Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Unprotection & suggestion for a rule of good practice

I have just unprotected this article after a long period of protection. Discussion here had considerably slowed in the last few days, and I believe El C decided to leave protection in place for the arbitration case, which is currently languishing. This is not an invitation to return to edit warring, however (especially if your now under the scrutiny of ArbCom) and I urge you to continue to try to reach consensus. I'm keeping an eye on the article, and will reprotect or block, whatever the case may be, if it proves necessary. Dmcdevitยทt 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try. I just restored the POV flag removed by an IP.
May I suggest that we don't start a warring ? (good answer is "yes of course" ;-)
The only solution I see today is the following :
Deleting, modifying or adding could only be done at the condition no editor disagrees with this delete, modification or add.
This means we should explain modification on this page and wait for some days before proceeding to this.
The editor who disagrees wouldn't have to justify (even if of course this would be better) in order not to start a warring.
We can stick to this if it works and try to make it evolves if not.
It a warring starts again, we will just have to protect the article and come back to wikipedia's offical rules.
Christophe Greffe 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing is to make our changes slowly, as you have been doing. In particular, everyone should avoid making simultaneous changes to several parts of the article in one edit. That way, when issues do crop up, we can deal with them one at a time. Giving every editor a veto over any change, as you seem to be proposing, is in my opinion not workable. Brian Tvedt 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of asked deletes/modifications/adds

  • 1. Can we delete this from first phase : "Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression" ? Christophe Greffe 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. Can we replace the whole background by suggested background#3 ?Christophe Greffe 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Since #1 is a minor change that was clearly needed, all we really need to discuss is #2. I strongly agree with replacing the Background section as you recommend. The removed material can be moved to a new article, Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine, devoted to the period from the late 19th century to the end of the Mandate. Much of the material in History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be moved there also. Brian Tvedt 14:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I've no objection in principle provided that good sources are used and cited. --Ian Pitchford 14:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I generally agree with Brian and Christophe about moving the background section to other article but we need to first agree on a short and concise (few words) about th conditions prior to May 15 invasion. Maybe we can start from Nov 29, 1947 and the bus bombings on Nov 30 - that seem to be the start of the actual 1948 war. Zeq 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I would start a little earlier - we should at least include UNSCOP, the debate over the Partition plan, and the UN vote, as these set the stage for the confrontation. Brian Tvedt 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for slow response, I recently limited my edit time on Wikipedia. I think your introduction is good, but I do not undestand why you want change #1. Is information in the sentence mentioned some place else?-- Heptor talk 13:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948

Kriegman and Heptor have added "Right after the UN partition plan was approved, joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, which Israel, the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie called illegal aggression." The whole of this is factually inaccurate and should not appear in the article. --Ian Pitchford 16:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian is correct. I added what DID took place right after the Nov 29 decision. Heptor : the invasion took place after May 15, 1948 (hence the hesitation of BG to declare independence: He was afraid of the invasion. The Jordenian forces invaded few days before May 15. Zeq 17:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. -- Heptor talk 10:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

BG did not at all hesitate to declare independence but did so to exactly coincide with the end of the Mandate. Furthermore, Jordan did not invade two days before. In fact, Jordan did not attack the Jewish part of the UN partition at all in the entire war. --Zero 03:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

BG did hesitate to declare independence. A Critical vote if the accept the american offer to delay decalring independence was out voted just days before the declaration (I think it was 6:4 or 5:4). The vote was 2-3 days before the British had left and once th american decision was refused the declaration went ahead at the end of the Mandate.

The state of Israel was declared independent on May 15 1948, The Arab states, in particular Egypt, Syria and Transjordan, promptly declared war, and those three countries, with reinforcements from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, invaded both the territory allotted to the Palestinian state to be and territory allotted to Israel. The open participation of regular Arab armies in the war after May 15, 1948 changed the equation of forces. The Jews were no longer fighting irregulars like themselves, but real armies with trained soldiers, tanks, artillery and aircraft. The departure of the British made it possible to draft and train soldiers in the open and to bring arms shipments and immigrants into the country. However, the army could not possibly be organized in a week or two, and the land was small enough to be completely occupied in a few days if resistance collapsed. The first period of the war following independence was therefore crucial. Zeq 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Arab Legion was under explicit instructions to not attack the Jewish part of the UN partition, and they didn't. Egypt did, Syria did, Lebanon did, but Jordan did not. That's a fact. --Zero 03:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The maps linked at the end of the article indicate that Arab forces did not invade the territory allocated to the Jews by the UN ... this contradicts what is written above. Which is correct? --Russell E 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To Ian

You are interducing masive changes to this article while we are discussing how this article should look like. Please dicuss these changes here on talk before interducing them in to the article. Than k You !

Also, you have delted sourcedmaterial that was discussed on talk (the events after the 1947 declaration which are an integral part of this war. You can not delete those (just because they don't fit your POV). If you have another version of events for those days and it is properly sourced discuss it as well. Zeq 07:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I re-wrote the section in English and added five sources, all of which you promptly deleted. --Ian Pitchford 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I note that last edit was [personal attack deleted]. You summed up your edit with "Restored (and fixed) Zeq's ref deleted in error", while you also deleted content you disputed (the mufti quotation and more), [personal attack deleted]. Please don't do that again. -- Heptor talk 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a violation of WP policy. Also see the Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith guidelines. -- Jibal 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Heptor, please learn to read edit summaries. Discussion here does not exempt editors from following Wikipedia policies on citing reliable sources; it does not allow sourced material to be excised, and it does not allow original research to be included in this article. After months of asking you, Zeq and Kriegman have still not produced any evidence on the accuracy of old statements attributed to the mufti or any evidence for the relevance of that material to this article. The material can go in the article as soon as reputable sources by historians or other scholars are cited , but not until then. --Ian Pitchford 22:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have protected this article until all sides stop reverting. Please discuss here first. Since sources are the problem here please list them and discuss them on this page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You are abusing your Admin rights since while we are in discussions Ian had nade massaive changes and you were quick to freeze the article to his version of the events. Please unprotect or revert Ian and re-protect. There is a discussion going on which you have now interrupted. This is against wp:Point Zeq 04:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
The relevant WP policy is Wikipedia:Protection policy: If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version.. Please cease the personal attacks, which violate WP policy. Please assume good faith, per WP guidelines. -- Jibal 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Zeq, I am allowed to protect any article with an edit war on it. Also I did not choose any version to protect, I protected as soon as I saw the edit war on the page. The version I protected is not a version I endorse. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Further to the apparent failure of the arbitration process (at least to date) I've solicited suggestions on how this dispute should be resolved. Perhaps some sort of binding mediation, in which all editors agree on the specific steps to be taken, would be appropriate? --Ian Pitchford 22:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The only solution I can see is one of these two:

1. People with vested interst in the conflict (pretty much all editors who paryicipatd until now) avoid editing this article and Wikipedia invite a group of real scholars to write this article.

2. Wikipedia avoid having an article on this subject until it's policies and mechanism allow it to deal with such issues. So far, this is totaly not working: it is unstable going from one side to another based on temporaray majority and adamin abuse (freezing to a specific version that will be reverted at some point as well) Zeq 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have asked consistently for good sources to be cited for all material added to this article, i.e., I want Wikipedia policy to be upheld. This is a minimum standard and not some special request. I repeat again that I don't care what material you add, or which side you think it favours, provided that scholarly or other reputable sources are cited. Adding fifteen weblinks to stuff on the mufti (a peripheral character in the war who does not deserve a whole section devoted to his lifestory) and links to Amazon in response to a request that a source be provided for claims that genocide was feared is not compliance with policy, it's deliberate provocation and violation of policy. --Ian Pitchford 11:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is in ArbCom. You should repect them and await their decision. Zeq 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
long ago, as part of mediation, we agreed to remove the "fear of genocide" - still you with another admin have took over this article. You are the last person that has a right to complain about "policy violation" Zeq 11:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq, please abide by Wikipedia policies and no more excuses. --Ian Pitchford 12:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Al your recent behaviour is a vioaltion of policy. You have refused to accept the results of the mediation. Don't accuse othrs of what you do yourself. Zeq 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. You agreed to remove unsourced material from the article and then failed to do so. --Ian Pitchford 15:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I have agreed to remove unsourced material from the article. The problem was that even sourced material you wanted to remove and took it to ArbCom. So hav they aproved your request ? Zeq 17:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that you've ever submitted any relevant sourced material to this article. --Ian Pitchford 17:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
There were many like this one: *Gilbert, Martin (1976). The Arab-Israeli Conflict Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 0297772414 which you removed. Zeq 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
That's the only one you've ever cited and it hasn't been deleted. --Ian Pitchford 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ian, just looking over your recent edits, it's pretty apparent you've simply been deleting sections that disagree with your point of view along with cited references. It is not for you to decide that only those sources you consider sound are worth citing, especially when it is so apparent that those just so happen to agree with your point of view. I've seen several such edit wars lately (e.g., "Some countries consider Tel Aviv to be Israel's capital") and Siddiqui's insertions into the article on Palestine, and after a lot of back and forth it turns out those who seek to malign Israel are wrong on the facts, and so it is here too. I'm sorry reality doesn't fit your preconceptions of it, but as someone said "if the map and the landscape don't agree, it's the map that's wrong." --Leifern 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to WP policy, personal attacks are grounds for banning. Please desist, and assume good faith. -- Jibal 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

What sources are your referring to? The problem we've had all along is that there are no sources for the disputed claims. As for the specific deletions and additions/fixes here they are:
  1. Line 39 - Deleted "POV section" added in confusion over role of the Arab Legion.
  2. Line 44 - fixed wikilink; restored reference to Shertok; restored material on Jewish Brigade and fixed reference to Beckman.
  3. Line 61 - Linked to main article on Amin al-Husayni; deleted 14 (yes 14!) web links from one sentence, none of which relate to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
  4. Line 75 - Deleted link to WorldNet Daily article on Yasser Arafat a poor source, which cites another poor source, Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial for a quotation that does not relate to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; Inserted Benny Morris' report on military assessments from his highly respected 2003 work.
  5. Line 87 Expanded and re-wrote the section, keeping the original reference and providing five more good sources, three of which are to contemporary reports in The Times, The New York Times and The Palestine Post.
  6. Line 120 - Clarified the fact that the quotation inserted by Leifern is from Lie's 1954 memoirs and not a statement made at the time dealt with by this section "First phase: November 29, 1947 - April 1, 1948". Deleted material about the mufti's activities in World War II not relevant to this section and unsourced claim that "widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy".
  7. Line 318 - Restored 2 footnotes citing published works on the war.
  8. Line 327 - Restored 9 footnotes citing published works on the war and contemporary newspaper accounts; deleted two references to books that, once again, are about the mufti in World War II and not the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; deleted one reference to quotation that is probably fabricated and does not appear in any scholarly work or contemporary source.
  9. Line 345 - restored details of four books to the "references" section.
Comments? --Ian Pitchford 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Heptor gave you an answer already Zeq 10:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No Zeq. As usual there's no response about the relevance of this material to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; see Zero's comments above my response below. --Ian Pitchford 10:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you seem to believe that while the Israelis faced a belligerent enemy, it was not a genocidal one. Any quote attributed to an Arab leader that talks of extermination is either deleted or discredited. This indicates to me a bias. As for Joan Peters, her facts are not disputed; the way she arrived at her conclusion that most of the Arabs dispossessed by the war were immigrants or in-migrants is what people have a problem with. --Leifern 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite right. I think it's fine to include the claim that that the Jews in Palestine/Israeli's feared they were facing a genocidal enemy if there is a reputable source supporting that claim. You say that "any quote attributed to an Arab leader that talks of extermination is either deleted or discredited", but in fact we've already included in the article the statement "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." attributed to Azzam Pasha, even though a good source has not been found, because there are at least indications that it's probably (partially) accurate. I don't know of any "facts" by Peters that are not disputed (e.g., see Porath's NYRB review online), but in any case she is not cited in the article; the link to the newspaper article in which she is cited is about Arafat, and the quotation in question is about World War II; not the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. --Ian Pitchford 12:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To Anon editor

  • We know what you have tried to do. You were caught. Now, revert yourself and Ian and let the discussion go on from where it was before you abused your admin powers a quick look at Ian edit history shows he was not willing to accept any source that does not meet his POV. This is something for ArbCom to deal with not for you to freeze the article in the vesrion that Ian wanted it (in the middle of discussion) No point in further discussion if you just abuse your power.

I suggest you review wp:point if still do not understand what you have done. Zeq 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to WP policy, personal attacks are grounds for banning; please do not engage in them. And please follow the WP guidelines and assume good faith. Also, the relevant policy for review is Wikipedia:Protection policy. Note especially If a page is protected because of an edit war, please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is. A protection is not an endorsement of the current version.. -- Jibal 07:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Summing up available sources

To make it easier to understand the issue, I summed up available sources for mufti's disputed quotation "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." Three direct printed soures are found to date:

* Book by Sachar from 1979, p 333. I believe the book is "A History of Israel : From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time".

No, that one is the Azzam Pasha statement. --Zero 03:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Maurice Pearlman, "Mufti of Jerusalem. The story of Haj Amin el Hussein." The book is published in 1947, quite close to the event.
  • Schechtman, "The mufti and the fuhrer" http://aval31.free.fr/lemuftietlefuhrer/web/150151.JPG
  • Article by Sarah Honning in Jerusalem post, Apr 6, 2001. pg. 08. contains similar quote, the difference is believed to be in translation. Kriegman contacted Sarah Honning per e-mail. She claimed that she translated original documents available in Hebrew and in Arabic.

Web sites

Circumstantial evidence

  • The mufti was a known nazi collaborator. He met with Hitler at least once and, among other things, assisted with formation of Muslim Waffen SS in Balkan, who faught Serbian Partisans. So this quotation is not a lamb speaking like a wolf, it is a wolf speaking like a wolf.
  • Zero provided a scan of BBC transcription of German radio in 1944, where a "distingquished arab personality" was quoted saying "Inflict heavy damages on his war effort and kill as many as you can of your enemies - Jews and Anglo - Saxons" [1]. This quotation is a touch less murderous, but the message is the same.

In conclusion, I believe this is one of the best references quotation on available on Wikipedia. Naturally, it is possible to dispute its truthfullness until the end of days, no matter how well-refered it is. It is possible to dispute almost any sources in this way, in fact that is exactly why the criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there are valid sources claiming that he never spoke like that (as is the case with for example the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), they too should be mentioned. But the quotation can not be just ignored.

-- Heptor talk 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Heptor, good show with these sources. Some of them are less reliable, without a doubt. But you have sources.--Sean|Black 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Argument of the form "he was a nasty person so any claim about him should be treated as true" has to be rejected out of hand. The issue is of whether a particular quotation is correct and the evidence suggests that it isn't. Heptor's statement about Honnig is not correct and there is no chance that only translation difference is involved since Honnig's (unsupported and exceedingly unlikely) claim is quite different. The only reference to a primary source anyone has found for this quotation was the one I found in Fisk and proved to be false. Moreover, the relevance of it to the article has not been established even if it is true. --Zero 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Schechtman's source for this "quotation"

Since it appears that Pearlman and Schechtman were responsible for introducing this "quotation" to the world of polemics, it is worth trying to determine where Pearlman and Schechtman claim to have got it from. Neither of them claim to have heard it themselves or to have a recording. In the case of Pearlman, I don't know what his alleged source is since I don't have his book (can anyone provide this information?). In the case of Schechtman, here is the complete text of his citation as he gives it:
     Text in Palestine (London), July 1944.
(italics in Schechtman). This form of citation means that the text can be found in the July 1944 issue of a serial (newspaper, magazine, pamphlet series, etc) called Palestine that was published in London. So what is this serial? By far the most extensive list of serials published in the UK is the catalogue of the British Library. The only serial listed there named "Palestine" was published by the British Palestine Committee from 1917-1924 and again from 1936-1940. No issues in 1944, apparently, and it wasn't published in London. The catalogue of the Library of Congress mentions a periodical "Palestine" published by the American Zionist Emergency Council, published in the USA, not in London. I also tried the catalogue of Oxford University, which holds a large quantity of Palestine-related material. Nothing there either. So what was this source "Palestine"? Can anyone prove it existed? --Zero 12:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe but this is original research. And this is research you are limited by the time and by the means you have for your research. For example I have a contact on the French wikipedia internet who told me the records were in the Library of Congress. So what ??? Christophe Greffe 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstand what "original research" means. Checking the quality of our sources is something we are supposed to do. The situation regarding this "quotation" is that nobody has come up with evidence that it is genuine. Therefore, we can't use it. --Zero 14:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. I claim you are not qualified to give credit or not to somebody who wrote more than 50 years ago except if you find a scholar reference that claims (don't need to prove, just claim) he had no credit. I agree that you have a lot of knowledge about the topic. I agree that in this quote is useless but I strongly disagree about the way you justify this author has no credit. Christophe Greffe 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Schechtman was a card-carrying member of the Revisionist Zionists and not an academic historian. His work should be treated with the same caution as we would treat material that appears on an advocacy web site. He does not automatically get the presumption of integrity that academic historians normally get. (I can bring comments from other historians who regard Schechtman as a propagandist.)
That would be a good start point. I suggest you write this on your user page and you will just have to refer to this when somebody ask the question...
Nevertheless, if he claims something that is verifiable (the Wikipedia litmus test) then we can use it if it is appropriate. Is this "quotation" verifiable? Not so far. --Zero 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is. We simply has to spend much time and money to go through the Congress Library where if have been told broadcast of Mufti were... Christophe Greffe 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I can sympathise with your frustration when the sources of evidence are out of your easy reach, but that can't be helped. Anything in the Library of Congress is a published source and looking at it is not original research. If you can get a precise reference for something in LofC then I will try to get it. (It costs time and money but the procedure is routine if the citation is exact enough.) Remember, we are talking about something supposedly said on the radio; what evidence would you expect there to exist of it? --Zero 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
From the from where I am currently the view I have is that this is enough to close the case of Schechtman as a non reliable source. Christophe Greffe 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
More on Schechtman: He was elected as Revisionist representative to the Executive of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization in 1948, the Zionist General Council in 1963 and to the JA Executive again in 1967. So during the time he was writing and publishing his book he was not only a Revisionist but a very senior one. If none of these things mean that his claims should be checked, then I demand we play fair and also accept on faith claims made by members of the PLO executive. Zero--04:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Or the palestinian studies... Of course this is a major clue for stating he is not reliable. Do you have references for this claim ? and I would suggest you write this too on your user page to refer when needed. Christophe Greffe 11:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I got that summary from [2]. Incidentally, while I was looking I found the following in the journal American Jewish History (vol 86, page 125): "In 1947, Silver hired Dr. Joseph Schechtman, the longtime aide to Jabotinsky and Revisionist delegate to the AZEC [American Zionist Emergency Committee], to author studies of the Arab refugee issue for the American Section of the Jewish Agency, which Silver also chaired." I knew that Schechtman was one of the leading pushers of the lie that the Palestinians left on the orders of their leaders but I didn't know that he was officially hired for this purpose. On p62-63 of Masalha's "Imperial Israel and the Palestinians", readable at books.google.com, you can find more details of Schechtman's biography and also learn that he was actively involved in plans for expelling the Palestinians in 1948. --Zero 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The issue of Zero's knowledge is irrelevant. If a person is biased and he brings only data that supports one POV his work is not for the better of a Wikipedia article but to turn Wikipedia into a tool for propeganda. So don't let any one intimidate you with their one sided "knowledge" or with claims about you understanding. Zeq 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

Exactly, what does any of this material summarised by Heptor have to do with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? --Ian Pitchford 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We are starting with this again / I thouight we are going to deal with validity of sources (your alst argument) BTW, here is line 79 you dleted my sourced content you claimed above was not dleteed: [3] Zeq 10:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This again, chaps?

Here we go again, eh? Well, it's time to put this dog to bed. We're going to have an actual discussion, and we're going to resolve this guaranteed. The rules:

  • Comment on content, not the contributor, WP:NPA, WP:CIV- This is most important.
  • Discuss- Hmm, interesting. This is the problem we had last tim. We need to actually discuss the issues.
  • Compromise- also important. We are all going to be grumpy if we can't comptomise. So, let's get this ball rolling.

--Sean|Black 22:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I accept. We need a comitment from Ian that he will abide by the decision and will not try to undermine the results of the mediation. We need Anon Editor to restore the content to what was before Ian massive additions so we have a reasonable starting point. Zeq 05:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As Zeq was the one who failed to implement (or to allow implementation of) the results of mediation last time I don't accept under these terms. It's hardly conciliatory to begin with an opening message insisting that we start by deleting material that cites good historical works and primary sources and reverting to a version that includes:
  1. Excessive link spam, deliberately inserted by Zeq to provoke an edit war.
  2. unsourced claims
  3. original research
Zeq seems incapable of appreciating that if we accept this low standard of editing, in violation of fundamental Wikipedia policies, then we have no argument against any disruptive behaviour by anyone. A holocaust denier could go ahead and insert fifteen neo-Nazi Weblinks into evey sentence in the article on The Holocaust, or material saying that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz concentration camp, or justifying speculation about anything at all just by sticking into the article a link to Amazon, as Zeq has done in this article in response to a request that he provide a reference supporting the claim of "fears of genocide" - an action I assume was, once again, deliberatey aimed at provoking an edit war. As far as I can see Zeq's edits are not in good faith and his aim is disruption. I'd like to see evidence to the contrary. --Ian Pitchford 09:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I just want to add that the dsipute is not really with me so Ian is barking up the wrong tree. The dispute was between Ian and Zero and Heptor and I only provided sources to facts that Ian claimed are "unsourced" (later he changed it to "not good sources") In any case, Heptor is the one that should agree and I have said many times that I welcome the mediation and would agree to anything that is acceptable by Heptor.
All i am asking is that the unilateral changes done by Ian and anon editor (which interduce more issues) will be removed. We will first deal with previos issue and once that is ettled Ian is more than welcome to discuss his new text. Hope this is clear. In general I am a great supporter of wider participation and of mediation toward an NPOV article. Zeq 09:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:Zeq seems incapable of editing in a collaborative manner, as pretty much anyone who has been editing articles that have become the object of his attentions will testify. Bulk deletions of sourced material and bulk additions of unsourced material or material lifted from internet sites is this user's preferred method of editing, along with ultimatums and snide personal comments. Palmiro | Talk 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This is simply not true. What you and others say is in this case irrelevent. What matter is the edit record. We can take a look at articles such as Israeli Arabs and the barrier and see exactly how one sided they were before I started to edit them and how now they are more balanced. In the process contribution by myself and by pro-palestinian editors have been merged together. This is clear from the edit history. So perhaps it is a very confrotational colboration but it is working and both POVs are represented together to an NPOV articles. Zeq 05:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to criticism

Thank you all for response to my attempt to summarize the available sources for the quotation. I am sorry it took me some time to respond - as I told earlier I chose to limit the time I spend to edit Wikipedia. This sumamrization is of course not complete, so if someone has a valid comments, I will change it. Zero already pointed out the reference of Sachar was in fact to quotation of the Arab League Secretary-General, Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, who was claimed to have said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.". One can perhaps see why I mixed those to up.

  • To Sean: indeed, I chose to include all sources I came over, not just those I consider reliable. Your gallant attempt to bring around a real discussion is noted. So is (pardon the gagging) the tremendous effect it had on Ian and Palmiro.
  • I maintain that it is completely resonable to include "circumstantial evidences". Naturally they do not stand on their own, but they support the main sources for the quotation. If I were to defend that Albert Einstein really said "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing [...]", I would do good to show that 1. He was a scientist 2. He indeed believed that quantum mechanics did not provide a basic explanation of the Universe, and that there had to be a more basic theory.
  • Zero, if you look at the article about Holocaust_denial. It contains links to sites claiming Holocaust never happened, and links to sites explaining why it did anyway. This is perfectly legitimate material for Wikipedia.
  • Ian, there is a consensus here that this quote has to moved to a diffent arcile if approved by Arbitration Committee (either as a fact or as a claim). I believe I made my position clear by supporting Greffe's refactoring.

-- Heptor talk 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The issues

You still misunderstand the nature of the debate. There are at least four separate issues here:
  1. the accuracy of the quotation(s).
  2. the relevance of the quotations to this article.
  3. the lack of sources linking statements by the mufti to "fears of genocide".
  4. the lack of sources indicating that there was a fear of genocide.
If original research is tolerated here then it has to be tolerated everywhere. I'm not going to argue further about the appropriateness of adding fourteen completely irrelevant links to a single sentence as surely no one is going to argue seriously in favour. No sentence in the article you refer to has such links. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how this debate is about anything other than the accuracy of the quotation. Others issues you mention, point by point:
2. As I mentioned many times earlier, I agree that this quotation should be placed in a different article. Perhaps you didn't read my last post?
3. There are now three references for the claim that mufti's call for "Kill[ing] Jews wherever you find them." led to fear of genocide. I, Zeq and Kriegman believe that because mufti was one of the very few indentifiable leaders of the Palestinians at the time, the statement does not need better sources then those provided. After all, this is about how Israelis perceived the situation. The information about this has to come from Israeli sources.
However, we do aknowledge that sources are not neutral, that is why so we agreed to remove the statement about fear of genocide as a part of compromise during the mediation. I commented out this text here[4]. However, Zero claimed that there has never been any compromise, so Zeq chose to revert the article to a pre-mediation version.
4. As in 3. Arafat himself considered mufti to be his hero (I believe this is known to those who participate in the debate, so I will not search for sources unless this is disputed), so it doesn't exactly take a leap of faith to say that his call for killing Jews led to a fear of genocide. But, again, Sean Black suggested it should be removed in compromise, and we agreed (I even removed it myself)[5].
I cleaned up the "fourteen [...] links" you mention in the same edit where I implemented the compromise, but it got flashed out when the compromise failed. Did you forget that already?
But to a more general note, do you or do you not dispute that mufti made hate speeches on Nazi radio during the WW2?
Heptor talk 13:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes

In response to Zeq above: Anon didn't make any changes. You've provided no sources, but were the one who inserted in a single sentence14 web links of no relevance to the article. Heptor and Kriegman (the author of the original research on the mufti and fears-of-genocide claims) have both just started an edit war in order to insert completely fabricated material into the article here and here. My list of improvements and fixes appears above. --Ian Pitchford 10:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not returning to the fray . . . yet. But just for the record, the "completely fabricated" stuff you are accusing me of inserting (in this particular accusation) was inserted by someone (?) before I got involved. I just put it back because: (1) it had been a long standing part of the article, which led me to assume it had been subject to review and (2) whoever removed it (you?) provided no reason for doing so. Kriegman 02:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem Ian is that there is difference between :
  • what was reality (Jews never risked a genocide),
  • the reasons why (it is not because threat or wish in arab side never existed but because they were stronger on the military point of view)
  • what jewish population and fighters on the field thought at that time (thinking they fight an antisemitic Mufti (10ths of article in Jerusalem Post in 1946 about Mufti links with Nazi's regime) and having heared or read Azzam Pacha's records about what will be war).
It is as well non neutral to state that :
  • jewish were facing a genocide war
or that :
  • jewish didn't face a genocide's threat.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/9/4/Talk%7E1948_Arab-Israeli_War_Archive_7_0878.html"