Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The removal of content concerning Handschar division 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Pro-Nazi" 

message: About this diff 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Two Questions to Zero  

message: 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)
replies: text: How long do we have to put up with you? --Zero 12:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will not be here for long but nither will you. Zeq 12:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  some historians disagree 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nazi stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources to consider 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: For the record, I do not support exuberant labeling, especially in the first paragraph. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi material consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another source for "kill the jews" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Back to the roots

message: * 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)
thread_title: Proposal for vote #2 

message: 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)
thread_title: Other reference sources

message: 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)
replies: text: *Not sure I have fully grasped you argument. Why do you see "Jewish state" as misleading? Because the sentence does not say that its establishment was among the terms of the British mandate?Pecher Talk 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not thw words used in the mandate. Zeq 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "homeland" is not as precise as "state", but that's after all, what the drafters of the mandate meant: an independent Jewsih state. For this reason, I would favor "state" in an encyclopedia. Pecher Talk 16:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't really object to this version, as it looks essentially the same as version #3, just a little bit longer. Pecher Talk 17:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He did not really fought against Jewish state or homeland. I would say Jewish self-determnination instead. Also, I don't know whether Waffen SS in the Balkans can be considered the German army. My version follows below. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that "self-determination" is somewhat too general, especially in that historic context. The British Mandate over Palestine clearly put upon Britain the obligation of establishing a Jewish national home there, which everybody interpreted as an independent state. Pecher Talk 22:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just getting silly now folks. --Ian Pitchford 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: He clearly cooperated with the Nazis after Munich, and there is even a special section in the article devoted to his pre-war Nazi ties saying he received "financial and military assistance". Otherwise, the proposal is fine with me. Pecher Talk 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: add "before and" ... per Pecher  - otherwise fine by me. We need to keep in mind that this is the 1st sentence. We would later need to work more on this article. Zeq 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Receiving aid does not imply "collaboration".  Collaboration is a two-way process.  Another reason I object to that wording is that "before WWII" has no starting point and seems to consume the long period of the Mandate when he was in Palestine (1920-1937).  In fact his contacts with the Nazis during that period were less than those of the Zionists and had no practical consequences.  Only from 1938 onwards was that not true.  --Zero 09:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this article is about him.Zionist cooperation with the nazis is a different article. He did colaborated with them prior to the war as well. Aid does not just fall from the sky. Zeq 10:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it does.  Governments, including Germany of 1938, give aid when they consider it in their own best interest.     --Zero 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zeq & Pecher convinced me here. First, 1938 is before WW2. Second, there is a whole lot of unhealthy interest to Zionist "cooperation" with the Nazis. I am for inclusion of the text "before and" or at least something to the effect of "from 1938 onward". ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody has yet specified how he "collaborated" in 1938.  Asking for aid and getting some is not collaboration.  --Zero 11:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for vote #3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I accept. we need to shorten thism line based on your suggestion. Zeq 13:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Husseini, el-Husseini, Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin 

message: Delete : 5
Merge or rename : 8
(one Delete or merge not taken into account)
Alithien 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vote at the date of March 6 

message: 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)
thread_title: Brief response to Christophe

message: :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 : 
1 is Arendt. so is good.
2 is Zvi Elpeleg. 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.
---
Alithien 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: you didn't even read the text...

message: * 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 ! Alithien 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Alithien 17:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  next steps 

message: Christophe, I would have thought my comments above were sufficiently detailed not to have to respond again. However, I will genuinely try to make this my last comment. Firstly, self-published books cannot be cited or quoted in Wikipedia per WP:V#Self-published_sources. I've referred you to this policy several times without result or response. The books by Morse and Carlson are self-published and cannot be used. Secondly, you should cite your sources per WP:CITE, not the source that a book review or a web page claims is the source, e.g., you don't cite Peters if your source is an article on a web page claiming to cite Peters; you don't cite Pearlman if your source is a website. All you have in these cases is one bad source for another bad source. Thirdly, you can't include original research in the article per WP:NOR. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that the mufti supported the Final Solution and was therefore anti-semitic. Reliable sources have to state this unequivocally, preferably with clear evidence in support so that their conclusions can be checked against those of other writers. This is what scholars do. As for Black, see above, I didn't say his book was self-published, but his piece is just an article about his book. Why would anyone use such a poor source to support a major historical claim? Don't you think reliable historians might have something to say about the matter? As for Arendt, I said that I don't see why you shouldn't quote her, but she did no research on the mufti and doesn't support her claim with any evidence. Using sources like that just makes the claim look weak rather than widely supported. With reference to the material from Reich, David Yisrael says that the statement made by Hitler on 28 November, 1941 was that at the moment of Arab liberation "Germany had no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews" (die Vernichtung der das Judentum protegierenden Macht) (Yisraeli, David The Palestine Problem in German Politics, 1889-1945 p. 310 quoted in Browning, Christopher R. (2004). The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. University of Nebraska Press.  p. 539). --Ian Pitchford 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very interesting find about the Hitler statement.  So there were at least three accounts of what Hitler said.  The most well-known one (quoted in this article) was made by Hitler's translator Schmidt.  The full sentence from Schmidt is "Das deutsche Ziel würde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht lebenden Judentums sein.", of which the translation given in Documents on German Foreign Policy is "Germany's only objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power."  The account you mention was apparently made by Fritz Grobba.  The third is the diary of our friend al-Husayni.  For this I don't have a good source at all, but our other friend Joan Peters claims it says "annihilate the power that brings the Jews" (TFI, p438), which is nearly the same as Grobba's version.  So, assuming Joan Peters can be confirmed, there are two votes for the Brits being the target of the Vernichtung and one vote for the "Jewish element" being the target.  Btw, some time ago I uploaded a  fourth description of the meeting but it does not mention this statement. --Zero 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hopefully my final reply to Christophe

message: I didn’t answer Ian’s last comments but we know we are blocked in that direction. Jayjg underlines a common point with Ian so I answer him but will answer Ian if he requests (But would prefer he doesn’t request we enter the "juridictionnal" aspect now.
Jayjg : Christophe, if the sources don't actually describe him as an antisemite, then Wikipedia cannot do so; using a bunch of quotations to "prove" he is an antisemite is original research’’
In fact you tackle 3 points :
1. the purpose is to “prove” Mufti is antisemite
2. the sources would not describe him as an antisemite
3. a bunch of quotation is an original reasearch.
===== 1. Purpose =====
My point is not at all to prove he would be an antisemite. Whatever true or not, the antisemitism he would be or would not be is not important.
Even if Mufti was or would have been antisemite there is no evidence than this influenced his policy. I would say that this is rather his policy that influenced his antisemitism.
See the answer to question 3 to see my point. 
===== 2. Sources would not describe him as an antisemite =====
I thought about your point. I can understand this in a unique sense : we must be as precise as possible in the report we make about somebody. So, if the word antisemite doesn’t appear we cannot qualify him as such. 
Not agreeing that the allegations gathered here against the Mufti are not allegations of antisemitism need to take a great distance with the subjet. I warned people 2 times that I didn’t want to go in that direction.
Here is my comments and questions then :
* 2.1 I understand your point by the need of taking “distance”. Do you have arguments to explain me how promoting “a final solution” or being pleased by this is *not* antisemitism ? And this just to take the 1st two quotes and to keep cool. Because there is also the following : the support of ‘’mass murder of Jews’’, implication of ‘’atrocities against Jews’’, ‘’shipment of Jews to the gas chambers of Poland’’, ‘’killing the jews wherever they are found’’, … (see point 2.3 before answering)
*2.2 If the allegations are not allegations of antisemitism could you please tell me how to summarize this in one word or a npov way because I don’t see how. (see point 2.3)
*2.3 To try that we don’t take that direction, we can discuss rather if yes or not the mind of this scholar is relevant so that wikipedia could talk about eg the Mufti’s reputation of antisemitism (without commenting about the truth or not of this reputation) :
:’’Jews had been further angered by the United Kingdom’s intervention in behalf of the mufti of Jerusalem, the anti-Semitic and Pro-Nazi Arab leader who had been charged with war crimes by the Allies”, Randall Bennet Woods,  ‘’A changing of the Gard : Anglo-American relations, 1941-1946’’, UNC Press, 1990. ISBN : 0807818771.  He is is Professor at the History Department at the Arkansas University 
===== bunch of quotation and original research =====
I started by first two topics where I am quite confident of my position.
Here I am more cautious. I still have some wonderings about this.
Without doubt, the interdiction of original research means that people cannot develop their own analyses or thesis in wikipedia. Without doubt, this doesn’t mean that we cannot gathers information on a subject which is the basis of each article of wikipedia with the opportunity to see this information grow and the topic develop itself. Where are we in between ???
Another aspect is that an article need a point (even if many others don’t have either, eg all those concerning that are lists). I think this should need a point because people try to put one on it where I didn't personnaly put none yet. I have several ones but I don’t know how to gather all them a npov-way and I think there are not developed enough yet. To develop them the article should be introduced in wikipedia so that contributors could read this and contribute to its development (instead of discussing toom much).
There are different points developed around his reputation :
* 1a. In her study on the impact of the Holocaust on Israel society, Idith Zerthal (Israel Holocaust and the politics of Nationhood, p.175) explains the role of Mufti Demonization.  Without saying accusations were true or not, she talks about (p.100) the “massive references (…) to the Nazi like intentions of Arab leaders” and only points out the Mufti as such. At the same page, she also reports a journalist linking “the put at the disposal of the natinalist arab leaders of the nazi antisemitism and arab leaders
* 1b. Finkelstein talks about “the starring role” of the Mufti in the “Holocaust secondary litterature” (Holocaust industry p.62).  He is also the only one to not to deny but to question about the reality of this “central position of the Mufti in Hitler Final solution”.
*1c. A third approach : in her filmography study about Holocaust, Annette Insdorf (Prof at Columbia University) studies the way Holocaust is treated in films. Concerning the exodus she specifically points out that “Exodus insists on the connections between Nazi and Arab antisemitism. She precises that in the film "the Grand Mufti’s urbane emissary tells Taha (…) that they must destroy the Jews".
* 2a. Pappé, in his book about the war of Palestine in 1948, explains the “opening” of King Abdallah towards Zionism because at the contrary of other Arab leaders, he was not an antisemitic. (Note he doesn’t talk specifically of the Mufti but on a more general point of view). 
* 2b. This reputation (obviously) impacted the “fear of extermination” of Jews in 1948, (this fear and his consequences is analysed by Laurens (a French historian) in his book “Paix et Guerre au Moyen-Orient” (Peace and War in the Middle-East). Kathleen Christison talks also about this “fear of extermination” and its link with the Mufti (without precising antisemitism but only link with Nazism). This 2b should be more developed.
*3 Schetchman and Pearlman point of view should -by a way or another- introduced too given it seems they were among the first to report about this and contributed to create this.
Alithien 15:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to Jayjg 

message: I started by first two topics where I am quite confident of my position.
Here I am more cautious. I still have some wonderings about this.
Without doubt, the interdiction of original research means that people cannot develop their own analyses or thesis in wikipedia. Without doubt, this doesn’t mean that we cannot gathers information on a subject which is the basis of each article of wikipedia with the opportunity to see this information grow and the topic develop itself. Where are we in between ???
Another aspect is that an article need a point (even if many others don’t have either, eg all those concerning that are lists). I think this should need a point because people try to put one on it where I didn't personnaly put none yet. I have several ones but I don’t know how to gather all them a npov-way and I think there are not developed enough yet. To develop them the article should be introduced in wikipedia so that contributors could read this and contribute to its development (instead of discussing toom much).
There are different points developed around his reputation :
* 1a. In her study on the impact of the Holocaust on Israel society, Idith Zerthal (Israel Holocaust and the politics of Nationhood, p.175) explains the role of Mufti Demonization.  Without saying accusations were true or not, she talks about (p.100) the “massive references (…) to the Nazi like intentions of Arab leaders” and only points out the Mufti as such. At the same page, she also reports a journalist linking “the put at the disposal of the natinalist arab leaders of the nazi antisemitism and arab leaders
* 1b. Finkelstein talks about “the starring role” of the Mufti in the “Holocaust secondary litterature” (Holocaust industry p.62).  He is also the only one to not to deny but to question about the reality of this “central position of the Mufti in Hitler Final solution”.
*1c. A third approach : in her filmography study about Holocaust, Annette Insdorf (Prof at Columbia University) studies the way Holocaust is treated in films. Concerning the exodus she specifically points out that “Exodus insists on the connections between Nazi and Arab antisemitism. She precises that in the film "the Grand Mufti’s urbane emissary tells Taha (…) that they must destroy the Jews".
* 2a. Pappé, in his book about the war of Palestine in 1948, explains the “opening” of King Abdallah towards Zionism because at the contrary of other Arab leaders, he was not an antisemitic. (Note he doesn’t talk specifically of the Mufti but on a more general point of view). 
* 2b. This reputation (obviously) impacted the “fear of extermination” of Jews in 1948, (this fear and his consequences is analysed by Laurens (a French historian) in his book “Paix et Guerre au Moyen-Orient” (Peace and War in the Middle-East). Kathleen Christison talks also about this “fear of extermination” and its link with the Mufti (without precising antisemitism but only link with Nazism). This 2b should be more developed.
*3 Schetchman and Pearlman point of view should -by a way or another- introduced too given it seems they were among the first to report about this and contributed to create this.
Alithien 15:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bunch of quotation and original research 

message: I will not have time to go on the discussion on this topic in the following days. Anyway there lack a "good reason" to gather these quotes (that are perfectly sourced). As it is today, this is "personnal research". As I don't consider the Mufti's antisemitism is relevant enough in his action I will not introduced this in his article. On the other way; the way his antisemitism was (and still is today) dealt by (first) Israelis is central for israeli society. This should be treated another way. Alithien 15:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  break 

message: http://www.ejpress.org/article/7448  Zeq 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new study 

message: http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm
(no time to read this carefully - seems sourced) Alithien 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  published paper about anti-semitism in the arab's world and talking about Mufti 

message: I bear your attention to the 2nd link given in the artice (in the beginning): 
This refers to... the article about Mufti from the en version of wikipedia :-)
It also referts to Schetchman.
I highly suggests we remove this...  Alithien 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  circular reference : how to feed propaganda 

message: I don't mind this quarrel any more but I want to underline that in the reference I give just 2 posts above, an historian clearly states that Mufti was "antisemitic". In one of the refences given in your edit war, there is also one that clearly specifies this information too as coming from historians. Both sources are different (except that from work published in Germany). I think this should close the case.
I think that the minimum that could be written is :
Haj Amin al-Husseini is considered as antisemite by several historians and commentators who studied Nazism and arabs connections and to refer to some of them. We will never know if it is true but at least this is what is considered such.
Good luck... Alithien 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to be precise a number of US Jewish magazines and right-wing news sources claim that a book published in Germany includes that claim. --Ian Pitchford 07:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: last time I checked AFP was not "jewish" or "US" :-) but thanks Ian for sharing your bias with us. Zeq 08:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is US jewish magazine but why do you think it is biaised ? Should we get rid of the "journal of palestinian studies" ? For the one given by Zeq , why do you say this is right-wing news sources ? Alithien 08:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. I still think that Mufti's antisemitism was historically anecdotical and so hope it will not cover pages and pages of other articles but it should (here) be clearly specified given it is supported by academicians sources. I think this case is closed. Maybe you could organise a discussion between editors of this article that would be sanctionned to prevent useless edit wars. Why not ask also Fred Bauder to give his mind regarding this source ? He is aware of the matter. Please have both in mind the same topic led of you in front of the ArbCom 3 months ago. Alithien 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom said to use academic sources. These are the source used this time. Zeq 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, you both agree because you don't understand that citing a report of a book is not the same as citing the book. I find this inexplicable. Somehow you seem to believe that news sources only ever produce accurate reports, even when they disagree! --Ian Pitchford 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian, if you think AFP and DPA are wrong this would be your 3rd wrong argument:
#First, you claimed that the info is not in th source (although it clearly spelled-out in the source)
#Next, you claimed the source to be "Jewish" and "right wing US" 9although the source is German and French)
#Now, you claim the sources are wrong.
You need to learn to accept WP:V and WP:RS and off course always WP:AGF. If you have valid arguments of course we will always listen to you since we enjoy hearing what you have to say. 
Zeq 10:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian now claimed that results of the mediation give him the right for th edit war he wages here. Well, I have informed the mediator and on this talk page when the  new book from an academic source  has been published and I ask Ian politly to restore the lead paragrpah to the consensus on this talk page. You are now using a 4th argument so I wonder what would be the 5th ? Zeq 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti semitism 

message: After carefully reading Ian's arguments (first that the sources do not include the text, later that the sources are "jewish" and "US right wing") I concluded that there is no good reason not to include the info from the academic sources. The two researchers are exprets in their area, they speak the languge and the direct quotes from their book are given both by AFP and DPA (French and German news agenceies) Zeq 09:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I still think that Mufti's antisemitism was historically anecdotical and so hope it will not cover pages and pages of other articles but it should (here) be clearly specified given it is supported by academicians sources. I think this case is closed. Maybe you could organise a discussion between editors of this article that would be sanctionned to prevent useless edit wars. Why not ask also Fred Bauder to give his mind regarding this source ? He is aware of the matter. Please have both in mind the same topic led of you in front of the ArbCom 3 months ago. Alithien 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom said to use academic sources. These are the source used this time. Zeq 10:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, you both agree because you don't understand that citing a report of a book is not the same as citing the book. I find this inexplicable. Somehow you seem to believe that news sources only ever produce accurate reports, even when they disagree! --Ian Pitchford 10:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian, if you think AFP and DPA are wrong this would be your 3rd wrong argument:
#First, you claimed that the info is not in th source (although it clearly spelled-out in the source)
#Next, you claimed the source to be "Jewish" and "right wing US" 9although the source is German and French)
#Now, you claim the sources are wrong.
You need to learn to accept WP:V and WP:RS and off course always WP:AGF. If you have valid arguments of course we will always listen to you since we enjoy hearing what you have to say. 
Zeq 10:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian now claimed that results of the mediation give him the right for th edit war he wages here. Well, I have informed the mediator and on this talk page when the  new book from an academic source  has been published and I ask Ian politly to restore the lead paragrpah to the consensus on this talk page. You are now using a 4th argument so I wonder what would be the 5th ? Zeq 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian's arguments 

message: STUTTGART, Germany (Agence France-Presse) — The Nazis developed plans to slaughter half a million Jews who fled to Palestine during the Holocaust, according to a new study presented yesterday.
A research team from Stuttgart University in southern Germany found evidence that the Nazi occupiers in Athens established a military unit ready to wipe out the Jews who had escaped the systematic genocide in Europe.
The troops were under the command of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s Afrikakorps during World War II.
Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cueppers of Stuttgart University based their research on three years’ study of German wartime records, notably from the Foreign Ministry and the military archive in the western city of Freiburg.
The historians said in their new book, “Germans, Jews, Genocide — The Holocaust as History and Present,” that only Rommel’s defeat in 1942 in Egypt by the British prevented the spread of the Holocaust to Palestine.
If Rommel’s army had defeated his enemy, General Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s troops and made it to Palestine, the unit would have received orders to slay all 500,000 Jews there.
The units were to work like the task forces that exterminated hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.
The authors said the Nazis were counting on the Palestinians to assist in the plan because of their traditionally good ties with the Germans.
”The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side and an uncompromising anti-Semite,” they said.
”He showed what a decisive role hatred of Jews played in the project to promote German-Arab understanding.”
They said that Sheik al-Husseini held several meetings with Adolf Eichmann, the man who organized the logistics of the Holocaust for the Nazis.
”The history of the Middle East would have been completely different and a Jewish state would never have been founded if the plan by the Germans and Arabs had been implemented,” Mr. Mallmann said.
An estimated 6 million European Jews were killed under the Nazis’ “Final Solution.” 
Zeq 09:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFP report 

message: Ian,
#The additions made to the article intro are based on new information. I have informed the mediator several weeks ago on my intenation to change the intro based on this info. I have also placed this new information on talk for several weeks.
#"Regarding the question why this is emerging 61 years after the end of World War Two, Mallmann and Cueppers said they simply unearthed something other historians had not found yet."  
#So for now, the new material will stay in the intro (it is well sourced relevant information) the source for the information is given and conform to WP:V and WP:RS.
#If you wish to file for mediation on the new additions. I am not sure what is there to be mediated but I will gladly accept any request to medaition if such a resuest will be filed by you. 
#As for debating with you what the sources say or don't say this is not working well. I quote directly from the source and still you make claim that my english is bad.
#If you chang your claim (again) and raise something that comes from other relaible sources or some other claim that is based on the sources I will gladly listen.
#So far we seem to disagree on two issues:
* Was he an antisemite (according to the sources he was)
*Did he meet with Eichman (according to the sources he did)
Is there any source that make the claim that he was fond of the jews and he never met Eichamn ? If so I want to see that source. Zeq 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't answered the specific points I raised above and yet again you've cited an article that doesn't mention Husseini . If you don't want to request mediation I suggest that we stick to the introduction already mediated until you can find reliable sources for your claims. As far as I can see the only information in the book on which these articles agree is that it deals with "Einsatzgruppe Egypt". --Ian Pitchford 14:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had mediation and have agreed an introduction. You have changed it without answering specific questions about your sources, such as the simple fact that two of them don't even mention Husseini. As for review by a third party Fred Bauder has already told you on your talk page here that the material probably doesn't belong in the introduction and doesn't support the claims you're making. --Ian Pitchford 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want Fred as the mediator, ask him and let's start formal mediation. Fred was also the person that (even before the new material) agreed that Husseini is antisemite so we should include that as well. In any case, what I suggest is that you file a formal request for mediation and list the exact issues you think need to change. Provide reason (where what I wrote is differenr from the sources you have) and let's get on with it. Zeq 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information 

message: All the material deleted by Ian in this edit  is properly sourced. This edit is in violation of Wikipedia policy.
This is a 2nd request from ian to retore the sourced material. His continued removal of this information is in violation of wikiepedia policy such as WP:point and more. 
If you think this material should not be there you can start mediation. I will accept. Zeq 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit by Ian. 

message: Hello. As Ian points out, I think a paragraph should be added in the World War II section to deal the topic. Nevertheless I think this should not just mention the "quotes" stating the Mufti's antisemitism but also explain this antisemitism fed the israeli historiography that emphasized this aspect of the personnality of Mufti and all the myths that were developed after the war by "official historians". I think the fact that holocaust encyclopedy entry about Mufti is as long as Hitler's is really an important information (to be sourced precisely).
Given both he "was antisemite" and "his antisemitism has been widely reported and exagerately emphasized", I think the introduction should be rewritten to take this into account. I think, after the writing and the concensus about a potential new section. Such a sentence as "Mufti was also antisemite" is not appropriate I think but the word "antisemite" should appear.
Good work. I will not contribute to this discussion. Alithien 09:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree partly. I would like to see a section on this material and I'd be glad to help write it. The mufti's role in historiography is an enormous topic though and probably wouldn't fit well with the rest of the article. I actually added the material about the Holocaust Encyclopedia some months ago, but it was deleted almost immediately. --Ian Pitchford 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Question: Can you *think*? Psychomelodic  13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Question: would you prefer Wikipedia just point out he hated Jews? Gzuckier 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would probably fit more in History anyway.  --Lebob-BE 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  about antisemitism section 

message: The Hitler Book was removed from the references because it is not a reliable source. Per the ArbCom:
*Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche#Remedies
If there is information referenced from that book we should be able to find independent sources. -Will Beback 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler Book 

message: The paragraph that reads "When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Adolf Eichmann in a trade prisoner-of-war exchange involving the freeing of German citizens in exchange for 5,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and the exchange was cancelled, although there is no evidence that his intervention prevented their rescue.[citation needed]" seems to be a copy-vio coming from here.  There may be other copy-vios, too.  Any such copy-vios will have to be rewritten or deleted.  Bucketsofg✐ 01:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy-vio 

message: It needs to be wikified.  And it should be checked for Copy-vio.  --Blue Tie 13:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole subpage on anti-semitism looks like a cut and paste 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni&diff=90949555&oldid=90839676
Ian has been warned in the past by ArbCom to avoid such actions. Is it time to re-open his case ? Zeq 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The ArbCom case was against you and they did not rule that each article must contain every source twice. --Ian Pitchford 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of sourced content 

message: Please be advised that a medaition request has been filed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#Request_Information
Ian: Avoid edit war until mediation is concluded (and after) Zeq 08:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this request still necessary or can I close it?  --Ideogram 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation has been filled 

message: As many of you know since the previous medaition there was a new book (academic source) that was published about Husseieni.
So I have offered Zero and Ian to participate in a new medaition that would take into account the new wp:RS sources.
They refused medaition but instead Ian (and now tarc) are edit warring with the argument of "this was agreed". Well, this is not a bone-fide argument. If anyone wants to rely on medaition results fine let us participate in mediation not decline it. Zeq 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You already acted in bad faith following the Inayat Bunglawala mediation.  AGF is out the window here as far as I'm concerned. Tarc 13:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not and your accusation is irelevant. You were not part of this mediation. All that I understand is that you refuse a new one. Zeq 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has changed; not from your failed attempt a month ago, and not from last May when you were trying this as well. Tarc 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The previous mediation 

message: The word anti-Zionism used in the lead of this article in the contxt it is used is just a weasle-word.
The mufti was anti-semitic and that is how an encyclopedia should charterize him. there are clear acdemic sources that mention he was. 
If there are crediable sources that claim he was "anti-zionist" please provide them and we should consider but if not we should not invent new words for him. see similar discussion here:   Zeq 10:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Zionism 

message: Is the book referred to by Mallmann and Cueppers (external reference 1 and internal reference 7) actually the following:
Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Halbmond und Hakenkreuz: das Dritte Reich, die Araber und Palästina. 
Series: Veröffentlichungen der Forschungsstelle Ludwigsburg der Universität Stuttgart; No. 8; Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, c2006. , 9783534197293? This is the only reference I can find for these two authors writing together, and the date would be correct. However, the book title is quite different and I suspect that the Washington Post has it in error, probably from the AFP source. Itsmejudith 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying a key historical source 

message: ""The grand mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was the most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side and an uncompromising anti-Semite," Zeq 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, it doesn't say he was known for his anti-Semitism and his collaboration is already mentioned in the mediated introduction. --Ian Pitchford 19:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK Let's go with what the source sais 

message: Why is his nisba spelled "Husayni" in this article? Most English sources that I know spell it as "Husseini". Beit Or 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are objections, I am going to list this article on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Beit Or 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Gscholar results. Husayni seems more proper.Hornplease 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling