Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

POV disputes were resolved?

I don't see any remaining complaints about POV on this page (just complaints about some sporadic poorly-sourced claims). Should the POV tag be removed? It's been there 2 years...

Here is the most recent explanation for the POV template: [3]. 2004.

I know little about al-Husayni, so I couldn't check for POV very thoroughly. After looking briefly, I did notice that all of the opinions cited in the section Mohammad Amin al-Husayni#Aftermath: Amin al-Husayni and antisemitism are from Jewish authors. That could be indicative of undue weight to the argument that he was antisemitic. Are there some notable disputing opinions? That's probably worth consideration. Nevertheless, I removed the template.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 05:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Husseini targeted all Jews not just zionistas

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=12&x_article=1705 AminHusseini (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed "quickly sidelined" claim

After 1948, he was kind of partially discredited, but he still had a significant number of vocal supporters, and he was involved in the All-Palestine Government etc. in Egypt and remained the undisputed single leading Palestinian Arab political personality until 1964, so it's hard to see how he was "quickly sidelined"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Was the Bathists party of Syria,Iraqi part of Grand Mufitis thought?

Was the bathists party of Syria and Iraqui part set up by The Gran Mufiti his followers? Article did not mentionPHILFOT (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked in some very detailed sources and could not find anything like that. Zero^talk 11:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Albert Antebbi - not AntiZionist but non Zionist

Antebbi had great reserves about the ways of the political Zionism and thought that the Jewish resettlement in Palestine has to be done gradually and more discretely. But he helped the Hibat Zion projects, had a great contribution to the foundation and to the strengthening of the Jewish moshavot in Palestine, was in permanent connexion with the Palestinian office of the Jewish Agency in Palestine , in good connexion with Meir Dizengoff and other political Zionists, was for the rennaissnce of the Jewish independence and the renewal of the Hebrew language. His very energetic and authoritative way of action and his pragmatic approach led him many times in conflicts with a part of the Zionist militants but also with other Jewish factors,. But as a whole one cannot define him as Anti Zionist, but only Non Zionist. see http://jic.tau.ac.il/moreshet/_repositoryTL15/1100643.pdf Cpt.schoener (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Long article, need to think on breaking it into smaller ones

Hey I only added ~2 paragraphs worth, I swear! :-) 24.155.209.101 (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

objection regarding sources (and again)

I object to the excessive use of a Norwegian newspaper for this article. There are a large number of high quality books and articles in more accessible languages that can be used as sources. Use of Norwegian has the effect of freezing the text, since almost nobody here can read it, and it ignores the analysis made by reliable third party sources. In particular, inserting here claims that someone made, as reported by a newspaper, is not acceptable without also inserting what historians have concluded in assessing those claims. Lots of people with vested interests made wild claims that got into newspapers. Zero^talk 09:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can translate the relevant texts and put it in the references if needed. Also, I don't understand this edit [4]. Alright, it is a claim by the person in question, but as long as it is asserted that it is in fact a claim by a person (a rather central person mind you), it is normally OK to have it in an article. A neutral article must be allowed to present claims by central persons, but of course with the cover of an analysis by later historians. If only one party is allowed to present their claims/analysis the article becomes unbalanced. -TheG (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If we insert every claim made on this subject the article will be 10 times as long and incomprehensible. We should restrict ourselves to material that is given some credence in serious history books. For example there is no evidence whatever that al-Husayni ever saw a gas chamber and none of the 5-6 books about him that I have read suggest that he did. As far as I can remember, the only one of them that even mentions this claim suggests he was confused with a different Arab. Putting in claims from a newspaper as that "there is evidence" for something makes it look like the claim is plausible. Actually if something serious is alleged in a 1961 newspaper and never makes it into the history books, that is strong evidence against it. Zero^talk 13:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Aftenposten is generally a well respected newspaper, BUT: User:Gabagool have used as a source editions from the period 1940-1945!! (Gagabol: er du spenna gæern?? Unnskyld at jeg spør.) For outsiders: Norway was occupied by German Nazi forces between 1940-45, & all major newspapers, including "Aftenposten", was put under nazi administration. Put it this way; many (most?) of the editors/journalist who worked in "Aftenposten" during 1940-45 were never allowed to work as that again, after 1945. There were some "gode Nordmenn" (=non-nazi) journalists there (AFAIK, Theo Findahl was one), but even they had to follow the strict laws/sensors of the time. In other words; anything from "Aftenposten" in this period can only be taken as a source on what the Nazi occupation thought/wanted people to think. It is absolutely outrageous to use Aftenposten 1940-45 as a WP:RS!

Also; the article now quotes an Aftenposten-story from the Eichman-trial in 1961, where the "Aftenposten" journalist report something absolutely no other journalist, or the court itself, found. This is simply not credible. (Also, Gagabol: the link to the Aftenposten-page gives a page with very small print, and it seems it is not possible to expand/read it without pay-to-view?) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that, however, I would argue that for this case, it doesn't really matter who controlled the newspaper since it's largely just generic info (not things that culd be partisan/biased). As far as I see it is no "opinions", just regular reports of things that happened. But I understand if it might be inappropriate or frowned upon, and I therefore have no intention of pursuing this further (if that's the case). (I have of course pay-to-viewed the source (hardly a relevant argument since most sources include books which one also have to invest time or money to get a hold of)). -TheG (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I´m sure you can find sourced in Aftenposten for that period that Germany actually won the Battle of Stalingrad :P. Anyway, I´m glad you will not reinsert it. And in general, though "Aftenposten" is as reliable a newspaper as you can get in Norway; I would be very careful as to use old copies as a WP:RS for anything regarding the Middle East. As professor Hilde Henriksen Waage showed in her 1996 book: "Norge -Israels beste venn" (="Norway -Israels best friend"), all public media in Norway during that period routinely "self-censored" out anything negative about Israel, and published anything positive. Generally this was the case up to 1982 (& the Lebanon-invasion). There are very few cases that I know of where you (before the "Oslo-process") would actually need Norwegian sources for any info on the Middle East-issues. (Exceptions: Odd Bull, Odd Karsten Tveit). I would say, that for a controversial, and much-debated figure as Mohammad Amin al-Husayni: if it is not sourced in the (many) academic studies about him, then out it goes...Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to this article being expanded by means of carefully selected items from newspaper archives. This is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. The article should be written on the basis of reliable secondary sources, of which there are many good books and articles written by historians who have evaluated all the various contemporary reports. Zero^talk 07:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero0000 is right. We can only use reliable secondary sources. We are not historians and cannot gather primary sources material in order to defend a thesis and even to develop some facts. We can only report facts and analysis reported by scholars. 81.244.60.35 (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of what is currently sourced by the 1946 Norvegian newspaper could be sourced, with just some rephrasing, by Tsilla Hershco, Le grand mufti de Jérusalem en France : Histoire d'une évasion, Revue Controverses, n°1, mars 2006. It is a wp:rs secondary source, but in French. Do you think it could be acceptable ? 81.244.60.35 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We prefer English sources if possible, but Hershco clearly meets the definition of a reliable source. Needless to say, the course to follow is to replace the unreliable text by text rewritten on the basis of the reliable source, not just to resource biased material. Zero^talk 12:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to correct my English or to remove material you may consider "useless". If you have some doubts about facts, tell me and I will double check but I think I properly translated main points.

NB: for a reason I don't understand the author talks about "Eretz Yisrael" in the text when she refers to Palestine. I used Palestine which is more accurate and wrote [Palestine] in one quote. 81.244.173.217 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

International Sephardic Leadership Council collection

This collection of stuff without an author is completely unacceptable and unreliable. We might as well edit David Ben-Gurion on the basis of stuff "assembled, edited and presented" by some Islamic organization. To see the unreliability, here is one example:

ISLC text: The prosecution at the Eichmann trial noted a page of the Mufti's diary, dated November 9, 1944, where the words, in Arabic, “Very rare diamond, the best savior of the Arabs” was noted--and underneath the Arabic it said in Latin letters, “Eichmann.” The diary also said, “Before Tripoli is evacuated, the Jews should be cleaned out and their property confiscated.” (with a citation to Schechtman, pp162-163)

Original of Schechtman: Another question not cleared up at the trial was that raised by a piece of evidence submitted by the prosecu­tion: a page of the Mufti's diary, dated November 9, 1944, and containing the words, in Arabic, "very rare diamond, the best savior of the Arabs," and immediately underneath, in Latin letters, "Eichmann." Called to the witness stand, Chief Inspector Avraham Hagag, Arabic and hand­writing expert of the Israeli Police, testified that the sen­tence in Arabic was definitely in the handwriting of the Mufti. So were two other Arabic notations: "Before Trip­oli is evacuated, the Jews should be cleaned out and their property confiscated," and "Bomb Tel Aviv, the Dead Sea [Works], Rutenberg and Haifa, and the military installa­tions there." Yet, when Eichmann's defense counsel asked: "Was the word 'Eichmann' written by the Mufti?" Hagag answered: "I didn't have enough material [in Latin letters] to make a comparison and form an opinion." To the counsel's further question, "Are the other two notations in German written in the same handwriting as the 'Eichmann'," the reply was "No".

So ISLC has just selected a few sentences without the caveats and uncertainties. Propaganda at its simplest. Zero^talk 15:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

His role in opposing Illegal Immigration

The article at the momment ignores the fact that most Jews in Palestine were illegal immigrants. His role in opposing this illegal immigration is confused by reference to what happened to those illegal immigrants denied entry to Palestine. As a nationalist, he was within his rights to oppose alien invasion of his country. There were many other possible destination other than heavilly populated arab palestine for Jews.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You can be opposed to immigration without meeting personally with both Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler! -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

wp:undue

This sentence (1st one of the 3rd paragraph in the lead) : "As a passionate antisemite[3] al-Husayni encouraged his followers to "kill the Jews wherever you find them".[4]" is given too much weight over there and therefore should be removed. Noisetier (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is no comment against I expect to delete this sentence within 2 weeks. Noisetier (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this is rediculous you can claim UNDUE for this sentence. It could have been a WP:UNDUE if Husayni was a shy Imam of some village near Hebron and slipped one time "kill the Jews". Anti-Jewish riots, armed Arab rebellion and involvement with the axis during WWII, including propaganda broadcasts on radio Berlin make it a clear WP:DUE.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

al-Husayni didn't spend his time asking his followers to kill the Jews wherever they found them. He did so once. That's why it is wp:undue.

nb: The spelling of "rediculous" is "ridiculous".

Noisetier (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about this being UNDUE. Many reliable sources talk about it. It's a prominent issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

At least people answered. That's already this. I add the pov tag but I assume it is already there. :-) Noisetier (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The pov-tage is already there. By the way, you fear all to answer the real question. Is the fact that he was antisemite deserve the first line of the 3rd paragraph ? And does the fact he stated "kill all the Jews" deserve to be pointed out there ? And if so, why ? And if not, why not ?

When people will be there to develop an encyclopaedia, let's have a call :)

Noisetier (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The prominence we give issues in articles is based on the prominence those issues get in reliable sources. I think his antisemitism and call to kill the Jews are very prominent in reliable sources that talk about him. Do you disagree?

NB: Don't correct other Editors' spelling mistakes. You make them too. It would also be nice if you stopped making thinly veiled accusations against other editors, even if you end them with a smiley. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

NB: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs), when somebody has chosen a nickname such as yours that is in total contradiction with WP:AGF, he should refrain from comment. Next step for you is to leave a message on your colleage user page asking him to apologize for commenting my own comments as r[i]diculous. But you are welcome if it is to discuss how to improve this article and build on encyclopaedia.

• "The prominence we give issues in articles is based on the prominence those issues get in reliable sources" : true
• "I think his antisemitism and call to kill the Jews are very prominent in reliable sources that talk about him. Do you disagree?" Yes but with nuances. The issue is not exactly where you put it. His antisemitism is prominent in reliable sources but not the way it is reflected in the lead of the article that should, according to WP:LEAD reflects the content of the article and the reference to his "call to kill the Jews" is neither a fair weighted and due summary of this issue from wp:rs sources or from the material in the article.

Noisetier (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue of antisemitism has one sentence in the lead. The rest of the paragraph is about his collaboration with the Nazis, which is also a prominent issue. I think both of these appear in practically every book written about the guy.

I think the "This would have meant the deaths of over 350,000 people." can be removed though. It's speculative and I'm not sure what the source for it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree to that this sentence is WP:OR (even if this is of course true that the final solution in Palestine as wanted by the Mufti meant the extermination of the Yishuv).

I disagree that reference to this appear in practically every book and certainly not to explain that he collaborated with the Nazis for this reason. He collaborated with the Italian and the Nazi facist regimes because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I have wp:rs sources for this and that explains why this sentence is not at the right place.

What about the material in the article that states the image of antisemitism is exagerated (Novik ; Zertal) and this for propaganda reasons ? It is not in the lead.

Noisetier (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I get what you're saying. The sentence about antisemitism gives the impression that that was the only reason he collaborated with the Nazis. I don't mind moving it, but I still think it should be in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think too that the fact he was antisemite should be part of the lead. Noisetier (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jacques de Reynier (Intern. Red Cross in Palestine) writes in his book explicitely that he is an antisemite Savasorda (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Truth or propaganda ?

Does someone have access to sources that could corroborate the information according to which : "It is also reported that when he visited Auschwitz [the Mufti] "reproached the Germans for not being more determined in exterminating the Jews."[172]. - if true, it is very relevant information but if it is propaganda or dubious, it should be removed. Noisetier (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You missed the : wp:rs source issue.

Gilbert Achcar (who -I precise- writes that the Mufti was a virulent antisemite and blame him extremely much for this), writes that the origin of this accusation relies on a unique testimony at Nuremberg. He considers that this testimony is "dubious" (even if the material at the charge of the Mufti remains very important). (ref : Gilber Achcar, Les Arabes et la Shoah, 2010, p. 240 ).

Noisetier (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You can add that Achcar considers it "doubious".

Also, you added this (twice):

Amin al-Husayni has been pictured as a virulent antisemite by traditional Israeli historiography and is still pictured as such today by some commentators.

This editorializing and and OR par excellence. You need a source saying this, and even then it should be attributed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I disagree that this would be "OR per excellence".

You could argue this is wp:undue because these are not wp:rs but certainly not wp:or. Noisetier (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's OR because you don't have an RS saying it. It's your conclusion. Also the refs you give as examples are OR because you don't have an RS linking them directly to the conclusion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I reformulated. Noisetier (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Due:weight - reliability ?

• Mufti was known for his anti-Jewish hatred, having an extensive anti-Semitic and pan-Arab history.

The Mufti did not defend a Pan-Arab" but "Pan-Islamist" ideology. And anyway, what is the link with Mufti antisemtism ?

• His speeches were anti-Semitic to the core, like: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them — this serves God."

Icon of Evil is not wp:rs ; his speeched were not antisemitic to the "core" ; and the minimum minimorum would be to write "some of his speeches". There are many way to write this differently in a neutral way to specify some of his radio broadcasts had antisemite contents.

• He met with Hitler and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies to solve the "Jewish problem" in Palestine.

As far as I know, this is confirmed by wp:rs source but Elpeleg already states this and we should refer to him as a better source given he wrote a biography of the Mufit.

• In a report of recently declassified information by the American government and published in the National Archives, the British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division told an American military attaché that the Mufti might be the only person who could unite the Palestinian Arabs and “cool off the Zionists".

This has nothing to deal with the topic and should be put somewhere else. In more of that, this is a reference to a primary source.

• He is blamed by many as the main culprit of sowing the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This has nothing to deal with the topic of antisemitism and in more of that, that is a manipulation of the information because the source, Mattar, thinks this is a false accusation and if he reports this, it is to prove the contrary.

• "Authoritarian and racist (as he's called), al-Husseini opposed any compromise with the Jews."

And ? This has no added value in comparison with what is already in the article.

• From the Wall Street Journal: "Muslim Judeophobia is not—as is commonly claimed—a reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main 'root causes.' It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel's creation."

This sentence had nothing to do with the topic. In more of that, Wall Street Journal is not a wp:rs source on this topic.

• When he visited Auschwitz he "reproached the Germans for not being more determined in exterminating the Jews."

The source that is given is not wp:rs ; other sources should be found and a deeper context provided.

Noisetier (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Icons of Evil not RS? It's written by a historian. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. For wikipedia, Dalin is reliable source and all could be said here. But he is as reliable as Pappé and we should use higher quality sources than these "gentleman" when it is achievable or at least when they put forward fringe ideas.

I have a references that direcly attack the reliability of Pappé and others for Dalin explaining their p"ov-pushing" but that is not possible to solve the issue in that direction on wikipedia. On wikipedia we fixed the limit by the diploma and that's it.

Noisetier (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Passionate

Can anyone provide a source for labelling him "passionate" in his antisemitism? I don't think there are enough proven examples of his making antisemitic statements to justify this emphasis. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think if he told his followers to "kill the Jews wherever you find them," that's being passionate about, or being passionately driven by his views. He just didn't dislike Jews, but encouraged others to kill them "wherever you find them." That sounds very much like a passionate statement to me. If that quote is used to qualify the statement being made, a plain "anti-Semite" actually seems out of place, as an anti-Semite is just someone who dislikes Jews. I think the emphasis is needed if the quote is going to be used to qualify the statement about his anti-Semitic views. However, "passionate" may not be the only possible adjective that can serve the role of modifying the term anti-Semite to suit the use of the quote (which is supposed to be genuinely and neutrally reflective of his anti-Semitic views). BalaHissar (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just your analysis, in other words original research. Since "passionate" cannot ever be more than an opinion, it cannot be in the article except (possibly) attributed to a reliable source that gives that opinion. As for this "quotation", the version transcribed by the BBC said "Anglo-Saxons and Jews" not just Jews. In other words, at a time of war he urged his followers to kill their enemies. Just like hundreds of other leaders did. He had thrown in his lot with the Nazis, which we can consider odious, but his actual remark is the sort of thing you would expect someone in that position to say. Zero^talk 09:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok so the entire quote is wrong?! Seems to me that it should be changed, as what is in the article is misleading versus the version below. Also as I understand it, he never publically declared antisemitism, and denied it in his memoirs. So, "widely viewed as an anti-semite" would be more accurate. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:BBCreel125.png

For starters, this is not the whole speech! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.60.224 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary of problems with the third para:

• "passionate" - this is an opinion as he never admitted / always denied it. Should say "widely viewed as an...."
• "kill the Jews wherever you find them" - this quote is inaccurate, see above
• "energetically" - again this is an opinion and is not necessary
• "after German troops had driven out the British and exterminated the Jews living there. This would have meant the deaths of over 350,000 people." - this statement insinuates what he may or may not have known, of which there is no proof, and therefore it is not acceptable.

Comments gratefully received. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not add reference to the fuller quote above, as I cannot find an elegant way to do so without breaching wp:or. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I note an IP has just removed the quote in question from the lead. I think that is the right thing to do given the doubt cast above, and I would note that the exact same uncertain quote appears a further two times in the article.... Oncenawhile (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks shooped:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Palestinian_delegation_1929.jpg

I can tell by the pixels and whathaveyou. Anyway, I don't see any explanation for why this picture has the Mufti's face very, very poorly pasted onto the man in front's body. Does anyone have an explanation? If not, I'd suggest getting rid of it as it would undermine the serious tone of an encyclopedia article. 76.118.90.166 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The photo comes from the Library of Congress [5] (use the TIF version). I don't think the LofC is into pasting faces on the scans it makes of its photos, so we can assume that the original print is like that. I agree that the Mufti's face looks odd. It is possible a face has been pasted on, but I'm more inclined to believe that that the Mufti's face was brightened during development. Perhaps it was too dark in the original photo, so whoever developed the negative "dodged" his face to brighten it. As evidence for this, notice the sort of aura to the upper right (from his perspective) of the Mufti's bright hat. The equally bright patch on the guy two seats to his left did not create an aura, so the aura is not a normal artifact. Dodging his face would also decrease the contrast on it, which is why his face looks soft compared to those around. The dodging also made his neck too bright, which misleadingly enhances the impression that the face is pasted. Zero^talk 07:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If you zoom in the image up to the pixel size, nothing particular appears.

I add that the Mufti was there and that there is no reason (positive or negative) to lie about this.

81.247.173.44 (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing sources

This article mentions, but does not actually cite, Gilbert Achcar's recent book, and does not mention either Jeffrey Herf or Matthias Küntzel. Surely all should be mentioned, at least in the "aftermath" section, as their books have been widely reviewed and their positions widely disseminated? BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wide sections of Achcar book are dedicated to Husseini but that is not the case of Herf and Huntzell who are scholars who pave the way built before them by those who want to build a link between Nazi and contemporary Islamism widely speaking. Given they have different conclusions, that would deserve a wide section with their conclusions.

In any case, what is absolutely needed in that article is a restructuration.

The first part of the article must deal only with facts and events. What the Mufti did, when ; where he went ; what he said ; what he wrote ; how he commented later his actions.

The second part of the article would then concern analysis, judgments, controversies, propaganda etc.

That is hard job that requires that the people who have the material can work quietly. 91.180.172.56 (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming

How come he can be named "al-Huseini", "al-Hajj" or "Hajj"? That is too general, as al-Huseini is very common Arab surname, while "Hajj" is a title for anyone who has piligrimaged to Mecca. It must be more precise.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ask Dalin, Chuckwhatshisname, and Patterson. All three of the sources you wished to use employ al-Husseini as the default monicker.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to read a little bit of WP:CIVILITY in your free time.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Husseini at Auschwitz

This article used to be poorly sourced all over. Noisetier, myself and a few others tried to clean it up, and set some standards for writing the page.

• Use reliable academic or quality sources, authored by experts who have researched the field, and have peer review
• Husseini's life can be covered in great details by historians with area expertise in the history of Nazism, Germany, Arab nationalism. These sources abound in English, French, German and Italian.
• As to Auschwitz, large claims require strong sources and evidence. This is what Finkelstein wrote about the meme that circulates in shoot-from-the-hit journalistic or self-published sources.

The major biographies of the Mufi are the The Mufti of Jerusalem by Palestinian historian Philip Mattar and The Grand Mufti by Israeli historian Zvi Elpeleg. Neither of these sources mentions Husseini accompanying Himmler to Auschwitz. Neither of these sources mentions a Husseini plan to build an Auschwitz-style camp in Nablus. Neither mentions a German. Arab commando unit en route to poison Tel Aviv's wells, Neither mentions that Husseini was indicted at Nuremberg.' etc

• The Mufti's bio is bleak enough without smacking it all over with cheap propaganda. The page must be neutral, not a secret weapon in the battle for images in the I/P area. So can we please agree to edit the page responsibly, in accordance with the huge volume of reliably written works by qualified historians? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Hebrew Wikipedia, this source is mentioned for his visit in Auschwitz - "Schechtman, Joseph B.. The Mufti and the Fuehrer: The rise and fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini, (T. Yoseloff, 1965P.160". Can someone verify this? thanks, Happy138 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead

'Merely to discuss his life is to be caught up in the Arab-Israeli propaganda war.' Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilization:The Conquest of the Middle East, HarperPerennial 2006 p.439

This was the lead back in April 2009, after a lot of work.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (Arabic: محمد أمين الحسيني, commonly (but less correctly) transliterated al-Husseini, 1895/1897 - July 4 1974), a member of the al-Husayni clan of Jerusalem, was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in the British Mandate of Palestine. From 1921 to 1948, he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and played a key role in opposition to Zionism.

As early as 1920, he was active in both opposing the British in order to secure the independence of Palestine as an Arab State and opposing Jewish immigration and the establishment of their National home in Palestine. His oppositional role peaked during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. In 1937, wanted by the British, he fled Palestine and took refuge successively in Lebanon, Iraq, Italy and finally Nazi Germany where he met Adolf Hitler in 1941. He asked Germany to oppose, as part of the Arab struggle for independence, the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. During the 1948 Palestine War he represented the Arab Higher Committee and opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah's ambitions for expanding Jordan by capturing Palestinian territory.

After the 1948 Palestine War and Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership were devastated and, quickly sidelined successively by the Arab Nationalist Movement and the Palestine Liberation Organization, he lost most of his remaining political influence. Al-Husayni died in Beirut, Lebanon in 1974.

Historians debate to what extent his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

The only thing I find lacking there for the moment is a needed expansion of the Nazis period which requires a line of the type: 'He lent himself to the Nazi and Fascist propaganda machine, and called for the destruction of the Jews.' There are no references to newspaper sources. It summed up the article's content succinctly, and was a general overview. The details with which the lead is now crammed, many of them lacking nuance, have mostly been culled from newspaper sources. I think the huge amount of attention the lead, as opposed to the body of the article, has had over the past few years, in which the whole argument against Husseini is featured in terms of WW2, to the neglect of his 2 decades as a recognized leader of Arab-Palestinian opposition to Zionism, is misguided. It a poor introduction because it singles out for focus his political engagement with Nazism in the decade of his exile, after the effective end of his career as a religious and political figure in British Mandate Palestine.

I'd appreciate input here as to whether the 'clean' text should be restored, which took over a year of consensual negotiation and close attention to the rest of the article. I have no sympathy for al-Husseini, or no interest in whitewashing his record. But articles of this importance need to be brought up to the exacting standards of FA quality.? Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate:-

First we had-

Historians debate to what extent his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.</

Now we have:-

Husseini is a highly controversed figure. He is pictured by some scholars as a staunch antisemite al-Husseini was widely reported to have encouraged his followers to "kill the Jews wherever you find them". whereas others state that he was not at all antisemite.

The second version is patently rigged, conceptually wrongfooted and poorly footnoted. Laurens is not given a page number, and, as far as I recall, throughout the three volumes, his position is far too nuanced to allow a position in an 'ontological' definition of the kind proposed by the cites from Sacher (1961) and Stillman (2000). By 'ontological' I refer to attempts to brand the man as a congenital antisemite, whose whole life and career must be read retroactively in terms of this character neurosis. The best evidence suggests that he was an Arab nationalist, representing a specific pan-Arab but also clan-interest, who was mentored by a great Jewish figure in his early years, who over time threw in his lot with Fascism and Nazism, and became bitterly antisemitic, a 'Jew-hater' whose enmity in his last decades was rooted in the fact, as his own family admitted, that 'they' had stolen his homeland.Nishidani (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

From my readings, I personnaly concur the idea that he "became bitterly antisemitic" and I would add "in the years 36-39". It's worth pointing this out that I came to the same conclusion as Nishidani without ever discussing the issue with him into details.

Historians seem anyway more categorical than us. Laurens, I will give the page and the exact sentence, writes, I would say without doubt, that he was not antisemite. On the other side, Morris, in his last book about 1948 writes, without doubt, that he was antisemite. Elpeleg brings some nuances. Palestinian historians (they are often "forgotten" defend him on this issue ; Old Israelis ones condemn him without nuance. Interesting approach is Achcar who considers him as antisemite too. So even among reliable sources, mind are extremelly different and no answer, expect personnal one, can be given on this issue.

For this reason, I prefer former version :

Historians debate to what extent his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.</

91.180.172.56 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a brief generalization of the controversy in the lead, and then a section in the body of the article where these judgements can be outlined in detail. You and Zero have more mastery of the subject than I so I'll leave that side to you both (I'm busy at the moment, but I think it's about time we make some preparations to go through the article like a 'dose of salts' and haul it into shape for GA, and eventually FA consideration, given its intrinsic importance. There should be no hurry in this of course. Thanks.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, despite your previous brutal attitude on the talk page, i would like to say you have atempted a very profound job on referencing the article. Except some minor remarks, i support your work.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my remarks. It's no excuse to plead exhaustion from the other page I have been working. It's just that down to April 2009 this was one of the most difficult pages in the I/P area to work, got me sanctioned, and I was barred for two years from finishing off, having gotten half way through the article with some speed after two years where every edit was a battle. This afternoon I embarked on a complete review offline of all the references section, formatting them to a consistent template, for rapid reader control on what we are going to document. There are several of us, yourself included, who seem to be keen to grab this article by the horns and pull it into shape. It's quite long, and repetitive, and some severe cutting has to be done, and when one does that, one risks troubling NPOV. But there are enough eyes here, from different angles, to check what is being done. Let's roll up our sleeves. Regards (and once more my apologies. I shouldn't let past memories of troubles here poison the well of current and future cooperation with other editors) Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)