Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis)


 * 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   Keep. Closed early per rewrite, subsequent consensus, and withdrawal by nominator. (Disclosure: asked by nominator to review discussion and close. Have done so.) FT2 (Talk 02:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-neutral point of view fork from the Mahmoud Abbas article. Cherry-picked quotations are not taken from the original text but instead copied from translations made by questionably reliable sources. While the author of this dissertation is certainly notable, the dissertation itself is not notable. It is well covered already within the main article at Mahmoud Abbas. An attempt to redirect this article was reverted, and it is unlikely an attempt to merge will be any more successful based on the opinion expressed by the primary author. Risker (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Withdrawing this AfD, for two reasons: First, after considerable and admirable effort, AgadaUrbanit has sucessfully located an independent, scholarly, third party source that confirms the key facts of this book (title, language of publication, date of publication, author, publisher), most of which did not exist in the article and were not confirmed by its reference sources at the time of nomination. Secondly, the article has been improved significantly since the time of nomination. While I am not entirely persuaded that the subject matter is sufficiently notable to have an article on its own, and believe that a redirect would be more appropriate, I respect the consensus of other editors on this matter. I'll go flag down another admin to close this. Risker (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This one seems pretty obvious based on the title alone. NickCT (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Risker and NickCT. Also note the person that created this article was indef'd.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Information is given in the article on the person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update The article has been improved and could be kept. However I would still vote to delete. It is not a bad article but it is really about the author not the book, hence WP:Coatrack.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's "about the author not the book", but anyway, thanks for updating your evaluation based on the new changes. Marokwitz (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The thesis was published as a book. I renamed the article to the name of the book for clarity. Per Notability (books) A book is generally notable .. [if one or more of the following is true] The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself ... in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.  ... the book's author is of exceptional significance. Clearly, the article meets the inclusion criteria. Other arguments raised above are not reason for deletion - the article can be improved. Marokwitz (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way is this notable? It is a published thesis, not a book in the sense of something that was written specifically for publication. Therefore it must be treated as we would treat any other scholarly study. Where is the academic review and commentary? Where is the peer review? Risker (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is full of academic review and commentary of this book, by Holocaust historians such as Dr. Rafael Medoff, Brackman et al, to name a few. Marokwitz (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the article, the book is "based on" the thesis, it isn't the thesis itself. So are they reviewing the thesis or the book? For that matter, who actually wrote the book? Risker (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the cited sources the author of the book is Mahmoud Abbas. I estimate (but the sources aren't clear on this) that the book is a translation of the dissertation from Russian into Arabic, along with some edits and adaptations. Marokwitz (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the sources aren't clear on this at all. Neither of the sources used to attribute the full authorship of this book to Abbas actually do so., Neither of them identify the translator, there is no ISBN number associated with the book, it does not appear in the catalogue of the publisher. That the book exists, I don't necessarily doubt; however, it's still not approaching notability. Risker (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are sufficient sources showing that it is a real and notable book. I don't know the ISBN but I assume searching using the original Arabic name would help finding it. The article is not perfect, we can work together to improve it. But there is no reason for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the more I look at this, the more it seems to be the equivalent of a published version of a translation of a speech by a notable individual. We know very little about the book itself, and the only quotes that can be found from it are cherry-picked by biased reviewers; it's mentioned only in passing by any others, without significant review. Risker (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds are you calling notable Holocaust historians "biased"? Dr. Rafael Medoff is biased? Brackman, Breitbart, and Cooper are biased? If they are holocaust researchers does this make them automatically biased ? Are Tom Gross and Chris McGreal biased? How about the BBC, also biased?Marokwitz (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The BBC doesn't review the book, and mentions it only in passing. Medoff is indeed biased, based on the title of his review ("A Holocaust-Denier as Prime Minister of "Palestine"?"), which was written 20 years after the thesis was presented; his entire thesis is based on the fact that in 1983, Abbas questioned the number of people who died in the Holocaust - there's no evidence given that Abbas denied it had taken place. If it's not important enough to review until an additional 20 years of scholarship have taken place, this further emphasises its non-notability. The quotes and statements attributed by various individuals (yes, including Tom Gross and Chris McGreal) are unverifiable and provide no context--I can't find a single library that includes any version of this book in its holdings--and neither of them are reviewing the thesis. I've not been able to find the Brackman, Breitbart and Cooper reference, so can't assess it; however, the fact that I can't find that either raises some questions. Risker (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr Rafael Medoff is notable scholar of the History of the Holocaust, the author of several books on the topic and the founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, an academic research institution. Calling him "biased", on the basis of the title of his review (!?!) shows a serious lack of understanding of how this project is supposed to work. Seeing a wikipedia office holder - a current member of the arbitration committee - use such an argument as defense of an apparently ill-considered AfD nomination is disappointing, to say the least. HupHollandHup (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in much of the world, calling someone a Holocaust denier is considered a hyperbolic insult used with the primary intention of inciting unthinking enmity, particularly in the 21st century. Medoff is a scholar, reviewing another scholar's work twenty years after the fact, and comparing it to a contemporary state of knowledge; it should have been child's play for Medoff to debunk a 20-year-old thesis without resorting to such name-calling. Let's not fool ourselves, it is a real thesis that resulted in a real doctorate from an institute whose successful doctoral candidates now hold professorships all over the world. Incidentally, you might want to do some work on the Rafael Medoff article, it's poorly sourced, doesn't mention where he studied prior to his doctorate, and doesn't even state his nationality. Risker (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. You are wrong in just about everything you wrote above. Holocaust denial is a real phenomena, studied extensively in academia by the likes of Medoff. Calling its practitioners what they are - Holocaust deniers - is neither hyperbole nor an insult. You would do well to read the judgment of a British court - available here :, in which a formerly prominent historian - much more notable as a scholar than Abbas ever was - was found to be a Holocaust denier, and described as such by the court, in those very words. The Judge's intention was not to incite unthinking enmity, he was stating a plain fact. I don't know which parts of the world view it as an insult to call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier. I suspect it may be those same parts of the world where Holocaust deniers are currently the heads of state. When Medoff debunked the Holocaust denial Abbas engaged in, he was not doing so on the basis of any new material that came to light in the 20 years that had passed from the 1982 date of the thesis. Everything was known then. I suspect that the reason for the delay is that the "thesis", as a "scholarly" work is nearly worthless, and had no impact on the serious study of the history of the Holocaust. There was no reason for any serious scholar to dignify it with a response, until its author became an important political figure. Let's indeed not fool ourselves about the nature of the thesis : Supervised by a KGB officer, who at the time was the head of well known foreign propaganda front organization, in an institute set up as political tool he height of the Cold War, to provide the facade of prestigious academic titles for the clients of the Soviet empire. Searching for the scholarly impact of this "thesis" on Google Scholar yields exactly one reference - in an article citing it as an example of Holocaust denial.
 * None of this is particularly relevant to the main point I was making above - which is that you dismissed a notable scholar with impeccable academic credentials on the basis of a title of a review he wrote. This is bad form for any editor, doubly so for someone who is currently an arbitrator.
 * A word of advice: we are all human, and instinctively defend positions we take, even when we are wrong, as you clearly are in this case. But, when you are in a hole, it is wise to stop digging. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, HupHollandHup, assuming the worst in people is a very unhealthy trait, and I urge you to reconsider it. In my own lifetime, the number of reported victims of the Holocaust has ranged from about 1.5 million (what I was taught in grade school) to the current consensus opinion that it was approximately 6 million; I read a news report recently that some scholars are now estimating 8-10 million, but that's not commonly accepted yet. Forty years ago, our textbooks taught us that somewhere between 30 and 45 million people in total were killed in World War II (current estimates are now 50 to 70 million). The views of well qualified historians have most certainly changed over the 65 years since the war ended. All of those numbers are inconceivable to the human mind, and the unspeakable horrors that Holocaust victims (both the dead and the survivors) experienced are not in any way diluted by them having happened to a smaller or larger number of people. That *anyone* died that way is one of the greatest tragedies of humanity. Medoff's entire livelihood is dependent on "debunking" and vilifying anyone who does not immediately accede to current thinking on the Holocaust; that in itself does not make him an unreliable source, only a biased one. Not a single person who has commented on this AfD or on the article itself has read the text of the thesis or the book, in either language in which it was published, and none of us can compare the unsourced English translations of quotes to the original text; they are unverified and, unless we can find someone who'll go to the National Australian Library, read the book in Arabic, and make a competent English translation, the quotes are essentially unverifiable. And yes, both as an editor and an arbitrator I have repeatedly encountered reference sources where scholars have selectively quoted people they don't agree with to paint them in a bad light, or ascribed beliefs or motivations to opponents that aren't borne out by deeper research. That is one of the reasons why significantly negative statements require multiple reliable sources, under both our NPOV and BLP policies. And no, a bunch of different news reporters all quoting the same critic doesn't count as "multiple reliable sources", except to confirm that the critic actually said what he said. A critic says "the author believes X even though Y is true" and the author says "You've misread,  I said that others have said X and still others have said Y". That is essentially what this boils down to. It is not for us to say whether X or Y is true. It is for us to accurately report, as best possible, what the BOOK says, as conveyed by those who have actually read it, or written it. That is why both Medoff and Abbas are appropriately quoted in the article, and why I continue to have reservations about unverified and unverifiable translated quotations attributed to the book in the article. You yourself are now saying that this scholarly work is so unimportant that it barely gets any internet hits, which was pretty well my position in the first place; I completely agree that it should be mentioned in the article about Abbas, which is why I tried to redirect it to that section of that article. It's a pity that you've had to resort to implying that I am a bigot when your own research seems to confirm my initial position.  Risker (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * thesis and book based on thesis
 * doctoral thesis that later became a book
 * his doctorate and the resulting book
 * Позже на основе диссертации Аббас написал книгу/Later, based on the thesis Abbas wrote a book
 * National Library of Australia Catalog Bib ID 493205
 * Hope it helps. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it would have been more useful to give the actual quotes. Shall we review what they actually say?
 * "Some Jewish groups allege that Abbas' doctoral thesis and a book based on the thesis..." - not "his" book. Note that that source references the BBC website link that follows below.
 * "Israeli-Palestinian history denial: In 1982, Mahmoud Abbas...wrote his doctoral thesis that later became a book..." Again, "a" book, not "his" book. Interesting heading used there, as well.
 * "But some Jewish groups have criticised both his doctorate and the resulting book..., again "the" book, not "his" book.
 * Позже на основе диссертации Аббас написал книгу/ "Later, based on the thesis Abbas wrote a book"- Google translation; "Later on the basis of thesis Abbas wrote the book" - Yahoo Babelfish translation This one looks like it is confirming the authorship. Note the actual section of the Lenta.ru website - it is the Lentipediya, which means it is a tertiary source.
 * National Library of Australia Catalog Bib ID 493205 This is the prize-winner, an independent, scholarly source, solidly confirming that the book exists, that Abbas (and only Abbas) wrote it, and that it is in Arabic.
 * Now, the first three imply but do not state that Abbas was an author of the book, and give insufficient information for the level of referencing needed for an article in an contentious area. The fourth would not usually be acceptable for a contentious fact because it's a tertiary source (like Wikipedia, or Britannica); it does attribute to an actual news article, but I gather that is not available. Finally, the National Library of Australia catalog saves the day, even though this borders on being a primary source; it is an independent and scholarly reliable source. Risker (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the point of the semantic nitpicking with regards to the first 3 references, when you concede that here is really no question about the true authorship, per the final one? When you are in a hole, stop digging. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note to AFD Participants: This article was renamed to "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism" after creation of this AFD, to match the name of the book. I apologize for any confusion. In addition I improved the article. Please reconsider your !votes following these changes. Marokwitz (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm open minded and I had some doubts. The article should be improved. However, I guess we should consider Notability (books) and the article's references do indicate some notability. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per AgadaUrbanit I think there's enough material to stand alone - and moving more material into the main article would unbalance it - I would probably remove the authors photograph and the article requires improvement but I see no reason to delete. If it wasn't against WP:TITLE I would see benefit in adding a (book) subtitle to the new article title just as the old one had (Doctoral Thesis) to avoid some controversy Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Mahmoud Abbas. If there is a page to be done on Zionist-Nazi relations (and this is serious topic of history, not kookalooka White Nationalist drivel), this is not the page. Abbas' book can be best incorporated into his own biography, in my estimation. It's hard to make a deletion case for it, however, so default here should be to KEEP if merger doesn't happen... —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
 * Keep - Whoops, I see now that this is a sub-page of the Abbas biography already, established to keep the latter from becoming unwieldy. Highly notable author, which should be sufficient for WP purposes, but a book translated into several languages that has been the subject of sufficient inquiry in its own right. Pretty clear notability decision here, terrible original title of this article notwithstanding. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the renaming, the book appears notable based on the sources in the article as of now. With no prejudice to the original nomination, which appears to have been somewhat usurped by the move/retargeting of the article, it appears appropriate to keep a reference to this work separate from Abbas' article. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly notable enough, and all the major issues have been dealt with. --Joker1189 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously notable, given not only the prominence of the author, the multitude of high profile reviews that expose its explicit and horrendous Holocaust denial, but also the controversy created by the book and the dissertation upon which it is based when Abbas was elected. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:16, 30 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.