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The first was not a meeting but a letter; I edited the article. The source does not say where the meeting was held, although holding it in the Haram would not be surprising. Actually I'm dubious about the text around this point. I don't think any intention to arrest Husseini came until the end of September, after the murder of Lewis Andrews. I'm leaving on a trip just now; I'll got onto this when I return if nobody else does. Zero^talk 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Mufti was in Syria in late May early June. He suspected either the Zionists or Nashashibis were out to assassinate him, but if he sought sanctuary in the Haram by July, it must have been sometime after the 15th., I expect since on that day he visited the German consulate in Jerusalem.(Laurens p.358) The formal arrest came as Zero says in September (30th of September, I think). Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think, = Zeina B. Ghandour A Discourse on Domination in Mandate Palestine: Imperialism, Property and Insurgency, Routledge, 2009 978-1-134-00963-3 p.92.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Arab

was a Palestinian Arab why not was a Palestinian just?.--Wmdly (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

Panagiotis Vryonis (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

edit reguest for spelling: Mihailovic not Mikhailovitch--Panagiotis Vryonis (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 05:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Balfour telegram

Re this aedit. Tritomexs. (a)The addition of the new telegram only clutters without helping the article. The telegram is one of many, like letters, but you can't quote everything. (b)Porat's opinion may be thought important, but on 2 occasions she made statements that beg clarification which, unless forthcoming, only complicate or garble this article. If one can get clear unambiguous evidence that the mufti urged that the Final solution (which you linked though the term is already linked higher up) be carried out in the Middle East, then that would be acceptable. Otherwise we only have Porat's opinion, among hundreds of scholarly opinions, and this is not a list of who said yes, who said no on this putative connection. Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Both JP and Haaretz published this telgram as a new discovery, and I'll bet it is all over the internet by now. Following a lead in a letter to Haaretz, I verified that it was already published in 1947 in a very well known document collection. One reason I don't believe it belongs here is that it is from Himmler, not to Himmler, and there is no information about the background or al-Husseini's role in it. Zero^talk 03:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't have time for obvious reasons to look deeper into this. My instincts just told me it should have been reverted out as empty of any deepening insight. On the other hand, I dislike straight reverting, so I left the link in, so I posted my impression here while trimming it back. I'm glad you tracked it down to demonstrate it's another piece of 'false' let's say flakey' 'news', and should be excised. The puzzle is Porat's change of opinion from 2015 to 1017, which is all I learnt from examining her record on the matter. I don't think her opinion, unsubstantiated as it stands, that Husseini urged that the Final Solution be extended to the Middle East is noteworthy, despite her official status. If there is evidence for that, it would be the smoking gun Zionists have been seeking for 70 years, and would be cited everywhere in the literature. If no clarification is forthcoming, I'll remove also what I left in.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The telegram is a masterpiece evidence regarding the relationship between Himler and Husseini, especially regarding Husseini envisioned role in post war Middle East. It also shows the Nazi attitude regarding the Arab revolt, Zionism, and the place of Husseini in the battle against "World Jewry" Himler wrote: "From the outset, the National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has been a standard-bearer in the battle against world Jewry. For this reason, it is closely following the battle of freedom-seeking Arabs, particularly in Palestine, against the Jewish invaders. The shared recognition of the enemy and the joint fight against it are creating the strong base [uniting] Germany and freedom-seeking Arabs around the world" I do not see policy based argument for excluding this telegram, especially as documents of much less has historic importance are included. Porat nowhere said that Husseini did not asked Hitler to carry out the final solution of Middle Eastern Jews (a claim she made in Haaretz article after the rediscovery of Himmler telegram) She simply said in 2015 that Husseini could not influence Hitler intentions. Porat never claimed that there is "no evidence" that Husseini asked Hitler for the final solution of MJ. Tritomex (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It is 100% impossible that Porat didn't already know about the telegram. As I wrote, all historians of the mufti-Nazi relationship have been aware of it since 1947. I can't see a few words at the end of a newspaper article as a worthy summary of a complex issue. The telegram shows Himmler calling for support from Arabs, not the other way around. Zero^talk 04:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Zero0000, Could you please show us a link to a collection of documents containing this telegram? Although I believe, Porat opinion in 2015 is off course also relevant for this article, it should be properly mentioned. First, Porat in 2015 refereed to the Holocaust of European Jews She rejected the assertion that Husseini was the man behind Hitler obsession with the extermination of Jews. She didn't speak about Middle Eastern Jews, or the plans of Mufti in Middle East. So placing this two claims as contradictory sentences are WP:SYNTH (synthesis of published material) Regarding the telegram, the most neutral and unbiased way to approach this issue is to give full citation of this 3 sentences of telegram, preceded, or eventually followed with eventual scholarly opinion on the matter.Tritomex (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

This Google search will get you the name of the publication and proof that it is widely known. I'll wager that every book on Nazi policy in the Middle East cites it, despite its propagandistic nature. I don't know of a complete online copy. To see that the telegram is not a new discovery you can view it on this racist web page published in 2000. Even earlier, the page from the National Associates document is copied in the trashy book From Time Immemorial, visible at Amazon. Regarding the telegram, the correct way to approach it is to recognise that it fails WEIGHT without any information about the reason it was sent. Unless the mufti asked for it, it isn't even relevant to this page. Zero^talk 11:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Tritomex. Please read the article. You have added nothing that is not said elsewhere on it. The edit is just bloat, with a Porat link, one of hundreds one could make citing any number of scholars' views. As to the telegram, it is void of novelty and, as shown, well known for donkey's ages without anyone hailing it as 'a masterpiece evidence regarding the relationship between Himler and Husseini'. The oddest thing is that, as again today, you keep tampering with the delinking of Final Solution. It is linked directly above, and you don't link something twice in the same section, or even page. Unless you can come up with clear scholarly evidence that this is a 'masterpiece' of evidence, it will be removed as repeating what is already stated in detail on the page.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting @Zero0000, you seem to know a lot about this telegram. The Haaretz article says the original, in German, was found at the National Library of Israel. Could there have been doubts about its authenticity?

It does seem relevant to the German side of the relationship with the Mufti. Haaretz also gives the date it was sent which was “The back side of the telegram from S.S. head Heinrich Himmler to Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, sent to mark the 26th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration in 1943.” Husseini would have been aware of the Holocaust by then. Around the same time, he declared.

“It is the duty of Muhammadans [Muslims] in general and Arabs in particular to ... drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries... . Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.”

The above sounds like a response to the telegram from Himmler. I don’t want to do original research does anyone have precise dates? I am speculating that what is new is the date which would put the telegram in its historic context.Jonney2000 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how a telegram sent from Himmler to Husseini in Berlin got to be in Israel National Archives. But I'm not doubting its authenticity as it is quite consistent with Himmler's work. Zero^talk 09:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles I have seen claimed that the telegram was "rediscovered" which is indeed vague phrase. Whether this telegram is discovered or rediscovered is not the main issue. I do not understand how a correspondence between the Holocaust architect Heinrich Himmler and his Berlin based guest al-Hussein is not relevant for the Holocaust section of Al-Husseini article. In that case I think this telegram deserves RfC I would remind you that this article is full of really UNDUE parts like the explanation what Tisha Be Av is, or how the 16th Zionist Congress was attended by y Ze'ev Jabotinsky or how the "Betar youth gave a ceremony with a strong nationalist tinge by singing the Hatikvah" and so on. This details have really nothing to do with the life of Al-Husseini, unlike his correspondence with his Berlin hosts, whether it is from Himmler or to him. Also, this telegram is extensively covered by plenty of secondary sources which in my view proves that it is not of UNDUE weight. Also,I do not understand how the opinion of Yad Vashem chief historian regarding Husseini role in Holocaust could be irrelevant?Tritomex (talk)

I do not understand how a correspondence between the Holocaust architect Heinrich Himmler and his Berlin based guest al-Hussein is not relevant for the Holocaust section of Al-Husseini article.

I asked you to read the article where Himmler's contacts with Husseini are mentioned 15 times. The rest of your remarks challenge elements already cited in several biographies of Husseini. I'll remove the edit on Porat, within a day unless you can come up with a serious point. It is just bloat.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Give any reasonable argument how the oppinion of Yad Vashem chief historian regarding Husseini role in Holocaust is irrelevant to the Holocaust section of this article?Tritomex (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are supposed contain succinct accounts of matters of interest, not dumps of everything we can find. There is already a very large section on Husseini's interactions with the Nazis. What do you propose to remove in order to make room for this addition? We are sure not going to keep adding more and more of the same without limit. Zero^talk 09:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe make a separate article the topic is clearly notable.--Shrike (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is it notable? The subject is already covered extensively by this article and other articles such as Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. It is silly to imagine that this telegram is important. As the article already makes clear, Husseini was working for the Nazis at the time. Of course they will send him praise and promises, what else would they do? Zero^talk 11:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not the telegram of course by itself but Mufti-Nazi connection--Shrike (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Shrike, if there is no enough place for the opinion of Yad Vashem chief historian regarding the Mufti connections to Nazis, here, not to mention other relevant documents covered by reliable secondary sources, there is a clear need for a separate article that will cover it.Tritomex (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Its already covered in Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world Seraphim System (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC

There is a clear consensus to exclude the proposed material. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the opinion of Yad Vashem chief historian Dina Porat about Al-Husseini role in Holocaust of UNDUE weight for the Holocaust section of Al-Husseini article?Tritomex (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrectly framed, as what you argued was that the telegram should be inserted, not Porat's opinion. This page uses scholarship by specialists who document their claims. It is not a list of everyone, historians included, who can be cited for their opinions, literally hundreds.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This is very correctly framed, as I specifically refer to your removal of chief Yad Vashem historian views from this article. I asked you to explain why you removed Porat from the article? After I added Porat opinion about Al-Husseini advocacy for the final solution of Middle Eastern Jews, you added that in 2015, she claimed that there is no evidence that the Mufti proposed the final solution, (a claim which was nowhere in the source you cited as reference. Also, in your source, Porat spoke about European Holocaust, not about Husseini plans for Middle Eastern Jews) Today, you removed without explanation everything related to Porat from this article Holocaust section. This is THE ONLY REASON why I asked for RfC. I see this move as unacceptable as per wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, The Yad Vashem chief historian, Dina Porat opinion regarding Al-Husseini role in Holocaust is certainly not of UNDUE weight. The source is Haaretz [8]Tritomex (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely opposed. All Tritomex has is one sentence of paraphrase out of a newspaper article. The sentence appears to be referring to the meeting between Husseini and Hitler, which is discussed in this article at length already, and adds nothing except an unexplained claim that does not appear in any of the three records of the meeting. Adding material which is so poorly sourced can only reduce the quality of the article. Porat is an expert on several Holocaust-related issues but I'm not aware of anything she has written concerning Husseini, so we should also check her reliability for that too. Where is her scholarly argument for this claim? Zero^talk 07:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Everybody knows that al-Husseini forged an alliance with the Axis because he wanted an end to the Zionist project in Palestine. It is well documented and also well covered by the article already. Some authors report that unchallenged fact as "al-Husseini wanted the Final Solution to be extended to the Middle East", but in doing so they never provide the additional evidence that such a strong spin requires. I have read many such sources and am yet to see such evidence. One of the originators of that version, frequently cited without naming him, was the same Israeli journalist Chaviv Knaan who invented the phoney story about poisoning the Tel-Aviv water supply. Zero^talk 02:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• No. Instead of reverting your addition, as several POV warriors do with my edits, I trimmed it to its essence, added an extra source for Porat's known views, and then addressed the talk page to see where the consensus was. My synopsis was:

According to Dina Porat “Hitler did not need anyone to encourage the final solution. In terms of the facts, there’s no debate ... all these actions, Hitler’s obsessions, have no link to the mufti.” In 2017, Porat claimed that Husseini asked Hitler to execute the Final Solution in the Middle East.

It was clear from discussion that the 2 editors who have a firm grasp on the Husseini literature, and have been reading it for a decade, believed that merely stating Porat's view that:

Husseini had asked Hitler to carry out the Final Solution in the Middle East, . . but was certainly not the person to steer the plan itself.

finds no confirmation yet in the scholarly literature by Husseini specialists, and it was just a paraphrase of an opinion in a newspaper. If you are going to drop a bombshell, you should bring out the smoking gun, the proof of something no other scholar has every been able to produce. The article has numerous comments about this, close paraphrase of the pertinent scholarship, which is inconclusive. Bringing in Porat for an opinion unbuttressed by any evidence empties her remark of any illuminating slant, making them trivial. If she or anyone else produces that evidence, it will be registered on this article immediately. Otherwise it is just an opinion, and a name, adding nothing. Bloat.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:REDFLAG. An exceptional claim, even if it's attributed, requires exceptional sources, and they appear to be lacking in this case. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• No there is an element of alternative history here. We will never know what would have happened if Germany won the war.Jonney2000 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me Nishidani, but the synopsis you cited above was not yours, but mine. Your wording, which I saw as not backed by the sources given was the following:

According to Dina Porat in 2015, there is no evidence the mufti proposed the final solution, an obsession of Hitler's unconnected to Husseini.< In 2017, she claimed that the mufti asked Hitler to execute the Final Solution in the Middle East

This is the sentence you added.I do not see this claim as exceptional, Husseini involvement in Holocaust had been debated by many, for long time. I dont see reasonable argument how the reliability of Yad Vashem chief historian regarding the Holocaust could be questioned. It may represent an opinion, based on many documents, not a fact. However, there are many other opinions cited in this article, from historians and writers, even political activists, so I do not understand why only Porat opinion is a problem?. However, I will respect the oppinion stated on this talk page and I would like to hear some univolved editors too.Tritomex (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop prevaricating. You state my wording

According to Dina Porat in 2015, there is no evidence the mufti proposed the final solution, an obsession of Hitler's unconnected to Husseini.

was not backed by the sources. Have you read them? That is a direct paraphrase of:

There is no evidence that Haj Amin al-Husseini proposed the ‘final solution’ to Hitler,

“Hitler did not need anyone to encourage the final solution. In terms of the facts, there’s no debate ... all these actions, Hitler’s obsessions, have no link to the mufti.”

I'm still undecided as to whether this is a willful distortion of obvious facts or a sign of an incapacity to read plain Engtlish. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As to your second point, the pertinent policy was cited by MShabazz. Porat's opinion has no known basis in the documentary record, as far as anyone can ascertain. It has been searched for for 70 years, with no scholar coming up with the smoking gun. Therefore her opinion constitutes an exceptional claim. Two editors asked you to supply that evidence. You ignored the request.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• No - not UNDUE. As phrased being over UNDUE without any reference to a specific text, I think Dina Porat is DUE. For WP:DUE prominence I google see both a significant percentage of al-Husseni hits include Dina Porat, and noted that the hits involved include notable media such as CBSnews, NYDaily, TheGuardian, WashingtonPost, ChicagoTribune, etcetera. (If this is about just his response to the flap of Netanyahu remarks later backtracked from then I doubt that either side needs much or perhaps any content in this article... but that's a different question.) Markbassett (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers are terrible sources for history. Look at the remarkable(!) list of references in this paper and see how few are newspaper articles. We'd prefer to maintain that standard. Zero^talk 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Zero - the WP:DUE question is only one of prominence in WP:RS, and the only one asked by the RFC. If you want to talk about general history references, I would say this position is misguided. First I would offer that ideology or absolutist rules will lead one astray and one should apply WP:IAR occasionally to any guidance. But more fundamentally, I think that stance is a poor one from a historian viewpoint. The cite goal for historical work would be more directed to include contemporary items, long-respected historical references, and properly handled WP:PRIMARY material. The predominence of recent works that are neither textbooks nor peer-reviewed material would be judged poor as it could be considered weaknesses, open to being opinion and recentism. These may well be learned individuals, but they do not present as a consensus of historians or as a well-supported and enduring set of views. Markbassett (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers repeating versions in a news cycle are not sources for serious history. This article is almost wholly based on scholarship regarding Husseini, and the periods of history where he was an actor. All we have here is an opinion thrown off the cuff to a journalist, an opinion that no one here, despite frequent requests, can find a secondary source to corroborate. This is therefore an exceptional opinion requiring very strong sourcing to pass the criteria for acceptance. Zero is perhaps the least ideological editor in this area. Time and again he has resolved vexing questions on obscure historical conundrums in the I/P area by bringing up evidence which can support an Israeli or Palestinian POV. He couldn't give a fuck for political implications,- his passion is to get the facts right, no matter which side might appear to POV readers to benefit, unlike the majority of editors in this area. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: You wrote "the WP:DUE question is only one of prominence in WP:RS, and the only one asked by the RFC". Technically you are correct, but when replying to an RfC we should consider what the originator actually wants, especially if (as in this case) the originator has known strong views. What the originator wants in this case is a "consensus" for inserting the material into the article. Anything less is no use to him. In replying to the RfC it is important to note all relevant points for or against inclusion. Zero^talk 01:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Zero - discussing how to word whatever is a different and later topic and I'll suggest stick to WP guidelines and the facts, rather than concerns about things outside the RFC or not liking her positions. First note that she is a historian with a noted position related to the topic, has a decent amount of published work in Google Scholar, has some notability per has an entry in WP and presence in major publications both inside and outside the field ... and then I suggest just stick to following WP guidelines as this has been duly put into the dispute resolution forum RFC and being limited to that seems following WP:RFC guidance of k"Keep the RfC statement short and simple". So -- put her position in. Next, move on and go work out the wording. Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: If Dina Porat writes a scholarly paper on this subject, it will definitely be acceptable to cite it in this article. That's because she is a real historian and knows how to present evidence along with argument. However, this RfC does not concern a hypothetical scholarly paper by Porat or even a direct quotation from Porat. It arose because of a single sentence of paraphrase written by a journalist. It is not enough by any reading of the rules. Zero^talk 01:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Zero - My input is her opinion is not UNDUE; I make no such limitation on the format or venue that is used as RS. I'll point out that by the WP guidelines WP:RFC a limited question has been asked, and so far the response seems three agreements, and several talking about aspects outside the topic. This seems to indicate the RFC question as asked is not in dispute and could be closed now with comment that none objecting UNDUE to the opinions of Dina Parat, and we can move on. In any case this is the section of my input and unless you've some question about my input about UNDUE, I think they can take that input 'not UNDUE' as confirmed, final, and accepted. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• No not UNDUE and should be included as it was reported by numerous WP:RS and there is no reason not to include except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT by some users.--Shrike (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Repetition of a news story by other news outlets who don't add any information does not increase reliability. Zero^talk 07:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Shrike. Consensus is based on rational arguments, not mechanical voting. There are so far no arguments of substance to introduce material already covered thoroughly in the text. As noted, Himmler's connections with the Mufti are covered 15 times, and the 'new' tidbit adds zero, sorry, nothing. It is by definition undue, since it r.epeats what is already known, while adding an opinion that has no documentary basis.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude this source but not the pov if sourced more appropriately - All historical points of view studied by reliable sources have to be reported with their due weight. In the writing of this article we are lucky to have access to the highest quality secondary sources (ex. Mattar a biographer of the Mufti, Elpeleg, ...) For such a contentious issue (about the idea that the Mufti would have requested support to Nazis to implement a final solution in the Middle East), we have to use the secondary sources that have concluded this (and published in peer-reviewed articles or from prestigeous editors...) and not a tertiary source (Porat) reported briefly in a newspaper article (Ha'aretz) next to political concerns. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with previous claims about WP:EXCEPTIONAL, etc. Kamalthebest (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude agree with above comments exclude per WP:REDFLAG, agree also the sources used on this page are already very high quality Seraphim System (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude with the usual suggestion that people use newspapers for news and not history. A newspaper is a reliable source for all sorts of things, for a figure that is as well covered in actual scholarship as al-Husseini is it is however not a suitable source. nableezy - 02:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Links with Holocaust

Hello,

Don't you find that in this section [9], the mind of Schwanitz is given an undue:weight. Of course it has to be there but the mind of all other historians is not fairly introduced from my point of view given there is no new material discovered by Schwanitz that he would discuss... I add that he claimed that the Mufti was an "architect of the holocaust", which in a way proves a lack of neutrality per my understanding of the facts.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

New evidence disclosed end june 2017 about the links with the nazi's

pictures visiting a german camp with several imortant nazi's http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Auction-house-unveils-previously-unseen-pictures-of-Mufti-al-Husseini-visiting-German-camp-497974 2A02:A03F:160D:9000:4983:CE4D:EB38:670F (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amin al-Husseini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121617594800/http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/personalities/alpha_h.htm to http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/personalities/alpha_h.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410042925/http://www.passia.org/images/personalities/Husseni-Haj-Amin/index.htm to http://www.passia.org/images/personalities/Husseni-Haj-Amin/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amin al-Husseini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150406000232/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5F21F8A1CA578A57052566120067F658 to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5F21F8A1CA578A57052566120067F658

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)