Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

A Problem

The Temple Mount is the whole area, called by Muslims the Haram ash-Sharif. As a result of some odd process over the years, every attempt to direct to the Haram ash-Sharif qua Temple Mount yields only 'The Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa Mosque the Noble Sanctuary, which unless I'm mistaken, refers specifically to the Mosque and its immediate area on the site. If this is so, the redirects are creating systemic bias, in that the Wiki article links on the area prioritize, no, exclude every other description save, that of Temple Mount-Jewish page, and only signal the Moslem mosque on it, as though the site were Jewish, and the Mosque a Moslem enclave. I've had to adjust the relevant passage here to achieve NPOV standards.If a certain fatigue (drafting some of this page has required 550 pages of reading alone) has made me miss something, I'd appreciate a nudgeNishidani (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

Interim report

I have just about completed the Wall Episode to give a relatively thick (withholding many ancillary details of course, which can be added when the relevant 1929 P Riots page is reviewed) full contextualisation of the period. I still have to do the secondary sources on the two subsequent reports (Shaw and Mandatory). The page is long, and I would pray that readers and editors bear with me and the page. Clearly, much detailed material can be transferred eventually to the relevant 1929 Palestinian Riots page. What I have tried so far to do is get chronology in order, an NPOV series of balancing details from both perspectives. All we had before was a tendentiously selective use of sources (the sources themselves are mostly selective).

There remains the need to fill out the internal circumstances in which al-Husayni worked, and what he did in the 30s, and of course the war (the aftermath of his life needs little further work, I think).

For the war period, I have suggested a rearrangement of the material, retaining everything we have accumulated so far, but making it more cohesive in chronological, thematic and narrative terms. I've sketched above my views. Since this means structural adjustment, rather than simply filling out with relevant details established sections, I think it proper to do the relevant work on this page, while leaving the text as we have it now on the article page.

In the meantime, any suggestions, further material and edits are of course welcome. Apologies for my slowness. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An afterthought. Rather than blur this page with a copy of the article, for work in progress, could you, Ceedjee, do me the courtesy of creating a subpage to that end, with a link here (as you did, alas for my laziness) for the 1920 Palestine Riots. If I had such a page, I could work it (with anybody else of course) and then refer the result to the analysis of all for consensus. I recall that duplicating swathes of a page in the talk page is, I believe, frowned on, and this measure would perhaps be cleaner? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As a 1x visitor with some scholarship in this area, I can only comment that I have seen so much dribble, pseudo-history, and politicized history that the mountain of malarkey would be just too monumental to set right. I agree with those who see complete silliness in this endless parsing and factual distortion. Nishidani's remarks are often just totally unacceptable from the academic view and in many cases reflect a profound emotion that itself supplants the very notion of NPOV. I have just one observation and then I shall go and please do not expect a response as I am not a member of this community... I saw the following remark: "Overnight 'Palestinian Jews' became Israelis (all agree). Overnight non Jewish Palestinians, by whose fiat no one will explain, became 'Arabs', though no Arab country accepted them as anything other than of Palestinian nationality. Really? While it is true that for a few decades "Palestinian" was the term denoting Jews in Palestine (Jewish Agency for Palestine, news accounts, diplomatic dispatches etc), the Arab residents always self-identified as "Arabs" and were known as Arabs (Arab Higher Committee, Feisel's chair at the 1919 Peace Conference, Arab Nation, Arab nationalism, international headlines etc.) Words change as a result of evolving usage. With Israel's War of Independence, they proclaimed the State of Israel. The State of Palestine was never formed out of rejection. Terminology evolved as we know it today. Anyway, some of us have other duties other than to devote endless hours over endless weeks to an entry that most people will find completely unreliable if no other reason than the people debating have left an indelible record of the shakiest of factual grounds. Read the best books for the facts. The good ones are based on actual research. California 9:10 AM

visitor with some scholarship in this area

'Nishidani's remarks are often just totally unacceptable from the academic view'

'the Arab residents always self-identified as "Arabs" and were known as Arabs (Arab Higher Committee)'

'Read the best books for the facts. The good ones are based on actual research'

(1930)'L'appel destiné à célébrer le quarantième jour après la mort des martyrs s'adresse, à plusieurs reprises, aux "Palestiniens", et non aux "Arabes palestiniens". De même, la délégation envoyée à Londres s'était appelé la délégation palestinienne et non la délégation arabe palestinienne, comme en 1921-1922. L'affirmation de l'identité propre des Palestiniens est ainsi contemporaine et complémentaire de la reprise du discourse national arabe (on s'adresse régulièrement aux mondes arabe et musulman). Le clivage semble s'opérer entre un usage exclusif du terme "palestinien" dans un cadre purement interne et une référence "arabe" quand on s'adresse aux autres Arabes'. Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine vol.2, Fayard, paris 2002 p.208 etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.(oh, and 'Have a nice day')Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(I have just deleted personal attacks from an IP).

Most scholars (eg Morris, Laqueur, Laurens) consider that Palestinian nationalism, ie the feeling of Arab inhabitants of Palestine not to just to be Arab but Palestinians birthed during the year 1920.

They are even some (Mashala, Mattar) who considered this birthed before, between 1860 and 1890 in the Ottoman Empire but it was a greater nationalism militating for a "Kingdom of Great Syria" with Syrie, Palestine and Lebanon.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Category removal

As explained on the category page of Category:Islam and antisemitism: "This category contains articles that make references to the religion of Islam and to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of the articles are antisemitic." I believe there is substantial evidence that that al-Husayni was significantly involved in antisemitic activities (the 1929 riots, for one) and may have actually qualified for the now defunct "Anti-Semitic people" category, so his article is undoubtedly within the class of "Antisemitism." Being that he was a very important Islamic clerical figure, and moreso, used his religious position to lobby, further, and perhaps mastermind, antisemitic activities and propoganda makes the category very relevant, Ceedjee. Please remember that not applying the category where it reliably applies is just as big an NPOV violation as improperly applying it where it does not apply. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi,

I think it is very important I make you aware that I am the editor who wrote the section about al-Husayni and antisemitism

Please, read this carefully.

I agree that what you write refers to the category:antimetism. And I think the category is relevant.

But I don't think at all relevant to have among 3 see also article, two about his antisemitism.

If so, please, provide the sources that would underline that antisemitism is that much important in Haj Amin al-Husseini... because as far as I know, he is maybe not a good example and there are far more relevant things about him.

In other words : Amin al-Husseini is an exemple of antisemitism but antisemitism is not the core of Amin al-Husseini.

Ceedjee (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you removed : Palestinian nationalism. Could you explain why ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, I mistook the removal as a category removal, not a see also removal. I have reverted myself, and my apologies for my mistake. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a problem. I thank you for your good:faith. And, in fact, I owe you much because you take care of Shevashalosh, which is maybe not easy.

See you soon. Ceedjee (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Judea

Under early life....landowners in district of Judea.

• There was not district of Judea...Bethlehem, Beersheba and Hebron but no Judea....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw an official British report talking about "Samaria". At the time, did British talk about Judea and Samaria or was that only the Palestinian Jews ? What about the Palestinian Arabs ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Region of, not district of, Samaria was used for the northern region and Beersheba for the southern, I've never seen a reference to Judea being used....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't either. So I suggest we correct this. Ceedjee (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs recruited to fight against Ottoman Turks

This has been erased, but the sources note that both Jews and Arab Palestinians were recruited on the ground by Allenby. Clayton actually carried out a strong campaign to persuade the Arab middle class to join the Sheriffian revolt, one effect of which was to gather in 500 recruits. (if source required Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine vol.1 p.409). If the objection is over 'Palestinian' (god forbid they be mentioned) then qualify with Arab (Arab Palestinians). There is no need to go about excising texts. Please check with sources, or modify or put 'citation required', in the future.Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Huneidi "A Broken Trust, Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians". 2001 p.35 "As late as 1918, active recruiting was carried out in Palestine for the Sherifian army, 'the recruits being given to understand that they were fighting in a national cause and to liberate their country from the Turks'. There was no question but that this was encouraged by the War Office during the war 'with every kind of propaganda available', and that pamphlets were dropped from aeroplanes, promising peace and prosperity under British rule. The recruits actively took part in the offensive against the Turks, and the report noted that Captain C. D. Brunton, who recruited them, acted in cooperation with a 'Sherifian officer named Hagg Ameen el Husseini, who was described at the time as being very pro-English'. It also noted that, at the time of writing, Hajj Amin was a fugitive from British justice, accused of complicity in the Easter riots."

p.36 has more from the Palin Report (p.184 thereof) "In 1919, Amin al-Husseini had commented on British policy with 'surprise and anger'. The thought that, had the Arabs left the Turks alone, they would never have done to them what the British had done was often repeated. Rightly or wrongly, the report stated, the Arabs 'fear the Jew as a ruler, regarding his race as one of the most intolerant known to history'. The Arabs did not fear the native Orthodox Jew who was regarded as inoffensive, dependent for existence on foreign charity. But they noticed that the latest immigrants from Eastern Europe were men of a very different type, 'imbued with all shades of political opinions which have plunged Russia into a welter of anarchy, terrorism and misery during the past few years'. Nevertheless, it was the Jew as an economic competitor which really inspired 'the profoundest alarm' in the minds of the native, who was now able to note that 'where the Jew became a landed proprietor, the Arab and Christian fellah peasant proprietor was reduced to the position of a wage labourer'." PR^talk 19:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So the edit at the relevant section on Palestinian recruitment and participation in the war against the Turks should be (a) Sahar Huneidi, A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, Library of Modern Middle East Studies, v.15 I.B.Tauris, 2001 p.35 (b) Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine vol.1 p.409. Palestinian Jews were of course recruited to the same end, with Jabotinsky fighting somewhere within the range of al Husayni in pursuit of the common enemy, the retreating Ottomans, not the last irony of that period. Perhaps a ref. to this could be considered, for balance.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust in American Life reference

Peter Novick's The Holocaust in American Life:

The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Goering, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann--of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry for Hitler.

pg.157-8

Google Books

--Kitrus (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kitrus Novick's book is a very good one on so many points like this, and the passage backgrounds why re-editing this page has been so difficult after the extensive POV damage done to it by editors using those early, ostensibly reliable sources, which however were thoroughly grounded in the tendentious, politically grounded thesis Novick adumbrates. Perhaps it should be kept in mind for a small section on the historiography regarding Al-Husayni. I think Ceedjee was the first to highlight this problem in the sources, and suggest some note to clarify it?

If this is agreed on, then we can note for the record: Peter Novick, ‘’The Holocaust in American Life’’ (1999) Mariner Books, New York 2000 pp.157-8

Zertal also refers to this in her book. I agree it is relevant.

I have just moved this 2 paragraphs down in the articles.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me, Ceedjee. There'll eventually have to be quite a bit of shuffling of material around, and my edit was merely provisory in any case.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Encylopedia of the Holocaust and could find no article on al-Husayni. So I checked Novick's book (which can be seen in google books), the quote is accurate (I didn't check it word for word) but that statement is unsourced, that is he provides no reference. I suggest the statement is removed.

Interesting. Did you check both the Hebrew and English versions? You can't actually remove a RS because you challenge that source's statements by Original research. I know the problem, because I find many reliable sources get facts wrong, and I can't correct the wiki page citing them, unless I find another reliable source which challenges the said author's views on the matter. In any case, the point should be checked.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a second look at this and think I may have been referencing the wrong encylopedia: there are several out there. I assume he's referring to the Guttman version but I couldn't find any evidence to confirm that. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote here above, Idith Zertal confirms the "paradox" in her last book. Ceedjee (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Goebbels is 84,000 bytes. This article is 104,000. So perhaps he is more interesting...

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do I detect a niggling tone, sniping from the margins? If you consult the thread, I myself noted that it exceeded the proper limits of an ideal wiki article, (Ceedjee concurred) and would, once thoroughly revised according to the best modern sources, would have to be pared down to the standard length of about 70,000 words. The technical problem was (1) There was a huge output of material from the 1950s that vilified al-Husayni as the Dr.Moriarty of Palestinian antisemitism, responsible for all the troubles Zionists had in establishing their state on Palestinian territory. The most extraordinary assertions, that he inspired the Holocaust itself, were made even by serious scholars. None of this stood up to the test of modern scholarship, and was dismounted piece by piece, to survive in much of its original version only in the wiki article as it was some years ago. For example, the treatment of the Wailing Wall episode seethed with an undertone of moral outrage at al-Husayni's 'antisemitic' lies about Jewish intentions of taking over the Wall, citations were made that the Zionists had no such intent, but merely wanted to establish rights to pray there. Such protestations were often made, after flyers circulating with Theodore Herzl's figure on top of the Dome of the Rock gave rise to Muslim outrage (I haven't even troubled to put this in, but it is thoroughly documented). Much of this stereotyping in Wiki reflected 1950s-1970s propaganda linking al-Husayni to the PLO's leader Arafat, and was designed to get at the PLO (as intrinsically 'antisemitic') via al-Husayni: i.e., it was politically motivated smearing.

Just to begin to clean up the extreme, structural POV mess this kind of irresponsible and tendentious editing caused, one had to give a thorough analysis of otherwise extraneous things like the Wailing Wall and 1929 Palestine riots episode, which have been poorly framed in the relevant articles in Wiki. I did that here, and the result was considerable expansion.

There remains the crucial part dealing with his collaboration with Nazis, and the post-war aftermath. He did collaborate with the Nazis, he probably became intensely antisemitic by the late thirties, when his resistance projects collapsed. But this second part is still vitiated by poorly organized material, much of it scraping the barrel to bring up tenuously grounded innuendoes (like his support of the Black Hand in the early 1930s, no evidence in Lachmann: or the plan to bomb Jerusalem, or the pilot project to commit genocide in Palestine).

Once the evidence is thoroughly reexamined, and sourced reliably, in thematic and chronological order, the whole text can then by whittled down to the usual length required of Wiki articles. The page is not protected. Anyone can edit. But given its history, a certain courtesy of talkpage negotiation is much appreciated for any significant edits. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious reference.

It must be questionable whether the book "Eliezer Tauber, The Formation of Modern Iraq and Syria, Routledge, London 1994 pp.105-109" is an adequate reference for the suprising statement "From his election as Mufti until 1923, al-Husayni exercised total control over the secret society, Al-Fida’iyya (The Self-Sacrificers), which, together with al-Ikha’ wal-‘Afaf (Brotherhood and Purity), played an important role in clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities, and, via members in the gendarmerie, had engaged in riotous activities as early as April 1920.[23]"

Google scholar gives it just 5 cites (Not terrible, but certainly not good). The two Amazon reviews of the book are diametrically opposed in their judgement - but reading between the lines, it becomes increasingly difficult to take it seriously. Daniel Pipes is the one to rate it highly - but then approvingly quotes it as saying: "[Tauber] deems Arabs, not Westerners, responsible for the dissipation of Arab unity in favor of Lebanese, Syrian, and Iraqi independence" - which would astonish most people (think Gertrude Bell, Faisal etc). If you're not familiar with Daniel Pipes, pay a visit to his blog - there, on the front page, he proudly informs us that "I have written a series of articles on Obama's Muslim childhood". (Three are at the notorious "FrontPageMag.com" and one is at the Jerusalem Post).

I propose the statement be deleted, it adds nothing to the article, and seems to bear no reference to anything that comes earlier or later. PR^talk 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I found it, and the information was interesting. The publisher is Routledge. I personally, on finding it, wondered about the accuracy of the information. I inserted it into the text so that others could see it, and perhaps shed further light on the assertion. I vote that it stays. Editing in information that is sourced in a quality publisher, notwithstanding your suspicions, is what keeps us all honest.

As for Pipes. His father was an extraordinary penetrating scholar. Apart from Martin Amis, the rule is there are rarely quality second acts in descent from distinguished parents. He is profoundly mediocre (violation of WP:BLP!!, which may in part explain his popularity in certain propaganda circles.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say that you "found it" do you mean have access to that book and edited in the sentence? I'm thoroughly underwhelmed by what I can see of the book. What clandestine anti-British and anti-Zionist activities was Husayni up to? (Is it true that there is no record of his trial and sentence to 15 years?) The riotous activities look very much like Jabotinsky's gangs attacking natives, and then conspiring with medical facilities to claim that large numbers of immigrants had been hurt - that's what the Christian-Muslim Associations think happened. The Zionists were wasting no time while the Balfour Declaration was hot off the press. PR^talk 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I collect information on Husayni. I well understand your personal exasperation with the way these things have been written for far too many decades. I know there were huge one-sided outpourings of hysteria to create an incident way out of proportion to the actual events of 1920. I know that the outrage by locals that the land of their fathers was to be given over, under imperial and Lof Nations authority, to an immigrant population on the basis of a title that was religious, was natural. I know there are very few reliable studies of the Palin Report, etc.etc.etc. My job in here is to edit according to what RS sources say, which is not what I think, or what many of my private researches lead me to conclude. The latter are not pertinent to wiki, the former are. You confuse the two. If you, to cite one example, have an RS for the assertion about Christian-Muslim Associations, plunk it in. But you are doing your own interests no service in expostulating. History is about what happened, it is amoral. We derive the moral insight from a knowledge of the documentary record, we should not, here, construct the documentary record singularly from the filter of our moral outrage. To repeat. You know and read widely in many sources, and have much to contribute. Instead of contributing concretely, you fall prey to expostulation on talk pages, and subvert the credibility of whatever you would like to propose because you don't show your cards. The cards here are RS sources. All the rest is a waste of time. Please don't make a thread of this. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Things are bad indeed when exploring the RS-ness of a source is considered reason to weigh into an entirely satisfactory and collegiate discussion by other editors and break AGF to comment on another editor! I wonder how long I'd survive if I did this!

Some unbelievably bad sources have been edit-warred into articles - my favorite example is the violent extremist (to put it mildly) propagandist and historical forger Joseph Schechtman who argues in his book "The Arab Refugee Problem" that Palestinians suffered a mental disease ("Fear Psychosis") in 1948 - unbelievably, we actually quote him in an article saying: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands". This has been repeatedly re-inserted (1 editor over-riding about 4 others?). Even when Schectman's "work" is taken at face value and properly re-presented by one of the few remaining scholars we have in the I-P topic, it will be reverted as "vandalism". PR^talk 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The source is an academic book, published by an academic press, by a notable professional historian. Your impressions of it are of no interest to anyone - kindly take them, and your conspiracy theories, to a more suitable forum such as usenet or a blog, and stop soapboxing. NoCal100 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Islamofascism

There mere existence of such personality proves beyond reasonable doubt that at the root of anti-Zionism is always anti-Semitism. Muslims regard al-Husayni as a key figure in opposition to Zionism. But he said it himself: his goal was not to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state in Palesine, he wanted to eradicate all Jews in Palestine and the entire "Arab world". Furthermore, a careful examination of al-Husayni and his antics shows that the notion of Islamofascism is more then just an ideological cliche. This person was a high-ranking Muslim cleric AND he was an ardent supporter of Hitler and the Holocaust.Keverich1 (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What else can one say, but...rubbish. This article was subject to that sort of revisionism for quite awhile in the Zeq era, but thankfully ebbed upon his banishment. anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism. Not then, and most certainly not now. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes it is. Otherwise, why this al-Husayni guy would want to remove all Jews from the "Arab world"?Keverich1 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "revisionism", I don't see how citing al-Husayni's own memoirs constitutes revisionism. The guy said it himself:"to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews". His efforts to recruit Muslims in SS troops is also a proven fact. Trying to hide this fact IS revisionism.Keverich1 (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is hiding anything. The lead is to serve as a simple introduction to the subject matter, not a launchpad for each and every sundry deed the man has ever committed. Even the lead for Adolph Hitler's article s a fairly mild introduction to the subject matter; the meat of the genocide and Holocaust events are left for the body of the article. Again, this is what we have gone through here before; this belief that if the article lead does not contain specific accusations and criticism, then it is "hiding something". That is a ridiculously false and and intellectually dishonest argument to make. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the introduction states that "he played a key role in resistance to Zionism." That's a short and essentially accurate statement, altough I reject the word "resistance" because it serves to present Zionism in a negative light and sort of justify anti-Zionist movement. But I believe we need another statement would highlight al-Husayni collaboration with the Nazis, since it was important episode in his life. This statement doesn't need to be extensive, but it must be long enough to indicate that al-Husayni contributed to the Nazi war effort.Keverich1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual

I see another attempt is being made to reduce politics to the arse, by insinuating the old rumours about Richmond's relations with al Husayni being homosexual. Do we need a list here, to detail all the rumours that swirled around the epoch and place, of Richmond and al Husayni, of Richmond and Sir Ronald Storrs, of Sir Ronald Storrs and T.E.Lawrence, of Israel de Haan, to name but a few off the top of one's head, to conjure up the impression anti-Zionism was sodomitical? Sounds like a version avant la lettre of the 'homintern' conspiracy. In any case, Dalin gets almost everything wrong in his books, and is not, as often argued in these pages, a reliable source.Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The arse in politics can be relevant, alas. No one denies that the rumor was there at the time and as such it should be reported in the article as something which occurred at the time of and related to al-Husayni's appointment, not least because the appointment was both controversial and unlikely in view of the other candidates' strengths.Tanbycroft (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is unreliable. That the unreliable source is merely regurgitating a rumor as a rumor and not even as fact, that makes it doubly wrong to insert such a thing into the article. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I do not consider that Dalin and Rothmann, two senior academics from reputable universities, are unreliable or that their work, Icon of Evil, published by a reputable house can accurately be said to contain gibberish. This rumor was a feature of al-Husayni's appointment and needs to be reported as such not least because it explains the suspicion at the time that Samuel had been nobbled. Whether the rumor was accurate or not, is not the point, but that the rumor existed shows what an extremely controversial man al-Husayni was even within his own community in Jerusalem. I would also like to see something about al-Husayni's family life in the article: he seems to have been married and had issue and a reference to his family life may give a rounder picture.Tanbycroft (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not the venue for rumor-mongering, especially when they are poorly sourced. The Conservopedia is thataway... Tarc (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is how do you propose to explain the perception at the time, shared by rivals in al-Husayni's own Jerusalem community, that Samuel had been nobbled: this needs to be addressed constructively.Tanbycroft (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Segev’s review of Dalin’s trash

An ardent Palestinian nationalist, Husseini fought both the Zionists and the British, instigating some of the violent incidents that broke out in Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s. In accordance with the principle of my enemy’s enemy is my ally, the mufti sought support from Nazi Germany and in return backed Hitler’s war, including the extermination of the Jews. In addition to meeting with Hitler, he sat down with Adolf Eichmann and sabotaged a plan to transfer Jewish children from Eastern Europe to Palestine. All this was wrong and shameful, but in contrast to the authors’ contention, one can question whether Husseini “played an important role” in the Holocaust. For as Bernard Lewis wrote in “Semites and Anti-Semites”: “It seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from outside.” It is equally implausible that Husseini was given a guided tour of the Auschwitz gas chambers in operation, as Dalin and Rothmann maintain, quoting as their source a single statement from one of Eichmann’s associates. The lack of solid evidence is the main problem throughout the book. While the authors do cite prominent scholars like Martin Gilbert, Bernard Wasserstein and Rashid Khalidi, some of the most outrageous quotations come from quite arguable sources. Hitler’s alleged and highly unlikely pledge to Husseini (“The Jews are yours”) is based on a passage in the mufti’s own memoirs. But there is an official German record of his meeting with Hitler that contains no such statement. In fact the mufti did not achieve his major goal: Hitler refused to sign a public statement of support for him. Neither does it inspire confidence that at one point the authors indulge in an admittedly fictitious description of Palestine after an imagined German victory: “The first death camps in Tel Aviv, modeled after Auschwitz and Birkenau, began operating shortly after Eichmann’s arrival. . . . All 450,000 Jews in Palestine had been exterminated. . . . The following month, Hitler personally flew to Jerusalem.” The mufti’s support for Nazi Germany definitely demonstrated the evils of extremist nationalism. However, the Arabs were not the only chauvinists in Palestine looking to make a deal with the Nazis. At the end of 1940 and again at the end of 1941, a small Zionist terrorist organization known as the Stern Gang made contact with Nazi representatives in Beirut, seeking support for its struggle against the British. One of the Sternists, in a British jail at the time, was Yitzhak Shamir, a future Israeli prime minister. The authors fail to mention this episode. Throughout the book, Dalin and Rothmann tend to blur the terms radical Islam, anti-Semitism and Nazism, and numerous Arab and Muslim leaders are grouped together as disciples of the mufti. Anwar Sadat and Yasir Arafat are among the villains, though one is left to guess in what way the mufti’s spell led them to strike historic deals with Israel. In spite of all this, the book is worth noticing, as it belongs to a genre of popular Arab-bashing that is often believed to be “good for Israel.” It is not. The suggestion that Israel’s enemies are ¬Nazis, or the Nazis’ heirs, is apt to discourage any fair compromise with the Palestinians, and that is bad for Israel.'

In short it's a popular Arab+bashing tract using poor sources, as anyone familiar with Dalin 's pathetic scholarship would know. Not a Reliable Source, in the view of Tom Segev, one of Israel's best historians. Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In short Segev does not like the book, goody for him. That's not enough reason to delete well sourced and relevant material. NoCal100 (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it is neither. We aren't here to print the rumours (and they admit that it is just that) of others. Tarc (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In short NoCal100 likes the controversial snippet from Dalin's book, goody for him. That's not enough reason to include poorly sourced and irrelevant material. Segev is one of Israel's foremost historians, you and I are nobodies. If he says Dalin's work is unreliable, that judgement holds weight in Wiki, against our own provincial and amateurish biases. No major source of that period I am familiar with deigns to repeat the rumour, and treats Samuel's appointment as one of a delicate balancing act, not as a trivial matter of 'nobbling' by morbid frecklepuncherly gamesmanship.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like, but with the way Wikipedia works. The material is relevant (describes an event in the subject's life), and sourced to a reliable source - a book by two academics published by a mainstream press. You can't just remove it. You can add Segev's dissenting opinion to the article. NoCal100 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A rumour is not 'an event in a subject's life'. Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A controversial nomination to an important post is 'an event in a subject's life'. Please stop removing well sourced material. NoCal100 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored the information about the Mufti's close relationship with Richmond, but took out the part that it was a homosexual relationship. --GHcool (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad call, GHcool. I can usually trust you to be scrupulous with quality of evidence, and am surprised by this edit. I appreciate the gesture of euphemism, even though it says the same thing. I contest the relevance of the passage to an article that is already twice the limit of wiki articles, and which will have to be pared down. Let's examine the passage:-

Amin al-Husayni and Samuel's assistant political secretary, Ernest Richmond, were formed an intimate friendship based on mutual hostility toward the Balfour Declaration and other British policies they perceived as pro-Jewish. Reference -> Dalin & Rothmann, Icon of Evil, Random House, New York, 2008, p. 21 As a result of his relationship with Amin al-Husayni, Richmond persuaded Samuel to appoint Amin al-Husayni as mufti. Reference -> ibid. Richmond also his lover, Sir Ronald Storrs, to lobby Samuel on Amin al-Husayni's behalf. Reference ->ibid. "Samuel naively followed Richmond and Storr's recommendation, which resulted in the decision to name al-Husseini [sic] as grand mufti." Reference -> ibid., p. 22

(a)Evidently, the three editors who keep inserting this aren't looking at the text. >Had they done so, they would have corrrected 'were formed an intimate friendship' to 'had formed'. To edit, and especially revert, without reading what you are restoring, is not a sign of good faith.

(b)The text all three insist on is also ungrammatical. 'Richmond also his lover, Sir Ronald Storrs, to lobby Samuel on Amin al-Husayni's behalf'. Proof again, all three are editing without taking care to read the text they are reintroducing.

(c)Dalin and Rothman are paraphrased as saying Richmond, and Sir Ronald Storr, and al-Husayni were all homosexual, had a homosexual triangle, and this common interest in buggery is what, uh, lies behind the appointment by Samuel of Amin al-Husayni to the post of mufti. This is not only gossip, a campy a posteriori reading of history, it contradicts what the lead just wrote above, i.e., as per all major sources, Samuel appointed Husayni to that post out of delicate political considerations that calibrated conflicting interests.

(d) If Philip Mattar, Martin Sicker,Daniel Monk, Howard Sachar, Henry Laurens, Walter Laqueur, Gudrun Krämer, Uri Kupferschmidt, Taysir Jbara, Zvi Elpeleg and others, the foremost experts on his life and times, do not mention this 'rumour' , it means indeed that this camp theory current in ultra-Zionist propaganda of the time conflicts with the consensual reconstruction by area specialists and historians of the politics behind Samuel's decision. It is then WP:FRINGE.

(e) The passage again describes in a narrative voice that assumes what is being told is 'factual' what turns out to be 'rumour'. It is only Dalin and Rothmann's recycling of an old Zionist rumour, recycled as fact.

(f)Dalin earlier was excluded by editors over a year ago, the banned Zeq was the only one pushing his stuff, because it was agreed he was not a specialist in this area (indeed in one instance his work was cited from an antiSemitic site in Adelaide), and this article's bibliography is replete with specialist literature as wiki prescribes. He is a rabbi, interested in American history primarily. His work is 'fresh' only in so far as it revives most of the cant, gossip, and ideological rumour-mongering characteristic of books on Husayni decades ago, most of which has been systematically discredited.

(g)Dalin's recent book has been hit with a thumb's down for the poor quality of its scholarship by a major Israeli historian, Tom Segev. Until some ranking Israeli or Middle Eastern historian gives it a strongly positive review, it remains what it looks like, a sorry job of slapdash recycling of unproven or disproven theories.

(h) None of the three supporting this material's insertion has read the article, something which is absolutely indispensable if one is to edit in a way that the narrative context remains coherent. For the contested passage is immediately preceded by:-

Samuel was anxious to keep a balance between the al-Husaynis and their rival clan the Nashashibis.[24] A year earlier the British had replaced Musa al-Husayni as Mayor of Jerusalem with Ragheb al-Nashashibi. They then moved to secure for the Husayni clan a compensatory function of prestige by appointing one of them to the position of mufti, prevailing upon the Nashashibi front-runner, Sheikh Hussam ad-Din Jarallah, to withdraw. This automatically promoted Amin al-Husayni to third position, which, under Ottoman law, allowed him to qualify, and Samuel then chose him as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the title being invented by Samuel

The result of this sloppy game is that we are given two versions, one mainstream, as above, and the other fringe, one following the other, which clash and contradict each other. All three editors have plopped this in without controlling the context, noting the contradiction the edit creates, and, if noted, correcting the dissonance. The result is that a coherent narrative is a pastiche, a mish-mash of conflicted views, without any attempt to bridge them.

No one restoring the material has a record of consistent interest in this period, or in this article. All three have, over the last few days, dropped in and persisted in plunking down and defending a patch of camp theory by amateurish historians (of this specific period) as though it were the truth, (that is the narrative voice adopted). None of you has troubled to authenticate with further crosschecking this fringe theory, or addressed the objections raised, except by expressing personal opinions.

For all of these reasons (and several more), this persistence in edit-warring on what is, so far, a piece of fringe trash does not indicate a respect for wiki objectives. This article has one, a dedication to the best sources. I am therefore, for the third time, going to revert, and will be curious to see if this irrational insistence turns out to be a tagteaming operation, especially since one of the three does wikitrail me to articles he otherwise has never shown an interest in. Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Segev is an Israeli historian, one of many, He is not more authoritative or prominent than most. Regardless, we do not remove reliable sources from Wikipedia based one the POV of a critic. As as a simple thought experiment, think of your reaction were I to excise from Wikipedia every reference to works by Pappe, base on the fact that they received 'a thumb's down for the poor quality of its scholarship' by a major Israeli historian, Karsh. Enough said. NoCal100 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NoCal. Obiter dicta don't impress anyone, nor the insistent laziness of 'enough said'. Nor does the fact that you evidently don't read the edit you defend. You restored the text without correcting the two errors of grammar I pointed out, which indicates your editing is not to be taken seriously. It was a blank reversion of a piece of text that I have shown to be flawed, even in nthe most elementary sense of being marred by sloppy grammar. To do this is to express contempt for a fellow editor's reasoned remarks. Further, you haven't replied to several reasons for refusing that edit. You have re-edited in, irrespective of talk. As to Segev and Karsh, you miss the point. If Karsh, or someone of his stature, strongly commends Dalin and Rothmann's scholarship positively (which was what I asked for), then you might have a (peg) left to stand on. Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You are presenting the claims of a poor source as facts. Also, you may want to fix the grammar of the material before you try to add it. Imad marie (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is not "poor" - it is a book by 2 academics, published by a mainstream press. Feel free to fix the grammar, and to attribute the claims to the the authors, but do NOT remove relevant material which comes from a reliable source. NoCal100 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind attributing the claim to the author(s). The burden is on you to fix the grammar of the paragraph you are trying to add. Imad marie (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is poor. Random House is a respectable publisher, but Rothmann, the co-author, is not an academic. You haven't even troubled yourself to familiarize yourself with someone whose curriculum describes him as a radio talk show host on Frisco's KGO 810 AM. Dalin is not a specialist on Middle eastern affairs, he has never held a major academic post, and specializes in the history of Jewry in America. He is not peer-reviewed by Middle Eastern area specialists. As to fixing it up. Anyone who posts crap should not ask the modest bystanders to wipe up after their mess, or indeed to feel 'free to do' so. It's called 'personal responsibility' in the real world, from cradle onwards, to wipe one's own arse.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The source meets and exceeds wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. WP:RS does not require that authors of books published by mainstream publishers be academics, but in this case, they both are. Dalin is a reasearch fellow in history at Stanford, one of the world's leading institutions of higher learning, and Rothmann is described here and here as a member of the faculty of the Fromm Institute at the University of San Francisco. Random House is, as you note, a respectable publisher. This ends any discussion regarding the source's reliability and suitability for this article. You may not remove well sourced, relevant material from such a source just because some other academic was critical of it. NoCal100 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Go and read policy, and improve your manners. 'You may not remove' and 'This ends the discussion' are arrogant ex cathedra forms of speech wholly inappropriate to a medium where consensus is prized. We have no consensus.

You don't understand WP:RS. I noted this was a WP:Fringe source since the weird theory is based on a rumour, which cannot be substantiated (three married men formed a secret homosexual cabal to get one of them a job), and which no major specialist of the period or on M.Amin al Husayni seems to have taken seriously. Worse, Dalin, who has had only one professorial post, (as opposed to residency 'professorships' at research centres), at Ave Maria University, which is not notable, is not a Middle East expert, nor is his sidekick John F. Rothmann, a radio commentator, who has a B.A. and an MA in teaching from Whittier College. Nothing here would permit us to regard their representation of a hoary old piece of gossip, as well-grounded in Reliable Sources. Rothmann has been on the Fromm Institute's faculty. Wow. he gave talks there. He has no formal qualifications as an historian of the Middle East, and is not notable in that area. A book that is riddled with errors, clichés, poor sourcing, and which has an explicit POV, should not to be used as a source in articles that insist on quality material from the best academic authorities.

As to Random House, they publish Ann Coulter. Not for that reason would it be wise to cite her books in an article on Liberalism. Dalin and Rothmann's book lacks an academic imprint, and here almost all sources are being culled from academic imprints.

Actually, even as revised, there is an error in your drafting. I won't note it, but until you correct it, I can't take your work on this page as evincing any knowledge of the subject.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unmoved by arguments that Icon of Evil is an unreliable source. I am also unmoved by arguments that there was no relationship between the Mufti and Richmond, homosexual or otherwise. We can argue all day long about the nature of Richmond's relationship with the Mufti and it wouldn't change the fact that the Mufti was an anti-Semitic radical Nazi sympathizer that the British foolishly supported for a brief period. --GHcool (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm unmoved by anything that lacks support in the best historical sources. I'm unmoved by sympathies for a book at least one frontranking historian dismisses as inaccurate and shoddy. You're unmoved by Tom Segev. No one is saying there was no relationshop between the Mufti and Richmond. Richmond was a strong anti-Zionist, as Meinertzhagen notes in his diary. He was deeply taken by Arabic culture, and civilization, and had mastered the language. He was an Arabist. The sources say that in his role he supported Husayni's candidature, while Bentwich, his Jewish counterpart in the administration, was opposed to it.

As to the second part, that is sloppy. To qualify 'Nazi' with the adjective 'radical' is like qualifying 'hell' as 'infernal', or 'the devil' as 'satanic'. Nazism by definition is radical, radically evil. The Mufti certainly in the latter part of his career was antisemitic, esp. after his expulsion. Some identify this with the turn of events after 1929. He wasn't a born or bred anti-Semite, as we know from his letters with his Jewish anti-Zionist teacher Antébi. He became anti-Semitic in the course of his political failures to stop Zionism. His main supporters during the war were in the Italian Foreign Office. The Germans never took him seriously. Hitler regarded him with contempt, as far as I can gather. Ze'ev Jabotinsky was negotiating with Petliura to organize Jewish brigades in the Ukraine against Bolshevism, while Petliura was organizing, to Jabo's knowledge, mass pogroms that took tens of thousands of Jewish lives. Avraham Stern, and Shamir and co, sent out feelers to the Nazis for an alliance against the British. The last three are heroes in Zionist historiography. al-Husayni is not a hero in my or anybody else's book. But we must distinguish the facts from the huge motherlode of bullshit woven around him and the period. al-Husayni doesn't need to be smeared. His record is one of disastrously bad decisions and failure. History will judge him. We shouldn't.

The British foolishly supported him? Well, the other POV is that the British foolishly made the Balfour declaration, and therefore laid the seeds of a century's instability in the near Middle East by dispossessing a native people to create a foreign place for their hated internal proletariat in Europe, the Jews. This has nothing to do with the article we are writing. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I ask Nishidani to refrain from soapboxing. The fact is that the British briefly supported this Nazi scumbag. Perhaps you don't think that was foolish, but most people do. Whether the Balfour Declaration was foolish or not is something that perhaps might better be discussed at Talk:Balfour Declaration. --GHcool (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the game you're playing? You and NoCal, with no record of commitment to this article, jump in to back up a new editor's poorly sourced smear, re-editing a snippet of a fringe text, without discussion, that had two gramnmatical errors neither of you noticed, (meaning: you were not examining the merits of the passage but merely reverting in support of Tanbycroft's tendentious behaviour). He's a newbie with no experience of wiki procedures. But you both flock to back his first edit. Attempts to engage with you just both got reverts and almost no response except of the kind - 'I disagree. I restore the text. Don't revert. Case closed'. That kind of behaviour only occurred on this page when we had to deal with the notorious Zeq. I then wasted a lot of time giving reasons why this text is a violation of WP:FRINGE and falls far short of WP:RS. You make no effort to justify your support except to say you like the text, and write in conclusion:

'the Mufti was an anti-Semitic radical Nazi sympathizer that the British foolishly supported for a brief period'

I.e. an example of WP:SOAP. Since this lathered opinion shows you are only echoing Zionist historiographical prejudices of the 1930s-1970s, now disposed of, I replied in kind, explaining to you why your opinion does not reflect the best recent scholarship. Reply? 'I ask Nishidani to refrain from soapboxing'! I.e. you can soap, but those who reply to what are outdated opinions in your own soapboxing, are told not to imitate your own example! I.e. TPCTKP and WGFTGIGFTG.

What then is the game. A tagteaming enticement to get me to commend you in the terms Eleland commends people who show uncolleagial behaviour, snub consensus, fuck about with POV material in an article and area they have shown no knowledge of? I'll think about it. But I've seen no effort here to justify the crap Tanbycroft introduced, respond to serious questions about its lack of consonance with wiki requirements for WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.

Finally, this is nothing about homosexuality. I couldn't care less if in those days administrative decisions might have been campier than a a row of tents at a poofters' bumfest. This is about reliable sources and pertinent material, and until you all give additional sources, what User:Jayjg insists on :'Extraordinary claims require exceptionally strong and reliable sources', holds.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about if we all agree not to soapbox anymore.  :) --GHcool (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The invocation to avoid irrelevancies will perhaps be credible when you've responded to this, whereby source (Norman Finkelstein) appears to be much, much better than these two sources (Joseph B. Schechtman and Shmuel Katz). Schechtman, in particular, was a violent extremist, guilty of both falsification and hatred - it's hard to credit anyone would re-insert statements as false and unpleasant as this: "Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands". PR^talk 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Come now, PR. That is ad hominem, and a bit of a soap. I suggest you concentrate more on editing specifics than dragging up the past. GHCool made a gentlemanly remark to bury the skirmish, and I reciprocated. No point in shit-stirring. I'd appreciate it if you'd cancel this. It's not appropriate to the talk on Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. ThanksNishidani (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't think you soapboxed, nor did I regard my own remarks as soapboxing. I'd say more, but, yes, I'm afraid it might appear to be soapboxing :)Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When all the soap is cleared away here, we're still left with a passage that was simply repeating a half-century old rumor. Not even trying to state it as a fact, but making a clear indication that is was by its nature unsubstantiated and unverified. I would feel that that in itself warrants exclusion, even if it came from a source with impeccable credentials otherwise. That it clearly does not come from an impeccable source is a double-whammy, IMO. Tarc (talk)

I noticed this issue being discussed at WP:RSN#Icon of Evil. Please see my comments there. It seems apparent that Icon of Evil, the source being cited for this, does not meet the criteria set out in WP:V#Reliable sources - specifically the criterion that the source should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The book has been heavily criticised for factual inaccuracy and bad scholarship and it plainly does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - quite the opposite, in fact. I suggest that editors should take a look at Icon of Evil, which I have just expanded, and follow the links (some of which may also be useful for providing background info on this person). My conclusion is that given the criticism of the book's accuracy and the apparent absence of any third party works citing it as a source, it should not be considered a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The rumours were an aspect of al-Husayni's appointment and were a fact, certainly very disagreeable personally, of al-Husayni's life: the rumours occurred, whether or not the rumours were true, and are relevant to the appointment which was viewed at the time by some as the result of lobbying Samuel. The rumours should be included in the article about this controversial appointment. As for Dalin: he is Taube Research Fellow in American History at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University; Rothmann serves on the faculty of the Fromm Institute at the University of San Francisco. These authors may not be specialits in the field but they are published historians who have raised a relevant issue in the history of the mufti's appointment and as such they may and should be quoted in the article.Marktunstill (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not compatible with WP:V#Reliable sources's requirement for a source to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We know from the reviews that there are very serious problems with the reliability of this book. As another editor has said, "Where we have reviews telling us that a work is essentially bad scholarship, we shouldn't pretend that we don't have that information and continue to use it as a, so called, reliable source." -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumor and innuendo stemming from unreliable sources cannot appear in a Wikipedia article. It is becoming clear, though disucssion here and discussion at WP:RSN#Icon of Evil that this "Icon of Evil" book is an unreliable source. As such, this material should not be used in this or any other article. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:RSN#Icon of Evil does not make Icon of Evil an unreliable source.Tanbycroft (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, it kinda does. Nocalton brought it to that (which stands for "Reliable Sources Noticeboard" in case you were unaware) board, but is not getting the receiption that he anticiapted, I'd wager. Several users completely uninvolved in Israeli-Palestinian articles have weighed in on its unreliability, with the "it is reliable" voices consist of old hands on the Israeli side of the I-P issues, which are just rehashing what has been said, and dismissed, here. I'd tend to think a greater weight would be place don the opinions of the uninvolved. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not true. On WP:RSN#Icon of Evil, we have one uninvolved editor, User:Paul B, saying "It's a reliable source as far as I can see", and another uninvolved editor User:Abecedare saying it's not. There's nothing even remotely close to a consensus that it is not a reliable source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite true. Sooner or later, adding this material back in will likely be seen as a violation of policy. Best to just quit while you're behind. Tarc (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply asserting something to be true does not make it true. Go back and read the discussion on WP:RSN#Icon of Evil. At this point there is exactly one uninvolved editor saying this is not a reliable source. It is just as likely that sooner or later removing this material will likely be seen as a violation of policy, so if you were hinting at any sort of warning, you might want to take the same warning to heart yourself. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. All sorts of people who have never edited this article, and seem to have read just a snippet of one unreliable source, are now backing the controversial edit, which was however posted, and repeatedly reintroduced in the face of the following words which are at the top of this talk page.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This controversial edit is a substantial change, and yet we now have an apparent gaming of the system, with numerous newbies to the page supporting the restoration of the text in defiance of the request here to discuss the edit before making it. So the etiquette has been broken by Tanbycroft, who has no done anything substantial to justify his proposal's inclusion. I do think this page requires, at this point, review. It certainly does not look like good faith editing according to both the ideals of consensus, discussion and reliable sourcing, but an ideological fixation with pinning a WP:FRINGE smear.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nishidani appears to be taking this very personally and I am wondering if at this stage he is capable of maintaining a NPOV. He also seems to consider that he has some kind of seniority here which again leads me to question his neutrality. If he is going to continue in this discussion, I would recommend that he suggest some alternative wording for the article as it seems clear that he will not succeed in censoring the reference to which he seems to take such objection.Marktunstill (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Praise for Icon of Evil can be found on the back of the hardcover first edition 2008. It includes praise from: Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum; David Frum, resident fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Dov S Zakheim, former US undersecretary of defense; Douglas J Feith, former US undersecretary of defense for policy, and author of War and Decision; Uri Bar-Ner, former Israeli ambassador to Turkey; Ruth Gruber, author of Exodus 1947; Joseph Telushkin, author of A Code of Jewish Ethics; Jonathan D Sarna, author of American Judaism.Tanbycroft (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy requirements

I'm no expert on this topic, since I don't know the history involved, but I thought I would offer a few pointers on how Wikipedia's policies relate to this dispute.

• WP:V#Reliable sources requires that "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are four criteria to be met there. Icon of Evil meets some of these criteria (it's a third-party published source, for instance), but does it have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" Given that mainstream professional historians have strongly criticised its fact-checking, accuracy and quality of writing, I would have to say it does not. The onus is on those who wish to include the book in this article to demonstrate that it does meet all the criteria set out above.

• From what has been said above, it appears that the "secret homosexual" claim is not supported by mainstream historians - I note that Tom Segev singles it out for criticism it in his New York Times review. The claim would appear to qualify as a fringe theory: an "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." I recommend that editors should read WP:FRINGE for advice on how to treat this claim.

• Finally, WP:UNDUE - part of the neutral point of view policy - requires that points of view should be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each". It appears from what has been said above by others this is a tiny-minority POV in reliably published sources. Therefore "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." And to quote Jimmy Wales, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." Again, the onus is on editors who wish to include this material to demonstrate that it has any acceptance in mainstream historiography. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)