Talk:Azzam Pasha quotation

Wikipedia talk page as source
This is a very interesting article, but I see one small problem. I can see why there is a talk page is used as a reference, here it is essentially a primary source. But I don't think it would be wise to use that reference, and in case it does not look necessary. But if you do want that reference in the article it should be referencing the permanent link (this) instead of a link to a page that can be modified.  nableezy  - 19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very interesting indeed, but also very depressing. It really shows what  low level of scholarship recent history of the Middle East have been at.  "The fog of war" has apparently not quite lifted yet.
 * I share Nableezys concern about linking to the talk-page.
 * And A Tale of Two Galloways is online at Romirowsky´s web-cite; perhaps we should link to that?  Also, the Barnett and Efraim Karsh article, Azzam's Genocidal Threat also looks as if it is online now.  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, ref #7, if it should be there at all, should instead be a note.  nableezy  - 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The talk page link is the most problematic thing, I agree. My point of view is that Wikipedia itself became part of the story via Segev's article where he writes that things on Wikipedia "found their way into an article published by David Barnett and Efraim Karsh". Obviously that can go into the article, but then the skeptical reader will ask where it can be found on Wikipedia. According to WP:V: "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself." I think that makes the link wiki-legal; whether it will stick or not is another matter. What actually happened is that David Barnett (under an alias) got the scan of Akhbar al-Yom from me, mentioning that talk page as how he knew that I had it, then that scan I made with my own hands is the one that appeared with his article. Also Noisetier played a major role in the research and I'd like him to get credit if only implicitly. But without that information in a reliable source I can only use the bit that Segev decided to write in Haaretz and mention the talk page as a primary source without extracting any facts from it. Would it be worth preemptively raising the question on some noticeboard? Zerotalk 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref #7 should be a note, I'll change that when I figure out how. It is a note on the translation to enable English readers to understand what the original Arabic meant (to an Arab audience in 1947). The reliable source for it (if one needs stating explicitly) is the Arabic text. I checked this very carefully, including asking an Egyptian professional translator. The main point is that the Arabic text does not say that the Arabs will behave as the Mongols did, which is the misunderstanding that makes it such powerful propaganda. I don't want this article to perpetrate that misunderstanding, but we didn't find a way to word the translation so that it is both sufficiently literal to the Arabic and also sufficiently clear in English without a note. Zerotalk 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Another relevant point is that the journalist was famous for his colorful exaggerations. The translator says we can't assume that Azzam actually used the quoted words. However, I didn't find a way to add this to the article within the rules. Zerotalk 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I recast both the primary source link and the translation note, is it better? Zerotalk 03:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

translation
If we bring an English translation that contains an ambiguity not appearing in the original, we are deceiving the reader. The choice is to adjust the translation to be non-ambiguous (which might also make it non-literal), or to add a note explaining what the original means to a reader of the original language. I chose the second option but I'm happy to discuss the first. Simply allowing the ambiguity is not acceptable, nor would it be to bring "explanations" from authors who only had the English version and its fake context to work with. Note that Karsh does not address the ambiguity directly, although he has stated in several places that the Crusaders are identified with the Jews (not with the Arabs). Actually we have no source at all that disagrees with the explanation given, so I don't see any reason to not translate the sentence in the way the translators agree is the correct way. Zerotalk 22:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By interpreting the ambiguity by yourself and your personal contacts, that's a clear-cut case of synth. There is a source that addresses the meaning of Pasha's statement - Karsh. With the new translation, Karsh continues to interpret it as a "genocidal threat," only that the date and exact quote was incorrect. I will work to add this source - which is from a scholar. Not the personal interpretation of you or your contacts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If Karsh's interpretation is as far off as Zero has indicated, it is important that we obtain clarification. I agree that the precise mechanics of how we do this are tricky. But the bottom line is that we don't want to have something on Wikipedia that is in error or slanted. Perhaps at this moment, using the Karsh translation is our best option. But it is not a satisfactory solution in the long run. Jsolinsky (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with Jsolinsky's statement. By the way, WP:IAR can be adduced if it is a matter of avoiding the unfortunate defect in RS which just happen to provide erroneous information. This happened with the Walter Laqueur quote on the Qu'ran's 'antisemitism'. Laqueur conflated erroneously two distinct passages in that text. He is an authority on antisemitism, it was argued, so using him is vald. I argued that he was not an expert on he Qur'an, and that discretion obliged us not to jump at any source simply because the statement helps one POV. It's true that WP:RS, WP:V are central to the encyclopedia. But it is also true that we are asked to be reliable in a more universal sense, as is the case here. A footnote may be the way out.Nishidani (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem in citing Karsh's opinion that it is a genocidal threat, if such an opinion of Karsh can be found (his MEQ article doesn't explicitly call it that, the title is not enough as even mythological concepts can appear in titles). However, Karsh's translation is the same as mine apart from a few word choices where he follows the traditional "quotation".  In fact, Karsh does not disagree with the way I am understanding the meaning of the sentence, and does not anywhere support the common misunderstanding that Azzam is saying the Arabs will behave like Crusaders and Mongols. You can see (his note 11) that he calls it the same metaphor as Azzam used before, citing two documents where Azzam equates the Crusaders with the Jews (not with the Arabs).  In a new Hebrew article which I'll bring soon, he said it even more explicitly (quote: "He said privately to Jewish diplomats that the fate of the state that they hope for will be like the fate of the Crusader's state. This is what he also said in the recently discovered document.")  That is almost identical to my explanation of the sentence, and on that basis  I don't think I even disagree with Karsh over what the sentence literally means (though I do disagree regarding its contextual importance). A separate problem, which Karsh fails to mention, is that in translating a clear-enough Arabic sentence into English a possibility for a misunderstanding is introduced. We don't need to do that since we can just report what the Arabic means.  Zerotalk 14:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "(a)Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades"
 * "(b)Karsh does not disagree with the way I am understanding the meaning of the sentence, and does not anywhere support the common misunderstanding that Azzam is saying the Arabs will behave like Crusaders and Mongols. You can see (his note 11) that he calls it the same metaphor as Azzam used before, citing two documents where Azzam equates the Crusaders with the Jews (not with the Arabs)."
 * If Azzam says the 'war of elimination' will be a a 'dangerous massacre' similar to what the Mongol invasion and Crusades visited upon Arabs in Palestine, (esp. since his rhetoric speaks of the spectre of Arab martyrs in Palestine, and if Karsh recognizes the equation of Crusaders with Jews, then there is no way he can simultaneously interpret this as a 'genocidal threat' (Holocaust) against Jews. I think therefore, that in writing:'Karsh does not disagree with the way I am understanding the meaning of the sentence,' you gloss over what appears to be an internal contradiction in Karsh's position. He accepts that the massacre foreseen concerns Arabs (Azzam is appealing to the Jewish conscience not to do as the Mongols and Christians did), and at the same time, interprets this as a 'genocide' against Jews? I haven't checked this against the sources quoted on the page, which I read sometime back however. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot can be said about Karsh's approach to this matter, but this is not the place for it. The agreement I have with Karsh is limited to the observation that the Crusaders and Mongols in the sentence are intended to be identified with the Jews, not with the Arabs.  Karsh can read Arabic and knows the context, so he can see that the meaning is clear.  If he wants to judge the sentence to be a genocidal threat anyway, that's his prerogative.  Azzam was not a pacifist, he is predicting the violent end of the Jewish State and nobody is arguing otherwise. Zerotalk 00:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have no illusions about that area. As I said, on Nableezy's page, re Morris, all scholars are entitled to their POV. My point was, the whole statement lends itself to the idea the Jewish state would end violently, but the specific passage cited for this does not say this. The rest of the text, which is ignored in the snippets used hundreds of times in sources, suggests this quite strongly. It is the misuse of the section that strikes one.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Zero, you're free to parse the statement yourself to mine for deeper mining but including your interpretation in the article is still a clear violation of WP:Synth and WP:Verifiability. Ambiguity in an article is preferred to an individual's original research, which for obvious reasons, is not acceptable. And Nishidani, the internal contradiction may not come from Karsh's translation but Azzam himself. The Mongol and Crusader massacres may have been committed against the Arabs, but Azzam may now be saying that such massacres will now be visited upon the Jews. A role reversal. This is all just an intellectual exercise though... the article must be based on reliable, verifiable sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources say at Deir Yassin, 250 people were killed. We know better. We therefore refrain, as encyclopedic editors, from using RS that happen to be wrong. No doubt this will be resolved in a year or two as further scholarly research follows this curious episode of disinformatsiya through, so none of us is impatient. Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Plotspoiler, you aren't listening. You write "Azzam may now be saying that such massacres will now be visited upon the Jews".  Well, no, his statement in Arabic does not say that, it is just an ambiguity created by translating into English.  Moreover, no source has been brought in support of your interpretation.  So you have not made a case for including it in the article. Zerotalk 00:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Azzam was saying the Jews would massacre the Arabs like the Mongols or the Crusaders? Are there any other statements from him that back this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.38.155 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC) If so, then your footnote contradicts this: "The literal English translation is somewhat ambiguous, however the overall meaning is that the coming Arab defeat of the Jews will be remembered in the same way as the past Arab defeats of the Mongols and Crusaders are remembered". If not, then your article contradicts this: "Azzam repeated his comparison of the Zionists to the Mongols and the Crusaders soon after the partition resolution had been passed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.38.155 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the context in the footnote you provide and it's obvious whom Azzam Pasha believes is the stronger force (and will therefore be inflicting massacres): And Abd Al-Rahman Pasha sat to talk about the coming horrific battle. He said: - Personally I hope the Jews do not force us into this war because it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre and the wars of the Crusades. I think the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will exceed the Palestinian population. I know that we will get volunteers from India, Afghanistan and China to have the glory of being martyrs for Palestine. You might be shocked if you knew that many British have shown interest in volunteering in the Arab armies to fight the Jews. This fight will have three important dimensions; faith, since all fighters believe that his fight for Palestine is the short road to heaven. Second it will be a chance for looting on a grand scale. Third, no one will be able to stop the volunteers who will come from all over the world to revenge the Palestinian martyrs because they know that the battle is an honor for all Muslims and Arabs in the world. Another advantage the Arabs have over the Jews is accepting defeat, so if the Jews win the first battle we will win in the second, third or the last. On the other hand a single defeat of the Jews will destroy their spirit. The Arabs in the desert love to go to war, I remember once while fighting in the desert I was called to make a peace and the Arabs told me "how come you do that? How can we live without a war?" The Bedouin finds enjoyment in war which he can't find in peace. I warned the Jewish leaders whom I met in London about continuing their policy, and I told them that the Arab soldier is the strongest in the world. Once he lifts his weapon, he not put it down till he fires the last bullet in the battle, and we will fire the last bullet. In the end I understand the consequence of this bloody war, I see in front of me its horrible battles, I can imagine its victims but I have a clear conscience since we were called to fight as defenders and not attackers"

Non-free content
Hi. The extensive quotation on this page was brought to my attention by somebody concerned about copyright implications. Both copyright policy and WP:NFC permit brief quotations, but forbid extensive ones. There is not, unfortunately, a word count we can use, as extensive is context-dependent on the original source and on the new usage (that is, the article). However, 368 words out of an article is almost certainly going to be too long, especially if that represents a large portion of what the subject said in the interview. Good practice here would be to paraphrase and limit precise quotation to no more than a few sentences. This should keep the content and the article safely within the bounds of US fair use, as we must on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Egypt did not have a copyright law in 1947 when this was printed. Also, it comes from an article that occupies most of two pages of a newspaper. It is also fair use "for the purpose of criticism or comment" which is a standard criterion.  This text is not a quotation in passing, but the focus of the entire article. Zerotalk 13:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What matters is the copyright status in the United States, as we are based in the united States. For context here, in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises a magazine was held to violate copyright for copying 400 words out of a 500 page book. Situations are not, of course, identical, but you're copying over 300 words out of a two page newspaper article. This is substantial. --Moonriddengirl (talk)


 * Moonriddengirl, I'm curious regarding the legal basis on which a work published without copyright protection in its home country can somehow acquire such protection in another country. (an interesting contrast with, for example Lindley Murray's textbook, which although protected by copyright at home, was widely published in the United States without payment of royalties.) --NSH001 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, since you seem to know about this very complicated area, I see at Circ38a that the US treats foreign works as copyright if (among other things) "(2) the work is first published .. in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party." Egypt didn't sign up until 1977 (Berne), so it looks to the uninitiated as if anything published in Egypt in 1947 was neither protected by any Egyptian copyright law, nor by treaty with the USA. I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there are heaps of caveats, but why does copyright apply in this case? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While I'm by no means an expert on Egyptian copyright law, I am advised that the 1954 copyright law in Egypt was retroactive and thus granted protection to 1947 text. Beyond that, I am relying on Commons:Template:PD-Egypt and Non-U.S. copyrights. The former indicates that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act applies to Egyptian content and thus only material published before 1946 is free from copyright in the US. The latter agrees. The URAA bestowed copyright protection in the US in 1996 to content that was not at that time public domain in countries which were members of the WTO, signatories of the Berne Convention, or both. (See Non-U.S. copyrights; Non-U.S. copyrights). Because Egypt was on that date and because the content was evidently not public domain in Egypt at the time, copyright protection was granted for 95 years after publication (see )--which would keep it in copyright in the US in spite of its now being public domain in Egypt.


 * It's a silly law, and it's being challenged in court -- a challenge that the Wikimedia Foundation joined to support, by the way. We filed a "friends of the court" brief.


 * I'm told that Commons may actually be ignoring the URAA in spite of the language on the PD-Egypt template, by the way, so it's possible that the image there may be restored until the legal challenge is settled. That means the image may come back. But the text would need to be handled as non-free, since we are bound by US copyright laws.


 * You ask a very good question, Chiswick, but I'm going to have to ask somebody more familiar with the URAA about it. Prior to coming to Wikipedia, I didn't work with international copyright law much at all; domestic was all I ever encountered. I'll get back with you on that once I've found out something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see an explanation, but there should be some sort of discussion about this image and the quotes, rather than just suddenly expunging the material from all of Wikipedia.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl's analysis is accurate. It is indeed possible for an Egyptian work in the public domain today in Egypt to be under copyright in the United States, if it was in copyright in Egypt on that nation's URAA date, January 1, 1996 (which I'm presuming it was according to MRG's analysis of the 1954 law, although I don't know much about this). Provided it is in fact in the public domain in Egypt today (is it?), you can upload the file to Commons if you tag it with, at the expense of incurring legal risk and possible later deletion (Commons will delete all such works if the Supreme Court later this year finds the URAA valid). The English Wikipedia on the other hand has never accepted works that are copyrighted under the URAA. While obvious copyright violations should always be removed immediately, I'm inclined to agree that deletions of extensive quotations that may or may not be fair use should be considered by discussion on the talk page, as this one is now. WP:BRD should be the model to follow (any user may revert the deletion for the duration of the discussion, but it should be re-deleted if consensus finds the quotation is not fair use). My own opinion is that despite supplying a fair amount of context, the amount of text used is still too great for fair use, and much of it needs to be paraphrased. Dcoetzee 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem right that the subject of the article cannot be properly presented due to a conservative reading of copyright law. Incidentally, in the (now gone) image, the top banner section is not required and could go. All the quotation is in the two smaller bits of text. I find it hard to believe that a fair use defense is not applicable, as presentation of material as required for critical review is one of the most common fair use defenses. As yet this has not been discussed. Is there a difference between commons and en.wikipedia in this regard? Zerotalk 00:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zero. The case for fair use is strong here, and the additional context is important. If the information we can present on this page is not much more substantial than what has been repeated in all those other sources, it really undermines this page's value. Jsolinsky (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have an opinion on who actually owns the copyright? The newspaper owners in 1947, the current owners (the Egyptian government), the journalist, Azzam Pasha??? From a practical point of view, I think the chances of being sued for copyright infringement are zero because there is no clear owner. In addition, the fair use arguments are compelling and there is no commercial advantage to anyone from a court case. On the other hand, there is only a very slight advantage of the full quote over a paraphrase. The advantage is that people can't slant and war over a quote like they can over a paraphrase. But that isn't much of an advantage when we're dealing with a translation. Translations can very easily be slanted. Am I right that the current translation is by Efraim Karsh, who is far from being neutral?. Ugh, what a quagmire. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't buy the "probability of being sued argument", but the lack of any commercial interest is treated as significant when courts consider fair use questions. I believe it is fair use.  Btw, the translation is not from Karsh (otherwise it would be a definite copyvio to quote all of it, since translations have their own copyright).  It is a translation brought by me and I want the Arabic to be visible as well so that anyone who can read it is able to check the accuracy. You can see that my translation and Karsh's are actually very close, so that is not a big problem.  The only real question is how to interpret the first sentence, which is not apparent from the literal English (see the discussion above).  Zerotalk 00:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. It was careless of me not to have read that part of this page. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My thought was that whoever uploaded the image originally could clip it some more or something so that it would only be the most important part of the interview with the important identifying information and then put it up on the English Wikipedia.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

the current article does not: - say when (or even whether) the newspaper first published this interview - give the original Arabic - give a link to the newspaper/source. Can these be added please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The original Arabic was removed for copyright reasons, see the discussion above. The other information, plus a link to an external site not in the USA where the Arabic can be found, appears in reference 7 in the article. Zerotalk 12:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
Why doesn't the lead section contain the quotation? I think that without it, the lead is very awkward and hard to understand. The full quotation is not long so I don't see a problem with including it in the lead. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Zerotalk 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The new lead is not acceptable, however, because it states the standard version of the quotation as being a fact. It wasn't a fact; the missing words change it. Also, the strong word "extermination" is not required by the Arabic word (which can be used for other sorts of elimination) so its use is at most an opinion. The lead should start with this quotation presented as the standard claim. Zerotalk 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Read on, the lead contains also the missing words. And both of the cited reliable sources translate the word as "extermination". Marokwitz (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The first sentence makes a claim. Then the second sentence says there were extra words, showing the first sentence was misleading. That's bad structure.  Also we have the Arabic text and are quite entitled to report its meaning. Zerotalk 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Both reliable sources (which otherwise are in complete disagreement) agree on a single translation of that word, I think that providing our own alternate translation would violate the "No original research" core policy. Marokwitz (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What should be added in the lead is that the quote has been claimed for 60 years to have been broadcasted by Azzam just before the Arab "intervention in" / "invasion of" Palestine and used to claim that the intentions of the Arabs was the extermination of Israel. Today, historians states the Arab intensions were not known (exept for what conerns Abdallah).
 * Sources for this are in the articles written by Morris where he states he didn't use this because it was dubious and in Karsh article.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh Jerusalem
Collins and Lapierre are cited: Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre (1972). O Jerusalem!. Grafton Books. (without pagination) for the attribution of Azzam's statement to the BBC. Actually in my copy, where they do cite it, characterising him as someone who 'privately abhorred the turn events had taken' who was nonetheless 'swept up by the emotion of the hour', there is no attribution to the BBC. ( Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre, "Oh Jerusalem" (1972) Granada Reprint 1982 p.400.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No you dopey c***. They do have a general ref. section at the back where the attribution is attributed to the BBC for May 15. I'll enter this into the text.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Historical background-WP:OR and WP:UNDUE concern
Does the source that you bring talk about the historical background in the context of the quotation?If not to include this would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your interpretation of the policy here, for all key articles I have checked on overview and historical background do not observe the interpretation you appear to be enlisting for WP:OR (see to cite just a few examples Gaza war, Second Intifada), so be more specific, or take it to the WP:OR board. WP:Undue is certainly irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE its pretty much irrelevant what happens in other articles.Anyhow according to WP:OR "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article," as the sources your brought don't talk about the quote it would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE to mention them.--Shrike (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I read WP:OSE. 'When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Editors should be consistent also, and not object on one page to what they turn a blind eye to on another page, as is the case here. That smacks of the tactical use of policy.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nearly all history books related to the 1948 war give that quote. This war (and these books) are directly related to the topic of the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then he should quote from this books and better if he will use the section of the book that talk about this quotation and not some general stuff .Instead discussing per WP:BRD Nishidani started to revert but that so typical to the WP:ARBPIA.--Shrike (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shrike, I had barely responded, with a request, to your 'concern', than you just wiped off my work, and did this without controlling the sources. You removed a mass of content that is sourced to the articles dealing with Azzam and the quote, and that means you were not checking anything, and actually made a revert against policy on the removal of RS. I won't report this, but you are not entitled to erase in one foul swoop sources that fit your definition of RS. The rest can be discussed, but not preemtively removed on the basis of a single query.Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the articles, and talk before making dramatic reverts that remove a mass of material that comes mostly from the sources already present in the text. Both Karsh in several articles and Segev mention the background and context of the statement, as do numerous other sources I can adduce. Your haste, and your removal of Segev in particular is problematical, because you clearly have not controlled the content of the sources that, previous to my editing here, no one challenged.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As to your reading of WP:OR, please define 'directly'. WP:OR says:to avoid using facts, allegations and ideas lacking reliable published sources that directly bear on the topic of the article. Two things are emphasized, not one. I use impeccable sources, the topic consists in a discussion of Azzam Pasha and the quotation attributed to him in the period 1947, 1948. The assumption that directly automatically bans context is unproven, and, as in numerous major articles I can direct you to, articles you read, simply not employed.
 * Of course, I now expect some third party to wander in, revert my revert of your revert so that nothing is discussed, and hopes are advanced I might trip the wire and be taken to AE. Please avoid the appearance of such aspects. We are here to build articles collaboratively, not hold them hostage to extreme ands tendentious wikilawyering.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Eban+Horowitz+Azzam encounter
I readjusted this for October, because Sachar who mentions also the quote, gives October 14, whereas the source I provided, which Shrike doesn't like, gives mid September, and in fact it was on the 15th. of September, certainly according to an Israeli collection of primary sources Teʻudot mediniyot ṿe-diplomaṭiyot, Detsember 1947-Mai 1948, ha-Ginzakh, 1979 p.91, and should probably be adjusted back. Further anomalies exist: Eban said it took place in Richard Crossman's apartment, whereas Segev says the Savoy. To argue that such slips by the authors so far used must remain because other, even eyewitness sources or official government documents, say otherwise, is farcical. Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

MH assessment
I've assessed this article as MILHIST Start. Nearly all refs in the article are Israeli or Jewish, there is a need to provide Arab and neutral source perspectives on the quotation before it could be assessed as MH B Class. Also needs supporting materials. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker,
 * Not commenting on the actual quality of the article, but your assertion that Israeli or Jewish sources are somehow non-neutral is offensive and has no place on Wikipedia. Are there any particular concerns you have with the sources? —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with Ynhockey. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Idem. Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

RS
Tom Segev is a reliable source. Unless there are sources disputing what he wrote he does not need to be attributed. Kamel Tebaast, your personal feelings on "New Historians" are interesting but not relevant. And as far as the incredibly inane claim of HOUND, try looking at the top of this talk page, so who's been to this article before who.  nableezy  - 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Historian Efraim Karsh writes here, in referring to Segev, "He then quotes Ben-Gurion’s alleged description of the League’s Secretary-General as “the most honest and humane among Arab leaders.” Since there is a RS of a respected historian questioning Segev's quote, there is no reason that Segev's name cannot be placed into the article for to this "alleged" description. [Another example of Wikiwashing]. at this point it's really immaterial You made a mountain out of a molehill, and I'll soon be adding Karsh's quotes into the article. Cheers.  Kamel Tebaast  01:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Im not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or not, but Karsh doesnt actually challenge that Ben-Gurion held Pasha in high esteem. You are welcome to try to find a source in which he does. That is where you added attribution, and there it does not belong. And in case you had not noticed, Karsh is cited quite liberally already in this article.  nableezy  - 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are quite right that "allegedly" is not a dispute; it only means that Karsh didn't want to be seen as confirming it. It is also easy to find other sources for Segev's statement. For example, Hebrew University historian Joseph Heller has it here. Zerotalk 07:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Shame
Shame the image was removed apparently. Wouldn't it have been fair use? Synotia (moan) 08:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The newspaper article was wrong
@Zero0000 @Nableezy You seemed to be the main authros of the article. I wanted to inform you that the title of the Egyptian news article was incorrect. The correct title is "Arab countries prepare for war". The previous one was a title of a section. Bowad91017 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * By the way, reading the original arabic article Pasha seems to be warning from, not advocating for, a war of extermination.
 * He outlines 3 serious matters (he uses the adjective "خطيرة" which directly translates to dangerous) that would characterize the war:
 * - Belief (in modern words, Jihadism would be used)
 * - Looting
 * - Revenge from troops which no one would be able to stop
 * My understanding, these dangerous elements would be the causes of the hard to control bloodshed not the goals.
 * Anyway, he is clearly trying to morally distance himself from it through the ending remarks.
 * I didn't edit the article with this info, it's just my understanding after all as someone who speaks arabic.
 * If it's needed, I can transcribe the original arabic text from the newspaper scans. Bowad91017 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you aren't supposed to edit this article because you don't have enough edits, see WP:ARBECR. Anyway, I agree with you about the title+subtitle. I also agree that Azzam is giving a warning rather than a threat. Regarding the translation, please look at the text in this old version of the article and let us know if you see any problems. This translation was the consensus of two Egyptian friends of mine. I think we should try to get the full translation back into the article. Zerotalk 11:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Sorry, I didn't know that. Otherwise, I would have made an edit request instead. Usually, the article would have an E lock when I'm not allowed.
 * - The translation is largely fine, with just a few minor nitpicks:
 * وسيمتاز هذا القتال بثلاث مسائل خطيرة is translated to "This fight will have three important dimensions;" which is not wrong. I would translate that to "This fight will be distinguished by three grave issues" because if someone told me to translate "three important dimensions," I would translate it to ثلاث أبعاد هامة. Grave, as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary "meriting serious consideration: important, likely to produce great harm or danger," more accurately matches the adjective خطيرة.
 * وثالثتهما أن أحدًا لن يستطيع وقف المتطوعين المتحمسين is translated to "Third, no one will be able to stop the volunteers." The adjective المتحمسين is dropped. I would translate it to "zealous volunteers" (could also be "enthusiastic volunteers").
 * ثم إن العربي يمتاز عن اليهودي بأنه يتقبل الهزيمة بابتسامة is translated to "Another advantage the Arabs have over the Jews is accepting defeat." I would translate it to "Moreover, the Arab is distinguished from the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile." The former implies that Azzam was previously listing advantages; I don't see how troops being hard to control is an advantage. The latter is a direct translation and it's consistent in translating يمتاز عن to "distinguished by."
 * "The Arabs in the desert love to go to war." The word that was used in Arabic is عربان and not عرب.
 * عربان might be used in some contexts with a negative or derogatory meaning to refer to Bedouins or people from Arab societies who are perceived as less civilized or educated from the speaker's viewpoint. Sometimes, it can be used in a bigoted or mocking manner. Its usage and acceptance can vary depending on the context and the speaker's intention. But this is an extremely subtle point, and I can't confirm that Azzam meant it that way. What I can confirm is that no one would use عربان to speak favorably of educated Arab city folk. It's more specific than Arabs / عرب
 * I also agree that "مجزرة خطيرة" should be translated to "dangerous massacre" or maybe "serious massacre". If asked to translate "momentous massacre" I would translate it to "مجزرة هائلة" or to "مجزرة كبيرة" Bowad91017 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I put it in the article with trivial changes. I also measured it at 8.5% of the whole article, which should be small enough for fair use as a quotation. Zerotalk 12:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)