Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 6

message: This is how I understand this dispute. It was meant to represent views of Zeq and Kriegman as well, hope I didn't get anything wrong. 
The discussion is about the mufti, or supreme (Muslim) religious leader, of Jerusalem. He seems to be the closest Arabs in the region had to a secular supreme leader as well, at least I didn't see any other important leaders mentioned. All editors do agree that he collaborated with the nazis during WWII. the dispute is about the extend of his collaboration, and what consequenses it had. 
The core of Ians objections (diff link) seems to be the following paragraph:
: Meanwhile, from exile in Egypt where he [The mufti of Jerusalem] was avoiding trial for war crimes due to his collaboration with the Nazis, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War. A segment of the Palestinian forces were loyal to him and were commanded by his cousin. The Mufti, one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs, had spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."  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.
He replaced it with following text in the footnotes: 
: #  For examples of the propaganda surrounding the mufti's wartime collaboration with the Nazis see: Pearlmanm, Maurice (1947). Mufti of Jerusalem. The story of Haj Amin el Husseini. Gollancz; Schechtman, Joseph B. (1965). The Mufti and the Fuehrer: The rise and fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini. New York: T. Yoseloff. ISBN B0006BM7WW; What happened in Palestine during World War II?; Working for the Nazis; The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection Bosnian Moslems recruited the Nazi SS by Yasser Arafat's 'Uncle'; Photographs and Documents; The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection; The Nazi Origins of Modern Arab Terror
Also, Ian wishes to change "On the same day, however, the Arab League Secretary-General, Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". [the reference is to Sachar]". He wants it to be "Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha reportedly announced, "This will be a war of extermination....."
Evidently, credibility of historians Pearlman, Schechtman and Sachar is the source of Ian's concerns. I had a discussion about Pearlman with another editor, Zero. Ian and Zero cooperated closely on many articles in Arab-Israeli conflict, so I believe Ian has similar or same arguments. Zero  claimed that Pearlman is a liar, evidently because in one of his books Pearlman wrote that in a report by the Shaw commision about 1929 Arab revolt "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned", while only the minority report made that conclusion. The majority report concluded, based on the same findings, that "The outbreak was not premeditated". Because of this, Zero claims that "Pearlman is a liar, [...], so why should I believe this?" I do not know why Ian questions credibility of the other historians I mentioned above.
Also, sentence "In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy." is disputed by Ian, on the basis that it is not verified that such statements did lead to the believe among Israelis that they were facing a genocidal enemy. Both Zeq and Kriegman are willing to compromise on this, but they also pointed out that pro-Arab statements are not subject to such scrutiny.
-- Heptor 01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Heptor 

message: I appariciate your effort and understand your situation. We all have to balance our time.
There is a systematic problem in this area. IMHO clear Wikipedia policies such as NPOV are not followed and also editors such as zero0000 use "complex reverts" to argue that their imature revert war are "edits" and not "reverts". Someone (who ?) is letting them get away with it. (see repeat violation of him on the 3RR notice board)
Anyhow, the 3RR is not the main concern, the syetematic bias is. Different yardstick is applied to any edit which seems "pro-israel" and that is the cause for the revert war, Ian, Zero "disqulaify" sources that does not fit their POV while such sources are used all over wikipedia. The problem extend tio other articles (see Nakba in which there is almost "ownership" by pro-Palestinians editors. I am sure they see it exactly the other way and think that my edits are anti-Palestinian.
The point is that colboration had failed. It had failed systematicly. Pro israel editors have been systematiclly banned. All together while I look for compromise (and where able to work out few with Ramallite and few others) The other side mostly look for conflict, for ArbCom and for revert wars. Wikipedia must allocate the time to mediate this complex subject all over different articles. The bias is clear all over and usual policies have failed. They must be applied to many articles at the same time. I hope the mediation will work but I think eventually it will take an arbcom decision to correct this situation. 
As I have stated even before the "protect" I will accept any compromise that Kriegman and Heptor would work out.Zeq 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statment by Zeq 

message: How long are we supposed to wait for Ian, anyway? With him abscent, there is no dispute to be resolved. Me, Zeq and Kriegman mostly do agree on the contents of the page, and we can work out the minor differences in our views. What do you think, Sean?-- Heptor 00:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note on his talk page. Unfortunately, Ian seems to have stopped editing at least for the moment. I will send him an email and see what he says.--Sean|Black 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Ian? 

message: I know I have been absent from this debate for quite awhile but I feel like I should quickly chime in here.  Ian and Zero continually delete statments that go against their line of reasoning while adding material that is usually far more extreme than what they delete.  Their reasoning is always more or less the same- That they must delete "obvious pro-israeli propaganda" and that they have to add passages "that assure that the palestinians' viewpoint is represented".  Both Zero and Ian seem to believe that a properly sourced passage is automatically valid unless of course they disagree with it.  We all know that that it is easy to find sources from every single viewpoint of the Israeli-Palestinan" conflict, what matters is whether or not the source is valid.  
So if Zero's and Ian's sources are to be taken at face value then Kriegman's and Heptor's must as well, since they are considerably more neutral.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 

message: Ian has mailed me back saying that he no longer wishes to contribute to Wikipedia. While this is an unfortunate consequence, he seems to be in good spirits, and I feel that it would be in our best interest to recognize his viewpoint nonetheless. At this point, I think we should discuss. The parties are obviously the ones who will have something significant to say, and I will ensure that the discussion remains civil and peaceful.--Sean|Black 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian's response

message: What are everyone's current problems with the article, if any?--Sean|Black 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current issues

message: The British played both sides. They were friends with each side, play both sides against the other. This section cann not focus only on their connections with the jews while the comader of the Arab army (and all high ranking officers) were in fact British. Zeq 19:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The British played both sides in order to retain control of its colony and later to preserve its influence in the region. There was no Arab Army as such, but I think you are referring to Transjordan's Arab Legion, which did have British officers. Those officers were ordered by London to abandon their posts if the Arab Legion was asked to advance into territory allocated by the UN to the Jewish state. --Ian Pitchford 07:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British 

message: We have implemented this policy which clearly sais "Editors should then find sources to support it (if possible) and re-instate it into the article proper" You dispute the validity of the sources but that is not disputing the content. Nothing that you have shown shows that these sources are any different from sources used all over Wikipedia. We mediated this issue but now you are accepting the results of the mediation or not ? Zeq 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The material you are inserting into this article will be deleted until you cite a scholarly reference. --Ian Pitchford 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Ian, it will not. You will not apply different standrds than those used on all other Wikipedia articles. 
You asked for sources and you got them. You refused mediation still we allow you to come back to it. If you dispute this further go to Rfa. I am not planning to argue with you about sourced material any more. Zeq 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are you disputing: History ? Policy ? or the result of the mediation ?