Jump to content

Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hitler-Mufti handshake

This article claims that "As the Führer had racist objections to Arabs, he declined to shake the Mufti's hand (in their 1941 meeting) and refused to drink coffee with him."

If that's the case, how do you explain this video of Hitler shaking hands with the Mufti? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg&feature=player_embedded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.201.194 (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This (Arab-Nazi relationship during World War II) is a redirect page to a person who cooperated with nazis on stopping the Jews in establishing Israel, but it seems that the topic wider than that and that there were more people involved. Should it be merged into this? Should the redirect page be closed? What should we do? --Γιάννης Α. ✆|☑ 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's far more than that.

It does refer also to Haj Amin al-Husseini's war on Jews... But also to:

  • 1)) Rashid Ali al-Gaylani
  • 2) wider 'Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II'
  • 3) SSNP / Anton Saada.
  • 4) Young Egypt Party.
  • 5) Baath, Sami al-Jundi.
  • 6) al-Husseini's SS units in Eastern Europe.
  • 7) The terminology: "Muhammad Haidar and "Abu Ali."

And more...Prattilon (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


1RR or 3RR

Is this article subject to the 1RR rule or the 3RR rule? Currently, its not listed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC))

I would say 3RR, unless the specific text deals with the Arab–Israeli conflict, in which case 1RR. But 3RR is not an entitlement, so please don't get close to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There was concern expressed that this article might be covered by the 1RR rule since it could (and not unreasonably) be consided relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict. To be clear, I've made two reverts in the last 24 hours due to an anonymous user removing material that is properly sourced. I wanted to know if my interpretation that standard Wikipedia revert rules apply to this article was correct, as violating a 1RR rule (even unintentionally) usually carries a steep penalty.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
Since this page is not marked as being under restrictions, I think you're fine. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Even on pages subject to WP:ARBPIA 1RR restrictions, reverting IP editors doesn't count (against 1RR), so you're fine. See WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I claim for academic sources written by historians and you use such controversial people or MEMRI and you fight to keep 7 references to an information where only main newpapers would be enough.
You answer is : where is this written it is mandatory to use sources of such high quality ? It is of course written in WP:RS or WP:NPOV but maybe between the lines...
87.66.164.103 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh boy. This is good. The website you listed ([1]) to try and discredit Harold Brackman is run by the Nation of Islam) and is based on the book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (published by the NOI), which has been thoroughly discredited as Anti-Semitic, in addition to being factually inaccurate, by numerous sources. If you have to use Anti-Semitic crap like this to support your argument, then I suggest you should seriously reevaluate your position.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC))
I don't try to discredit Brackman. I took the first result in google. In any way, he discredited himself alone when he started being paid by private institutions that have clear goals and not any more in the academic context of free research. The Rosenthal Centre has only one goal today : prove that Muslims are antisemites.
You dare to say that I have use Anti-Semitic crap to support my argument. Did you just read what racist and islamophobic sources that are currently used in this article ?
I need a hammer : I claim for the use of highest rank academic sources. I claim for the use of the highest rank academic sources. I claim for the use of the highrest rank academic sources. Where is the problem for you ?
But I can enter your game too : you all, Jewish and Israelis, are so blind by you hate of Muslims and Arabs that any clue that could support insane theories of the same kind that the ones that lead to the Shoah. Think about this. Days after days, months after months, Worldwide Jewish Community and Israeli nation behaves likes Europeans behaved toward them in the twenties, the thirties and so.... Are you happy now ? You feel better at ease ?
But that game is not mine : My claim is for the use of highest rank academic sources. and not bullshit such as Wiesenthal centre or Memri or journalists with agenda.
The topic of the links between the Arabs and tne Nazis regimes is a difficult topic and with the same philosophy as WP:BLP, it can have harmfull consequences. It requires the highest rank quality for sources and all other sources should be removed.
91.180.172.56 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Quite the temper you have there, 91.180.172.56 (talk). But I'm glad I final understand your perspective on this topic.
  • Your rather wild and fatuous allegations that "you all, Jewish and Israelis, are so blind by you hate of Muslims and Arabs that any clue that could support insane theories of the same kind that the ones that lead to the Shoah" and your statement that "[the] Worldwide Jewish Community and Israeli nation behaves likes Europeans behaved toward them in the twenties" contribute nothing to this debate. Given your tone, I have to wonder if your anger against Israelis and Jews so strong that it is clouding judgement. Wild accusations against Jews and Israelis aren't going to help your position, and will only cast you in negative light.
  • You state that "I claim for the use of highest rank academic sources" three times (You only need to say it once). However, your citing of the NOI as a source to declare Harold Brackman as "controversial" (your words), as well as your statements on Israelis and Jews, indicate that you must have a very interesting definition of "highest rank academic sources". Is your personal criticism of Brackman based on such high ranking sources? And what exactly constitutes a "Highest rank academic source?" I suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources first to get a better understanding of what sources are allowed in Wikipedia before you make "claim[s]" regarding what sources are allowed in this article. You can make any "claim" that you want, but Wikipedia's guidelines decide which sources are allowed, not you.
  • You state "You dare to say that I have use Anti-Semitic crap to support my argument." Well, I am proud to say that I do dare to say it. If you are going to cite the Nation of Islam (NOI) and a website dedicated to a book that has been almost universally discredited as Anti-Semitic to try and discredit Harold Brackman then I will indeed dare to say that you have used Anti-Semitic crap to support your argument. If you want to point out that I dared to say it, go ahead.

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

As I wrote at Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust#Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and islam, the sources added by Santiago84 are not acceptable. The first source is an old copy of a Wikipedia article. The third is a page at the Jerusalem Post that links to the same Wikipedia article. The fifth is a personal essay, not a reliable source. The second and fourth might be okay—I don't know for sure because I don't read German—but considering his track record, I doubt it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a large part of this article is a huge disorganized SYNTH based mostly on polemic sources. Zerotalk 14:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And I see books printed by Lulu (company) is used a a source; just brilliant. Huldra (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"that isn't to say that all Arabs were treated well by the Nazis"

Read the paragraph:

The Nazis generally viewed the Arabs as inferior in accordance with their ideology as Arabs were Semites. However, there many wealthy Arabs who traveled to Germany in the 1930's who brought back fascists ideals and incorporated them into Arab Nationalism.

It doesn't need the addition of your commentary "But that isn't to say that all Arabs were treated well by the Nazis." It says that already in the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Sorry for posting on your User Page when I didn't realize that you opened up a discussion. But the sentence at the start to me is kind of vague and it makes it as if Arabs ere generally tolerated and accepted in Nazi Germany, so that's why I added in my own "commentary" 183.492.365.I98 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem about the Talk page. If you think the first sentence is too vague, let's try to fix it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This article requires a lot of work...
I partially fixed the issue of the first sentence in adding more context.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
A few corrections - not all of North Africa was under British and French control - Libya and Ethiopia were under the control of Italy (which was an ally of Germany). In addition, the northern half of Iran was occupied by the Soviet Union for much of the war. I've changed this to "European powers" to be more inclusive.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC))
You are right and your change is very good.
A reason why Hitler supported but didn't give a total support to Arab nationalists was also not to weaken the position of Italy and Vichy. (Iran is not an Arab country but that doesn't matter.) Pluto2012 (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazi war criminals escaped (were given asylum in) to Egypt

and other Arab countries after the war and some converted to Islam and became influential in their various countries. Isn't this a fact that is not incorporated in this article? Some mention of this would be appropriate, no? Opportunidaddy (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Here [2] , [3],[4]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a relevant and should be mentioned. Pluto2012 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RR

And Hyperionsteel: I think you just broke 1RR: please self-revert, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, the 3RR rule applies to this page (see the discussion above). Nice try, though.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
    • According to the latest ruling from arb.com. the 1RR should be applied broadly. I dont think there is any doubt that 1RR applies here, Please self-revert. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, according to Wikipedia guidleines, if there is no explicit or implicit 1RR rule warning cited on the talk page, then it can be assumed to be 3RR. Please see Wikipedia:1RR#Other_revert_rules. As there is nothing on this page to indicate this, I doubt the 1RR rule is applies here. Also, (and this is what is important), the 3RR rule does not apply when reverting, in good faith, mass deletions by editors who feel they don't need to discuss such changes on the talk page first.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
        • Nope, I don´t think so. Note: "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." The text have been gradually made more strict. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Wow, really? You just added that warning to this page yourself! Although I admire your ingenuity, I don't think you can suddenly decide that this article is covered by this the 1RR ruling. And even in the unlikely event that you and you alone can arbitrarily decide this, its not retroactive.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
        • You don´t seem to understand: the warning on this page is not important, from the wording it is quite clear (IMO) that this article comes under the sanctions. (Remember: "broadly constructed"). The way I understand it: this article have been under the ARBIA sanctions ever since they made them stricter some time ago. Wether or not the template is present. Huldra (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • As an example: there is no doubt in my mind the say, Umm Tuba is also under the same sanctions...even though there is no template on the talk-page. (Which is why I immediately self.reverted, when I noted that I had broken the 1RR rule there) Huldra (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Now, do you want to self-revert, or do you want to be reported? Huldra (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1RR obviously applies to this page. Zerotalk 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Your argument only makes sense if Wikipedia users were required to memorize every ARB ruling prior to editing (I doubt this is the case). Wikipedia:1RR#Other_revert_rules states that any such restriction must be indicated on the talk page.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
However, I am prepared to act in good faith, as I agree that this article could be considered relevant to the Arab-Israel conflict (i.e. that the 1RR rule should apply, even if not explicitly stated). So I will self-revert for the time-being.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
Ok, thanks. Since just about all articles I edit comes under this rule; I take it for granted...;) Huldra (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article is about "Nazi relations with the Arab world". It's simple logicc: no Nazis, no relationship. The opinions some Arabs today might express about past Nazis are not relevant. This article is being used as a WP:COATRACK for Arab-bashing by copying material from pro-Israeli organizations like MEMRI, including statements made by people who are almost totally unknown. I am going to delete the entire "modern" section unless a good case can be made for keeping it. Zerotalk 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

However, Alois Brunner and Johann von Leers would be quite relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"Almost totally unknown?" Really? Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the most prominent (albeit controversial) theologians alive today. Likewise, Robert Wistrich and Bernard Lewis are very well-known (and also somewhat controversial).
As for my most recent addition, Muhammad Galaa Idris is certainly not as famous as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, but he is not just a nugatory crackpot - he is the head of the Hebrew Studies Department at Tanta University in Egypt, and he has made a number of other remarks concerning Jews on television (e.g. "[5]" and [6]).
This section of the article deals with the how relations with the Nazis affected and currently affect the mind-set of some (certainly not all) in the Arab world - The statements and material cited here have nothing to do with Israel, the comments are limited to those specifically about Jews. If you feel any of this information is inaccurate, feel free to add information that indicates this or provides a different point of view.
Like it or not, the Nazis did have somewhat good relations with the Arab world during World War 2, and after, since many Nazis fled to the Arab world after the war and were offered sanctuary. The lingering results of this relationship, which includes praise by Arab scholars for the Nazis' policies toward Jews (e.g. the Holocaust), are certainly relevant and notable.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC))
So you admit you are doing WP:SYNTH with a motive in mind. Anything more to add before I delete this rubbish? Zerotalk 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • New accusation, huh? Actually, I am not doing WP:SYNTH. I am citing specific sources of information from notable scholars - these are stand-alone statements - nowhere in this section are any conclusions drawn, nor are there any summary statements expressed or implied (except those cited by the scholars themselves). In other words, the material here contains examples and specific statements, it is not an essay or thesis attempting to prove or disprove something. It's certainly clear that you are drawing your own conclusion from this section (a conclusion you don't like), but that doesn't count.
    • I am open to renaming this section as something that perhaps is more to your liking. For the record, I didn't create this section (it has existed for some time now), although I have added material too it (I suggest you ask the person who initially created this section if he/she had a motive in mind - Of course, nobody who edits Wikipedia could possibly have a motive).
    • More importantly, what you call "rubbish" is a very serious matter (not least of which is the praise of Adolf Hitler by Arab scholars for committing the Holocaust). Your labelling of this material as this is "rubbish" (i.e. "something that is worthless or nonsensical") is both wrong and frankly, offensive.
    • I will also ask you again to not remove this material until this discussion is completed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

I wonder why we dont have articles, say, about Nazi relations with the Latin American world (lots and lots of old Nazis found safety there), or: Nazi relations with South Africa (same, same). Could it be that, (oh shock! oh horror!) someone is using Wikipedia to further a political agenda? Naaah, nobody would do such a thing, surely? We are all here to write an encyclopedia, righ? Sure....Huldra (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • "Political agenda?" Like someone removing material simply because they don't approve of it. That could never happen in Wikipedia (note: this is sarcasm). Also, if you want to create new pages dealing with Nazi relations with Latin America or South Africa, I encourage you to do so. Seriously though, I suggest you come up with a real argument instead of making extraneous rants.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC))

When you add an equal number of negative remarks made by Arabs against Nazis, I'll reassess your contribution. As for SYNTH, a fine example is to quote a MEMRI article that does not connect itself to the topic of this page. Zerotalk 00:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

May I recommend renaming the title? It's a bit of an odd title, as though there exists a Nazi government that has relations with Arab governments, while in reality this article only discusses that in the past and as for the present, focuses on Nazi sentiments in the Arab world. Maybe something like "Nazism and the Arab world" or along those lines. Thoughts? --Jethro B 23:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that would just facilitate the COATRACKing. There is too much of it already. The topic is already spread widely, see [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc etc. Zerotalk 00:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, you do have a point; This material is already covered in other Wikipedia pages (e.g. Antisemitism in the Arab world, Islam and Antisemitism. In the interest of compromise, I'll agree to remove this section and transfer its material (if relevant) to other Wikipedia articles.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC))
Zero, I didn't create this article and I'm not a major contributor here. I simply wanted to fix an error in the title that I found, not to contribute to any COATRACKing. How would the change coatrack though - while I can see you stating the article is a coatrack, I don't understand why the title change to a more accurate title that defines the article would be a coatrack. You said the topic is spread widely, but that would be the same whether or not the title is the way it is. If you're concerned about coatracking, I'd recommend proposing to merge this article into the Islam & anti-Semitism one. --Jethro B 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but you simply shouldn't make errors like confusing Arabs and Muslims. As for this article, it isn't the title that's the problem. It's a fine title for an article and defines a serious topic (as noted below). The problem is material that is irrelevant to the topic. Once you mix together things that aren't on the same subject, the article inevitably deteriorates. Zerotalk 12:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned Islam & anti-Semitism because that was an article example you gave. If you found that offensive, I apologize. --Jethro B 23:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With some work (focusing on the WWII era), this could be a decent article. Reputable authors such as Jeffrey Herf, Edwin Black, Gilbert Achcar, Klaus-Michael Mallmann, and others have written books and articles on the topic ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]). The squawking here about "Arab-bashing" is a straw-man argument. This is a notable topic covered fairly extensively in reliable sources. I'd like to remind Zero that simply adding "an equal number" of anti-Nazi quotes is not how NPOV works. We are supposed to present the prevailing view found in reliable sources, not give equal weight to opposing sides merely because they are opposing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I own books by all the people you mention, but you seem to have missed the point. The intent of the article as indicated by the title and the content until recently is "Nazi relations with the Arab world". It means the relationship that Nazi Germany (or before that, the Nazi party) had with the Arab world. It is a fine topic for an article. The stupid words said today by some obscure Arab are off-topic. Adding stuff peripheral to the topic in order to promote a viewpoint (in this case, the Arab=Nazi viewpoint) is the definition of coatracking. Zerotalk 12:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Obscure? Really? Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the most prominent (albeit controversial) theologians alive today. Likewise, Robert Wistrich and Bernard Lewis are very well-known (and also somewhat controversial). Muhammad Galaa Idris is certainly not as famous as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, but he is not just some random blowhole - he is the head of the Hebrew Studies Department at Tanta University in Egypt.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC))
If Wistrich and Lewis write about "Nazi relations with the Arab world", i.e. the actual topic of this page, their views are quite likely to be admissible. Indeed Lewis has an appropriate mention. However, the stuff that I just removed was not about "Nazi relations with the Arab world" but rather about the nature of modern radical Islam and besides that was misreported (the source actually only contains a claim about Wistrich and Lewis made by professional activist Malcolm Hoenlein). As for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, if a reliable source describes his involvement in "Nazi relations with the Arab world", that could be considered too, but all that was present was some cherry-picked modern comments he made. Muhammad Galaa Idris remains almost entirely unknown despite MEMRI's attempt to get propaganda value out of him. Zerotalk 03:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I see. So Yusuf al-Qaradawi praising Adolf Hitler on an internationally broadcast television program and expressing hope that the next genocide against Jews will be committed by "the believers" (whoever they may be) isn't relevant to the effects of Nazi relations with the Arab World? Likewise, Muhammad Galaa Idris is the head of the Hebrew Studies Department at Tanta University (i.e. he holds a high-level position at a major university) and is making these comments on an internationally broadcast television program. How is MEMRI reporting this constitute propaganda? This guy teaches Hebrew Studies, of all things. And this is not his only statement; He's also made a number of other highly insightful remarks about Jews (e.g. "The Jews Are Trying to Take Over the World" and his claim that the Pope is either a Jew or Has Been "Judaized"), but these are not included here as they don't specifically deal with Nazi relations or influence with/on the Arab world.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC))
I wonder if your first language is English. Do you understand that "relationships" occur between things that exist? Zerotalk 08:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my point why if we want to keep the material in this article, we need to rename this article. Or if we don't want to rename it, we need to merge some contents elsewhere. There's no denying that there's still Nazi elements in the Arab world, such as Mein Kampf being sold and widely read, or Nazi symbols I just saw in Tanzania (ok, technically not Arab). So the current title, if we're going to discuss the present in this article, just doesn't make sense. --Jethro B 15:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Renaming the article as you propose would inevitably lead to loads of politically-motivated rubbish being added. No thanks. Zerotalk 01:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I haven't even proposed what the title change would be in that comment, what makes you think it would do such a thing? I'm open to suggestions as well. I just think we can get better than this title, and which would allow us to keep the intended scope. --Jethro B 01:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. I would make the scope clearer by changing "Nazi" to "Nazi Germany", which is evidently what the original intention was and also what most people would assume on reading the existing title. How about that? Zerotalk 01:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
And then merge the rest (modern-day era) into other articles? Or at least, whatever fits? I support the idea, but I just want to make sure we're not simply removing a whole bunch of content without putting it in the appropriate spot. There actually isn't much else. --Jethro B 01:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, according to Mr. Merriam-Webster, a relationship is "the fact or state of having something in common." In this case, both Nazis and extremists (such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi) have something common - their attitudes toward Jews.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC))
Great, so let's include a section on pyramids; I'm sure you can discover that they have something in common with Arabs. Anyway, do you know the difference between a thesaurus and a dictionary? Here is Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition. Zerotalk 01:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous analogy. The pyramids are buildings - they are not a people, ideology, government, etc.. Comparing inanimate objects to governments/ideologies is pure nonsense. Also (and not that it matters), but I'm pretty sure the pyramids aren't invoked or cited by Arab scholars and academics when they express derogatory opinions about, or promote violence against, Jews.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC))


Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world". DrKiernan (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nazi relations with the Arab world → Nazi Germany-Arab world relations –

Alternatively, we could do "Nazi Germany's relations with the Arab world," but seems excessive to me, and most articles seem to follow the above format (for example Canada-France relations. This will allow for the scope to be for Nazi Germany solely. --Jethro B 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that "Germany-Arab" looks like a unit. Because of this, I prefer the longer version. Zerotalk 02:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Got it. What about "Nazi Germany and the Arab world's relations," which would at least stick to the formatting a bit more than the other proposed version. --Jethro B 03:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, though it isn't such great English. Zerotalk 11:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's semi-horrible English. The natural sounding phrase would be "Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that this title is confusing.
To open the scope and be more neutral, we could expand the article to Arab world during the Second World War.
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that would be a completely different article with different subject matter. Anyway, Arab-Nazi connections continued past WW2 (see the above-mentioned Alois Brunner and Johann von Leers)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would include military operations in the Arab world, trade, security, etc, and would be a different scope entirely. --Jethro B 21:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that would make the scope too wide. There is an extensive literature including multiple books devoted to the relationship that existed between Nazi Germany (and the German Nazi party), on one side, and Arab governments and organizations, on the other side. More than enough material for a good article. We just need to choose a title. "Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world" seems good to me. Zerotalk 11:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


The Holocaust in North Africa

That is an extremely bizarre spin on a 'The Holocaust and North Africa.' And the whole section is meaningless as written.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Tritomex (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz education

Subject Areas for Accepting Press Inquiries

Litigation/Trials/Criminal Process Rights Speech

Education

Brooklyn College A.B. 1959 Yale Law School LL.B. 1962

Appointments

Assistant Professor of Law, 1964 Professor of Law, 1967 Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, 1993

At Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary, Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, and more than 300 of his articles have appeared in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.

To describe him as unreliable political activist is POV;--Tritomex (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

He's a lawyer who is a passionate advocate on some matters, and without ascertainable scholarly credentials with respect to non-legal subjects. He shouldn't necessarily be excluded from this article, but he shouldn't be presented as an authority on the topic of the article. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There other academic sources that talk about the same thing [19]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Dershowitz's book is widely recognised as a polemic. In fact Dershowitz himself considers it a polemic, that's what the title means (he has appointed himself as Israel's attorney). AnkhMorpork's come-back is characteristically stupid. We don't have to disprove unreliable sources, we have to eliminate them. Zerotalk 12:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
No, we contextualise the claims of contentious academic sources and accord them due weight with reference to other views. In this event, the facts asserted are seemingly uncomplicated and have not been contradicted. Advocacy does not mean unreliability; what it does mean is that there will often be other POV's to be considered which you are encouraged to provide. Ankh.Morpork 14:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
He is printed in academic publishing house also its not really extraordinary claim as it collobrated by other sources like I showed before.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Dershowitz is fully reliable source. Anyone who has other opinion has to prove that he is not, off course with reliable sources. If he is good for NYT; WP; Harvard and Yale academic papers, he is good for this article as well.--Tritomex (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Btw This are further sources:Zionism, Post-Zionism & the Arab Problem: A Compendium of Opinions About the Jewish State By Yosef Mazur [20] Historical dictionary of the Holocaust By Jack R. Fischel[21]--Tritomex (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Zerotalk, but you can't exclude Alan Dershowitz or declare him unreliable simply because he is pro-Israel. Dershowitz's writings (just like those of most Academics who deal with this issue) have both their supporters and critics, most of whom also have strong views on the Israel-Palestine conflict.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC))
Dershowitz is Prof of law. Not historian. He is no more reliable than Albert Einstein on this article who is an article dealing with history. He is therere for not reliable here. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is absurd, Dershowitz is an expert in the field of American criminal law. You want to cite him on that subject do so to your hearts content. He has absolutely zero expertise in the field of Middle East history, and citing him as though he were is asinine. Seeing users who have challenged actual experts in the field elsewhere backing up the use of Dershowitz here is, well, funny. nableezy - 17:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy You used electronic intifada as a source on other article. Well, there is a difference between Dershowithz, a Harvard and Yale professor who has hundreds of academic articles related to ME conflict, which are being used as expertise in New York Times, Washington Times and all other important medias versus electronic intifada, which you clarified as "reliable source" But even beyond this another source Jack R. Fischel, "Historical dictionary of the Holocaust" was provided as direct reference too. This source also cover 100% the text used in this article. There are additional RS available, but I don't think they are needed.--Tritomex (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this, but where did I do such a thing? nableezy - 15:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Jack Fischel is a Professor of History and former chair of history department at Millersville University of Pennsylvania. His expertise are related to Holocaust and Arab-Israeli conflict.--Tritomex (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky's primary field was linguistics before he became a political analyst and commentator. By Nableezy's logic, anything written by Chomsky that doesn't deal with linguistics should be declared unreliable. The fact is that academics often write material on sources outside of their original field. Dershowitz is no different. You may not approve of his views (in fact, I'm sure you don't), but his writings are considered RS by Wikipedia standards. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC))
You are right. Chomsky is not reliable for this topic either and in fact for no topic on the Middle-East.
Anyway don't mix historical articles and news and polemic articles.
On a topic dealing with analysis of the foreign policy of Israel, he is not reliable either but there, his mind is acceptable if attributed given he is a recognised advocate in that field. Dershowitz is exactly at the same level.Pluto2012 (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Everybody, including everybody here, knows that in the Middle East domain Dershowitz is an activist and not a scholar. Stop playing games, we all know the same facts here. Zerotalk 22:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You're just talking semantics. When it comes to the Middle East (or any other controversial topic), nearly everybody is considered an "activist" by those who disagree with them. Dershowitz's extensive academic and legal experience certainly qualify him as a reliable source. Dershowitz is recognized as an authoritative source on the Middle East conflict - yes, there are those who strongly disagree with him (such as (former) professor Norman "Satanic State" Finkelstein) - but that doesn't mean Dershowitz isn't a reliable source.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC))
Dershowitz legal expertise and career as a legal scholar do not qualify him a reliable source for a serious historical encyclopedia article. Whether a source reliable or not is dependent on the context. Dershowitz would certainly be a reliable source in certain circumstances, but not for facts in historical article. Dlv999 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If, as editors have asserted above, the material cited to Dershowitz is available elsewhere, why not use the other sources? Dershowitz and Chomsky are both self-proclaimed experts who have strong opinions, but that doesn't make either of them reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. If the material in question can be cited from sources that we all agree with, this whole argument is effectively a moot.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
The assertion that a legal expert can not be taken as an expert in Arab-Israeli conflict is very dangerous. How than we can use newspaper articles related to historic events, if they are not written by historians? By this logic Norman Finkelstein for example, cant be taken as an expert in any historic question of Israeli-Arab conflict which is not current, as he is not historian too. In my opinion, despite the fact that everybody knows that Norman Finkelstein is an activist as well as a political science expert, he was reliable source in historic questions as well. So this assertion could have/will have broader implication to many other articles, not to this one, as in this case all material is backed by another source, namely Jack R. Fischel, "Historical dictionary of the Holocaust" while Fischel is historian himself. I hope as a result of our discussion anyone who believes that experts involved in political activism related to ME conflict and experts who are not historians can not be used as sources in historic questions, will avoid to use them in any of their editions.--Tritomex (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no doubt that we can look forward to many similar disputes on other Wikipedia pages.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
On articles that are related with history, editors has to come with wp:rs sources (read historians with academic and their pairs'credit on the topic that is studied) and in these case, material and analysis are welcome.
On articles dealing with Gaza rockets or bombing, BDS, islamism, terrorism, apartheid, Israel international policy, ... or such stuff, Dershowitz can be considered as having enough recknown to be quoted. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It is easy to see how scholarly Dershowitz is in relation to the stuff people want to quote from him. Just look at his sources. Rather than the archival documents, or at least citation of peer-reviewed analysis that a genuine scholar would provide, Dershowitz got most of it from rants of Sarah Hönig, well known as the Jerusalem Post's most right-wing (former?) commentator. In particular, he cites the article reprinted here which is full of wild claims and arrant nonsense. Only slightly better as a source is Icon of Evil, see the reviews cited there as a good indication of how it was received. Finally, if Tritomex thinks Finkelstein is somehow an equivalent example, I look forward to seeing Tritomex adding Finkelstein's demolition of Dershowitz's claims. Personally I won't be citing either of them. Zerotalk 08:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The attempt removal of well sourced material by Pluto, without having any consensus was serious violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Even if anyone dispute Dershowitz, all the material was already sourced by Fischel, and all material has high quality academic references based on Historic Dictionary of Holocaust. I do not think Finkelstein "demolished" any of Dershowitz claims, nor I think that we as editors, should take sides on Arab-Israeli conflict with such assertions.--Tritomex (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Further sources:

1.The Gramsci Factor: 59 Socialists in Congress By Chuck Morse

[22]

2.Israel on Israel - Page 71 Michel Korinman, John Laughland

3.Jihad as-sagir. Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen: Ein Beitrag zum ...By Thomas Tartsch

[23]

4.#A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic JihadBy David Patterson

[24]

--Tritomex (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So you know how to use google, congratulations. Now, how about a reliable source? Zerotalk 09:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
See a more complete discussion of the matter here. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Pluto you are doing vandalism, with removal of well sourced material without consensus. Further vandalism should be reported. --Tritomex (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The dictionary of Holocaust is academic work, written by well respected historian. Not a single evidence was ever presented that Jack R. Fischel is not RS.--Tritomex (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Zero0000 if you think that Jack R. Fischel a professor of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania is not reliable, that his academic work "Historic Dictionary of Holocaust" is also not reliable, provide us please with some sources. If any of quotation from his book are challenged as lies by any reliable source I will revert myself.--Tritomex (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I looked at that source. It is just a dump of the worst claims with no sources and no critical separation of established facts and dubious allegations. I also searched for evidence of expertise in Palestinian affairs and found none. Actually it is of depressingly poor quality and barely more than an anti-Arab rant. No, Al-Husseini did not organize the "Nazi scouts". No, the Handschar did not commit atrocities against Jews, they were all dead or in camps before the Handschar was mobilized. No, he absolutely was not "declared a Nazi war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials". These are all well-known bits of nonsense copied around between biased authors. The problem you face is that some of us here actually care about the quality of these articles. There is simply no way rubbish like this is going to stay, please stop wasting our time. Zerotalk 14:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed another strange error in Fischel's encyclopedia, one that I didn't see anywhere else. In the article on Adolf Eichmann, p65, he writes "In 1937, he visited Palestine and met with Zionist groups that were involved in Aliya Bet..." This surprised me, because usually people (like the ignoramus Dershowitz in Case for Israel) claim that he went to Palestine and met al-Husayni. In fact (sorry to use that word here), even though his intention was to talk to Zionist groups and maybe al-Husayni as well, the British would only give him a transit visa and he spent an afternoon sight-seeing. This is not disputed by experts. Zerotalk 15:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Academic works by well respected historians are being consistently removed. Your dislike of their views does not them unreliable. Ankh.Morpork 20:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Zeero000, Still, I did not heard or saw any document, claim or scholarly work challenging quotes from Al-Husseini memoirs as mentioned in numerous scholarly works, which I have presented. Also I did not see any scholarly work which disregard Fischel as unreliable.

Page 65 is not accessible through google books, so I cant comment on what I am not able read. Considering my home country, ex Yugoslavia, not all Jews were deported by 1943 and what Fischel states regarding Yugoslav authorities is absolutely correct. Husseini was wanted by Yugoslav authorities. Although most of the crimes and massacres committed by Hadžar were aimed against Serbian and Romani victims, the "Black book of Holocaust in Yugoslavia", printed by Federation of Jewish community in Yugoslavia in 1950, documents at least 30 Jewish individuals killed by Handžar division. Considering Scouts, you are again wrong. It is well known that Al-Futuwwa Hitler youth style scout organization was established in Palestine. Such scout organization existed in Lod and Jerusalem and there are French and Hebrew Wikipedia articles related tot his subject. Al-Futuwwa Palestine is also mentioned by numerous academic books. For example [25]--Tritomex (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to discuss with you because you are just a "googler" who try to discover evidence step by step. We cannot wait for years so that you can learn the whole of this topic. Futuwwa was not a "nazi scout". That was a youth organisation exactly like Betar, Gadna or al-Najjada.
Would you be there to develop the encyclopaedia, you would not have missed that these links are given on the French wikipedia. You are new, with a fighting spirit, just to push a point (Husseini is an anti-semite Nazi) without any know-how on the topic (which is complex)and without any know-how of wikipedia policies. You are not even able to ident properly. Take some distance, read books from beginning to the end, from Pappé to Karsh passing by Morris and up to Nurse if you have time to lose but come and edit articles dealing with these topics after you have done so. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources are reliable and those who wish to deny this are pushing political agenda here.Pappé is questionable in reliability as he is Pro/Palestinian activist. Al-Futuwwa was a Nazi youth organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.57.153 (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Heh, Dershowitz is a brilliant defence lawyer, no doubt about that. He helped to "prove" that O. J. Simpson was innocent, remember? Somehow, after that I´m not really surprised that also manage to "prove" that Israel is always innocent, and "prove" that the Mufti (or any other Palestinian) did/said the most vile things.;-P
As for Jack Fischel being an academic, yeah, sure: but (as often has been argued before): we don´t write that 240 people were murdered at Deir Yassin, even though there are dozens, if not hundreds of sources of at least of "Jack Fischel-stature" which say so. Why not? Because we now know better. And this has been served, in detail, on Talk:Haj Amin al-Husseini. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Dershowitz has no independent knowledge of the subject. He is not an historian. He gets so many elementary facts wrong it is painful to read his books on this subject. He uses as do Dalin, Tartsch, Fischel et al., mediocre 'historians' memes floating in books that have been long pensioned off as RS because superceded. No one, even I/P editors, with an interest in this subject, which is overwhelmed by intensive, prodigiously meticulous scholarship under university imprint, should be touching crap like that. The suspicion of course that this datum is being "repressed" by POV editors. If any repression is going on, it is in scholarly sources of the highest quality. By the same logic, Shrike, Tritomex and others are simply putting that 'stuff' in because it fits a manichaean POV that sees the world in terms of black (Arabs) and white (the good guys). So desist from this futile attempt to distort the aims of wikipedia for reliably sourced, factual and neutral articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that al-Futuwwah didn't exist; I said that Amin al-Husayni was not the organizer of it (so Fischel is wrong). It was mainly the work of Emil al-Ghawri. During the planning stages it was for a short while called "Nazi Scouts" (Porath vol. 2, p76), but the name was changed to al-Futuwwah before the first organizational meeting. This was in the mid 1930s when many people, including many in the Zionist right-wing, were fascinated by the energy of Nazism. Authors who refer to it only by its brief planning name without explanation are showing their true colors. Btw, Fischel's encyclopedia comes under WP:TERTIARY; we are not supposed to use such sources for details if good secondary sources are available. Zerotalk 23:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone find a mention of the "Jews are yours" claim before 2001? Or a real citation to an actual source with publication details and page number? I'm thinking that Finkelstein is probably correct that Sarag Honig invented it. Dershowitz cited it to Honig, and Dalin&Rothman (proving their lack of interest in the truth) cite it to Dershowitz. It was also copied in an internet article by Isseroff and someone else and from there copied to many places. Zerotalk 23:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Handschar, I stand by my claim. The Handschar was never sent in operation against Jews. Of course there were some individual Jews killed, since there were Jews among the partisans. Killing partisans who happen to be Jews is not "atrocities against Jews", nor is killing individual Jews who happen to be hiding within some other targeted group, like a village targeted for reprisal, unless they were specifically targeted for being Jews. I agree Fischel is correct about Yugoslavia; this is already in the article. He is incorrect about Nuremberg, like I said. Zerotalk 23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that anyone intended to present Handžar as an important culprit in extermination of ex-Yugoslavian Jews. It is truth the involvement of Handžar in Jewish Holocaust was limited to 30 individual cases. This was not the case regarding Gypsies, or Serbs. In my opinion what at least 4 editors here objected, was the fact that while the quotations from Al-Husseini memoirs were backed up by numerous sources, including respected academic historians, not a single source was ever presented denying those quotes. If those quotes would be falls, as they are cited in dozens of newspaper articles, blogs, historic and political books, it looks beyond imaginable that no one ever denied them.--Tritomex (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As Still there are no evidence against the fact that Jack R. Fischel is WP:RS as I do claim, and as his book reference was removed, although under WP:NPOV has place in this article, and it is secondary source despite the name encyclopedia, because it is classical historic book I have to reopen this dialogue as I intend to challenge the claim that Fischel is not reliable.--Tritomex (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:BURDEN. It is completely ridiculous to call Fischel's encyclopedia a "classical history book". Anyone can see it is just an encyclopedia meant for the general public, though I don't think he made much money out of it since it gets remarkably few mentions. Moreover, Fischel's presence in serious Holocaust literature is negligible and I don't know of a single original finding that is credited to him. We don't use tertiary sources when high quality secondary sources are available. The "Jews are yours" claim, which doesn't even make sense, was almost certainly invented by Sarah Honig in 2001. I have a source which can be quoted on that, but the correct approach is to keep low level dross out of the article altogether. Zerotalk 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I am wrong regarding my opinion that Fischel book is historic book, still I am sure that his book is WP:RS: Even encyclopedic works can not be excluded under WP:TERTIARY if they are reliable.

Of course I don't have intention to edit something that is not WP:RS; so if you have WP:RS stating that the quotes in question were "invented by Sarah Honig in 2001." please share it with us in order to avoid unnecessary prolongation of this issue. As I stated above Fischel is academic historian and a reliable source under all Wikipedia criteria.--Tritomex (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Finkelstein wrote that Honig invented it. I don't usually use Finkelstein as a source because he is generally below the standard I try to maintain, but his credentials are as good as Fischel's. I believe Finkelstein is correct, because there doesn't seem to be any source earlier than Honig's 2001 article nor any source that provides a proper primary source (such as an actual citation to al-Husayni's memoirs, which are published and not hard for a scholar to access). All English versions I have seen use the same wording that Honig used, proving they are not independent translations, and none give a source that doesn't lead back to Honig (usually via Dershowitz, who cites Honig directly). Moreover, none of the serious scholars of al-Husayni (Medoff, Elpeleg, Mattar, Breitman, de Luca, etc) who quote from al-Husayni's diaries extensively mention this "quote" as far as I can tell. Not even the Zionist hacks Perlmann or Schectmann have it, nor does the Nation Associates' large document collection, nor does Herf's recent scholarly-but-biased book. The reason only activists like Finkelstein bother refuting it is that serious scholars don't consider claims without sources to be claims at all, especially if they are ridiculous on their face. The idea that al-Husayni would write such things in his memoirs is preposterous, since (whether it's true or not) his memoirs in fact attempted to prove he did not have such motives (discussed at length by Elpeleg, Achcar, etc). Zerotalk 11:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
One more comment. I showed above that Fischel made at least three clear errors in his article, showing his unreliability. Zerotalk 12:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Here 1947 source cited [26]maybe someone could get it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Its clear now from this source, that this quote was not invented in 2001 and under WP:NPOV has to be added to this and Hajj Amin Al-Husseini article. If this quote is not mentioned in another academic book that does not disqualify it from being reliable. Zero, please explain under which Wikipedia policy rule, you want this quote to be excluded.--Tritomex (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's a 2003 book attributing the quote to a previously unknown 1947 text. Can anybody find reference to the alleged 1947 text by "Nations Associates", because I'm not able to. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have found in Harvard Library [27] I have asked user:GabrielF to make the source available.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Nice work. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I already mentioned the 1947 Nation Associates source. It is a 74-page booklet full of photos and copies of documents in German, Arabic and French with English translations. I obtained it a few years ago with quite a lot of effort. I spent more than an hour looking for this alleged quotation and did not find it, so I am pretty sure it is not there. Some of what is there is pretty damning (if true), but also well known and mostly in wikipedia already. Two reasons supporting my inability to find it in this source are (1) Zionist writers like Schechtmann who copied from this source extensively don't have it, (2) the Mufti had not written his memoirs yet (according to Achcar, p152, he wrote them between 1967 and 1974, and Elpeleg says that too). The closest thing to "memoirs" in the 1947 source is the Mufti's diary. There are photocopies of five handwritten pages related to his meeting with Hitler and an English translation. The English version is identical to Schechtman's Appendix 2 in "The Mufti and the Fuehrer" and consists mostly of Husayni's recollection of Hitler's words. There is nothing like "The Jews are yours" in there; anyway this meeting is already covered in Wikipedia from multiple sources. This 2003 book that pretends to cite the 1947 source is a piece of crap, as anyone can see at a glance and the fact that someone had to invent a source for this quote just emphasizes its unreliability. Zerotalk 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Notice how the same page of the 2003 crap source cites two other things to the same article of Sarah Honig that I believe is the real source for "the Jews are yours". One of the two things cited to Honig does not appear in Honig's article at all. Seems this source can't even get the simple ones right. Zerotalk 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
But this says its 9 p. does it means plates or pages? [28].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
9 numbered pages of text plus 60+ pages of plates and facsimiles. Zerotalk 01:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
My memory was defective about Finkelstein. Although Finkelstein attacks Dershowitz for uncritically copying quotations from Hönig, this is not one of the quotations he lists (Beyond Chutzpah, p277). Sorry about that. On the other hand, I also forgot that Tom Segev (whose credentials are vastly better than both Fischel's and Finkelstein's) calls this story "alleged and highly unlikely" and adds "there is an official German record of his meeting with Hitler that contains no such statement." (NYT, Sep 28, 2008). Zerotalk 09:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Other sources give 72 pages (there was a French and an English version, unless I am mistaken). In any case, citing a source without citing the page, is bad practice, esp. in cases like this, where source misreportage or invention is a thick part of the history of al-Husayni studies. Elpeleg has just published his speeches (2012), and Wolfgang Schwanitz promises more fascinating details will emerge. Unless Shrike or Gabriel's independent verification can produce the exacty page from the Nation Associates report where this comment is putatively registered, books like Herschel's, which repeat this meme, should not be trusted, as failing WP:V and WP:RS. Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not see it from Tom Segev, in fact I found in article presented by you that this quotes comes from Husseini memoirs.--Tritomex (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
No you didn't. You found that Segev writes that Dalin&Rothman cited it to the memoirs, which he calls a "quite arguable source". Segev never claims to have checked it, rather he says he doesn't believe it even on the assumption Dalin&Rothman are citing it correctly. This is a even stronger dismissal that says we shouldn't use it even if it does turn out to be in the memoirs. Zerotalk 08:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
And this is an interesting comment from Segev. It reminds us that wikipedia policy warns against using primary sources. Here we a tertiary historian who refer to a primary source. Even if what he says is right and that the information is indeed in the primary source, it cannot used directly without double check and such double checks are expected from historians and when the claims is important or polemical it should be expected from several historians or at least a specialist (recknown biographer). We are very far from having a specialist here and we cannot give credit to him.
Have in mind Azzam Pacha's quote that was never broadcasted on May 14, 1948 despite what numerous reliable sources state...
All this is complex but becomes simple if people just try to dig in books. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

scope

Nearly this entire diff is outside of the scope of this article. This is an article on the relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world. The entirety of the post-war section is outside of the article's scope. It is also replete with unreliable sources, sources that are vaguely familiar to me. I'm fairly certain that this discussion has been had on another page, but Ill deal with that later. In the meantime, I am removing the section as it is not part of the topic of the article. nableezy - 03:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you propose to make another article for such relations?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Much of it I don't know anything about and can't attest to; however -- as I said above -- Alois Brunner and Johann von Leers are quite relevant... AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-War Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab World

Dear Nableezy,

The 'Post-War' section to this article ('Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab World') has been published since (at least) early October, 2012. The section was very sparse, however, and only mentioned the roles of two notorious German Nazis who had taken refuge in the Arab World after the end of WWII. This, however, is a only a very small part of the story of Post-War Nazi-Arab relations, so I attempted to rectify this paucity of very relevant information.

Why was it acceptable for a 'Post War' section to exist in this article for four months, and then delete the entire section as 'Out of Scope' when relevant information was added?

The sources in the 'Post War' are very reliable. You have written that it is "replete with unreliable sources...." That is simply not true. I'd appreciate if you could detail which sources you believe are unreliable and why you don't consider them reliable. If you make a reasonable case I'll gladly remove the offending source(s), or find sources that are more acceptable to a consensus of editors. For instance, I think we can all agree that 'O Jerusalem' is a reputable and reliable source. Do you agree? I'm asking since it would be useful to establish our standards of 'reliability' on this subject. If you can accept the reliability and non-partisan neutral point-of-view of 'O Jerusalem' then we can document much of the 'Post War' section from that highly esteemed source.

Again: Please explain why you consider the cited sources unreliable.

Perhaps your point is that the history of 'Nazi Germany' ended with VE Day, and it should not permissible to discuss the role 'Nazi Germans' after that date. I propose that is not a reasonable position, since that would make discussions of post-WWII Nazi organizations (eg ODESSA) practically impossible to discuss. It is also very relevant that so many Nazis, both Germans and Arabs, collaborated in anti-Zionist actions before, during, and after WWII. The influence of Nazi Germany on Arab anti-Zionist politics is demonstrably far-reaching. The elimination of this topic amounts to suppression of historical facts,

In short, it appears that you have deleted the 'Post-War' section inappropriately, and it will be mis-informative to the Wikipedia readership for that section to remain censored. Please, let's have a discussion about this and see if we can reach a consensus. If I do not hear from you (or others) with valid arguments then I'll undo Nableezy's deletions and restore the 'Post-War' section.

In the meantime I'll attempt to improve this article by adding information on the pre-VE-Day history of the Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab World. Ronreisman (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The scope of the article is Nazi Germany's relations with the Arab world. After the fall of Nazi Germany no such thing existed. I really dont see the confusion here. nableezy - 06:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, so we should probably talk more about this and reach consensus. In the meantime I'm removing the ref. to NYT article on Aribert Heim until consensus is reached on appropriate scope of 'Postwar' history in this article. It's a pretty interesting ref, incidentally, and I recommend it to you. You may find after looking it over and considering the content that it does add useful information and context to this particular article. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this subject.Ronreisman (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronreisman (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page was vandalized by "174.93.160.188" who "Replaced content with 'This page is not available.'" on 01:24, 17 February 2013‎ . This vandalism was 'undone' by Eyesnore four minutes later (thanks Eyesnore! :-).

There also seems to be a tendency for some 'editors' to delete information they apparently admit is true and reliable, and to excuse their actions by claiming that the 'wrong' sources are being cited.

Although such suppression of information may be tolerable in the give-and-take of civilized talk, it appears that the effort to suppress the contents of this Wikipedia entry has escalated, as evidenced by the recent vandalism.

Accordingly, further suppression of factual information should now be curtailed, and anyone who knowingly 'lies by omission' may be reported for vandalism.

Ronreisman (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world/Archive_1&oldid=1136236683"