Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazism in Arab Palestine


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Courcelles 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nazism in Arab Palestine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Major POV; article was created by an account (Trendsies) whose edit history seems to suggest a tendency toward POV-pushing on his/her part. Relies on unreliable sources (Walid Shoebat, NewsMax, etc.) Also potentially defamatory in the way it discusses Mahmoud Abbas. Given that Abbas (along with Israeli and American leaders) are currently taking part in peace talks, this is a very sensitive topic and it almost seems like this article could be interpreted as an attempt to sabotage the peace talks by pushing a "Palestinians are Nazis" smear. Anyone who supports the ultimate goal of peace in the Middle East should be very concerned about this article and the mindset/POV it promotes. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to push propaganda. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing POV about stating Haj Amin al-Husayni's links and pacts with the Nazis, nor about other dominant Palestinians such as the head of the Al-Ahram in action and request from Herr Wolf to create an Arab Nazi Party, or the arms agreement with the Nazis, or holocaust denial and Hitler-worshipping today in the territories.Historianism (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - very little about the purported topic, "Nazism in Arab Palestine", but basically a WP:COATRACK of every connection to fascism in the Arab world that someone could dredge up, in addition to more COATRACK sections and BLP violations pertaining to alleged Holocaust revisionism/denial and so on. The small amount of legitimate information here is either already in more appropriate articles (such as the al-Husseini article) or is presented completely without context. Also concur with the nominator's comments. Gatoclass (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What "context" do you want it if not the most related term 'Nazism' It's not just about Haj Amin, I see there many more personalities. And what about adopting Nazi ideas in Palestinian propaganda?Historianism (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is passing reference made to a handful of obscure groups and/or individuals, practically no detail on any of them at all or in what way they were "Nazi" or associated with such, or how influential they were. It basically looks like an article concocted from odd mentions in a google search. The I-P conflict as I'm sure you realize remains an important issue that affects the lives of millions, it's important we get articles on this topic right, this article is far from meeting an appropriate standard. Gatoclass (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that this article relies on many unreliable sources (some books listed in the reference section could be considered reliable, but I am not sure) and seems to push a particular POV against our policy.— Chris! c / t 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I actually tried to improve this article by deleting some of the wildest unsourced claims and POV material, and tagging some of the other claims, but I gave up when I realised there were large parts of it that were simply unsalvageable - some I couldn't even make sense out of, much less making sense of the supposed sources or establishing their reliability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is also uncannily similar in intent and tone to the now-deleted article Nazism in the Middle East (I'm not sure if it would qualify as a "recreation" or not, but it's pretty close). That article's creator, Cimicifugia, hasn't edited since June; Trendsies' account was created in July. I'm wondering if Cimicifugia and Trendsies are the same person. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious coatrack for seriously POV claims.--TM 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOR. The page creator apparently has a POV to push. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - most of the sources are not RS (either obviously biased, or self-published) and what little real content there is isn't enough to base an article on. Blatant WP:WEASEL on a lot of the assertions, and a distinct lack of notability for some of the others. Roscelese (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Coatrack article, absolutely shameful that someone would post this crap to Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 03:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendsies (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments, Trendsies. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yoninah. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yoninah and Malik. This is OR and COATRACKING. Avi (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for all of the above reasons and the lack of any redeeming features. The article in its current form is just a selective dump of allegations mostly made by political activists for Israel. Some are true and some are not, but the bringing together of this material to create an overall case is such an obvious and blatant violation of WP:SYNTH that the article should have been speedy-deleted rather than brought here. Zerotalk 06:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYNTH COATRACK. Concur with almos all of the above arguments for deletion.  T i a m u t talk 06:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is not a bad article, but is a mess of a coatrack, an exemplar of the genre. It has a nice image, is well-cited, and looks fine, but synthesizes and cherry picks the worse of Anti-Zionism and conflates it with being Neo-Nazi. The article has been created at a particularly inauspicious time, when the Peace Process has started up again, and several sources have accused Wikipedia of being too pro-Isreal or too pro-Palestinian. I would be agreeable to incubation of this article by someone else, but I would not touch it with a ten-foot stick. I am still considered suspect by some for tcreatign the wholly NPOV Palestinian law, and as a sysop I need to remain neutral on such substantive issues. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's not really a reason why it should not be kept on, such a historic and current important issue. It is not mainly based on W. Shoebat, what POV is there in Arab-Nazi cooperation? as to Mahmoud Abbas, it is not stated as afact but that it's "claimed" so. if yopu have a counter view with a RS, just post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trendsies (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  — Trendsies (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - synthesized coatrack.  nableezy  - 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems that the problem is the name of the article rather than its content. After all, WP does have an article called "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" which brings false or at least highly controversial claims about Israel, based on the fact that people so claim. Why not have an article about the well-documented relations of the Arab Palestinian leadership with the Nazi leadership? The article should be called "Palestinian nationalism and Nazism" or something similar, in order to avoid taking side. 79.183.54.151 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - Here are some proofs that the issue of Palestinian nationalism and Nazism is a well-known subject in historian literature: Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine; The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini; A review of "The Crescent and the Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine" (trying to prove that ALL Palestinians were not supporters of the Nazis, i.e. at least some of them were); British National Archives unveil presence of Nazi S.S. agents in Mandatory Palestine, working closely with Palestinian leaders; there are plenty more, all it takes is a Google search. 79.183.54.151 (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first link, Nazi Palestine, appears to be a book about Nazi plans for Palestine, not about "Nazism in Arab Palestine". The second is worthless, a book written by a radio show host, but even that appears to be about al-Husseini, whose links to the Nazis are already well documented. The third link actually states that Palestinians did not generally share Nazi sentiments. The fourth is just reporting on recently released primary documents whose significance has yet to be determined by secondary sources, although it should already be clear it's of little significance since Nazi weapons never made it into the hands of Palestinians. Gatoclass (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When people complained about articles like "Israel and apartheid analogy" they were confronted with the claim that false accusations and analogies are still existing theories that are worth writing about. I assume your reading list includes all the aforementioned sources and others, otherwise you wouldn't judge them with such certitude. But even if you are right, the claim exists and is worth writing about. Otherwise, we will all have to admit that anti-Israeli defamation are worth writing about while anti-Palestinian stuff is forbidden. Is that the conclusion you want us to draw? 79.183.54.151 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the "Israel and the apartheid analogy" page, take your concerns to the talk page in question. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for opposing political views, it's a project for making available accurate, reliably sourced, neutrally presented information. If you think your task here is to "balance" articles you deem "anti-Israel" with "anti-Palestinian" articles, you are in the wrong place. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Israel and the apartheid analogy" is notable because notable people espouse it and because notable people oppose it, and have done so in notable venues/publications. This is completely unlike the theory in question here, which is sourced to self-published works and Islamophobes. Roscelese (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Despite some of the comments here, most of the information is quite accurate.  Do not let wikipedia become another mouthpiece for "anti-Zionist" propaganda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.0.59 (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)  — 172.190.0.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete more pushing of the "arabs/palestinians" are Nazi's meme. Propoganda is what this is. Furthermore, while the Third Reich was very active in the region at the time, many Arabs did support germany in World War II (for complex reasons) and some were/are antisemitic that isn't "nazism."Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Has someone been canvassing offwiki? Two of the three "keep" comments above are from IP addresses with no other contributions. Looks very suspicious to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Geolocation data shows that one is from Bat Yam, Israel, while the other one is from Reston, Virginia. At least that shows they aren't the same person... Stonemason89 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it legitimate to spy on people who express their view on a Wikipedia page? Could I ask other people here to say where they are from and what their background is?
 * If you don't want people "spying" on you, you should create an account. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The suspicious activity is about 10 or so "delete" users that have posted their view in such a short time... Is it organized?Historianism (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article conflates the topics of Nazi Germany's policy towards Palestine, collaboration of some Palestinian arabs with the Nazis, anti-Zionism in Palestine and antisemitism in Palestine. They are all topics that should be covered by Wikipedia, but to conflate them in this way is original research by synthesis. The ideology of Nazism classifies Arabs as non-Aryan untermenschen, so to call the views of any Arabs "Nazism" is simply ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Phil Bridger that this article conflates the topics of Nazi Germany's policy towards Palestine, collaboration of some Palestinian Arabs with the Nazis, anti-Zionism in Palestine and antisemitism in Palestine. They are all topics that should be covered by Wikipedia, but to conflate them in this way is original research by synthesis. On the other hand some Neo-nazi non-white groups really exists so his last sentences are his OR/POV. --Dezidor (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neo-Nazi is not the same as Nazi. In such a sensitive area we need to be very careful about terminology. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Philbridger is correct. Neo-Nazi groups often have very different ideologies from the original Nazis; for another extreme example, read about the Gay Nazi Party. Dezidor is also correct in pointing out that non-"Aryan" neo-Nazi groups exist; in fact, the one he linked to (Tsagaan Khass) has an article on Wikipedia, which I received a DYK credit for writing. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! The fact of Arabs being a non-Aryan nation didn't stop the Arab leadership to worship Hitler's ideology.Historianism (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It is an article about a notable topic. The article is well-referenced with a wide range of WP:RS. I fear that WP:COATRACK is being used as a mere pretext for deletion when the true motivation for this article's nomination (and many of the subsequent votes for deletion) is primarily political. Regardless, given that Germany had a heavy political and military influence in North Africa and the Middle East during the Second World War, it should come as no surprise to anyone that some Arab leaders enjoyed close political ties to Nazi Germany. It would be absurd to suggestion otherwise. Personally, I find such information rather notable. If anyone thinks this controversial subject is misleading or misrepresents the truth of the political relationships between Nazi Germany and Arab communities, then they should edit the article accordingly (with WP:RS). The process of RfD does not exist so that politically motivated editors can censor content that makes them uncomfortable. BlueRobe (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep strong keep, the claim that Neo Nazis are a of a different creed has nothing to do with real Muft's Nazi alliance, (real) Nazi propaganda then and now and Hitler's (sam'o same-old) Mein Kampf best-selling in Gaza.Rue du stand (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC) — Rue du stand (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reading Mein Kampf does not imply that one is a Nazi. If it did, then Glenn Beck would be a Nazi. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just random reading...  The best-seller fact of Mein-kampf, tells volume. So is: "Hitler is a youth idol" (in the Palestinian areas) as reported in the article.Rue du stand (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - guys, are you really going to censor Wikipedia because it contains something you don't like? There is lots of stuff on this, you need to keep this article and make it better. Read the sources, don't pretend that they don't exist. I've got a stack of books on my living room floor that talk about the Palestinian/Nazi connection. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I have no axe to grind, I've just not blinded myself to the truth to avoid offending Palestinians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.182 (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I can't see one legitimate reason here besides spinning around the isssues, Yes! Nazism in Arab Palestine is a historic fact and its effect (and even some continuation by some in Artab-Palestine today) is still very much on. Here's more about what an author calls "Palestinian Nazism" Historianism (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth is that guy a reliable source, or even notable? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the arguments stated above for deletion --NSH001 (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * sigh, Keep and rewrite but I do wish that editors would slow down and use good sources and write carefully. However the fact that this article is carelessly written and erratically courced does not alter the fact that there is a real topic here.   Although fascism is discredited today, it was a highly influential and wildly popular political movement in the 1930's.   There was a Syrian Social Nationalist Party, modeled on you-know-which-National-Socialist-model, there were many British officers and government officials who cheered Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco on (some silently, some in print) the large and influential community of Palestinian Templers (religious believers) were enthusiastic Nazia almost to the last man and woman (which is why when the war started Britain deported them to darkest Australia,) and of course there were Arab Palestinians who worked hand-in-glove with the Nazis.  Why should the Palestinian Arabs have been immune to the allure of Nazism when so many Brits and Frenchmen and Danes, and Dutch and Swedes and Norwegians thought Hitler and his Nazi ideas were wonderful?   Nazism in Arab Palestine is not someting out of  Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Real-life Palestinian Arabs were enthusiastic Nazis, the leading example is Mohammad Amin al-Husayni but he was not alone.   Certainly this topic merits an article.  Equally certainly this article needs better editing and sourcing.  But inadequacy is not an argument for deletion.   It is an argument for improvement.AMuseo (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix up. There is some serious POV coatracking towards the end of the article, but Nazism in Arab Palestine is an actual and important topic. Anyone who wasn't aware of this should read the ample high-quality sources provided in the article. The nom's statement is entirely based on ad hominem and appeal to motive. Gatoclass' idea of moving the good material in this article to Haj Amin al-Husseini is surprising, since the topic and the good material are clearly broader than that one individual. The rest of the delete votes are either WP:VAGUEWAVEs or not policy based at all. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep No one has provided one good reason for its removal, the only disputed to be maybe of an unreliable source might be walid shoebat.Ip101 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — Ip101 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * User: Ip101 is obviously extremely biased in regards to I-P conflict issues, as evidenced by the ranting, alarmist content of his user page (which I have nominated for speedy deletion). Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete blatant pov-pushing articles such as these made by blow-horn driven editors need to be dealt with summarily.--vvarkey (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep obviously Stonemason89 (whose contributeions includes bias-against-Jews ) is trying push his POV here.Lawsmass (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC) — Lawsmass (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * that is not a reason. you need to comment on the article, not the editors. --vvarkey (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vvarkey. You are wrong, since the creator of this deletion/suggestion has a blatant POV agenda and bases his entire suggestions to delete arguing that it is a POV. pot calling kettle...


 * Keep Stating facts are not a pov issue. In fact it needs to expand. There's some serious stuff like the cooperation between Nazis and Palestinians incorporating Hitleristic propaganda and sharing activities. In a total "unrelated" news... Pro-Palestinian supporters shout: "Hamas, Hamas Jews to the Gas..."RolesRoice (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC).


 * I find this recent delete vote from you amusing Roles. .Bali ultimate (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How's this related to this discussion? Spying on me? Please avoid personal attacks or blogging/spamming off-topic.RolesRoice (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's related to an us/them worldview. It demonstrates the you just vote your "side" and is therefore, salient to the weight one should give your opinions and statements. (for what it's worth, i would have voted to delete that crap article as well)Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And voting to keep a different crap article that was almost the mirror image of the one you voted to delete minutes later is likewise amusing and very enlightening.  nableezy  - 17:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.