Talk:Fawzi al-Qawuqji

Unjustified deletion
you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" ."

your reason: "behaviour issue : wp:point ; content issue : wp:undue - Qawuqji said many things and there is no reason to focus on that one."

You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".

It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV. Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about your conduct. Ykantor (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:Undue has nothing to deal with the fact there would be WP:RS source that say the contrary.
 * WP:Undue means the information is unrelevant for an article or doesn't bring any interesting information.
 * I was not told anything. This is one of the nuemrous "advices" you built in your "forum-shopping". Pluto2012 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Ykantor on the content issue: the quote in itself seems notable and it is reliably sourced. If there are other notable quotes by Qawuqji that your sources point to, please feel free to put them in the article.
 * You should additionally stop accusing others of WP:POINT if there is no evidence for this.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To what accusation of WP:POINT do you refer to exactly ? Ykantor made a WP:POINT here in adding that quote because he wants to prove that "the Arabs" would have initiated the '48 war when material was provided to his attention that this is a very controversial issue.
 * In the current case, the citation is given out of any context and is selected among many others. Why giving weight to this one ? Did some historians focus on that ? If so, why ? Currently, this quote belongs to wikiquotes.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection between the two things you said at all. Please don't accuse other people of breaking policy if you don't have the evidence to back it up. As you may recall, not so long ago you got especially angry when I accused you of braking policy when I did have evidence. If you have a history of bad interactions with Ykantor, please solve this problem in another forum. Please also apologize for your recent edit summary about "POV pushing".
 * Regarding the content issue: I don't personally have a list of Qawuqji quotes, and the source provided in the article lists just one. If you have many notable quotes by Qawuqji, please feel free to add them to the article or provide them here. It is no reason to remove the previous quote.
 * —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was proven that I had not broken any policy.
 * On your side you have been caught of using on numerous articles books published by the Israeli Ministry of Defence (but that you forgot to mention this) and you call "military historians" people who like Moshe Givati were former military administrators in the occupied territories or paid advisors to the Department of the Primer Minister. You are not in a situation to give lessons to anybody. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? Because that is where you can find the most "belligerent" quote from Qawuqji. (..btw, the footnote is cited to an anon official from the "Jewish Agency": not necessarily an objective observer.) And even Morris´ own explanation on the background for the quote has been omitted.

(Also, the quote, from 1947, is now mention under ALA, which was formed in 1948, independently of Qawuqji. Alas, the article now gives a false impression that there is a direct link between the two: Qawuqji belligerent words, and the formation of ALA. This is simply false. ALA would have been formed, even if Qawuqji had never been born.)

There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic). I would say how al-Qawuqji performed in the war would be far, far more relevant to his biography, than the above quote. But that is only partly mentioned in the article at present, and not sourced at all! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * yours "even Morris´ own explanation on the background for the quote has been omitted.". What would you add to the text concerning the background?
 * yours: "the quote, from 1947, is now mention under ALA,".OK. It should be moved to a previous section. Ykantor (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The main point of Huldra is that it is WP:Undue to select this quote under many others.
 * Another point is that dropping a quote without contextualizing this is not acceptable because it doesn't comply with the first pillar : we write an encyclopaedia. Pure quotes are for "wikiquote". In an encyclopaedia, the context is what is around this quote and why historians think it's worth mentionning it. And of course, the contributor who would add this has to add all the points of views from all wp:rs here regarding this context, not just what he thinks or the point he wants to advocate or even worse, the points of views of the Ministry of Defence.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * *To Ykantor: I assumed you had the book, how else can you argue that one should use this quote, and this quote only, from the book? Just to recap; the quote  is a part of the propaganda war at the time (or attempting "blackmail", as Morris puts it). Also,  the first part is referenced to  Qawuqji, but the last part of the footnote (="It would be a “holy war,” the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into “World War III”) does not even have anything to do with Fawzi al-Qawuqji. (Or can we just add any quote to the article, as long as it was attributed to "an Arab"?)   And to repeat: you have not answered why this quote  (p. 61) ...is more important than what is written about al-Qawuqji on pp 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348?
 * *There is presently important info, basically correct, but unsourced, in the article. I will remove the cherry-picking, and source these statements, unless anyone can give me a good reason not to. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Who is doing a war of attrition tactics here? I see the quote "It would be a “holy war,” the Arabs suggested, which might even evolve into “World War III” ...is back in the article. Any belligerent quote by any Arab will do, eh? Huldra (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The quote is impeccably sourced, to a professional historian published in one of the world's top academic presses. It directly ties Qawuqji to the ALA. The editors who keep edit warring to remove this impeccable material from the article are reminded that at WP:AE such behavior has resulted in topic bans. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * to Huldra: yours "why this quote (p. 61) ...is more important than what is written about al-Qawuqji on pp 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348?". You are welcome to add whatever you find appropriate. No one says that this quote is more important. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...or important at all, without the "surrounding" story, ie the context? That has been one of the problem all along: the  quote appears without a context.  And, personally, I am not prepared to write that context (it would have to involve the whole propaganda/information/misinformations in the period leading up to May-48)...are you? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * to Huldra: You want the context, but you do not want to mention ALA which is a part of the context. So what part of the contect you would like to have? Ykantor (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? ALA was not the context of this quote; it is (aptly) in a chapter named "The UN steps in", which is mostly about "the political game" or verbal sparring, if you like, (especially surrounding the Nov. 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine). That is: pre-war. ALA came later, when the Arab faction felt they had lost the voting. (And lose they did. As Morris rightly notes: the Arab faction completely and totally  underestimated the effect of the Holocaust on Western opinion.) Please read the first half of p. 65: this  sums  up why,  after the Partition plan was passed, war was an inevitable outcome  (seen from an Arab view). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I went back to the initial version. The rationale is clear and Ykantor has nothing to add but will keep discussing to make lose time to everybody. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * what part of the context you would like to have? Ykantor (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To Pluto: You continue to attack me personally. e.g. "Ykantor has nothing to add but will keep discussing to make lose time to everybody". I have asked you few times to stop personal attacks. This is a conduct issue and should be accordingly dealt with.

I repeat my first post:

you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" ."

You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".

It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV(?). Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about you. Ykantor (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The request that you have just started on WP:A/E ended by the conclusion that your concerns regarding my alleged behaviour were not justified. More, one of the arbitrators said that your edit was problematic.
 * As Huldra and I explained to you, this quote is WP:UNDUE or does not comply with WP:NPoV due to the total lack of contextualization or comments from WP:RS sources regarding what should be understood from it.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ykantor: you claim here that "I have asked Huldra what kind of context he wants me to add, but have not received a reply yet", which is not correct (IMO). I have given you the context for the quote; namely the  "verbal sparring" in 1947. But I do not think that a full discussion of that subject belongs in this bio.  (And, btw,  I´m a "she", not a "he").  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mistake. It seems that you want me to add that this sentence was a part of propaganda war.  It will not help if we add that other Arab leaders have threatened  the  Jews similarly. Could you please suggest a draft sentence of yours? Ykantor (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Qawuqji was Antisemite, as he said: "our land will become an object to be bartered for Jewish espionage, Jewish betrayal, and Jewish acts of sabotage" postulated Fawzi al Qawuqji in July 1941" (http://books.google.com/books?id=vjsLAqafdQ8C&pg=PA83) Ykantor (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He was antisemite, that's correct. And ? What to do from this ? You want to write in the article that "he was an antisemite." ? What is the point from this ?
 * For your information : according to Ilan Pappe (1994), all the Arab leaders, except Abdallah, were antisemites at the time. Tom Segev has the same analysis and goes deeper : he points out that most of the British soldiers and officeers were antizionists and often antisemites tos. The Protocols of the Elder of Sion were introduced to Middle East in the 20ies and the Arab were sincerely convinced, as most Western people at the time, that they were true. So what ? How is the information relevant to articles and how to deal with this ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Pluto2012 : You are making excellent points. All strong arguments for Ykantor's position. Your questions are essential to an understanding of the 1948 events, and it may be impossible to achieve a non-trivial understanding of the psychological attitude of both he Yishuv and the UN voters toward military and political leaders who talked about killing Jews wherever they are found, or driving them all into the sea, etc -- particularly just a couple of years after the end of the WWII genocide against the Jews.  The role of anti-Jewish bias in the 1947--1948 conflicts was (as many historians observe) to imbue the Arab side with an undue contempt for the Jews which engendered fatal overconfidence and underestimation of the Jews' military prowess.  The participation on the Arab side of notable figures who had been affiliated with the Nazis -- from Haj Amin Husseini to Qawuqji to the veterans of the Yugoslav Waffen SS -- gave an appearance that some aspects of the opposition to the 1948 Partition and the establishment of he Jewish Srate were clearly related to -- and an extension of -- the WWII genocide of Jews.  It's probably impossible to have an honest discussion or consideration of those times and events without taking these facts into consideration.  Looking forward to hearing what you think.  I think we finally may be getting close to actual productive dialog on this subject. Ronreisman (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany
Recently Pluto 'undid' an edit that indicates Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany. Pluto's comment justifying this action is factually incorrect: "he took refuge there but he didn't fight for them or lead troops for Nazis." I have added some (not,by any means all) well-sourced documentation of Qawuqi's support for Nazi wartime efforts, including his unquestionable participation in he Wehrmacht 's central agency for all issues that affected the Arab world, known as Sonderstab F, which had been established as an outcome of  Wehrmacht High Command Directive No. 32, and was commanded by General der Flieger Hellmuth Felmy.

Pluto's 'undo' may have been a 'good faith' edit, insofar as he may not have much familiarity with the subject matter. We can now reach consensus, however, that al-Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany is documented, well-sourced, and incontestable. If any editor has any disagreement or doubt of this fact, then the place to bring up these doubts is this talk page. Please do not 'undo' or vandalize this page by attempting to cover-up al-Qawuqji's affiliation with WWII Germany by censoring the facts.

I realize that many editors take issue with including facts that could be mis-used by partisan purpose, e.g. discrediting all anti-Zionists by over-emphasizing the role of Naziism in the careers of some anti-Zionist fighters. This is completely understandable, and the proper way to address these concerns is to provide more well-sourced contextual information to promote NPOV. It is not permissible, however, to simply remove documentation of facts because they reflect badly on political causes that certain editors support. The priority must be to present the facts well, and then let the readers decide how they will use the information. Ronreisman (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for a start: the link to this you introduced: if my memory serves me correct, this has been discussed before, and no proof was found that it actually was the emblem of the ALA. (No, that it is on Wikipedia is no "proof"...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Huldra: where is the discussion that questions whether this was an emblem of the ARA?  Please provide a reference, and your logic in deleting this image.  You may also note that a very similar image is used in the Wikipedia 'Arab Liberation Army' article, and it is apparently accepted there that this image is bona-fide.  Incidentally, I have found at least one discussion about this symbol at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arab_Liberation_Army.svg  This page contains a conclusion that the image should be 'kept' and not deleted from the wikicommons, and that it has been confirmed as authentic by several reliable sources.  Here are a few relevant quotes from that discussion:

Apparently I happen to have found as well what seems to have been the real symbol of the ALA, which is indeed close to this image, but with some important differences: A curved dagger dripping blood thrust into a star of David. Sources are Benjamin Balint and this other book, they both say the same. There is no mention to the circle, and the dagger is dripping blood.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) At last, from the book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Ben Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "The [Syrian] troops, well-dressed and well-equipped, ran hither and thither between the houses and in the alleyways and in the nearby ﬁg groves, alone and in groups, and tried to ﬁre back...Qawuqji’s troops ﬂed in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC) --- Dear Huldra: Please do not remove well-sourced information from this article. Please do not force this issue to become elevated into a discussion about sanctions against disruptive, partisan editors. Please do not censor facts in the service of blatant political bias. Thank you in advance. Ronreisman (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It was concluded that this dagger was a doctored image.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that Pluto is making a false statement. Perhaps Pluto could substantiate his claim with some sort of reference.  WHERE was it 'concluded that this dagger was a doctored image.' ?   I have not found any such 'conclusion' in any reliable source nor in any of the Wiki discussions (eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop/Archive/Oct_2013 ).  These discussions do contain *questions* about image's validity, though most objections are blatant partisan efforts to discredit the image with absolutely no proof to support the claim that the images are faked.  Instead, the accusatory comments display anxiety that the images *must* be fake because they indicate anti-Jewish sentiment in the ALA troops that opposed the creation of the Jewish State.  This partisan narrative against the possibility of anti-Jewish bigotry by the Arab Liberation Army, incidentally, runs counter to al-Qawudji's statement that they intended to 'drive all the Jews into the Sea.'   For instance, Pluto has written on the discussion page cited above:  "It is highly dubious that this emblem would be the one of the ALA. For the technical reasons that were discussed here and two years ago on WP:Commons but also on historical grounds. This emblem is antisemite and would be a clue that the aim of the ALA would have been to destroy Israel."  He goes on to question whether anti-semitism was a factor in the Arab armies that fought in 1947-49, and claims that the charge of antisemitism was never proven.  He appears to argue against the authenticity of the logo precisely because (quoting Pluto): "The charge of antisemitism and aim to destroy Israel would also be given more weight."  There is no other 'proof' nor valid 'technical reasons' for doubting that this was an ALA emblem, Pluto's arguments against this image is essentially that it is incompatible with a very partisan pro-Palestinian narrative.   The speculations by Pluto and other anti-Zionist partisans about this symbol's validity -- which runs counter to citations in several reliable references (see above) -- are blatant examples of Original Research attempting to cover up documented facts.  These 'documented facts' include a captured ALA vehicle that displays this emblem: http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02022009/2084252/12-Zklarts_043_a.jpg   The original discussion on deleting this image, incidentally, is at:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arab_Liberation_Army.svg   The conclusion of this discussion was that there was no proof the image was a fake. The unsupported accusations were not accepted because there was no shred of documentary support, and no expert witnesses nor supporting secondary sources of any kind.  The conclusion of the discussion was that the image should be retained because there was no viable argument for deleting it.  There are, however,  reliable secondary sources and references that confirm that this was indeed an emblem of the ALA, eg  http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1566/article_detail.asp:  "The ALA's symbol was a dagger dripping with blood," thrust into a Star of David." or this passage from Benny Morris'   "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War",  p. 340: "...Qawuqji’s troops ﬂed in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David"  I think we can all agree that Benny Morris (an author who Yasser Arafat was fond of quoting and recommending as a historian of the origins of the Palestinian refugee problems) is a reliable source.  So in summary, there is ample evidence arguing for the image's validity, whereas there NO PROOF that this image is doctored or faked, only the unsubstantiated claims that appear to be iintended to sow doubt about historical facts that are 'inconvenient' for certain partisan political narratives.Ronreisman (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And given it is a doctored image, I will revert you if you insert this. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pluto said:"It was concluded that this dagger was a doctored image." although he knows well that it was suspicious but not concluded as doctored image. However, Those 3 emblem images (not from the same source) are nearly identical and suit the description of RS. see  . Ykantor (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was concluded it was a doctored image. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is easy to say that a black is actually white, but where is the support for your claim that it was concluded? Ykantor (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my reading of the links provided in these discussions (in the Image lab and on commons). Pluto2012 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear @Pluto2012 : The links provided (in the Image lab and on commons) conclude that there is no proof that image is doctored. If you have an alternate reading, please cite the sources, eg. either quote the lines from the links (without cherry-picking lines out of context, of course) to justify your interpretation. Or, alternatively, present any sourced info that repudiates Morris, et al, where they clearly identify this image (daggar through a Jewish star) as an ALA emblem (on the links, and see comments above).  If you have no evidence at all, and if you can't find any conclusions (again: in-context, not some objection that then answered and explained, please) that prove the image is 'doctored' then perhaps we can move on to other topics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Laila Parson in 'Soldiering for Arab Nationalism: Fawzi al-Qawuqji in Palestine" (note: th article is online at: http://www.mcgill.ca/islamicstudies/sites/mcgill.ca.islamicstudies/files/parsons.soldiering_for_arab_nationalism.pdf ) a good secondary source on el Qawuqji's wartime activities in Germany is: ( Gerhard Ho ̈pp, “Ruhmloses Zwischenspiel: Fawzi al-Qawuqji in Deutschland, 1941–1947,” in Peter Heine, ed., Al-Rafidayn: Jahrbuch zu Geschichte und Kultur des modernen Iraq. )  There is apparently also an English translation of this chapter.  I'll order both via Stanford's Hoover Library and add the relevant info to this article.  Just to get the debate off to early start:  Does anyone (eg Pluto2012, Huldra) have any objections to using this source? Ronreisman (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can use Laila Parsons but certainly not the primary sources she refers to.
 * We can report what scholars consider important, not what you consider important in the primary sources that they use.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Pluto2012 is again misrepresenting Wikipedia policy, and also falsely claiming Höpp's article is a 'primary source.'  It's clearly a secondary source, and may be used as a reliable reference. Dr. Gerhard Höpp is a German historian with superb academic credentials.  According to Parsons, this is the best scholarly source on Qawuqji's relationship with WWII Germany, therefore anything Dr. Höpp reports is by-definition something 'scholars consider important.'  There is no defensible argument for suppressing this secondary source. Ronreisman (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See note in the 'Nazi Allegiance' section (below) on Höpp's definitive info on al-Qawuqji's membership in the Wehrmacht (he was a colonel). This should put to rest any controversy regarding his affiliation with Nazi Germany.Ronreisman (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Statements must be sourced
The following statements currently in the 'Arab Liberation Army' section must be sourced with reliable references:

-

In early March 1948, Qawuqji arrived in Palestine from Damascus at the head of several hundred Arab volunteers. He crossed the Allenby Bridge with his troops on March 6, 1948 and a day later he brought also some motorized troops into Palestine before the non-reacting British troops. The ALA's first and only major operation was to launch an attack on the settlement of Mishmar HaEmak in April 1948. The Haganah and Palmach counter-attacked and the ALA were routed. In October 1948 the last of the ALA forces were driven out of the Galilee in Operation Hiram and Qawuqji escaped to Lebanon. After the end of the war he moved to Syria and lived in Damascus.

-

Editors are reminded to properly source the statements they add to a Wikipedia article, and to NOT remove statements that *are* well-sourced. Thank you in advance for your cooperative and collegial behavior in the future.Ronreisman (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've started to document this in more detail. Unfortunately I do not have immediate access to al-Qawaqji's memoirs. It would be great if someone familiar with this work would add more referenced detail to this section.Ronreisman (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Lapierre & Collins
L&C is a source of quality but not of enough quality if other sources can be found on the same topic. Regarding the entry of ALA forces in Palestine in particular, Yoav Gelber provide all the details with accuracy. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. L&C were basically journalists; they write extremely well and entertaining, alas, they were not historians. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

L&C is, as Pluto2012 notes, a source of quality. There is no excuse for deleting direct quotes from them, and then claiming (without properly sourcing your statement) that there are better references for the same information. @Pluto2012 : I'm restoring the *direct quote* from L&C that you have deleted. Please do not simply vandalize the article again. If you think the wording should be changed, please explain why in this talk page and we'll work out a consensus. Please don't vandalize. Ronreisman (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Until we can find confirmation that what L&C states, I will remove this from the article. Yoav Gelber, in Palestine 1948 say they are not reliable.
 * It is clear to given the number of scholars who wrote on the topic (in particular Laila Parsons) we have access to higher standard sources than L&C.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When Pluto like L & C writing, he thrust them(under his previous name - Ceedjee), but here he does not like their view, so he denounces L &C.  Life are easy if one is sufficiently flexible. Ykantor (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Pluto2012 :  Your claims that Dr. Gelber discounts L&C are apparently untrue. Please cite the page and quote the passage where Dr. Gelber says "they are not reliable" -- as you've written above.  In fact, it appears that Dr. Gelber considers L&C a reliable source in book you've cited, eg. repeating their reports in his book. Please refer to  'Palestine,1948' (the same book that Pluto2012 claims criticizes L&C)  p. 316 (Appendix II), where Dr. Gelber writes how "Lapiere and Collins described vividly" details about British officers.  If Pluto2012 would like to characterize L&C as unreliable then he first needs to make his case by editing the O Jerusalem Wikipedia article, which currently reports that this book is a quality source about the events of the period, and is highly regarded by professional historians.  Though it may not cover every incident that occurred in 1948 (eg they do not write about *every* shooting and atrocity), there is no criticism that their material is seriously disputed.  If Pluto2012 wants to make the case that L&C lack historical value, then the place to edit is the "Historical Value" section of the 'Oh Jerusalem' article, which currently contains:
 * "O Jerusalem! is much more elaborate than most historical accounts on the subject. The authors spent three years interviewing, researching, and reading public documents in order to create an interesting, readable account of the birth of Israel and the lives and deaths of the countless, often nameless, people involved. This precise perspective gives justice to some of the most compelling factors of the conflict."
 * Incidentally, Dr. Gelber is famously critical of a number of historians and works which are considered acceptable secondary sources in WIkipedia. Is Pluto2012 arguing that Pappe', Segev, Morris, et al should not be referenced simply because Gelber disagrees with them?  Or does he only want to censor L&C, who Dr. Gelber does NOT criticize?  In any case, it's clear that there is a Wikipedia consensus that L&C may be used as a reliable source.Ronreisman (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have L&C's book in front of me and they provide exactly zero source for their claim that Fawzi el Kuakji said he was going to "drive all the Jews into the sea." Is there a source that provides when and where he made this statement? Until a reliable source provides such details this information is not verifiable. I will edit. 216.209.181.111 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Pluto2012 is not willing any more to discuss with you both. I wonder if wp:uncivility ever reached such a level on wikipedia. Yoav Gelber is a wp:rs source and whatever he thinks as a person, he remains an excellent historians. L&C are excellent journalists and made a great job for "O Jerusalem" but, today they cannot be considered as a source of high enough standard given since British and Israelis archives were opened and the propaganda from both sides of the conflict decripted... In any case, the testimony of a Nazi general (Felmy) that you want to use is not a reliable source. I cannot even understand it has to be explained why. What I wrote that Gelber thinks about L&C is from my personal exchanges with him. If he commented what they wrote, it doesn't mean he considers they are reliable. What Gelber writes about Pappé is hard but globally correct from my point of view. If Pappé was reliable before 2000, he lost any credit with his last book about the 'Ethnic Cleansing' not because the idea they would not have been any 'Ethnic Cleansing' (what Israeli teeagers consider to be the reason why to hate him) but because of the political manipulation he makes with history (reasons why scholars are disguted by his work.) I could check this myself in discussing with Pappé. And Gelber never said anything bad on Benny Morris, who is calls Benny; this latter thanking Yoav in his book Birth... Revisited. And as far as I know, they are even friends. Cheers, Pluto2012 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Making untrue statements about other editors and the contents of sources is certainly an unacceptable level of incivility, both on and off wikipedia.
 * When someone uses unsubstantiated claims to try to bully other editors, that too is an unacceptable level of incivility.
 * No one is making any detrimental remarks about Dr. Gelber, either as a historian or as a person.
 * If there is new info that disputes certain points reported by L&C in the passages we're using in this article, then please present these citations,
 * Cheers.Ronreisman (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To Ronreisman & YKantor: So, can we then write that 250 Palestinians were murdered in the Deir Yassin massacre, and source it to L&C? Because they apparently wrote that. (Full disclosure: I have not read the book, but ordered it: it is in the mail. I have the "Freedom at Midnight"-book, which I have read with great interests, and the Jerusalem-book is apparently built over the same "template"). L&C are journalists: in the "Freedom at Midnight"-book they have interviewed hundred of people, and they write vividly. Alas: they take peoples word as "the truth". And it is not. If, say, Benny Morris had taken general Carmels word (that there were no expulsion-orders given in Galilee) for the ultimate truth, then there would not have been Correcting a Mistake: Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel, 1936-1956: Morris checked, and found an expulsion order in the archives. These archives were not available (open) to L&C. People sometimes forget, sometimes they lie, or they cover up,  or they want to appear in the best favourable light: this is the same for Jews, Arabs...or Scandinavians. L&C definitely has value (in interviewing participants), but they were not historians. (Which was screamingly obvious in the "Freedom at Midnight", were they took information which could  only have come from Mountbatten (on private meetings between him and the late Nehru) to be the full truth. Hah! AFAIK, none of Mountbattans biographers have done the same.
 * So no, I am not going to argue that we increase the death-count in Deir Yassin to L&Cs number, as we know better now, than when "Oh, Jerusalem" was published. Nor should we use L&C as a source for any of the Arab leaders: eg, to quote this:  "This whole representation [of the Mufti] is informed by orientalist metaphors and bear little relation to the facts," which Philip Mattar showed us.
 * I can see a copy of Gelber: 1948 on google which has the "Lapiere and Collins described vividly" part, in the appendix, p. 316. However, my own copy of the book (ISBN 1-902210-67-0 Hardback, from year 2001)  has no appendix: I can find no mentioning of L&C at all. Nor is L&C mentioned/referred to in Morris, 2004 "Revisited".
 * And you can easily find early edits from me, years ago, on Wikipedia, were I source info to the Palestineremembered-site: I would never do that today. (Instead I note their mistakes....): I think most of us strive for better and better sources. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * to Pluto: It seems that you are for Gelber. If you agree to accept Gelber always, I'll abandon L&C . So ? As for their quote, we probably may find another source. Personally I do not care which mainstream RS we use, as long they are proper historians, unlike Pape, Shlaim etc. who have an agenda to promote. Ykantor (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Everyone likes better sources and accurate information. We are objecting, however, to @Pluto2012 making claims that Gelber 'says that L&R are not reliable' and therefore quotes from L&R may be summarily deleted.  The principal problem is that when Pluto2012 is asked to substantiate his claim, he admits that there is no such published criticism of L&R.  Pluto's argument is based a private communication.  This is Original Research, which is prohibited as one of the foundation principles of Wikipedia (as we all know).  If new scholarship, with the benefit of access to archives that were not available to L&R, discover new information that should be reported -- *about the passage we're discussing* -- then please share that citation with us.  It would be fully acceptable to add text to the article, such as (to use Huldra's example) 'L&R's figure of 250 victims has been disputed by more modern studies, such as ….'   No one objects to adding that kind of context, so long as there are actual sources that dispute a passage, or add more modern info.  In this case no such additional reference material is presented by Pluto2012 that *actually* disputed L&R on the specific passage we're discussing,   If there is no such scholarship and there is no citation, and if the scholarly literature *still* relies on L&R (as Gelber does, e.g. for their 'vivid' descriptions), then such un-disputed reportage by L&R  must be considered to have successfully passed the tests of both time and scholarship. So let's cooly examine the facts and proceed accordingly.Ronreisman (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Huldra : On a purely personal note, the numbers of Deir Yassin victims are not as alarming as the fact that there were *any* victims. A single murder is too much.  Period, Ronreisman (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nazi allegiance
The purpose of taging Qawuqji with the Nazi tag is obvious. Anyway I wonder if it is worth mentionning here or not. To the question : "did he collaborate with Nazis ?", the answer is "yes". To the question : "did he fight under the Nazi flag ?", the answer is "no". I don't know what to do in that case but the best should be to find equivalent situations to keep the same rules everywhere. For exemple, would we add a "British tag" to Moshe Dayan ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Pluto2012, al Qawuqji certainly DID serve in the German armed forces during WWII, under the Nazi flag.  As noted repeatedly -- and documented in the article -- he served in General Felmy's Sonderstab, which was created for Arabs who fought for the Nazis.  He served honorably, he was proud of his allegiance to the Germans, and there is no source that claims he ever denied or denounced his military service with the Nazis.  There is every reason to believe that he was proud of this legience until his dying day.  Given that he was, in fact, a Nazi soldier for part of his career, it is entirely proper to display the flag he to which he gave his support.  Regarding the Dayan question: yes, of course it's proper to put the British flag in Dayan's article, since he was a British soldier who fough in Lebanon against the Vichy French (where he lost an eye in battle).  It's an egregious oversight if there's no British flag on Dayan's webpage.  Since you brought his up, you get the credit for a good catch and dibs on making the edit.  if you don't want to mod Dayan's article, however, I won't mind making he change, of course.Ronreisman (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To which battle did he participate for the Nazis ? Did he serve on the East front for exemple ?
 * There is the British flag on Dayan's page. You didn't even check. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He served under General Felmy's group, as noted repeatedly above, in the article, and I'm the scholarly literature. That, in itself, definitively establishes that he gave Nazi Germany.  Most soldiers do not see combat, incidentally; that doesn't affect the fact if their honorable service. I don't have the details of al-Qawuqji's missions, since we're traveling -- viisit relatives for the Thankgivikah holiday (happens every 79,400 years :-) -- and so won't be able to hit the books and provide details of al-Qawuqji's service while he served under nazi command.  Although those details will improve this article.  They are an inconsequential distraction to the issue of whether he had Nazi allegiance.  He did.  It's  a fact that's not contestable, and it's very relevant to this article's content.  Take care. Ronreisman (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother to look at the Dayan article because I was focused on having a dialog with you, and was responding to your question. In any case, it's good to see we're reaching a consensus that these flags indicating military service belongs on Wikipedia bio pages.  It works for the Dayan page with the same logic that works for this al-Qawuqji page.  Glad that we're working toward an agreement.  Happy Thanksgivikah ! Ronreisman (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not in a hurry. I assume you will be next to your books in a few days and call tell us to which battles he participated for the Nazis.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The allegence tag refers to military actions. We still don't know what he did for the Nazis except that in the article it is written he even refused to recruit for them. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The allegiance tag refers to military service; it is untrue that is refers to actions. Al Qawuqji's association with Sonderstab F is sufficient proof of his wartime military allegiance.Ronreisman (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Höpp's article includes definitive information that confirms al-Qawuqji's wartime allegiance to Germany, namely that he was made a colonel in the Wehrmacht, assigned a Wehrmacht captain as an aid, along with other perks. Clearly a man who is an officer in a nation's army has given that nation his allegiance. Ronreisman (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Felmy as a source
This is primary source and it cannot be used if not supported by a secondary reliable source. That's well known and basic rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * to Pluto: This is misleading. wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.". Ykantor (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I will delete this if I don't find any secondary source or if none is provided. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear @Pluto2012 : Felmy's post-WWII testimony -- the document we're discussing -- is a completely valid source that is used in other Wikipedia articles. It has been fully vetted. Perhaps you may want to email a more experienced administrator, eg. Zero0000 and ask him if it's a valid source.  That way we won't have to engage in a time-wasting and boring edit war, etc.  Please, we have many serious issues to address, so please, please, please don't force us to discuss these red-herrings.  Thanks in advance, and looking forward to productive dialogs with you that will address truly controversial points (as opposed to points that have no real controversy) in our mutual effort to improve the quality of Wikipedia.  Thanks again -- in advance -- for your collegial participation.Ronreisman (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * *But of course Felmy writes about his own success...in getting the Arabs 'active interest'  in the Axis war: that is not a reason to believe him!  Just take another example: after the nazi-invasion of Norway, the Norwegian king and Crown prince managed to escape, and led the resistance from abroad. The Nazis tried -desperately- to convince the (Swedish-born) Crown-princess Princess Märtha of Sweden to come back to Norway, and install her only son (the present king) Harald, then 3 years old, as a puppet Nazi "king". Now, in various Nazi-archives &other writings from those days you will find many, many reports from "trusted" sources that she was just about to do that....: all lies, made up by the writers to make themselves look important.
 * *Pluto is 100% right in insisting that we must have secondary sources.
 * *And seriously: would you take what a Nazi leader said about a Jewish person, and insert it in his/her biography as "the truth"? Noooo? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat: would you use what a Nazi leader said about a Jewish person, and insert it in his/her biography as "the truth"?
 * @Huldra : The answer is: Absolutely!   Even if a statement is propagandistic, it should be included if it contributes to the article's subject matter.  The caveat is that the Nazi statement should be given context and expressed as a 'quote.'  In this case Felmy's role in this history -- an in particular his command of the the Arab 'volunteers' -- is documented by many reputable secondary sources.  I'll try to add some of these sources, if only to add more context.  The quote by Gen. Felmy is certainly valid for this article, and adds very interesting information in the words of a prominent Nazi officer.  The demonstration of the inherent value of this information is the amount of passionate controversy it has generated in this talk page.  This info should be available to the readers.   There was a time when some Jews didn't want to discuss the 'Transfer Agreements' (ie the arrangements between the Nazis and the Zionists to transfer Jews from Germany to Mandatory Palestine from 1933 to1938). Edwin Black's own mother (a Holocaust survivor) famously tried to talk her son into abandoning his seminal book on this subject, precisely because she was afraid the facts would be taken out of context by anti-Zionists (as he explains in the introduction).  The fact is that the history *has* been twisted by anti-Semites, skinheads, and anti-Zionists, just as Black's mother feared.  Is that a reason to suppress the history?  Absolutely not!  Would there be any meaningful history of the subject if we excluded testimony from Nazi leaders about the Jewish people involved in the 'Transfer Agreements?'  Almost certainly not.  We need to pay attention to German records in order to make any sense at all of what occurred.  There are many cases where Nazi testimony about Jews is very relevant, and must be recognized as factual, even though the context of the history may lend itself to mis-use by both bigots and political partisans.  The crimes of Jewish capos in concentration and extermination camps is one example where German testimony and records are completely relevant.  The history of Germans 'of Jewish descent' who fought for Nazi Germany is another example.  Although most of these German soldiers did not recognize themselves as Jews (most had, at most, only one Jewish grandparent as their Hebrew 'heritage'), some were 'full' Jews, with two Jewish parents.  And yet they fought for the Nazis, sometimes even as their own relatives were exterminated.  How do we know this?  Only through scholarship delving into WWII German records.  The 'German leaders' who made statements about these Jews who fought for Nazis included Hitler himself, who famously issued papers that declared certain people to be 'aryan' regardless of demonstrable Jewish heritage.  There are many other examples of surprising history of this sort.  Should we suppress this history because it runs counter to conventional 'common sense' about Nazi racial policies?  Or should we report all the complications, risk the mis-use by partisans, and let the readers have access to the messy complexities of history?  Obviously,  the answer to that last rhetorical question, IMHO, is 'Yes.' Ronreisman (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have answered a question that nobody has asked. There is a world of difference between "uncomfortable truths" (which the mother of Edwin Black was -rightfully- concerned about) and pure lies and self-agrandisations.  Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also: I have seriously tried to get hold of the Felmy book. It is not in any library in the otherwise very well-stocked libraries in my country. Amazon.com and abebooks.com also came up completely empty. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're in for a treat! The Felmy book is an eye-opener!  It's available on the web: http://www.allworldwars.com/German-Exploitation-of-Arab-Nationalist-Movements-in-World-War-II.html    Enjoy, and let us know what you think after you've looked it over!    The full Wiki citation is:    * Ronreisman (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The allworldwars.com is a personal, anon. web-cite,  made  by an anon.  (note: Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0112005661)  I, or you, or Mr John Doe, or Minnie Mouse could have made that web-site. This obviously does not count as WP:RS. Why, oh why, if it is "such an eye-opener" does not anyone publish it in his/her own name? Hmmmm.  I still want to know why you insist to insert a source which is unavailable to most (if not all) of us. Beside the "small" fact that Pluto raised: it is a primary source. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The book is a bona-fide source, cited by many scholarly secondary sources. It is easily available on the allworldwars.com website (along with a lot of other interesting material), though it is certainly *not* published by that website.  In any case, see the new article text, in which we reference secondary sources which explicitly mention historical events that connect Qawukji with Gen. Felmy and Sonderstab F.  We then use the Felmy memoirs to clarify and add context to the information that is referenced in the reputable reference.  Hopefully the inclusion of these explicit references and citations to Felmy--Qawuqji will enable us to reach a consensus on the relevance of the Felmy quotes and the alliance between Qawuqji and the German military during WWII.  All the best.Ronreisman (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fot the the N`th time: a Nazi testimony is a Nazi testimony. I feel like adding Adolf Eichmann to the list of Zionist...why not? It is undisputed that he said he was, there are even first-rate secondary sources saying that Eichmann called himself a Zionist.... And that new " secondary sources" you have brought up have "issues", as even pro-Israeli blogger can see: "The criticism I refer to suggests that the book is part of an Israeli propaganda movement" Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Huldra : Thank you for providing the URL to the article that you claim presents a case that Mallman, et al are possibly 'Israeli propaganda' and then using this citation as the rationale for disallowing any mention of their work in Wikipedia.  Unfortunately, you appear to have quoted a snippet that is completely out of context, since the passage actually endorses the quality and relevance of Mallman, et al.  In fact, you have completely misrepresented the content (unintentionally, I'm sure), and the source you cite makes it clear that Mallman, et al should be considered a source of the highest quality.  The context of the quote is the book reviewer's criticism of the book's original title  from 'The Crescent and the Swastika' to the English title 'Nazi Palestine'  The reviewer makes it clear that he respected the book itself, he's just critical of the title change because it provides an opportunity for untrue accusations of the book.  The reviewer writes that the change in title "leads to supporting a politically motivated criticism of the book that is simply not true two reasons"  Interestingly, Huldra omits this introductory phrase, and then clips the next sentence, which the author presents as a patently *untrue* "politically motivated criticism."   Just to make sure there's no more mix-ups on this issue, here's the full quote, starting with the snippet that Huldra quoted to argue that the work is academically worthless and should be disregarded: "'1 The criticism I refer to suggests that the book is part of an Israeli propaganda movement. The truth is that the original title reflects the clear-headed analysis contained in the book of the relationship between the Muslim world (the Crescent) and the National Socialists (the Swastika). It describes how the common value of Jew-hating and anti-Zionism made Palestine a ripe prize and rallying point both strategically and politically for Islamists, Arab nationalists, and Nazis. In a personal communication, the editor for Enigma Books told me that “The title was picked by Enigma Books, not the translator; it means to indicate what would have happened if Palestine and the rest of North Africa had been conquered by the Germans.2 The book does paint the disastrous probable outcome of a 'Nazi Palestine,' but it is much more than that. It is a book about what did happen, not a fantasy. It makes clear that the outcome of a success of the Arab/Nazi coalition in WW II would have been genocide of the Jews, led by Germans and enforced by Arabs.'"    There are, of course, much better and cogent criticisms of the book, e.g. Achcar, or Nicosia.  None of these criticisms go so far as to falsely accuse the book of being propaganda, or of mis-using quotes out of context to completely misrepresent the work as being part of some nefarious conspiracy.  The bottom line is that this book, written by tenured professors of Modern German History, is certainly *not* propaganda.  All of the responsible critics respect Mallman, et al, as fellow academics with whom they may have some disagreements or find some shortomings.  No responsible critic has questioned their qualifications or peer-review publications, etc.  See: Klaus-Michael Mallmann for a brief review of his qualifications and expertise.  Please Hudra, the next time you quote a sentence, please keep the representation in context. We'll all be more productive, and we'll avoid these unreasonable and unjustifiable 'undo' episodes that deprive the Wikipedia readers of access to factual information.  Cheers. Ronreisman (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is easier to disqualify the source, rather than facing history. Ykantor (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ykantor.
 * By the way, I reverted Reisman given the pov-pushing that goes on regarding the Nazi Germany allegence, which is not source and the use of primary sources that are use to build a narrative and not to face history.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Pluto2012 : You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals.  You are abviously attempting to hide the history by discounting sources.  In this case, you are supporting Huldra's misrepresentation that Mallman, et al are not valid sources, or that that Felmy, et al (referenced as a valid source by Mallman, as explained in the text you deleted) is somehow also invalid.  Whatever your reasons, this partisan propagandizing must stop.  I've tried to have reasonable discussions with you, though you apparently are not interested in reasonableness nor improving the quality of Wikipedia articles.  Please do not force us to sanction you.  Please act in a more honorable manner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.238.75 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Ronreisman (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Our respective work will be enough to convince any third party of who could be a "politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles".
 * You put back the "Nazi allegence" tag whereas you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so. You keep inserting unrelevant quotes to push a point instead of trying to comply with NPoV despite the opposition on the talk page to add these. You use 1st sources in a context in which it is forbidden (you can only use what WP:RS secondary sources use of this primary material). And you insulted me strongly, violating WP:AGF.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made several untrue detrimental statements about me, strongly violating WP:AGF. : 1) "you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so." -- This is untrue; please refer to the 'Nazi allegiance' discussion.  The Mallman&Cuppers, etc. secondary sources establish service with the Germans during WWII; honorable military service is not dependent on actual combat.  2) " You keep inserting unrelevant quotes …" I strongly defend the quotes you've questioned; they are relevant and the attempts to suppress them are a both a violation NPoV and -- in the case of Huldra's misrepresentation of a reliable source as 'propaganda' supported by a reference which actually praised the book's quality and denied that it is propaganda, precisely the opposite message claimed by Huldra and Pluto2012 -- may represent partisan bad-faith. 3)  It may also be bad faith to claim that anyone should respect this kind of "opposition on the talk page to add these."   4) "You use 1st sources in a context in which it is forbidden …" This accusation is false. The sources in question are Felmy, et al, and my usage is completely within the framework of WP:RS.  Your recent corruption of the content of Morris's description of what happened to the Arab population that left the area after one of Qawuqji's failed sieges is a prime example of forbidden bad-faith edits.  The source describes how most of the population left on their own, and the remainder were then pushed out by the IDF.  You have changed the wording to misrepresent the RS, so now the article inaccurately reports that the IDF 'depopulated' the area.  Do you have a RS that supports your claim?  The source that covers this paragraph -- Morris, 2008 -- certainly contradicts your statement.  Please cite your reference, or explain why this edit is not an example of disruptive pov-pushing. Ronreisman (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Al Qawuqji's service under Felmy (eg Special Staff F), documented in Mallman & Cuppers (among other secondary sources) & substantiated in Felmy et al, is completely sufficient to document his allegiance to Germany during WW II. As I've explained above, there are many (in the US, most) cases of honorable military service careers which do not include actual combat experience.  Again, I've already responded to your demand for Q.'s battles with this same answer. It is untrue that I 'promised' you info on Q.'s battles, just as it is untrue that combat experience is the sole criteria for military service.  It's a shame that you feel you've been insulted strongly; perhaps you should engage in some self-examination to discover what traits inspire people to disrespect you.  Perhaps making untrue statements, especially transparently false statement about other editors, may cause some editors to simply lose respect for you and think you are dishonorable.  For instance, look at your claim above "you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so." -- clearly an untrue statement, as may be seen in the above section on 'Nazi allegiance' where we engage in this discussion.  Or how about your unsubstantiated claim that all images of the ALA emblem are 'doctored' and fake?  You have made this spurious accusation repeatedly, even falsely reporting on the contents of  talk pages that discussed this issue.  Are you insulted that I'm accusing you of repeated falsehoods and bad-faith edits?  Well, the truth is a perfect defense.  If you have any evidence that ALA emblem images are doctored, please produce the evidence.  If not, please re-read your own posts to this talk page and then ask yourself why some people question your honesty, and messages like this reflect a disrespect for your actions. Ronreisman (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, while Pluto2012's edits seem to concentrate on 'undo'-ing well-sourced factual material that he apparently wants to suppress, some may notice that I (the person he's accusing of giving undue emphasis to Q's WWII activities) added contextual information (eg from Achcar) that indicates the complexity of al Qawuqji's wartime situation, the reputed poisoning of his son by the Nazis, his dissatisfaction with political infighting, his emphasis on Arab independence, etc. All this information is intended to provide contextual background and make clear that the situation was not simple and clear-cut.  These recent edits add information about Q's activities before and after WWII, sections that were so lean that they barely communicated the broad outlines of his life.  These additions do not mention his Nazi-affiliations, and give a much better idea why he is still revered in certain circles and why he has such a bad reputation (eg the false 'victory' telegrams) in other quarters.  Just wondering: @Pluto2012: what material have you contributed to this article?  Did you support NPOV by providing this kind of context to al Qawuqji's bio?  Or did you prefer to 'delete' rather then 'contribute?'  It's interesting to me that while Pluto2012 pile-ons the 'POV-pusher' insults, he doesn't seem to have so much motivation to actually improve the article. Ronreisman (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Concerning Wikipedia articles, Pluto's main activity is removal of text! It is very frustrating to watch how an article deteriorates due to Pluto's repeated deletions. Ykantor (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An article must comply with wp:npov and wp:v to avoid such problems. You have been explained on your talk page how to edit wikipedia but you keep refusing to comply with WP:NPoV, stating that you don't have to add information that you don't agree with despite it comes from WP:RS.
 * As you are perfectly aware, I wrote full articles on wikipedia and the cumulated "input" of your both still doens't reach today 1 percent of what I did. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Qawukji's WWII Memoirs ?
The Qawuqji memoirs that are linked in the article only begin coverage in the post-WWII period. Does anyone have access to Qawuqji's memoirs that cover the pre-1947 time-frame? Are any posted on the web? If not, does anyone have a valid reference? I'd like to email the Hoover Lib and ask them to get the relevant docs via interlib loan, etc. Are these memoirs translated into English (sorry, my Arabic is somewhere between atrocious and non-existent :-) ? Also: Just to check with @Pluto2012 : We all have a consensus that Qawuqji's memoirs are a valid source for Wiki articles, right? Just want to make sure we don't have another disagreement about it's admissibility of post-WWII memoirs.Ronreisman (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Qawuqji's memoirs are not reliable if they are not reported by an historian.
 * Anyway, the point of view of Qawuqji is notorious for himself and if it is attributed it can be reported but with high care.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is simply not Wikipedia policy. The memoirs *are* citable, if the passage in question is not already covered by a secondary source.  If a secondary source contains the same information, then it is preferable to cite that secondary source, of course.  If there is a secondary source that notes that Qawuqji is (as you write) 'notorious for himself' (and there are many such sources which note this :-) then that source should be referenced when putting in comments around any quotes from the memoirs in order to place the quotes in proper context, in accordance with NPOV. Ronreisman (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If a reliable secondary source (eg a historian) reports a context and a quote from somebody, we can use this.
 * In his own article, what somebody says in a given situation can be reported if it is fairly reported and contextualized. Anway, we have to take care of WP:OR and cannot report anything and in particular, we cannot give undue weight to some quotes.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is vetted post-war testimony published by the US Gov, the quote is given context, it is fairly reported, it pertains to the principal subject matter of the article, and numerous secondary sources confirm Felmy's position and authority on these matters. There is no OR here, nor any undue emphasis. This information belongs in this article, and there does not appear to be any rational reason for suppressing these quotes. Removing this test is basically vandalizing the article.  Please do not vandalize the article.Ronreisman (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, it is not Pluto's first time of using a war of attrition tactics. Ykantor (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OR certainly does not apply here as it is taken directly from the source. I can't find any Wikipedia rules that allows arbitrarily removing information based on the concept of "high care." On the contrary, based on WP:ER, the more information the better. Wikieditorpro (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There are two ways of "citing" something. One is to take it as a source of fact, and the other is to report what it says without judging it. The latter is what we are supposed to do with primary sources. So it is not against the rules to quote Qawuqji's memoirs (provided they are quoted from a reliable publication and not just taken off some random web page). However we have to cite it like "According to Qawuqji's memoirs..." or "Qawuqji wrote that...". We are not allowed to judge its veracity ourselves and just state as a fact something that appears there. Actually historians know that personal memoirs are among the least reliable sources. Zerotalk 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The same thing can be said of the Felmy book. We can cite it as a claim of Felmy. But there is another issue here. Does anyone here actually have the book? Yes, I see the web page but that is not a reliable publisher and we don't know if the text of the book provided there matches the original. Maybe it has been edited. If the web page is the real source of these citations, they have to go. Unless we have the actual book we need to restrict ourselves to things from the book that are mentioned by reliable sources. Zerotalk 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I question that Felmy's manuscript was "published by the US Army". I read that it was not written for publication and all the references I see are to archival document identifiers. Also what does "p. 13, by Gen. Haider" mean? It doesn't make sense. The words "active interest" are not in Haider's forward. It doesn't say "'active interest' and support of the military training of Arabs by the Nazis" either; I'm out of time but I believe that is misrepresenting the source. Felmy seems to mention Fawri as an obstacle, not a help. That's why it continues "Despite these misunderstandings...". Zerotalk 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fawzi al-Qawuqji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928202610/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/ to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144320/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%201.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%201.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144415/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%202.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%202.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fawzi al-Qawuqji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144320/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%201.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%201.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144415/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%202.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Al%20Qawuqji%2C%20Memoirs%201948_Pt%202.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

ben dror yemini
This (the archive to the source I just removed) is clearly marked as opinion. The author has no expertise in this topic, and he is referencing his own self-published book for the claim. It is not a reliable source.  nableezy  - 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Im curious as to how this was cited when the reference was a dead link when added.  nableezy  - 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Book is not self published, and it’s well cited. Conjecture to state he “has no expertise in the topic” https://isgap.org/book/industry-of-lies-media-academia-and-the-israeli-arab-conflict/
 * And what was a deadline - the ynet article? It came up in a google search. Mistamystery (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * deadlink
 * Mistamystery (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was published by CreateSpace, a self-publishing outlet. The ynet article is a dead link, youre saying you took the entire quote and citation from the google result and didnt check the actual link?  nableezy  - 19:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I’m looking at the literal cover of the book, which says ISGAP. Mistamystery (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They don’t appear to have a publishing capability. I have no idea what ISGAP is or why we would consider it reliable anyway. But every place that has this isbn shows published by CreateSpace.  nableezy  - 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please look it up before you question its reliability.
 * The publisher is not createspace. That may be the digital distribution method. It originally appeared in a journal and then it seems they wanted to distribute it more widely. Mistamystery (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And inside cover says:
 * Copright 2017 by Ben-Dror Yemini and ISGAP
 * First published in Hebrew by Yedioth Sfarim in 2014
 * All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission from the author and publisher.
 * The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) is dedicated to the academic study of antisemitism and others forms of prejudice.
 * No clue why that is listing on google, but it’s immaterial. The cover says ISGAP, as does the institute’s own website. How they distributed the book is up to them, but no, it was not “self published”
 * I’m just going to hunt down his actual source. Given that you just removed my edit based on 1/2 assertions that are demonstrably false (and another one that is just your opinion - he’s a veteran journalist in the field as biased as one may think it does not revoke some measure of expertise), am requesting you revert your edit until his citation can be disproven.
 * He got into a public spar with Hazkani (with back and forth pieces being published between Ynet and Haaretz) pertaining to the factuality of each other’s claims (specifically around Qawuqji). Yemini asserts he has sources, had his citations peer reviewed, and introduces at least some of them in his Ynet piece. It’s at least marginally relevant here, as the Hazkani quote was introduced here only to attempt to tank any claims Qawuqji spoke this way.
 * It also need be noted that the editor who added the Hazkani citation exaggerated Hazkani’s claims. (Which makes his introduction here all the more dubious). I actually reviewed the source, and all of Hazkani’s research is not based on research on “archives” - it’s simply reviewing the ALA Propaganda archive, which some how he makes the *extraordinary* leap that Qawuqji could not have said these things merely because it didn’t appear in an army’s propaganda archive. Mistamystery (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are only acceptable if the source is reliable themselves, and a columnist has no expertise in this topic. Also, I am still unclear as to how you added a source that was already dead when you added it.  nableezy  - 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I’m really confused. If you just google “ben dror hazkani ynet”, it’s the first search result that comes up.
 * And if I go back to my last edit and click the link, it’s live: are you getting a dead link on your end?
 * Or are you referring to another link? Mistamystery (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had been getting a dead link for https://www.ynetnews.com/article/r13c00w5do, but its working now. Weird. But that explains that, sorry about my confusion. But on the source, an opinion piece by a non-expert isnt an acceptable source for a statement of fact.  nableezy  - 19:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I hear you. It’s all good. I’ll just hunt down the source source in question and leave Mssr. Yemini to his opinions for the time being. Cheers. Mistamystery (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of RS
In response to:

"(1) anything at all can be found by searching thousands of newspapers, (2) as Hazkani makes clear, ALA propaganda is full of al-Qawuqji; he was the leader so the relevance is obvious, (3) it is not true that the book quotes al-Q making genocidal threats (unlike Haganah propaganda), though he threatened the residents of one village (4) add direct assertion from Hazkani, who is an excellent source for this article and should be cited more."

1. This isn't "anything at all" found in a newspaper. It's a contemporaneous, firsthand news report on the ground in the region during the conflict from a perennial source in which the writer quoted something al-Q said. The other sources in the body all report secondhand and cannot be given priority over firsthand accounts.

2. During this period, there are numerous instances of Arab leadership having said phrases referring either to extermination or expulsion of Jews/Israelis, only for them to walk them back, recant, or deny them when they faced western or press scrutiny. That this quote does not appear in a propaganda archive means nothing - especially given the fact that he gave the quote to the press, and has never been suggested was a part of a propaganda programme. Conway reported it as a quote, he and Daily News are RS, and until evidence is presented otherwise, there is nothing present to undercut the reliability of the reporting.

3. Hazkani's bias and research thoroughness have been questioned to the point that he got into a public argument in Israeli media a few years back. If we are to include his assertion, we'll have to include the public rebuttal (by a competing newspaper) that his research is incomplete and he makes biased leading assertions on these points in the face of an abundance of evidence that cites otherwise.

I myself have found *dozens* of instances of contemporaneous, *direct* reporting in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s that confirm how often Arab leaders used this phrase and similar terminology (when convenient, re: the above reminder that there was plenty of walk-back by leaders when confronted with their own words). For Hazkani to claim that in "15 years of searching, during which I read hundreds of propaganda documents from 1947 to 1949, I encountered only one case in which an Arab leader mentioned 'sea' and 'Jews' in the same sentence", it merely says to me he was either looking in the wrong place, or wasn't thinking to use (or didn't have available to him) digital archives, which are replete with instances. Mistamystery (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Hazkani is the only historian who has sifted through the trove of ALA documents held by the Israeli archives. I made a mistake characterising it as "propaganda" material; some of it is, but most of it consists of internal documents, instructions to field units, etc, collected by Haganah intelligence. But even that is not all his work is based on; he uses Haganah documents as well and other contemporary material. Of course his conclusions will be criticised if they question the standard Israeli narrative; that's how it works but where is the serious refutation? Someone in a newspaper not liking it is not a refutation. There is absolutely no question that Hazkani should be cited. As for your newspaper story, the reporter doesn't actually say that al-Q said those words, and doesn't claim to have interviewed him or heard him personally. It can just as easy be read as a phrase going around that the reporter chose to use as a paraphrase of what the reporter thought al-Q's aim was. Historians do not treat such stuff as evidence. Zerotalk 05:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at a lot of press around that time, in particular Jewish press, and found that the phrase was very popular. It was almost always placed in quotes but hardly ever attributed to a particular person except sometimes to a journalist. For example this in The Palestine Post⁩⁩ of 11 June 1948: 'If the Jews win after all, the "experts" will adapt themselves to the new situation as best they can. For the time being they still hope for Arab Legion victories, not because they "want to drive the Jews into the sea," but because they hope to bludgeon them into submission to some intricate paper "solution" of their own.' Even though the phrase is in quotes, it isn't given as a quote of someone. It is just a way of marking a stock phrase that was in the air at the time. Zerotalk 09:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

⁩