Talk:Amin al-Husseini

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Politics Unassessed

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Storobin, David (January 3, 2005). "Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII". Global Politician.

Archives: Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Archive 1

The removal of content concerning Handschar division

FYI. The contribs of the editor who removed the content concerning Handschar division so far don't show that it has been pasted somewhere. While I agree that most of the text does belong there (somewhere), I wouldn't want us to lose it. I'm returning Haj Amin's Vienna Illustrated cover because I don't see a reason for its removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grossmufti-inspecting-ss-recruits.jpg

Al-Husayni inspects Waffen SS recruits

Humus, I think it was you who uploaded this image. I wonder about the accuracy of the legend. These people look too old to be recruits and they aren't wearing Handschar uniforms (I think). --Zero 09:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did it, and supplied the book and page number. That's about all I know about it. Maybe they were not too picky... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-Nazi"

This is an important aspecy of this person life and work and should be in the opening paragraph.

If there are objection I would like to opem mediation on this subject.

You should ask yourself:

If it gets to ArbCom will they have enough scholarly sources saying he was Pro-Nazi ? Is there evidence for that fact. I think you know the answer so don't remove what you know is true.

Zeq 05:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be more than evident to you by now that consensus is entirely against your position. WWII German connections and dealings are fully put forth in the article. Inserting "Pro-Nazi" labels is NOT accurate, it is in fact a blatant POV. The man supported the German war effort in order to get rid of the Brits, he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology.--AladdinSE 11:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions to Zero

About this diff [3]

Why have reverted ?

1. Do you think he was NOT pro-Nazi ?

2. You have replaced a link to the Nazi to a link about German which leads to the ederal republic of Germany - a country that did not exist at the time the Mufti helped the Nzai germany army. So do you claim that the Mufti helped an army of a country that did not exist in the 1940s (when he helped them ?) or are you just trying to use Wikipedia for propeganda (although ArbCom have told you two years ago not to do it)

Zeq 13:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point, don't be silly. Germany has existed as an entity since 1871. Germany certainly existed in the years 1933-45. The article on Germany certainly deals with German history from before the Bundesrepublik. --Cybbe 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the link you just added. While the Mufti helped the nazi army you placed a link to germany. Zeq 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Zeq is attempting to hide the fact that he's re-added the Nazi reference. When I looked at his changes, I noted that he deliberately re-spelled a word that had been spelled correctly in a later paragraph. Once an editor spots the error (as I did) and corrects it, Zeq's previous edits won't appear under the (diff) view, and the new edit won't have his/her name on it. It's just a suspicion, however, and I apologize in advance if I've mischaracterized Zeq's edits. Personally, I think the issue of the Mufti's ties with Nazi Germany should be fully explored and mediated. Given his ancestry, I doubt al-Husayni sympathized with Nazi ideology. Instead, he probably saw the Nazis as a tool he could use. However, all of this deserves research, sources, and scholarly analysis and not the shallow treatment provided thus far. Rklawton 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo ! that was profound. but wrong. The issue was that the Mufti did not had ties with Germany as the link lead you to think but with Nazi Germany. Wikipedia has two different article for those two entities. If you wish to merge them i suggest you will run into some resitence. So don'y tru to do it here. Zeq 12:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Zeg is simply on war trail here. What regards the term Nazi: it is quite well defined and should not expand to label everything what existed in 1933-45. Pavel Vozenilek 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, and I don't mean any editor here, I suspect that this article works as a magnet and many Pro-Nazi people will read it. So it is important to label correctly who di the Mufti helped. Zeq 12:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

The Nazi past of the Palestinian ufti is well knowm. Why do you try to water it down ?

Are there other people who's anti-semite feeling you wish to hide ?

Zeq 12:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long do we have to put up with you? --Zero 12:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be here for long but nither will you. Zeq 12:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some historians disagree

I removed the sentence, "Al-Husayni's actual role is disputed: although Zionist historians and the Mufti's own supporters agree that he was a major instigator of the violence, some historians disagree." Not to be too critical of whoever added it, but it really doesn't say much without descriptions of the views of particular historians. I'm also a little concerned with characterizations like 'Zionist' historian. If a scholar is reputable enough to be quoted, it might be better to just quote him as a historian. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi stuff

Articles to be compared to would be Andrey_Vlasov, and of course Quisling. They both are consequently using "German" and not "Nazi". It is natural this article would use German too. -- Heptor _talk 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was helping the Nazis. No way around it, it is an established historical fact and no wikipedia article can be used as primary source to disproove it.Zeq 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to consider

There are pleanty of sources for about this pro-nazi antisemite and this section will include some of them:

http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/mufti5.htm

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/bosnia.html - only for taking quotes from the "encyclopedia of the Holocaust"

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/mufti.html

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_collaboration.htm

More to be added....Zeq 13:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi material consensus

ZEQ: I am going to repeat what I said earlier: :It should be more than evident to you by now that consensus is entirely against your position. WWII German connections and dealings are fully put forth in the article. Inserting "Pro-Nazi" labels is NOT accurate, it is in fact a blatant POV. The man supported the German war effort in order to get rid of the Brits, he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology. Stop trying to reinsert these labels.--AladdinSE 10:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AladdinSE, he was Pro-Nazi. Nothing you will say will change it. In fact even if you will be succefull driving this all the way to ArbCom and they will agree with you it will just serve as one more proof how worthless Wikipedia has become. So go ahead try to argue and proove what you just said. total BS. Eeven if he was "anti-British" (which I can agree) he was also "pro-Nazi" Zeq 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, you've been complaining about Wikipedia and ArbCom and spouting emotional polemics here and there and you've entirely lost your sense of objectivity, if you've ever had one (I certainly haven't seen it). You can't even grasp the age-old adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Replies like "this is just the way it is no matter what you say or what ArbCom rules" is a childish tantrum, not a civilized discourse.--AladdinSE 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AladdinSE, unless can you prove that "he didn't care a fig for National Socialist ideology", the above will remain a whitewash. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do not support exuberant labeling, especially in the first paragraph. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the burden is on you to prove he was a Nazi ideologue not just a military ally, to insert labels like "pro-Nazi" which consensus has consistently disallowed in this and in parallel arguments in other articles.--AladdinSE 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An important source

http://aval31.free.fr/lemuftietlefuhrer/mufti_fuhrer.htm

http://aval31.free.fr/muftiofjerusalem/index.htm

Another source for "kill the jews"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/INGODGH99Q1.DTL

EDWIN BLACK is an award winning, New York Times and international best-selling investigative author of IBM and the Holocaust, The Transfer Agreement, and War Against the Weak. Black's writing has also appeared in numerous newspapers across the United States and Europe, and the world's leading magazines have also carried his work, from Playboy and Reform Judaism to Der Spiegel and L'Express. He is the recipient of numerous awards, and last year won the two highest awards of the American Society of Journalists and Authors: best nonfiction book of 2002 for IBM and the Holocaust, as well as best investigative article of 2002 for his piece on IBM at Auschwitz that appeared in the Village Voice. He has appeared on scores of network TV and radio shows from NBC's "Today Show", CBS's "Morning News", "Dateline", and NPR to England's BBC, Germany's ZDF, and France's TF-1. Zeq 12:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Greetings, I am the mediator working on this case. First I would like a summary of the disagreement from the other editors involved before we get our mediation on. Thanks cordially, Cyde Weys 07:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff [4] provides the main dispute.

Zero has reverted the following:

The description of Amin as an anti-semitic.

We can break it to two issues:

Was Amin against the jews ?
If the answer is Yes - should he be described this way in Wikipedia ?

Zero removed "supported the Nazis during World War II" and
Zero replaced it with "A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important official positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council." ... "and it is this title by which he is most remembered."

We can break it to two issues:

Did Amin supported the Nazis in ww-2 ?
Is it worth while to mention the cooperation with the nazis or should Wikipedia focus on his various titles and official capacities instead ? (i'll be glad to provide material explaining the level of such cooperation)

Last but not lease is removing the wiki-link form the word Nazi Germany. In this diff Zero went furthr and put a misleading link to the country Germany which is the Fedearl Republic. Clearly if Zero thinks Germany and Nazi Germany are the same entity he should propse merging these two article (since one is seesm as POV fork of the other).

Since the common Wikipedia wisdom is that the name Nazi ie an NPOV description of the entity Nazi Germany and indeed this is what seprates it from Gearmny I think we should not hide the word "Nazi" where it is true and relevant.

One personal note: Zero wrote that my intentions are to create an equation "Arab=Nazi" - this accusation is not worth an answer . Too low. Zeq 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, now I'd like to hear what Zero has to say. I noticed two other people were listed on the mediation page ... how exactly were they involved? --Cyde Weys 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar types of edits (sometimes a subset, sometimes more): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (last one is a cybbe edit) Zeq 05:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Husayni's role as a Palestinian Nationalist leader and implacable opponent of Zionism is already described in the article. Al-Husayni's cooperation with the Nazis is already described in the article; in fact in proportion to its importance in history this part of his life receives more coverage than any other part. The current wording in the introduction: "During World War II, Al-Husayni conducted propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, and helped to recruit Muslims for the German army." is completely adequate. Every article can be improved but none of the changes that Zeq wants would improve it. --Zero 09:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not "Every article can be improved but none of the changes that Zeq wants would improve it".

The issues are set above, and Zero have not provided his answer to each of these questions.

I would like to add another issue:

Zero first claim that I want to show that "Nazi=Arab" which was never my intention. He now clam my edits do not imrove the article. His edit summaries (such as "Zeq has been vomitting on the article again" [10] are insulting and cause me not tp participate in this mediation (and Wikipedia as a whole) if my work is described in such terms) Zeq 12:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you will go away? --Zero 13:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my point. It is impossible to conduct a civilized discussion under such atmosphere. I am very close to going away. Zeq 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, please be nice. And now Zeq I want to see a specific list of changes you want made to the article (i.e. Wiki-linking Nazi Germany or whatever) and your justifications for each. And then I want to see Zero's response on why he thinks each edit may or may not be appropriate. --Cyde Weys 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of changes is already above. can be seen here [11]. I would also want to move the photo of his meeting with Hitler to the start of the article. A good start of dialogue will be to listen to Zero's specific answers to the questions listed above. Zeq 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is you that has to provide the rationale behind making POV edits in the introduction. This being contrary to WP policy, I cant see how the mediation is going to change this. Readers should be left to judge for themselves after reading a particular article, you want to smack your POV right in their face from the very beginning. --Cybbe 09:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the picture with Hitler isn't nearly the same quality (you can barely make out who's in it), so it wouldn't be good to lead off the article with. Generally, in biography articles, you lead off with a picture of just the person anyway, not that person and other people. As for the list of changes, that link doesn't seem to go where you think it goes. I've gone ahead and wikilinked Nazi Germany in the article because that does seem like a relevant and valid contextual link to make. Now, Zero, you've said that you think Husayni's links with Nazi Germany were a relatively minor part of his life ... do you have any evidence for that? It seems to me like being associated with the Nazis would be a big part of anyone's life. --Cyde Weys 11:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this is strongly cultural biased toward a Muslim/Palestinian POV:

A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important official positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council. In 1921, he was appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. He later adopted the title "Grand Mufti" with British consent and it is this title by which he is most remembered.

This include facts which are not very important, are not central to his role in history. He is most remembered for entirely different aspects of his life (by a large group of people who were hurt by his actions)

His official title, the family he comes from are all aspect that are important - in a society that values such issues. In different socities a persons actions are what counts. We need to include both POVs.

So to make the 1st paragraph NPOV we must highlight all important issues about this person and how he is remembered not just by his proponenets but also by others who have a different view of him. Clearly there are those who see him first and formost as a Nazi-Colaborator and anti-semite who's actions contributed to much bloodshed. We can not hide this aspect of his life. Colaboration with Nazi Germany, being convicted by the British are all not to be taken lightly. Zeq 11:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(trim left) I'm awaiting Zero's response but it does sound like you are onto something here. --Cyde Weys 11:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Husayni's actual importance in history dropped to relative insignificance when he was (effectively) expelled from Palestine in 1937. There was a brief moment in 1947-8 when he may have become important again but that fizzled out when the Arab states side-lined him. His period with the Nazis was not important since in Germany he was a minor Nazi tool, a collaborator amongst thousands of collaborators. In any case, this part of his life is already covered at considerable length in the article. The introduction needs a brief mention that points to the section on that topic. It already does; using the word "Nazi" more than once would be propagandistic. (I never said that the single usage couldn't be linked, but Zeq wanted to add 3 linked appearances and a 4th.) This part of his life is emphasised by the Zionist movement for completely obvious reasons, and who can blame them, but that doesn't mean we should meekly follow along. Btw, he was never convicted by the British (unless we are talking about 1921, at which time a few Zionists were also convicted). On the wording: he is most remembered as "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" by everyone, both his supporters and detractors, as can be easily seen by surveying the literature (or just the web). Therefore the phrase "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" should appear in the introduction; it doesn't matter if the background of that title is moved to later. One more thing: asking whether he was an anti-semite is a childish question for which the answer can never be more than an opinion. To handle it in proper Wikipedia fashion one would have to quote named persons as claiming that he was and other named persons as claiming that he wasn't, and the result would be a useless mess that would destroy the introduction. Biographical articles should avoid name-calling and labeling, especially when that has a transparent political purpose. --Zero 12:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly you claim that his role with the Nazis was minor. I disagree and there are many sources that would disagree. (see this for example:[12]). Also with excpetion to the title "Mufti of Jerusalem" all the other roles can be moved out of the 1st paragrph to approriate sections. Zeq 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as if "Grand Mufti" and collaboration with the Nazis should be in the lead-in, as those by far seem to be the most notable events of his life. Frankly, "collaboration with the Nazis" would seem to be a notable event in anyone's life. And I wouldn't call him a "minor Nazi tool among thousands" - according to sources from the article, he recruited hundreds, or thousands, of fighters for the Nazi German army. That's not insignificant. --Cyde Weys 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both those things are in the lead-in already and I'm not suggesting they not be. The Nazi period of his life occupies about 1/3 of the article, which is more than it deserves and some of that is quite biased. I'm not suggesting it be reduced however (though some rewording can be beneficial). As for "insignificant", we can argue over what it means. He helped to recruit to the German army, yes, but in the vast operation that was WWII his contribution had little effect. If it wasn't for Zionist writers keeping this episode alive, only a few military buffs would even know about it. --Zero 11:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amin al-Husseini was an enormously influential political figure in Palestine from, if memory serves, about 1920 on. His actions, long before the whole Nazi business, were quite important in the political development of Palestine. If anything, he probably had less influence on events during his Nazi period than previously. So to say it is the only, or most important, aspect of his political career is inaccurate. On the other hand, apart from its inherent importance it was quite significant in terms of how it was made use of in Zionist and Israeli propaganda afterwards. The question here is one of getting the right balance. It would also be a mistake to devote most of the article to the Nazi business simply as a result of that being what Wikipedia editors are arguing most about and therefore coming up with most information about from one perspective or another. Palmiro | Talk 11:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide references of as valuable sources as possible that israeli propaganda attacked specifically Haj Amin al Husseini's antisemitism (and in what purpose precisely). Thank you. Christophe Greffe 11:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

questions above still need an answer
The role of "zionist propeganda" is not the issue. We are talking about known facts in this person's life. If he did things that now are used by "Zionist propeganda" maybe he should not have done those. His supporters can not delete history just because it is less popular now to be an antisemite.
It is not just his Nazi Recuruitment that is the issue. He met with Hitler, some sources say he had influanced Hitler, some sources say he helped orgenize pro nazi attempts to change the goverment in Iraq, some say in Iran. In all honesty the scope of his involvment with the Nazis is not highlighted enough.
His attitude toward Jews and Zionism, his use of Islam as a way to orgenize riots and attacks on Jews need to be highlighted.
In Hebrew Wikipedia there is a large paragraph on his efforts to orgenize the Arab armies to invade Israel (even prior to formal establishing of the state of Israel.

I hope the above capture how this man is viewed by many. We need to represent this. Of course he was also a great mulsim religious figure and this must be noted as well Zeq 12:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop all these accusations of "Zionist propaganda" and what not? It's not constructive, and frankly, it's probably false. If he did have dealings with Hitler, which it seems like he did, it's important. That's not "Zionist propaganda". Cool it. --Cyde Weys 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That let rephrase that. This is not and should not be an argument between pro-Jews and anti-Jews. We are talking about the relative merits of what should be included in the article only. --Cyde Weys 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about putting the first sentence as follows: "Mohammad Amin al-Husayni ... was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim religious leader, who collaborated with Nazi Germany before and during the World War II? Looks like no one seriously disputes the fact that he collaborated with the Nazis. Pecher ^Talk 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, what do you think? --Cyde Weys 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This presents as the most important of his individual actions something which is not such. As for Zionist propaganda, I am at a loss to understand Cyde Weys' comments here. I don't see where anyone has accused anyone else here of Zionist propaganda. That Husayni engaged in pro-Nazi activities and that this was later exploited by Zionist propagandists are simply facts, whose importance relative to the rest of his life must be established to ensure that this is a balanced article. Palmiro | Talk 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that some actions are "more important" than others is inherently unprovable. We have no scale to weigh his collaboration against his other actions. Nor does this sentence says that the collaboraton story was "the most important of his individual actions"; it simply lists the activities for which he is notable. I am struggling to comprehend why the opposition to mentioning his collaboration with the Nazis in the first sentence is so bitter and determined given that the article, including the intro, already covers this issue at length. Pecher ^Talk 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His Nazi collaboration should be mentioned in the introduction (it is), but in the first sentence is too much. The first sentence should focus on the most important fact about him; the fact that makes him notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Namely, he was the leader of the Palestinian Arabs for most of the period of the British Mandate. Incidentally, I don't think it is right to say that he collaborated with the Nazis before WW2. He had contacts with them and tried (with little success) to get support from them for his nationalist cause but "collaboration" is too strong a word. During WW2 he certainly collaborated. Zionists also had repeated contacts with the Nazis (and hostile authors call that "collaboration" too, but we should not play such labeling games). --Zero 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first sentence should focus on the most important facts about him; meanwhile, some of the people in here are saying that his work for the Nazis is one of the most important facts about him. I don't think we should resort to a straw poll here as I think we should be approaching consensus, but if I were to, say, pick the two most important things about Amin al-Husayni to put in the lead-in sentence, it would be leading the Palestinian Arabs and working for the Nazis. --Cyde Weys 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the most two important things are (1) that he was the political leader of the Palestinians, (2) that he was the Mufti of Jerusalem and therefore the leading Muslim figure in Palestine and one of the most important in the Middle East. These two facts are not the same. --Zero 02:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh* ... alright, let's find out what others think then. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was first a religious figure. After his political ambitions ran in problems (with the rival clan of the Nashibi in Jerusalem) he used his religious standing to open a hate campaign against the Jews. This has helped him regain his political standing. He clearly went very far with his hate toward the Jews. There are those who say that he (by deeds, words and influence) prevented Jewish refugees from escaping from Europe so in that sense he causes their death. Clearly his views on the Jews, his cooperation with the Nazis, his incitement against the jews and his role in organizing the Arab armies invasion in 1948 are all important. In the Arab world, after being a leader he was cast aside because they understood his leadership has brought disaster on the Palestinian people. His only big supporters (from 1950 until his death at 1974) were his (proclaimed relative?) Yassir Arafat who use to say that he fought the Jews in 1948 because the orders given to him by the Mufti. Out of all this let's figure out what we want to say in the article. Zeq 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we are converging and compromise is possible here. I sure tried to have one.
So far i did not receive an answer to basic questions above which could be a base for a commonground.
I asked these questions in good faith and I expect a good faith answer.

Thank you, Zeq 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zero's comments above. If Pecher is right that we cannot tell whether one thing is more important than another, then we would never be able to write any article about anything, as the mere fact of selecting items for inclusion requires a judgement that they are more important than others. I do not see how anyone has proved that Amin al-Husayni's actions in support of Nazi Germany had anything like the impact that his actions in Palestine had. These latter actions are the subject of considerable comment in most histories of the British Mandate in Palestine. Palmiro | Talk 17:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmiro has confused relative importance with notability. All facts that are notable according to the Wikipedia policy must be included into the article regardless of whether we deem some of them to be more mportant than the others. Pecher ^Talk 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't confused anything. You said that it was impossible to prove relative importance. That you accept that some things are notable and others aren't show that when you think about it you do not in fact believe this. Deciding that one thing is notable and another is not is a decision as to their relative importance. Palmiro | Talk 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability is an absolute category, not relative one. Things are or are not notable by themselves, not in relationship, to other things. For example, a wedding is usually a very relatively important event in a person's life, but it need not be notable according to Wikipedia standards. It is not possible to argue that a layman's wedding is not notable because it's less important than other events because in this case we have no yardstick that would enable us to first, define which events are undisputably notable and then determine a cutoff point for notability on the scale of declining importance. In other words, we cannot have a workable definition of notability when the criterion for it is relative rather than absolute. Pecher ^Talk 21:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A qiock note to Palmiro: No one was or is trying to proove anything. The fact that Amin was pro nazi, colaborated with them, made many anti-Jewish calls and actions in his life - all this is undisputed. We are relly discussing here if the POV that emphasised his being a member of the mulsim council is more important than him being an anti-semite. Zeq 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a minute. First of all, his position on the Supreme Muslim Council was a matter of fact, not of point of view. Secondly, we are discussing what is so important, and crucial to defining the importance of this historical figure, that it should go into the first sentence. Palmiro | Talk 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me ? If we are to bring facts: He was as much of an anti-semite and Nazi colaborator as he was president of muslim council. In fact he was still against the jews after he was removed from the council. The issue is not to bombared this article with all his titles. (the word mufti can be mntioned once not 3-4 times) but to give details about who he was based on his actions. Zeq 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that concerning Haj Amin al-Husseini he first was a nationalist leader in Palestine. All remaining is link to that. He became a religious leader for politcal matters. And the fact that he collaborated with the Nazis is not important for itself but more for the consequences this had on his action as political leader after world war 2. But again, this must be relativised. His "collaboration" didn't weaken his position with other arabs leaders (only his political status influenced their mind pro or contra). This is the same with the British who had expelled him from Palestine for his political action and who agreed to leave him come back (except at Jérusalem) in spite of his collaboration with Nazi regime because he was a political leader representative of much palestinian people. This proves they at least didn't mind. This is only in front of the outside world that his collaboration with the nazis had impact in increasing the "capital of sympathy" of the jews and as a consequence weakening the position of Palestinians. Whether you like this or not, I suggest you have a look once again at his caricature of May48 in NYTimes. Christophe Greffe 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British "allowed himm to come back in spite of his collaboration with Nazi regime " - is that really so ? (please recheck) Nither the British nor most of the world (including the rab world) could never ignored what he did ebfore and during ww-2. Zeq 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm nobody ignored what he did during WW2. I saw many article about that in Jerusalem Post of 1946 and have alos in mind that Pearlman published his book in 1947. I confirm that he was allowed to travell in Palestine except in the area of Jerusalem. My source is Pappé, "La guerre de 1948 en Palestine", p.98. Talking about the politicians of the Arab High Comitee, he writes (I translate) : "English had forbidden him to go to Palestine, but later, when this interdiction was limited to the area of Jerusalem, he never went to cities and villages of the Mandatory Palestine." Christophe Greffe 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peppe is the person who in June 2005 published a warnning saying that israel is removing the settlers from Gaza so it can attack Gaza with such a horrible weapon that would harm the settlers if they stay only few miles away from the city. (i.e . he accused Israel for wanting to nuke Gaza...) so I just wanted to make sure you know your sources....But if you want to add something like "according to peepe the British ignored his nazi coloboration and allowed him to come back to Palestine" that is fine by me. Zeq 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British certainly did not allow him back into Palestine while they were in charge. Did Pappe really claim otherwise? After the British left, the Arab states were also reluctant to allow him into Palestine. The first time he got there was in September 1948 when he went to Gaza in secret for a few days but was thrown out by the Egyptians when they learned about it. (Elpeleg p97). --Zero 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what Pappé writes and he is Prof of History at Haifa and widely published in the french world, more than Morris. I also read that Prof Gelber refused to be published in a review that would publish Pappé. I don't want to comment Morris political analysis about the inevitable ethnic cleansing and the absence of solution to the conflct. These guys are poor politicians but competent historians. Zero, this is an assumption, do you have a reference with a quote because I already inserted this information in the French wikipedia. Christophe Greffe 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you have Pappe's context right. Maybe the "later" is referring to a time after the British left. The two books on the Mufti that I have handy agree on the basic facts here. In Mattar p119: "The British sought to 'checkmate' the Mufti regarding Palestine throughout the Middle East. They refused to allow him to return to Palestine. ... In addition, they repeated 'warned' the governments of Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon to 'control' the Mufti's diplomatic activities." Same source p132-133: "he secretly arrived in Gaza on September 28, 1948 - the first time that he stepped on the soil of Palestine in 11 years. ... Within days, the Egyptian prime minister and defense minister ordered the Mufti back to Cairo". Same source p138: "Amin al-Husayni was allowed early in 1967 by King Husayn to briefly visit Jerusalem for the first time in thirty years." Moving to the book of Elpeleg, p96-97: "Haj Amin flatly denied accusations against him that he had avoided returning to Palesine in order to go on enjoying the 'good life' in Egypt. .. He described the attempts that he had made to return...both before and after the British withdrawal. In one of these attempts, at the end of September 1948, he had managed to get to Gaza in secret. He remained there for a few days, until the Egyptians returned him forcibly to Cairo." Elpeleg then states his opinion that the Mufti might have been able to return earlier if he really wanted to, but he never says that returning was permitted. Refering to the 1951 time period, p127: "Haj Amin was prohibited from entering Jordan, and Egypt prevented him from operating in the refugee camps in the Gaza Strip". --Zero 10:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the information. There cannot be no misunderstanding of the context with which Pappe give the information. He is talking about the palestinian preparation to war before 15 may. Most of the chapter refers to period between Nov30 and May 15 with some go back in the years before. In that specific lines, he is blaming palestinian politicians for their uncompetence having "abandon" them: only 3 of 12 members of the Arab High Comitee were in Palestine while other where at Damas. And then he clearly precise that Mufti never went to Palestine while British had limited his restriction of movement to Jeruslam (My translation above is not a summary, this is a word by word translation). Whatever, it is clear that it is a controversial information. Pappé doesn't indicate reference for this information. Christophe Greffe 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the topic was : is Mufti first a politican or a nazi collaborator and the point I wanted to underline was that he was not forbidden access to Palestine because of his collaboration but because of his anti british activities (ie political activities) before war. Maybe also because he was an ennemy of Abdallah's (and therefore) British's plans of not leaving the Palestine state born but leaving this be annexed by (Trans)Jordan... That sounds logical but I don't have any reference about that. Christophe Greffe 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has a clear source for any of motives of the British for that did or did not do - we can not get any conclusion about the Mufti life from the hidden British motives. Let's focus on what he did and what he said. Zeq 13:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the roots

After all the hair-splitting, let's try and return to the subject of the dispute, to wit, how the first paragraph in general and the first sentence in particular should be worded. Arguments were made that because al-Husseini's role as collaborator was less important than his role as a nationalist (some would say, anti-Semitic) leader. No matter how we weigh the relative importance of al-Husseini's several roles, there is still no reason not mention all of them in the first sentence. Take, for example, an article on Isaac Newton, which is a featured article, by the way. The first sentence says: "Sir Isaac Newton ... was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher". It is undisputable that Newton's achievements in alchemy were - to put it mildly - somewhat less important than his contributions to physics and mathematics. Yet, the fact that he was an alchemist is included in the first sentence alongside the descriptions of him as physicist, mathematician, and what not; in a nutshell, everything for which Newton is notable is said in the first sentence. Because Isaac Newton is a featured article, we may be safe to conclude that this is a good example to follow, and by extension, everything for which al-Husseini is notable must be included in the first sentence. Pecher ^Talk 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this seems reasonable. Everything notable about Husayni should be summed up in the first sentence in as few words as possible. How about something along the lines of, "Amin al-Husayni is notable for being the leader of Palestine, a collaborator with the Nazis, and the Mufti of Jerusalem". --

02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of ending the dispute, I'll agree to that as a basis. The first description "leader of Palestine" is not quite right; it should be something like "Palestinian nationalist leader". --Zero 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposal for vote #1

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as Amin al-Husseini) is notable for being a Palestinian Arab nationalist leader, a collaborator with the Nazis and Mufti of Jerusalem.

I think "is" should be "was" (better English) and we don't really need "is notable for". Also "al-Husseini" is not an alternative name but just an alternative English spelling of the same name. Also add a comma to clarify the parsing. Therefore:

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, also spelt Amin al-Husseini) was a Palestinian Arab nationalist leader, a collaborator with the Nazis, and Mufti of Jerusalem.

Proposal for vote #2

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (1895 - 1974, أمين الحسيني, also spelt Amin al-Husseini) was the Muslim Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem and became a Palestinian nationalist leader. During World War II he collaborated with the Nazis and helped recurit Muslims for the German army. Husseini is known for his anti-Jewish views and his strong objections to Zionism.

Zeq 15:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other reference sources

This is the complete entry from The Oxford Companion to World War II

Husseini, Hadj Amin el- (1897?–1974), pro-Axis Mufti (a Muslim religious official who issues Islamic law rulings) of Jerusalem from 1921 who led the Arab revolt in Palestine during the 1930s. Forced to flee in 1937 he eventually reached Iraq where he worked closely with Rashid Ali against British influence in the Middle East. After Rashid Ali's revolt against the British failed in April 1941, the Mufti ended up in Germany working as a propagandist and as recruiter of Muslim volunteers for the German forces. See also anti-imperialism.

"Husseini, Hadj Amin el-" The Oxford Companion to World War II. Ed. I. C. B. Dear and M. R. D. Foot. Oxford University Press, 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

This is the introduction from the general article on the mufti in Encyclopedia Britannica:

Amin al-Husayni, born 1897, Jerusalem, Palestine, Ottoman Empire, died July 4, 1974, Beirut, Lebanon, also called Al-hajj Amin - grand mufti of Jerusalem and Arab nationalist figure who played a major role in Arab resistance to Zionist political ambitions in Palestine.

Husayni, Amin al-. (2006). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica.

These should prove useful. --Ian Pitchford 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for vote #3

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895 - July 4, 1974, أمين الحسيني, alternatively known as Amin al-Husseini and "Mufti of Jerusalem"), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Sunni Muslim religious leader, who fought fiercely against the establishment of a Jewish state in the British Mandate of Palestine and to this end collaborated with Nazi Germany before and during the World War II. Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support As nominator. The proposed first sentence lists everything for what al-Husayni is known: nationalist and religious leader, his fight against the establishment of the Jewish state, and collaboration with the Nazis. Nothing appears omitted. The link between anti-Jewish struggle and Nazi should not be contentious as it follows directly from the article that when he made his overtures to the Nazis, his primary concern was the fight against the Jews. In addition, his collaboration began in 1938, i.e. before the WWII. Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin

This is a minor point but for sake of accuracy:

al, el - are both different spelling of the word "the" in Arabic.

so "al-Husseini, el-Husseini" are really "the Husseini" (which is already part of his name)

Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin - are both the same word.

so "al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin" can and should be shortned to "Haj Amin"

The correct spelling should be: Amin Husseini as this is his name. Zeq 12:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the name used by professional historians, which is "Amin al-Husayni" or equivalently "Amin al-Husseini". We should not use "Haj" because that is a title not a name and titles are not used by WP policy. --Zero 12:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. we need to shorten thism line based on your suggestion. Zeq 13:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quotes that the Mufti was not antisemit

Could someone provides quotes from as valuable sources as possible that he was not antisemit ? Christophe Greffe 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the claimnant. The default position is not that everyone is an anti-Semite unless it is proven otherwise. Although, recruiting for the Nazi army might be enough right there to establish anti-Semitisim. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is well estblished that many of his actions were against the jews, in different occastions he made calls to kill the jews. He is described as an anti-semite in many places. I am quite sure that if he was alive today and asked "Are you against the jews ? " he would proudly answer: "Yes !". Zeq 06:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I see how recruiting for the German army is proof enough to establish someone as an anti-semite. Being a general in the same army would not be proof of this. And the nature of your claims all boils down to interpretation of motive etc, which can never be more than a POV. It is more than enough to have his actions described, it is not up to WP to draw conclusions from them. --Cybbe 08:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A call to kill the jews is pretty clear. Where I come from actions speak loudly. Many people see him as antisemite based on his actions and words. His pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish actions are by far more than just "recurting" for the Nazis. He is described as "Antisemite" and "Pro-Nazi" by many. Zeq 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Maybe but could someone provide quotes from as valuable source as possible that he was not antisemit ? Thank you. Christophe Greffe 11:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt such sources exist. But maybe. If ther are serious scholarly sources we need to see them. I realize off course the burden of prrof in a formal trial is on those making a claim but we are in an in formal discussion, having a crediable source claim he was NOT and antisemite would be helpfull to explain his acts (maybe?) Zeq 12:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a question is about as interesting as "could someone provide a quote from an as valuable source as possible that he was not a martian?". Why would a serious scholar go at lengths describing someone _not_ as an antisemite? Stop try to put the burden of proof where it does not belong, and consider WPs NPOV policies. --Cybbe 19:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean that articles cannot contain any POV at all (anti-Semite is a POV). It means that POV must be treated neutrally. If we can find sources showing that Husayni was decidedly anti-semite, or identified as such, it goes into the article. --Cyde Weys 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A source that shows he decidedly was an anti-semite? Please tell me, what would such a source be? If someone makes a claim that he was an anti-semite, and they are noteworthy enough for their opinions to be relevant, they might go in the article, but it can obviously not pass as a fact. The claim must be attributed as such. Opinions are not facts. --Cybbe 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 case enables to be so "crude" : 1. when the people refers himself as such, 2. when justice condemned him as such. 3. When there is no controverse about the fact he is such 4. When he made statements that can be attributed to him and that are not controversed as such. For example, Iranian President is anti-semitic because he claimed anti-semitic theories. Christophe Greffe 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your alleged cases: 1) Uh, no. If he described himself as such, we could state he described himself as such. His POV is still a POV, e.g. if he had described himself as "a man of peace" it would not amount to a fact. ; 2) Who and what is "justice"? And still, we should only state facts, e.g. "he was convicted of...", or "he was found guilty of..." ; 3) A POV is still not a fact even though a vast majority agrees, e.g. Hitler was arguably an evil man, but stating that as a fact is still a breach of the NPOV policy. 4) Still POV, still goes into interpretations and mind guessing. Again, the correct way is to cite what he has said, if you think it is obvious from the statements that he was an anti-semite, there should be no need to point that out. It all boils down to correct application of WP policy. --Cybbe 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I assume there is no one antisemite as a consequence ? Could you please answer ? Please, could you also precise what could be stated about Hitler, you talked about... And also, be consistent with yourself then and go and explain eg to Palmiro just above there is no zionist propaganda, please ;-) Christophe Greffe 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not saying there are no anti-semites. Im saying it is not up to us to state as _a fact_ who are and who arent. This is policy, and the example I did on Hitler is taken from WP:NPOV. Oh, and I expect Palmiro to express his POV on talk pages, I certainly do, this place is for discussion. --Cybbe 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but could you please indicate to me who in earth history *is* antisemite ? Christophe Greffe 19:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This is no tea-party, and as I have explained, it would be of no relevance. --Cybbe 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with Cybbe's comments on this issue. --Zero 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear you lack knowledge on this topic. Here is one : [13]. Christophe Greffe 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who think Mark Weber [14] is a serious refernce is making a big mistake and also hurting his own credability. He is known as holocaust reveionist and argues that laws against holocaus denial are a disgarce to Humanity.....

I'm going to have to agree here. Just because something is online doesn't mean it can be trusted. And seeing as how these people are generally associated with being Holocaust deniers, I don't think we should use anything by them. They seem decidedly POV. --128.8.73.58 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I assume Christophe Greffe just did not know who is was bringing as refernce I would just rather ignore it and say that there are no evidence that the Mufti was non antisemitic but there is pleanty that he was. Zeq 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right about Weber's lack of credibility, but I don't see what his opinions about holocaust denial laws has to do with that; plenty of people who would disagree with Weber on every other thing might agree with his distaste for such laws. Me, for example. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we agree about Weber's lack of credability and we seem to agree about him not being a good refernce we don't have to continue this discussion and we can go back to the Mufti.Zeq 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeq. I perfectly know where I took this reference. I only ask for AS VALUABLE AS POSSIBLE sources about the fact that the Mufti was not a antisemitic to add in the below mentionned articel. Christophe Greffe 20:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to hear that you know where you took it from and still decided to use it. Zeq 20:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, I think you lack jewish humour :-) Christophe Greffe 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism

First I want to underline that I am not involved in your dispute. I started gathering these sources far before this dispute started. I don't mind Haj Amin al-Husseini's life. I have gathered all references about people talking about his antisemitism (pro or contra) in the forementionned article. The article is perfectly sourced and all authors are referenced. Everybody who wants to add "well referenced" source is welcome. Regards. I have started gathering information from people claiming he is not. They just have to be added. Christophe Greffe 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a constructive comment about the fact that the title is not NPOV enough and should be : Haj Amin al-Husseini and antisemitism. Any comment ? Christophe Greffe 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remind that if somebody has references about this topic, at the condition they are well-sources and referenced, they are welcome. Christophe Greffe 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Cyde's talk page

Main article namespace is for encyclopedic content only. What you have is a list of references that aren't a standalone article and should either be merged into the main article on Amin al-Husayni or put somewhere in your userspace. --Cyde Weys 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should appear in the main article because it would balance this. I thought it would be better to treat this information an equivalent way as : List of Israeli military operation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war or List of villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Christophe Greffe 08:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote at the date of March 6

Delete : 5

Merge or rename : 8

(one Delete or merge not taken into account)

Christophe Greffe 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response to Christophe

I'm sure everyone appreciates your going to so much trouble Christophe, but almost all of this material is too poorly sourced to go in the article. I would only be comfortable with Elpeleg and Arendt, and the latter hasn't done any work on the mufti. As a Belgian resident you probably aren't aware that iUniverse and Xlibris (publishers of the books by Morse and Carlson) will publish anything sent to them for a fee. Self-published sources are not allowed in Wikipedia, see WP:V. Most web sites also fall in to the category "self-published" as there is no quality control mechanism. Of your 17 references I see the following,

Self-published books 15 & 17.
Same source: 2 & 3 (only reputable historian cited).
Propaganda web sites: 6, 7, 13.
No relevant content 4, 8, 10, 12, 16.
Unsourced claims: 5 (letter to the Editor (not a biography), quotation disputed by historians), 9.
Propaganda pamphlet: 11 (Pearlman, Haganah spokesman, Lt Colonel in the IDF).

I'm sorry to be so negative. --Ian Pitchford 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't even read the text...

You don't have to be sorry, just to be honnest...

Note there is no 17 references but only 9. The additionnal notes (the only thing you read as proven by your comment "no relevant content 4, 8, 10, 12, 16) give information about where the information comes from or leave to the reader the opportunity to check what is written.

Sorry you didn't read the text. This would also indicate that your vote for the deletion was a pure act of angryness. Sorry for that.

I strongly underline that this material is NOT poorly source. Everything is perfectly and particularly well sourced. Maybe authors could be controversed (and certainly even for some) but this is WHAT THEY CLAIM. Nuances are important : only their reliability can be discussed.

I numbered them from 1 to 9 for clarity : [15]

1 is Arendt. so is good.

2 is Zvi Elpeld. so is good.

3 You comment 'unsourced claim'... This is Dr Walter Reich's claim, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior. What can we reproach to him ? Competence ?

4 You comment propagandist website : Simon Wiesenthal is a propagandist. Maybe. I really don't know. I precised his claim, reported this and showed where to find them. Give me a quote that can justify he is a propagandist.

5 For Edwin Black and his book : "IBM and the holocaust", you say quotation disputed by historians. Maybe. Could you provide them ?

---

6 I agree he is a propagandist. Of course. But this doesn't prove he lies. That is why I clearly wrote who he was and give the reference of a book written by Ben Gourion about him... Reader can judge by himself.

7 Of course Joan Peters is controversed. I even wrote why and who controversed her : Chomsky and Finkelstein. But is she controversed for her quotes about Mufti. Not at all according to what I know : it is because she defended the thesis of a land without a nation for a nation without a land. Morris stated in Haaretz Ben Gourion should have attaqued cisjordania in 1949 and he stated that Muslims were barbarians : do we have to remove all of what he writes ? No we just repport what he writes.

8 I hesitated much about Morse but he is neverthless a candidate for the congress of the united states... I hardly see how we could censure claim's from him...

9 I dont know who is Paul Carlson. But nothing indicate he could be a liar. He quotes Bar Zohar who I discover yesterday is quoted on palestineremember and I therefore assume a reliable source. But that was n°9.

---

Christophe Greffe 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about 7, J.Peters

No, Joan Peters is controversial because her book has been shown to be full of untruths and deceptions. That is quite different. --Zero 03:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky is also full of deceptions. Still he is a source. If there is a dispute about a specific quote from Peters you should bring the other POV -"describe the controversy" is the way Wikipedia handle if something is POV. The policy sais "NPOV, not "truth" .Zeq 05:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zero. You must be right. When I read that hypothesis of a land without people for a people without land I can hardly believe the remaining is true. But this is not my problem. This is Joan Peters'problem. I report her claim. If she was the only one, I think she should not be place. Do you have a report from a notorious writer that would indicate she is controversed because "her book has been shown to be full of untruths and deceptions" ? Christophe Greffe 09:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results of nomination for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism

Text of close:

The result of the debate was delete and merge. The current page is a fork, and not a likely search term, so it is not appropiate to retain it even as a redirect. The material may have a place in the parent article. To avoid any GFDL issues, this will be moved to a subpage Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary). If and when the editors at Amin al-Husseini decide to incorporate this material, then decisions can be made regarding how to preserve the licence. If the consensus there is not to merge this material, the page can be deleted by leaving a note on my (or probably any other) adminstrator's talk.
brenneman{T}{L} 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Order of events:

"References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism" moved to Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)
Talk:References about Haj Amin al-Husseini’s anti-semitism" moved to Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)
Both resulting redirects deleted.
Contents of "Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)" copied below
"Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)" redirected here.

Copied from "Talk:Amin al-Husseini/anti-semitism (temporary)":

This page looks like a POV Fork from Amin al-Husayni. cmh 18:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. This article is not a pov fork of Haj Amin al-Husseini article. This articles is intended to gathers all references about Haj Amin al-Husseini's anti-semitism : whether they claim this or whether not. No matter. More this is not at all a copy of Haj Amin al-Hussein'es article where I am not involved at all. More it is particurlarly NPOV in introducing the comments and is extrelemy sourced and documented. So, could you argue why you consider it would be whether a pov fork ? Thank you. Christophe Greffe 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very title of this article is a POV-fork. Not a single of these sources even describe him as an anti-semite. --Cybbe 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my country, the defense of the final solution or the extermination of the Jews is considered as an antisemitic's point of view. What title would you consider more appropriate ? Christophe Greffe 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is moderation of these issues going on over at the discussion page for Amin al-Husayni in which you are involved. Perhaps it would be wise to simply continue your discussion over there. According to WP:NPOV all sides of an issue must be discussed on a single page, therefore your creation of a page titled for one side of the controversy is POV regardless of content. cmh 19:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't gather references about the fact that he would be anti-semite but gathers all quotes that discuss his (assumed) antisemitism. As a consequence it doesn't at all concern one side of a dispute and the flag you put is not appropriate. Any editor is welcome to add in this article any well-referenced comment about Haj Amin al Husseini's anti-semitism, stating it is true or not. Thank you. Christophe Greffe 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be or it may not be, but these issues should be discussed in one place, the page existing about this person. It is inappropriate to create a new page solely for that purpose. cmh 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What may be or may not be ? This is not clear in your comments ? If this is the choice of the flag, please argue about your choice for this. More, what forbids to write an article about a topic that is debated by historians in the different article than the article of the man debated about ? [16]. Christophe Greffe 20:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to your first sentence when I say That may be or it may not be. As for your question of what forbids it is the most basic Wikipedia official policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article. " Further debate as to your intentions for the page are really beside the point. Unless a reason can be presented why this page is not on the same subject as Amin al-Husseini I will nominate it for deletion.

I am not sure wikipedia policy means threat as the one you do. Please argue and prove you don't defend a pov. As explained in the talk page of the article of Al Husseini, there is enough in that article about the man in question. This article deals with a very precise controversial topic which is of course linked to the main article but which doesn't deserve place in it. That is why it is referenced there (and only reference) and that the topic is developed in another chapter. So, there are 2 subjets.Christophe Greffe 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see Haj Amin al-Husseini's talk page Christophe Greffe 07:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps:
Forks are bad, but support articles are good. If the consensus on this page is that this is valuable material, first attempt to integrate it. If there is too much high quality encyclopedic material to fit into this article then it can be split out. Conversly, if the consensus is that this material doesn not belong in this article, the subpage can be tagged for speedy deletion refering to the closed afd.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 04:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

next steps

Comments =

This cannot be deleted. That would be censorship of the claim of these people. Note of them can be censored. They all are notorious, some are even extremely highly reliable. Against all votes, I recommand this not to be merged and not to be deleted but to be annexed to the article with a reference leading to it. This for the global NPOV of the main article. And that was not fork ! Christophe Greffe 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Suggested addition to the article