Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 4

message: In addition to the unsourced claims in the article discussed above there are references to two works by Joseph Schechtman and Maurice Pearlman. Schechtman was one of the founders of Revisionist Zionism. In March 1947 he travelled to Palestine with two representatives of the Jewish Agency Executive (Moshe Sneh and Moshe Shertok) and three members of the World Zionist Organization to work on the presentation of the "Palestine problem" to the UN. In early 1948 Schechtman lobbied the US government to support the forcible expulsion of the whole Palestinian Arab population from the Jewish state to Iraq. In 1956 he stood as Herut candidate for president of World Zionist Congress on a platform advocating a war by Israel against the Arab states in order to "restore the ancient frontiers of Palestine", a euphemism for conquering and occupying the neighbouring Arab states. Maurice Pearlman was an official Haganah spokesman. According to Idith Zertal the propaganda relating to the Mufti became prominent in the wake of the Eichmann trial in the early 60s during which there was "explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics... especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict". It was then that the Mufti was linked to Eichmann and was depicted as an architect of the Final Solution. According to Zertal the topic of Arab-Nazi relationships did not exist as an issue in the nascent studies of the Holocaust before this time. Apparently the process culminated in the Mufti being given an entry in the Hebrew edition of the Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Holocaust almost as long as that of Hitler. --Ian Pitchford 22:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I would note a couple things: 1) It doesn't really matter whether one approves of the behavior of Schectman or Pearlman in pursuit of a "Greater Israel," assuming that is what they were up to (I confess I have no idea). To attack them in this way is, if I remember my formal logic correctly, a tu quoque attack, and not therefore compelling per se. I also think that the central issue here is not whether the Jews felt that the Mufti and, by extension, all hostile Arabs were Nazis but, rather, whether they felt they were in danger of being wiped out (and it need not be demonstrated that they were right in this belief in order for it to merit inclusion). If it were the case that Jews in the Middle East heard, in 1944 or at any time in the 40's (in person or through hearsay), the mufti and others urging Arabs to kill Jews wherever they could be found, this would be important in that it speaks to the attitude the early Israelis had towards those who invaded. IronDuke 22:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this has been discussed above. References to the peer-reviewed literature would be needed to support each of these claims and if these issues are indeed important there will be numerous good sources that will fit better with Wikipedia's mission than works by an "official Zionist writer" and an "official Haganah spokesman" posing as historians. Logic doesn't render it impossible to assess the credibility of sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more then enough credible sources provided, please reply Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#References. --Heptor 00:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right...so, Ian, does that mean that if the notion that Israelis feared genocide in the '48 war were credibly sourced, you would support the inclusion of the mufti's quote? IronDuke 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'm not Ian but I'll give my own opinion.  It is true that some Israelis feared genocide in 1948 (and also true that some Arabs did, btw).  This could be mentioned when we find a appropriate source to cite.  However, that does not justify this "quotation" (either the 1944 one or the 1948 one).  Nobody has provided any evidence that any Jews in Palestine even knew about it.  It was certainly known that the Mufti was a collaborator who met Hitler, etc, and for many people that would have been enough.  Use of such dubious material as this quotation would be damaging to the quality of the article.  --Zero 09:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Pearlman's book came out before the war.  Does Schechtman make reference to other material or make claims that are significantly "inflated" from Pearlman's pre-war claims? Kriegman 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would strongly oppose this paragraph being inserted as anything but POV.  There is no evidence that the Israeli's did not face "imminnent destruction" if they lost the war.  While there is no evidence to conclude that the Arabs would have engaged in genocide, that outcome is common in human history and not just in the Holocaust.  So whether or not the sense of danger was "false" depends on what "would have" happened.  Such speculation must only be presented as POV.  In presenting the Mufti's quotation(s) and activities as a basis for Israeli fears (factual), I would agree to make it clear that the fears may not have been justified; we have no way of knowing what would have happened (speculation). Kriegman 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Note on Sources 

message: With edit summary "rev vandalaims" or "footnotes" you should be doing exactly that .
But you changed the text way beyond what your "summary" sais.
This is violation of policy which mislead your fellow editors. Will not work. In fact I would say that what you did is trying to sneak-in your POV in a vandalistic way. will not work. Wikipedia is all about full disclosure of edits. Be honest with your fellow editors.
BTW, your attempt to object some web sites as "propeganda" will not work either. The info has many sources including photos which are from books. 
Zeq 02:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the edits before making such claims. The removal of the vandalism was the deletion of the word "hi" added by 68.198.222.213. The deletion of the propaganda links relating to a peripheral character has already been explained and is fully justified. You have deleted extensive sourced material on the development of forces prior to the war without explanantion in order to re-insert material from propaganda web sites. Please don't let this happen again. --Ian Pitchford 10:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have delted sourced material without even mentioning it in talk so don't complain if people do not understand your edit. And please don't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Zeq 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ian, this was your 4th revert in less than 24 hours. We have two options:
1. I will revert your revert 
2. You will self revert and can merge any new info that was aadded as part of your reverts.
In any case the info about the mufty will stay it is well sourced. Zeq 10:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeq, if so, why did you delete an entire section entitled "Security collaboration between the Yishuv and the British Empire" ? Not only did you take out sourced information, but you re-inserted the statement "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War" which is not sourced (meaning the part about the 'situation not being made easier'). Just curious... Ramallite (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to Ian 

message: There was an editor who reverted few days ago because the common wikipedia practice of using links to web sites did not suit his editing standards. I don't accept his claim web sites (which he argue are "propaganda") are a valid source and we should evaluate the specific link and data (instead of "blanket denial" of any material that come from web sites.
Yet I was suprized to see that the same editor inserted this:
http://www.allthatremains.com/Maps/MilOperOutUN.jpg 
The problem with this link is that the content is too vauge (the drawing) and the words "zionist forces" imply a POV.
But let's look at the source:  http://www.allthatremains.com/MissionStatement.htm - this is clearly a propaganda web site with a mission.  On that, there are those who might say: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" or more to the core issue: Read the policy and you will see that you have no right to deny proper material from web sites. (even in your monds they are not legitimate source of info. That is your biased POV - not the policy. Zeq 12:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Ian, this is another warning that your actions are violation of this policy. Zeq 07:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding unsuitable material to this page. Links to propaganda websites are not appropriate, nor is material from old propaganda works that have not been read or even consulted by the editors trying to insert this stuff. We now have a whole section on this peripheral character, which contains more than enough information for anyone wanting to know more. Considering that we don't have a single word on the perspective of the individual Arab states involved in the war this article is becoming decidedly unbalanced. --Ian Pitchford 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How many times are you going to claim that rubbish from Zionist websites and claims with no references at all belong in an encyclopedia? --Ian Pitchford 22:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are entitles to your views and you can present the other view on the article but  not to violate WP:Point . If you think you can just drive poeple out of articles by calling their work trash or rubbish you are wrong. This is a personal attack. Zeq 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Ian, your edit summary made it look like you did something "according to heptor comments" but there were no such comments. Instead you operated according to your long disruption iof deleting sourced material from this article something you now do regularly 3 times a day (at least on some days) Zeq 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Zeq, look again. There's even a link to the comments. --Ian Pitchford 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see what you are referring to, maybe I missed it (I looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=30154316&oldid=30153402. In any case I suggest you discuss here instead of sending us on a wild goose chase. Zeq 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Kriegman, I have just noticed that you have added disputed claims to this article once more. I am copying my message to Heptor and Zeq below as I suspect there is some confusion about the nature of references. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeq, Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the Mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the Mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is, there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who's making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the <ufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To summarise, you have no evidence to cite other than a photocopy of pages 150-151 of a book by Schechtman  giving a quotation that you want to use and another photocopy of something that can't be identified, but is supposed to be a book by Pearlman supporting the existence of the same quotation . Other than that everything you want to add to the article is attributable to you and no one else. Is that right? --Ian Pitchford 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Kriegman. The Mufti was even described by Yassar Araffat as the leader of the Palestinian army in 1948. There are many citation and Ian can not use a new yardstick to disallow facts he does not want in the article but keep others he wants (in this and in the nakba article. On the other hand I welcome Ian's willingness to discuss instead of just disrupt and any compromise that Kriegman and Ian would agree to will bind me as well. Zeq 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeq, you still aren't citing any sources. We have compromised by including a whole section on the Mufti. We aren't going to have yet another section on him including claims without references. If that concession is made then it implies that anything can be added to any article by any editor. --Ian Pitchford 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are now 15 sources, many of them cite books and other sources. Enough Ian. You asked for sources, you got them. Let's move on. I dod not accept your interpretation to Wikipedia rules. If you do not agree with the methods which are used in this article and are common for refernce do what ever you feel you should do. Any delete of source material will be restored. If you suggest an alternative way to summerize the info on the mufti from these 15 web sites we will listen but if you remove the material factsthat are there now I will restore these facts. Zeq 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid not Zeq. There are still no references at all for the claims made about the Mufti as I have explained on your talk page . You must cite verifiable, reliable sources rather than material from websites. Anybody can post material on the web and claim that they have read the sources. --Ian Pitchford 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. There are. If Wikipedia can not use Web sites 99% of articles could not exist. If you have sources saying the Mufti was not Nazi, that he did not lead his people in calls for kicking the jews to the sea please feel free to Bring the other POV. As for the material that is now in the article it is well sourced, I suggest you spend your time reading it I am sure it will teach you an important chapter in History. May I recomend the "self inflicting Nakba" for example? Zeq 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of web sites as source