Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Poor sourcing

It is perfectly clear that some editors of this article (and I can't be bothered even determining who they are) don't give a fig about the quality of sources provided they have the desired content. This is a subject for which a considerable number of very high quality sources exist and there is no excuse for using war-time propaganda (Time Magazine, 1941), rubbish from unreliable religious groups (Aish HaTorah), books by "conversative radio show hosts" (Chuck Morse), and newspaper op-eds that add nothing except distorted overviews. Zero^talk 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevance of the paragraph on the Farhud needs to be established. Just writing "pro-Nazi" in front of every Arab name isn't enough. Zero^talk 10:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I see Zero, you made 13 reverts on this article today. Is this a 1RR or 3RR? Anyway please revert yourself. Time Magazine is a reliable source regardless of wars or conflicts.--Tritomex (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Consecutive edits is considered one revert/edit.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Than my apology to Zero0000.--Tritomex (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Baghdad events I removed "pro-Nazi Arabs" attribution, which is unacceptable, however the rest seems WP:RS and well sourced.--Tritomex (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Time Magazine is not reliable for what it wrote about enemy personnel during WWII. It was fighting the war like every other mainstream US organization. Besides that it was common practice for the intelligence agencies to plant stories in the media (often with the media cooperating). This particular story is full of bizarre claims, that Grobba was really named Borg (obviously chosen to be a Jewish name), that he converted to Islam, that he married an underage Arab girl, all of them complete nonsense. Yet it doesn't seem to know of Grobba's actual diplomatic career. Zero^talk 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000: the reports that Grobba was born 'Borg' (never with the implication that he was Jewish, though), and 'that he converted to Islam' and that he married an 'exotic' (perhaps Arab) woman have been repeated in many biographies of Grobba, including the current Wikipedia article, a Wikibook bio, and some memoirs written by Germans who knew him. These tidbits don't have much meaning for his actual diplomatic history, of course. His actions would have the same historical significance regardless of these purely personal aspects of his life. Nevertheless, perhaps you could provide a reliable source that corrects the inaccuracies. Then we could fix up his Wikipedia bio, etc. So, what would you consider a good reference for Grobba's biography?

Also: would you please scan and post the 'The Arab Higher Committee, Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes, The Documentary Record Submitted to The United Nations, May 1947, by Nations Associates.' document that you discuss in this 'Talk' page. I've confirmed that it is in the public domain, so there are no copyright issues. As you point out, it contains seminal material that has been (perhaps) quoted out of context by some authors without dedication to NPOV. It would be a great service to make this information more available (as you know it must currently be accessed as hard-copy via a library) as a source and reference for the wider public. If, of course, you prefer another 'reliable source' that contains the same documents as the Nations Associates report, then please tell us so we may use sources that are not controversial.

Thanks in advance for helping to improve this article and clarify the facts associated with this difficult topic. All the best. Ronreisman (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The 700 000 figure for "unoccupied France" is a well known figure.[1]--Tritomex (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: the 700 000 Jews that were to be eliminated from French Territory: These numbers come from list in the official German documents of the Wannsee Conference. It's not a very impressive document. Just a bunch of names of countries, etc. with numbers next to them. In the case of France it gives two numbers. The first (I think its 160,000, though that's just from memory -- we should look it up) refers to Jews inside European France. Directly underneath is the notation (something like 'Territories' -- from my memory though) and the '700 000' number. I tried to eliminate the confusion in a 'clean-up' edit. Perhaps we should get the image of the actual list from the Wannsee record and make it an illustration for 'The Holocaust in North Africa' section. That may clear things up; after all a single facsimile photo is worth a thousand words :-) Ronreisman (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

At the time of the Wanssee meeting, France was divided into "occupied" and "unoccupied" zones. See this map and the article Vichy France. That is the plain meaning of the Wannsee protocol; it is not possible to infer (except possibly from the numbers) that North Africa was included. Don't trust any source that fails to mention Vichy France in this question. Zero^talk 09:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What source are you using for this argument? What source are you using that states there were 700,000 Jews living in Vichy France? Do you think it's a coincidence that there were approximately 700,000 Jew living in North Africa and the Mid-East at the same time the Wannsee list was composed? How does your proposed 'explanation' jibe with Hitler's assurances to the Mufti that after the Jewish Problem was solved in the European countries -- explicitly by a total war against the Jews -- then the problem would be solved in a similar way in the rest of the world? It would be good to see some of your sources and references for your argument. If this is part of your original research, or preparation for a paper you plan to write, that would be interesting to know too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

I think you don't understand the issue. The protocol says:

            Frankreich / Besetztes Gebiet 165.000
                     Unbesetztes Gebiet 700.000

(France, occupied part 165K, unoccupied part 700K). The meaning of those words at the time were the northern part of France under direct German military occupation, and the so-called-"free" part under the Vichy Government. There is no dispute about that. There is a theory that the second part must also include the Vichy-controlled parts of North Africa, on the basis that otherwise "700,000" is too large. It might be true, it is not our place to decide. If a reliable source presenting that theory is found, it would be fine to cite it. But only as someone's theory, since most books on the Wannsee conference do not present it; usually the numbers are not taken seriously as many are quite inaccurate. Zero^talk 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The claims about Grobba that appeared in Time Magazine were taken from a previous article in the NYT by the German activist and journalist Heinz Pol. Soon afterwards British diplomat Archibald McDougall, who was in Iraq and knew Grobba well, wrote to the NYT denying almost all the key points of Pol's story. A well-known historian who has written extensively on Grobba confirmed all this but I'm still waiting for the citable article he promised to write, so my hands are somewhat tied at the moment. Meanwhile we shouldn't repeat claims from wartime biographies of enemy personnel on either side as they are thoroughly unreliable. There are fine biographies of Grobba by Wolfgang Schwanitz and others that can be used for reliable information. Stefan Wild wrote an entire article on the Iraqi edition of Mein Kampf and Grobba's role in it. Zero^talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently similar tales about Grobba appeared at the same time in a British newspaper. This prompted a memorandum by the Iraqi-Jewish scholar Emile Marmorstein, who knew him very well. Marmorstein wrote:

He is nothing like the descriptions of him which have recently got into the Diarist's column of the Evening Standard. These have described him as dark and Oriental looking, known as 'the Turk' at school and married to a mysterious Oriental wife, whom he kidnapped during various mysterious adventures during the last war. In fact, he looks like a typical German Gross industrieller, fair, plump of face and shrewd blue eyes. He married a very pleasant-looking German hausfrau from Frankfort, who was very friendly with Frankfort wealthy Jewish families long after Hitler's time and continued in Baghdad to be on visiting terms with the German Jewish doctors at the Meir Elias hospital in Baghdad. ... His attitude to Jews was so friendly that Mr Drower, Adviser to the Ministry of Justice, believed that although Jews were considered undesirable in Germany, German representatives abroad were given instructions to help them, as useful instruments for the extension of German commerce. (Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1987), pp. 376-378) Zero^talk 09:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All of these personal details are probably outside the scope of this article. Grobba's role in history is not determined by the nationality of his wife, etc., whatever those details may be.

As for the Nations Associates publication, why are you claiming to quote from it if you don't have it? Are you unfamiliar with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? You are not allowed to copy citations from intermediate sources. I suspect you are doing that; please delete all material you did not get yourself from the place you cite it to. Anyway the Nation Associates compilation is not allowed here. It was compiled by a political action committee for explicitly propagandistic purposes—exactly the sort of thing that WP:RS tells us to avoid. Zero^talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This can be used as a source to WP:PRIMARY documents if needed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are only usable if reliably obtained. The claim of an unreliable secondary source to present a primary source does not count. Zero^talk 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

'Nations Associates' was the former name of the magazine now known as 'The Nation.' They were not a 'political action committee.' They did have a strong editorial position for the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine, and prepared special reports and issues to explicate their positions. There is nothing in WP:RS that indicates they should be regarded as an unreliable source. The Nations Associates editorial practice was no more radical or unreliable then than the Nation's editorial practice is now, and Wikipedia is filled with references sourced from the Nation magazine. Their report to the UN in 1947 falls under the category of legitimate journalism. Their report contains informative documentation that is pertinent to this topic. Do you have any reputable sources that impeach the veracity of the Nations Associates document, or is this criticism your own original research project? If you do have any relevant source material, then we'd be grateful if you would share it with us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

Your information is incorrect. The magazine was called "The Nation" then too. Nation Associates was a separate group formed "to fund the poorly financed magazine and influence policy on the issues of the day." (Ronald and Allis Radosh (2008). "Righteous among the Editors — when the Left loved Israel". World Affairs: 65–75.) It claimed to be independent of the magazine. Its operations were not journalistic but political, and were funded in secret by the Jewish Agency. (Giora Goodman (2011). "“Palestine’s Best”: The Jewish Agency’s Press Relations, 1946–1947". Israel Studies 16 (3): 1–27.) Zero^talk 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Nation Associates source is fully acceptable, I maintain, though it would be interesting to talk more about its significance and quality. As a courtesy I'm removing it from the article while we discuss this issue and reach consensus. I'll reference a secondary source that's already listed in the article. Please feel free to add your preferred source(s) to add assurance that the quoted telegram from Himmler to Haj Amin is accurate. The quoted telegram could be considered 'extraordinary' by some people, so going to appropriately extraordinary lengths to document it's veracity may be appropriate. If there are any sources that indicate that the telegram is not quoted accurately, then please let's consider these sources too. Do you know of any such sources? Thanks again in advance.Ronreisman (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an important document, if only because it has been referenced so many times since it's release in 1947. It's surprising there's no scanned version on the net.Ronreisman (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For those who are reading this and don't have access to this particular document: This booklet included copies of communications between Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini and high ranking Nazis (e.g. Heinrich Himmler, Franz von Papen, Goebbels), the Mufti's diary on his meeting with Adolf Hitler, several letters from the Mufti requesting that Jews never be permitted to emigrate from Europe to a Jewish Home in Palestine that he sent to officials in Germany, Bulgaria, Italy, and Hungary, and many photographs of the Mufti, Rashid Ali, and other Arab politicians in the company of Nazis and their Italian and Japanese allies. The veracity of the Nation Associates documentation is vouched by the 'Advisory Council' listed on the last page. This is a list of very serious people, and when they put their name on the pamphlet they are clearly putting their reputations behind the validity of the 'Documentary Record' (one of the phrases in the title). The backing of all these very credible people affirm the credibility of the documents and the reportage contributed to the gravitas of the pamphlet, and no doubt that contributed to influencing UN delegates to vote in favor of the 1948 Partition. In other words, the 'THe Arab Higher Committee' document must be considered a secondary source that is largely composed of documentary evidence, and it's quality as a source must consider the quality of endorsement by the Nation Associates Advisory Council. This Advisory Council that included US Congresspersons and a Senator (eg. Helen Gahagan Douglas, Thomas H. Eliot, Joseph F. Guffey) distinguished attorneys and civil rights leaders (eg. Thurman Arnold, Roger Nash Baldwin, Walter White), investigative journalists (eg Jay Allen), authors (eg. Thomas Mann, Erskine Caldwell, Eugene O'Neill, Lillian Hellman, Lewis Gannett, Reinhold Niebuhr, John P. Lewis), and others. This collection of documents (backed by the reputation and gravitas of the Nations Associates Advisory Council) demonstrated that German Nazis and Palestinian politicians (some of whom were requesting recognition at the UN in 1947 as representatives of the Palestinian Arab population) had made common cause during World War II in their opposition to the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine. Ronreisman (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again: Zero0000: Do you have a copy of the Nation Associates document that can be scanned and put on the web? The copy I'm using is from Stanford U's Hoover Library on War, Revolution, and Peace. They're great about photocopying, though each copy has a notice which says: "This photocopy may not be further reproduced or distributed without the specific authorization of the Hoover Institution Archives." In other words, we can't scan and post from that copy. As I'm sure you're aware, this document is full of relevant and authentic material, as evidenced by the reputations of the signatories. Ronreisman (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have a cleaner copy but I don't know why I should put it on the web. Incidentally, the Hoover Library has no legal right to claim copyright on public-domain material they photocopy. They know that, it is money-making ploy (like the art galleries who falsely claim copyright of photographs of medieval art). As for reliability, by wikipedia standards it is NOT reliable. It is a document compiled for explicitly propagandistic purposes by a political organization, exactly the sort of stuff we are not permitted to use. It also contains no indication of what role if any was played in the compilation of the document by the people who are in the table on the last page. Interpretting the documents ourselves would also be a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. As the document itself says, most of these documents are photocopies of drafts found in the Mufti's papers. There is no proof here that the letters were sent, nor whether what was sent was exactly the same as in the draft. That's why we need historians who have examined the evidence as a whole. Zero^talk 09:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Hoover Lib. doesn't claim cooyright; it just notifies the user that it doesn't authorize its photocopies to be further reproduced without authorization, at least that's my understanding; I'm not an attorney and don't claim to understand Intellectual Property in any depth, although I have gone through the process of getting patents, etc. I related your concerns about this document to the Hoover Librarian, and his opinion is that the Nations Associates pamphlet is definitely a secondary source that could be cited in a peer review publication. I have to thank you for your references on the Nations Associates. As you know, they don't imply that any of the information in the pamphlet was faked or false. The source do make it clear that Freda Kirchwey and her Associates were stridently anti-Nazi, and that they wanted to present the case that the Mufti and his associates (at least one of whom was attempting to be recognized by the UN as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people during the 1947-48 period) were, in fact, Arab Nazis and that there was ample reason to believe that if he gained control of Palestine he'd deal with the Jews in a manner similar to the way European Nazis dealt with Jews. The Nations Associates pamphlet, as you've noted, contains 'damning' evidence. You add 'if true' -- although I don't know of any evidence or secondary source that challenges the truthfullness of the Documentary Record. Do you have any reputable, non-partisan source that claims any of the Docs found in the Mufti's Archives, and reported by Nations Associates, is in any way questionable? Let's open up the parameters: Do you even know of any Partisan source that claims that anything in the Nations Associates Documentary Record may be false? The record by Grobba on Hitler's meeting with the Mufti seems to agree on most major points. There's no line in either doc that says 'The Jews are Yours!' though there are several passages that declare the common goal of opposing the Jewish Home in Palestine and International World Jewry, and the statement that Germany is only interested in the liberation of the Arabs, and that the Mufti would be in charge once Germany has helped free them, and that then the Mufti could deal with the Jews as he liked. I agree that we don't need to summarize this with the phrase 'The Jews ar yours!' since the actual record is far more revealing. I disagree strongly (obviously) however when you oppose presenting the documents to the public. I just don't think you have any case that can be defended on any scholarly grounds, including the Wikipedia standards. Again: if you have any secondary source (extra points for peer review publications :-) that question the veracity of specific docs (as opposed to blanket claims "They're puppets of the Jews" :-), then please share. If the only objection is that you disagree with Kirchwey, et al, regarding Zionism, that she was 'bribed' by the support of Jews who agreed with her, and thus must inevitably be a liar who was corrupted by the Jews... well then we should clarify the facts about that accusation, and let's not shy away from tackling the possible issue of bias. In any case, if the objections are just 'original research' confined to Talk pages, then the pamphlet (by definition) qualifies as a source for Wikipedia. 67.188.100.227 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(The structure here is like a fractal.) An example of a good book on the subject is Achcar's book, but you should buy the book like I did and not rely on indirect reports or interviews. Another reliable author on the subject is Wolfgang Schwanitz. About the Nations Associates document, you are still doing original research. This document does not even claim to have been produced by Nation Associates! (Read the cover page carefully.) Nor does it say where any of the documents are from, so we don't even get as far as the limited permissions of WP:PRIMARY. There is no rule in wikipedia that unreliable sources become reliable if later reliable sources confirm them; what we are supposed to do in that case is to cite the later reliable sources. Historians have long since examined the documents for themselves and commented on their significance. There were similar documents submitted to the UN by the Arab's supporters too such as the "Black Book", but nobody is trying to cite them. ((As an aside, Grobba's report on the Mufti-Hitler meeting (which I have the complete German version of) is so similar to the Mufti's version, and unlike Schmidt's version, that I suspect one of them copied from the other. But I think there is no proof of that.)) Zero^talk 06:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Zero answered that yonks ago. Historians are hungry for new evidence. None of the sources written by historians seem to use the material in that document which several editors drop in to suggest we exploit. If this stuff has been round for 6 decades, staring a huge field of topranking ME historians in the face, most of whom have no time for the Haj, yet its spectacular "stuff" is rarely if ever cited by them, why are they missing out on this splendid opportunity to fill in the gaps of this unbelievably tenacious blindspot? Perhaps Schwanitz will finally use it. If so, we'll cite it via him. Until a first rate secondary source uses it, it won't pass the wiki RS ruling.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Nishidani, see the comment by Zero0000 below, where he acknowledges that 'zillions' of reputable secondary sources reference that same materials. The point of disagreement is not over the veracity of the 'Higher Arab Committee' docs, it's whether that pub should be castigated as 'propaganda' or as a legit source.

The august bluelinked people on the advisory board are no guarantee,(-to the contrary, to cite one egregious example, Lillian Hellman wasn't credible for anything she herself wrote as factual as anyone familiar with her biography would know, let alone a complex subject like this -) since unlike the Scientific Advisory Board, for example, overseeing the recentlyt concluded 3 years study of Palestinian and Israeli textbooks, the former had absolutely no knowledge of Arabic, the specific history of Axis-Arab relations, and anything else. The only people whose words we can trust on a document compiled from draft archive material are competent area specialists with the appropriate credentials in the field, history and languages, writing for quality publishers. Blind Freddy and his dog may not be wikipedians, but were they unfortunate enough to nose out its policies, would know the obvious answer. No go. Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate and am amused by your opinions on the textbook study; I've also heard of Israelis who are not happy with the conclusions. I seems both sides are equally unhappy -- finally an occasion for agreement! Nevertheless, until someone publishes a secondary source that documents the criticism, the Textbook Study can be referenced in a Wikipedia article, and unpublished dissents must be relegated to the 'Original Research' dustbin :-) Seriously, I'm not going to defend or explain Ms. Hellman's complex career. The fact, however, is that she wasn't the sole gatekeeper. I've only listed about half the names on the Advisory Council. It's a very 'august' group (seriously). They have, in fact, put their reputations and credibility behind the contents of the document in question. I seriously doubt that Thomas Mann, et al, just put their names and reputations on a document that they suspected was false. Again: this document meets every standard as a historically important secondary source that contains a great deal of Documentary Evidence that has been subsequently referenced and quoted from this document in (literally) dozens of secondary sources. As Zero0000 has pointed out, these documents were apparently influential on the votes of UN Delegates during the debate on the 1948 Partition. So, what evidence is there that anything in the pamphlet is false or that it ranks as 'wartime propaganda'? It appears that the criticism of this particular pamphlet is merely unpublished 'original research' -- which Zero0000 rightfully points out is not permitted in Wikipedia. Again: are there any Sources that discredit 'The Arab Higher Arab Committee' or this talk just 'original research' ? Again, let's open this criticism of the pamphlet up to 'Partisan' literature, including anti-Zionist publications. If we are open to any and all objections (up to the IHR logic :-), does anyone have any evidence that the content of the pamphlet is questionable? 67.188.100.227 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There are zillions of fine secondary sources that reference the primary documents appearing in the Nations pamphlet (Nish is wrong about that), although they don't (especially the serious ones) rely on Nation Associates for them. Those secondary sources are what we are supposed to use. You act like you have a great new discovery on your hands but to a historian this is all old hat. Also, calling something propaganda doesn't imply it false, it implies it is unreliable. The people who prepared this pamphlet (and remember, Nation Associates was funded by the Jewish Agency) were motivated by their desire to establish the state of Israel. They weren't motivated by a love of objectivity and truth. You also shouldn't trust their translations or their summaries. Incidentally, where do you see letters to/from van Papen and Goebbels? I can't find them. (My copy has 74 non-blank pages.) Zero^talk 23:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to re-examine your own prejudices in this matter. There were Jews who supported Nations Associates; there were also African-Americans, and Quakers, and lots of other folk. There is no justification for accusing them of not being truthful and objective because they didn't like Nazi-collaborators who were presenting themselves to the UN as the legitimate political power in Palestine. They published documentary evidence that was truthful and objectively has withstood the tests of time. The same material, you acknowledge, was subsequently published by legit historians in fully acceptable secondary sources. Your 'original research' and your insulting and demeaning language when referring to Nations Associates is not justified by the record nor the facts. It is much more plausible that they supported Zionism because they truthfully and objectively reported the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

My prejudices are towards the quality of Wikipedia. You are so sure you know my opinion, but you obviously never noticed that not once did I say that the documents in the Nations booklet were phony. Not once. Go and read WP:V and WP:RS again. The difference between "true according to you" and "reliable according to Wikipedia's meaning of the term" is not that hard to understand. Zero^talk 22:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read and understand [WP:V]] and WP:RS and do not believe you can justify suppressing information and using your 'original research' to create accusations of propagandizing, or to disqualify historically-significant sources. Your argument is tantamount to invalidating (for example) that the Nation's articles on desegregation or Freedom Riders in the 1960s are not 'quality sources' because the Nation and it's publishers were anti-segregation and pro-civil rights, and that African-American civil rights organizations supported them both morally and financially. No one would argue in favor of this hypothetical, and therefore the case of the 'The Arab Higher Committee' document should be held to the same standard. Also: misrepresenting the contents of your sources and using prejudicial language that do not appear in those sources is certainly not allowed in Wikipedia. You are not supporting the quality of Wikipedia by engaging in such practices. If you know that a fact is true and backed up by a higher-quality source, then add your approved reference to the statement; don't just delete the factual information, please. Ronreisman (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Mann, Erskine Caldwell, Eugene O'Neill, Lillian Hellman. Of these, knowledge of the ME is restricted to Thomas Mann, who was, as witness his quadrilogy, Joseph and his Brothers intimately familiar with the Biblical myth of Joseph and his brothers, and the secondary literature. They, like several other names there, guarantee nothing.Nishidani (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry your knowledge does not encompass any of the names on the Advisory Council, and that your only knowledge of Mann is limited to his 'Joseph' works. The good news is that you have a wonderful opportunity to delight and educate yourself, and you will find it a wonderful adventure of ideas if you look into some of the achievements of these people. Happy reading!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs)

RE:Nishidani's proposed standard for evaluating appropriate expertise and sources for this article: "... knowledge of the ME ..."

I propose this is *not* an exclusionary standard, since the subject matter is 'Nazi Germany and the Arab world' -- and therefore subject matter expertise on WWII and Nazi Germany counts more (or at least as much) as generalized knowledge of the Middle East. The 1947 Nation Associates editors, reporters, and their Advisory Council were certainly loaded with qualified subject matter experts on WWII and Nazi Germany. Just check out the list of Wikipedia articles on each one (most of them have entries) to convince yourself of their qualification to investigate and bear witness to the events of WWII. So I don't think we need discuss their qualifications or relevance. A more interesting point is Zero0000's long-standing and well-argued POV that this kind of document should not be considered a legitimate source. That's a much more important issue, IMHO. Zero0000 repeatedly points out that the Nation Associates editorial position was pro-Zionist. Let's stipulate this, and also point out that they decided to document anti-Jewish hatred as a motivating and unifying factor in WWII Arab-Nazi&Fascist alliances, and that the residual policies involving anti-Jewish hatred (with possible genocidal implications) were still active in the politics of the Arab Higher Committee and other factions who claimed legitimate standing at the UN. Furthermore, let's tentatively stipulate (at least for argument's sake) that their motivation was to use this information to influence the UN to deny legitimacy to former collaborators of Nazis at the UN, and to point out the dangers of allowing Arab politicians with pro-Nazi histories to become political masters of the Jewish population of Mandatory Palestine. In 'The Nation' magazine (published by Nation Associates) the potential danger of anti-Jewish pogroms by German-trained Arabs is repeatedly reported during this time. As history unfolded, these predictions proved correct (two of the Generals of the five Arab armies that fought in 1948 were German-trained; the former SS troops who'd served in Yugoslavia reportedly took part in the raping and killing of Jews, eg Gush Ezion). Zero0000: Which sources would you recommend for documenting the participation of Nazi-collaborators during the 1948 War? Perhaps not for this article. though such information should be available to the public in the proper venue. In any case, the history shows that Nation Associates publications (including 'The Nation') reported the facts and also accurately predicted (in 1947) events that unfolded in 1948. In other words, they organized the available information in a way that usefully enabled them to predict future events. Not exactly the common definition of 'propaganda.' Does the Nation Associates' tactic of using facts and objectively reported history to discredit Nazi-collaborators really 'propaganda' or is it actually better characterized as 'investigative journalism'? Again, my intention is too use the 'zillions' of secondary sources of higher academic quality to footnote each quote and entry. It is also permissible, however, to add the Nation Associates source as one of the references, since it was one of the first publications to report this information, and this pub. may have had historical effects on subsequent events (eg the 1947--1948 UN Partition votes), and also because -- 65 years after publication -- these issues are still being discussed. Ronreisman (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to everyone;Holocaust:The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews By Peter Longerich P:307 It explains that among 700 000 Jews counted for "unoccupied France" North African Jews are included.[2] or this link direct to the page [3]--Tritomex (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tritomex. I removed the confusing language from the opening paragraph in the 'North Africa' section and used the two Gilbert books and Longerich reference you've offered as three sources. Ronreisman (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Zero0000: if you have any sources that offer an alternative to the standard treatment of the '700,000' figure (presented in the Gilbert and Longerich sources) then please share them with us so that we may improve the quality of the article. Thanks in advance.Ronreisman (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Palestine

Last week I added a section on Palestine, and expected the usual give and take review on this talk page.

Zero000 & Nish: What do you think? I'm seriously interested in your opinions and looking forward to your feedback so that we can continue to improve the quality of this article.

Also: My family is about to embark on a six-week vacation and if any of you are located in Britain or Israel/Palestine or Greece or Italy or France, it may be fun to get together, preferably over a meal or coffee (or whatever is your favorite beverage) for some spirited discussion. Feel free to email me at ronreisman@gmail.com is y'all have any time or inclination for a get-together.Ronreisman (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked Gilbert Achcar to review the Palestine section, since I'd quoted him extensively and want to make sure he approved of the context as a respectful courtesy. His email reply contained the following comments: "I read the wikipedia article and approve your use of quotes from my book, of course. What I disapprove is some of what is said in other sections of the article, but I presume that you didn't deal with the whole piece and are not responsible for these. In the section on Iraq, for instance, the totally unwarranted figure of 600 Jewish victims is still given, after Bernard Lewis who misquoted the total number of victims as the number of Jewish victims, whereas the overwhelming majority were killed by the British-led repression of the attackers/looters -- as I explained in my book."

His point is well-taken, so I made the appropriate changes in the article.Ronreisman (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Literature for making this page better

I strongly recommend the use of Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers scholarly work "Nazi Palestine-The plans for the extermination of the Jews in Palestine" Despite provocative title this academic book summarize modern scholarship and most recent findings about this murky historic period. This book is available [[4]]--Tritomex (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is considered a book at the extreme of its genre. Typical reviewer's comment: "Neither Mallmann nor Cüppers knows Arabic, and so the documentary basis for their sometimes sweeping claims leaves something to be desired, consisting as it does of secondary literature and reports from German officials." (Journal of Contemporary History, 2009, vol 44 p 166). Zero^talk 06:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This academic book received highest recommendation from academic world like f.e. from great historians as Gerhard Weinberg and others as it opened new perspectives in exploring and detailing facts unknown before. Its clear that we are not speaking about medieval chronicles, as in the era of globalized communication translation and internet the personal knowledge of any particular language involved in the subject has no importance. This is true for the majority of most cited contemporary historians and academic books. This book was written as it is obvious by highly educated academic experts from this field and certainly represents one of the most important source regarding the subject this article should cover.--Tritomex (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This comment on Mallmann and Cüppers is sort of confusing, since (as noted in the quote) much of the pertinent material consists of "secondary literature and reports from German officials" -- and certainly Mallmann and Cüppers (who are German) are familiar with both the German language and German political and military history. I don't understand how their work could be "considered a book at the extreme of its genre" -- particularly when the *actual* extremes contain (admittedly) histrionic material and language that is simply not found in this book, which certainly falls under the category of legitimate mainstream history. On a related subject: Zero0000: what do you think of the work of Edwin Black (eg 'The Farud' or 'The Transfer Agreement') ?Ronreisman (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Zero0000's criticism of Mallmann and Cüppers is widely shared. Achcar, for instance, accuses them of making no distinctions between antisemitism, antizionism, "or even anti-Imperialism" and quotes Francis Nicosia's accusations that Mallmann and Cüppers are 'simplistic' in their equating Nazi and Arab Leaders, Nationalisms, motivations, etc. ( Achcar, "Arabs and the Holocaust". p. 166) Nevertheless, Mallmann and Cüppers provide some good information that isn't found in other sources. Achcar's larger argument, which is more about 'contextualization' goes beyond NPOV, and is probably too broad, deep, and subtle to capture properly in this article, though we should try to at least note that this is big issue in current historical and political debate, IMHO. Ronreisman (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Zero recently deleted the mention of Gen. Felmy's war crimes and the supporting reference, claiming that it was an 'obvious violation of WP:SYNTH' This charge cannot be defended, and I've reinstated most of the words Zero deleted and then put extensive quotes in the Ref to make it clear that the reinserted text is supported by a single reference, eg the official report on the War Crimes trial. The supporting quotes which establish the details of Felmy's culpability and make it clear that there's no original synthesis nor original research are: ^ Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. VIII, (Pub. for The United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty's Stationary Office, London; 1949); pp 35-36 describes the first two counts: "1. That defendants were principals or accessories to the murder of hundreds of thousands of persons from the civilian population of Greece, Yugoslavia and Albania by troops of the German Armed Forces ; that attacks by lawfully constituted enemy military forces and attacks by unknown persons, against German troops and installations, were followed by executions of large numbers of the civilian population by hanging or shooting without benefit of investigation or trial ; that thousands of non-combatants, arbitrarily designated as ‘ partisans,’ ‘ Communists,’ ‘ Communist suspects,’ ‘ bandit suspects ’ were terrorised, tortured and murdered in retaliation for such attacks by lawfully constituted enemy military forces and attacks by unknown persons ; and that defendants issued, distributed and executed orders for the execution of 100 ‘ hostages ’ in retaliation for each German soldier killed and fifty ‘ hostages.’ in retaliation for each German soldier wounded. 2. That defendants were principals or accessories to the plundering and looting of public and private property, the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, frequently together with the murder of the inhabitants thereof, and the commission of other acts of devastation not warranted by military necessity, in the occupied territories of Greece: Yugoslavia, Albania and Norway, by troops of the German Armed Forces acting at the direction and order of these defendants ; that defendants ordered troops under their command to burn, level and destroy entire villages and towns and thereby making thousands of peaceful non-combatants homeless and destitute, thereby causing untold suffering, misery and death to large numbers of innocent civilians without any recognised military necessity for so doing."; p. 47 describes some of the evidence against Felmy: "The defendant admitted having ordered reprisal measures but denied that they were unlawful. Many other reprisal actions on the part of his troops were brought to his notice in reports made to him. The evidence showed that the accused received and passed on an order of General Loehr, Commander-in-Chief Southeast, dated 10th August, 1943, which stated in part : 'In territories infested by the bandits, in which surprise attacks have been carried out, the arrest of hostages from all strata of the population remains a successful means of intimidation. Furthermore, it may be necessary, to seize the entire male population, in so far as it does not have to be shot or hung on account of participation in or support of the bandits, and in so far as it is incapable of work, and bring it to the prisoner collecting points for further transport into the Reich. Surprise attacks on German soldiers, damage to German property must be retaliated in every case with shooting or hanging of hostages, destruction of the surrounding localities, etc. Only then will the population announce to the German offices the collections of the bandits, in order to remain protected from reprisal measures.' ... The evidence showed many separate reprisal actions by troops subordinate to this defendant. In many instances there was no connection between the inhabitants shot and the offence committed. Reprisals were taken against special groups, such as 'Communists' and 'bandit suspects' without any relationship to the offence being established. Reprisal prisoners were taken from hostage camps generally and at points distant from the place where the offences occurred. It was also shown that in many reprisal actions destruction of property accompanied the mass shootings."; p. 76 states that Felmy was found guilty of "Counts One and Two..." Ronreisman (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Now you have put a ridiculously huge quotation into the article, none of which even mentions the topic of the article. I think the problem is that you don't understand what synthesis is. Please go to WP:SYNTH and read it; it is a policy that is not optional. I don't have the slightest doubt that Felmy was a war criminal, but it is simply not permitted for you to raise this fact on your own in order to color the impact of what Felmy wrote about the Arab world. You have to bring a source that connects the two, and you haven't. Like I said, this is a textbook example of original synthesis and absolutely against the rules. Zero^talk 12:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We'd appreciate it if you would keep the discussion amiable (or at least professional), and not make gratuitous personal insults. For instance, some of us think that your pattern of behavior is apparently aimed at suppressing historical facts associated with this particular subject. Nevertheless we restrain ourselves from using words like 'ridiculous.' Please refrain from insulting your fellow editors. Please consult Wikipedia guidelines on common sense in courtesy if you require guidelines on acceptably civil behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_sense_on_courtesy or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette). Regarding your specific objection, you are claiming that there is no relevance to this article War Crimes were committed by Gen. Felmy, one of early and influential the commanders of Arab and Muslim troops who fought for the Nazis. Your rationale is that merely mentioning such criminal behavior is intended to 'color the impact of what Felmy wrote about the Arab world.' Neither charge -- of 'irrelevance' nor of 'coloring' -- is defensible, IMHO. The recognition of Felmy's criminal conduct provides context to both his attitudes and to the nature of of military organizations he commanded. Suppressing the history of his criminal conduct amounts to blatant suppression of context. Your summary deletion of sourced material (which you acknowledge is true) -- without any previous discussion on the 'Talk' page -- appears to be an attempt to suppress this context. Please refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on 'Neutrality Point of View' which includes (under the heading 'Achieving neutrality'): "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." you appear to be in violation of this basic 'general rule,' since you deleted properly-sourced information about indisputable facts regarding a person mentioned in the article without making any attempt to address the issue through the normal editing process. You may also want to review the Wikipedia guidelines for resolving disputes, which includes: "Follow the normal protocol -- When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help." We would appreciate if you would conform to this normal Wikipedia protocol in the future, rather than just delete properly referenced facts because a passage conflicts with your own sensibility or bias. Your misrepresentation of WP:SYNTH is similarly in violation of WIkipedia standards. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position, where the WP:SYNTH policy is explicitly stated: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The facts which you deleted about Felmy could not fall under the SYNTH definition, since they were supported by references a *single* source, and therefore it's impossible to have synthesis between multiple sources. Also, please refer to WIkipedia explanations on 'What SYNTH is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not), which includes: "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone...." Also your claim that WP:SYNTH 'is a policy that is not optional' is flatly contradicted by 'What_SYNTH_is_not' eg: "SYNTH is not a rigid rule -- Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is not to enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." or: "SYNTH is not an advocacy too -- If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul. Virtually anything can be shoehorned into a broad reading of SYNTH, but the vast majority of it shouldn't be." The bottom line is that the quality of the article will improve -- and we'll get along better -- if we adhere to these basic Wikipedia conventions. In the meantime, I'm not going to simply 'undo' your deletion -- though I'm frankly entitled to do so -- and instead am going to include properly-sourced information about the War Crimes committed by Arab & Muslim combatants who fought with the Nazis (eg Handschar Waffen SS) and how these crimes were part of a larger pattern of Nazi criminal behavior. The passage you deleted will be reinstated to provide proper context for this criminality, insofar as the organization and disposition the Muslim troops by their German officers is certainly relevant to their actions against partisans, etc. I will, of course, edit the long quotes from the source ref footnote so that it is not unduly long (I actually just put the 'long' quotes in so that there would not be any debate about the factual statements made in the body of the article, and wanted to prompt you to explain your accusations of SYNTH).Ronreisman (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for the word "ridiculously". Other than that I am correct. You brought two things about Felmy: (1) A quotation from Felmy about the ME situation, cited to a work of Felmy and Warlimont. It is unremarkable and contains no original ideas, but it is relevant to the subject so I am not challenging it. (2) Some information about Felmy's crimes in "Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia", sourced to the War Crimes Commission. None of the material in (2), including your entire long footnote, even mentions the topic of this page, which is "Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world". So (2) is irrelevant to the topic and doesn't belong here. Instead, you juxtaposed (1) and (2) (that's two sources, not one) because in your opinion "recognition of Felmy's criminal conduct provides context to both his attitudes and to the nature of of military organizations he commanded", i.e. you admit that you believe the information in (2) colors the impact of (1). You brought no reliable source that supports your opinion. This is exactly what "synthesis" means on Wikipedia and it is forbidden. WP:SYNTH is part of WP:NOR which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. WP:What SYNTH is not is not a policy or even a guideline; it is just one someone's essay. You should know that I have been a Wikipedia administrator for more than 9 years; that doesn't give me priority in ordinary editing, but it does suggest that I might not be an amateur in interpreting the rules. Zero^talk 09:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Wikipedia general rules flatly contradict your contention that juxtaposing facts to provide context is SYNTH. In fact, Wikipedia goes to great lengths to make sure that your contention cannot be supported or imposed. I'm going to quote relevant text again, just to make sure we're (literally) on the same page:

'What SYNTH is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not), which includes: "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone...." Ronreisman (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've discussed this issue with other long-time Wikipedia editors who are well acquainted with the evolution and dynamics of NPOV and related conventions. The bottom line is that none of them support your contention that an editor may simply 'undo' properly referenced information that provides context. On a related note: I'd like to make it abundantly clear that I disagree with a statement you made about me personally, ie: "you admit that you believe the information in (2) colors the impact of (1). " That is simply not true. As I wrote above, I *do* believe the information is relevant because it provides *context* -- and that *you* believe this *context* is offensive because it somehow introduces a bias, or to use your own word: 'color'. Just to be clear: I'm not trying to color anything here nor am I presenting any bias. This is just not that hard a call, and should not cause this kind of tumult. We all agree that Gen. Felmy had a seminal role in Arab-Nazi military history. No dispute nor controversy. We also all agree that the 'Handschar' and related moslem-dominated SS Waffen Divisions, and other military units (with their well-documented Arab participations and associations, eg: Haj Amin Husseini, Ali Rashid, Fauzi al-Qawuqji, et al) are relevant to our topic. The reader may not understand the nature of these kinds of units, the kinds of battles they fought, and their tactics. The nature of Gen. Felmy's military process is therefore relevant when consider how the actual military history of these units. It would be a serious error-of-omission to neglect to mention that Gen. Felmy was convicted of war crimes, particularly since his criminal acts and some the worst excesses attributed to the Handschar were so functionally similar, eg military units of similar constituency used against the same type of 'partisan' enemies and using the similar tactics in the same general Balkans area. Given the facts of the situation, there's ample reason to provide the contextual information. You would be correct, however, if your criticism was that I "brought no reliable source that supports" the case that the Handschar may have committed war crimes. In fact, I haven't added that text yet. In this case, of course, the Wikipedia standard of etiquette would still not entitle you to summarily undo the contextual information. Instead, the productive (and courteous) appropriate action would be to add 'citation needed' and/or explain your concerns and objections on this Talk page. As I've explained above, I'll add a properly referenced amplification of Handschar military history. Then, having established the relevance of such activity to this topic, will restore the contextual information on Felmy (without the ridiculously long quotes in the supporting footnote). If you know of any references you'd prefer me to use, please make the request. (the Stanford Hoover Library is particularly well-stocked on this topic). In the meantime I'll probably just cite excerpts from Edwin Black. Ronreisman (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"his criminal acts and some the worst excesses attributed to the Handschar were so functionally similar" = more original research. "the Handschar may have committed war crimes" = irrelevant to Felmy, who isn't even mentioned in Lepre's book on the Handschar, and also irrelevant to the topic of the article since they were not Arabs and they didn't operate in the Middle East. Get a consensus before reintroducing this material (you are not entitled to repeatedly insert contested material into the article without consensus). Zero^talk 14:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have any problem getting a consensus before making potentially-controversial edits. I consider 'consensus-building' an essential path in the Wikipedia editing process, and etiquette prompts me to coordinate with my fellow editors. In other words, our modus vivendi will be enhanced if you dispense with the 'commanding tone' and/or use patronizing language, eg deciding the limitations of my 'entitled' rights. That being said, let's hope we never have occasion to bring up the topic of 'courtesy' again. Of course I agree with you that we should hone the text and clarify the arguments here in the 'talk' page to agree on appropriate additions. As you may notice, I've checked-in edits that explain the Arab connection to the formation of the Muslim Waffen SS divisions, particularly the role of the Mufti and his Berlin-based organization in recruiting the volunteers, 'educating' them regarding common goals shared with the German government, and their continued recognition of his leadership position and influence throughout the war. I've taken pains to confine the section on the Handschar (and related forces) unique characteristics and military history to the bare-minimum required to make the section intelligible to the reader. You may notice that I haven't added any text that mentions the verdicts of the War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity that indicted ~50 soldiers and found ~10 guilty. That's because I agreed with you (before you composed your 'instruction' :-) that we should have consensus on such potentially-hot-button language. As a courtesy I should also inform you and the other editor that I'm planning on addressing another potentially controversial subject soon. One of the flaws in this article is that there is no discussion that differentiates between the legitimately different 'goals' and orientations that were shared between WWII Germany and the different political factions that were developing in the Arab world. For instance, we have displayed a photo of Said Mohammedi for a long time in this article, yet there's almost no hint of his significance in this history. Gilbert Achcar, for instance, uses Mohammedi's case to illustrate that *anti-imperialism* was often a dominating reason for finding common-cause between German and Arab Nationalism. Achcar, Nicosia, and others have brought up the issue that many of the secondary sources on this topic do not make any distinctions between 'anti-colonialism' and 'anti-imperialism' and 'anti-Zionism' and 'anti-Semitism' and so lump all these distinct ideologies into one undifferentiated intellectual mess. The issues of this topic can't be appreciated, I maintain, if we don't deepen the discussion with their observations. I'll be careful about keeping all my edits well-referenced, and make sure there's no opportunity for 'original research.' Finally: in your post you quoted something I wrote *here* on the talk page, and then noted "= more original research." So let's be clear and have no misunderstanding: It's perfectly OK to express opinions, syntheses, and 'original research' on the TALK page; in fact, that's partially what a TALK page is intended to stimulate and record. There's no requirement for NPOV on the TALK page. The standards for TALK and ARTICLE are completely different, for obviously good reason. If I'd introduced the sentence you quoted in the ARTICLE, then I might be open to charges of OR and SYNTH. Implying that the words I wrote for TALK is equivalent to a proposed edit in ARTICLE, however, is kind of a distortion. in any case, I'll express opinions and explain my reasoning here on TALK, though only put NPOV and NOR edits into the ARTICLE.Ronreisman (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reorganized some of the text so that certain passages are now under more appropriate headings. Although I didn't add any new info, I did recombine some sentences into new paragraphs. I also deleted the parenthetical mention that one of the German Generals associated with the Arabic alliances was also a convicted war criminal. Since the entire question of the relevance of 'criminality' is now under discussion on this TALK page, I thought it best to be consistent and remove any use of such language until we reach a consensus. Ronreisman (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: improving the quality of this article: Some of Achcar's contributions to this topic is to both reject the 'holocaust-revisionist' attempts to deny that there was significant collaboration between some Arab politicians (e.g. Mufti, Ali Rashid, etc.) and Nazi Germany, and also to point out the unfair characterization of *all* Arab polities as 'pro-Nazi' that is often the focus of pro-Zionist authors. Achcar points out that though most attention is often focused on German relations with Arabic Nationalists and Reactionary and/or Fundamentalist Pan-Islamists, the role of other polities, such as Arabic Marxists and Liberal Westernizers. are neglected, misunderstood, misrepresented, or a combination of all-of-the-above. Accordingly, I think we should recognize the non-cooperative and 'relationships' that some Arab polities had in *opposition* to Naziism and Fascism during the Third-Reich times. We should, IMHO, add context to our current article by documenting the attitudes and actions of these Western Liberalizers and Marxists. Unfortunately, my Arabic is utilitarian-primitive (a charitable assessment, at best), and so I'm probably not as qualified to build these sections as other editors who may have more familiarity with the material. Anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning is invited to start contributing new material. If no one does, and there are no objections voiced on this talk page, I'll probably start adding info sourced from Achcar, Said, and others this weekend. Again: if anyone objects to this line of reasoning, please speak up. As Zero has pointed out, we should try for as much consensus as possible before adding controversial material to the article. Ronreisman (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Ronreisman (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I just added some new subtopics, principally to introduce some of the contextual material proposed by Achcar (see above). The 'Opposition' topic precedes the 'Cooperation' topic. I've put a precis of some of Achcar's theses in this sub-topic. It will obviously require more details to balance the much longer 'Cooperation' section which follows. Again: those with a greater appreciation of Arabic progressive political history than me are invited to help fill in the details and provide more diverse sourcing. I've also introduced two of Achcar's political-faction terms ('Nationaism' and 'Fundamentalist Pan-Islamists' under the topic 'Arab incorporation and emulation of fascism.' Suggestions and discussions? Ronreisman (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RS for Achcar quote?

Hello Plot Spoiler and Pekffeintheda

I just saw that you are claiming the text I submitted fails RS, and you have summarily deleted the text without any discussion, and against the wishes of other editors (Sepsis II and Besieged).

Since I 'm the editor who originally submitted this text please let me assure you that I took care to make sure it was both properly sourced and also accurate and relevant to the article. Please address your concerns and questions to me and I'll gladly discuss the issues with you. Until we reach consensus -- or at least discuss the merits of different positions -- please do not delete the text, since this will cause needless strife and inefficiency.

Regarding the merits: the text presents Achcar's point of view. It does not claim that all his theories and claims are correct and undisputed. The supporting documentation for Achcar's work are contained in his references and citations (eg footnotes & endnotes). The question here is: Does this interview accurately report what Achcar said in context and without editorializing or distortion? Another relevant question: does this summation sentence and quote accurately represent Achcar's positions, as more fully laid out in his book?

The answer is affirmative to all these questions. If you have any doubts, I'd be willing to email Dr. Achcar and ask him to review the questionable text himself. I have no doubt that I understand the positions he explained in his book very clearly.

Just for the record: although I greatly respect Dr. Achcar and appreciate his very significant contributions to this particular topic, I also disagree with many of his conclusions and question many of his assumptions. While reading his book, however, I eagerly fact-checked his citations and references, and am very impressed by the quality of his sources and the depth and breadth of knowledge that he brings to this material. Of course, there are some glaring exceptions (Achcar's treatment of Benny Morris is not worth bringing up, for instance). On the whole, however, he has risen to be one of the challenging scholars in this area. He is not a holocaust denier or a 'throw the jews in the sea' extremist. He's an accomplished and professional defender of post-Enlightenment scholarship values and peer-review standards of intellectual responsibility. He is unapologetically and zealously anti-Zionist, though not as extreme as Chomsky (his sometimes collaborator) or myriads of other Western academics. He's better than most in guarding his scholarship from blatantly anti-Zionism propaganda. His approach must be recognized for it's intrinsic merit and relevance to the article's topic.Ronreisman (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just FYI, Pekffeintheda has been summarily blocked from editing indefinitely due to serious policy violations including 3RR, censorship, and possible sockpuppetry, among other things. S/He had about a dozen edits today (brand new account created today) and I had to go back and revert every last one of them to clean up the damage they did by smashing through articles and blanking huge swathes of content that didn't fit their opinion. besieged^talk 03:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get Pekffeinthedal's objection. I could understand if he disregarded an 'electronic intifada' attack on Zionist or Jews that shows prejudice or questionable facts. This is not that. This is just an interview with an anti-Zionist scholar who is presenting his particular point of view. There's no claim that Achcar is correct. As noted above, I don't personally agree with all his points, I just feel his expression is cogent, eloquent, and certainly significant to any serious discussion of this topic. I chose this quote because it sums up the positions in the book very nicely. There's no debate that this is -- in fact -- Achcar's well-considered opinion. So is Pekffeinthedal demanding that we source some other ref, and then putting in the info is OK? Although he may be a 'sockpuppet' it would still be useful to hear his logic. If he's just intent (as accused above) at vandalizing articles in complete disregard of NPOV, then thank-you 'Besieged' for helping to maintain Wikipedia's integrity, and shame on you Pekffeinthedal for not having the courage of your convictions and speaking up for your own views.Ronreisman (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is not WP:RS regarding this subject, and claims made by any scholars have to be sourced through WP:RS.--Tritomex (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex has put this on WP:RSN but unfortunately forgot to tell us. Zero^talk 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The unexpected edit war over this is a distraction, so I'll try to re-write the info by using references to Achcar's book or some other media, rather than his own summary statement that was printed in Electonic Intifada. Incidentally, I really don't think it's reasonable to exclude *everything* from a source like Electronic Intifada, any more than I think 'The Nation' should be excluded. Nevertheless, if this nit is going to be repeatedly picked by some editors, then we might as well remove the controversy by quoting media that are more politically neutral. After all, it's not as if any of the actual information will change. The facts will remain, whether they are backed by sources like Achcar's own elegant summary statement, or the (probably more wordy) summary that I'll cobble together from different pages in 'Holocaust and the Arabs' -- in either case, the issue of the historiography and competing narratives (Zionist vs. Arab) is still relevant to the topic and should be represented in this article.Ronreisman (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please leave it how it is, the edits to remove it were done by two editors both of whom are banned from editing because they make the type of edit they made here. The reason these two banned editors made the edit was not because it was the right thing to do but because their objective on wikipedia is to make Israel and supporters look good, Arab and supporters look bad. The quote makes Arabs look less evil than these types of editors wish, therefore they try to remove the quote. Please leave the quote as there is nothing wrong with it and does a great job of summarizing his views rather than us trying to summarize his views. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits/incorporations

I've just stumbled upon this article and when I came upon the mention of al-Husseini in the Arab perceptions section, I felt that it was missing a lot about his involvement with Nazism and spent the last few hours editing its last paragraphs to incorporate lots of facts from his own article. Then when I was just about to hit enter, I bothered to read the rest of the article and found that most of my information is already found in a more scattered and what I feel is a less concise and elegant form. So I'm putting what I had here, as a suggestion for putting it in somewhat like this:

Haj Amin al-Husseini became the most prominent Arab collaborator with the Axis powers. He developed friendships with high-ranking Nazis, including Heinrich Himmler and Joachim von Ribbentrop. During his 1961 trial in Jerusalem, Adolf Eichmann testified that he had met al-Husseini, while denying rumours that he had taken him on a guided tour of Auschwitz or other extermination camps, or that al-Husseini had even personally talked the Germans into committing the Holocaust. However, there is persuasive evidence that al-Husseini was aware of the Nazi Final Solution. Wolfgang G. Schwanitz and Gilbert Achcar both point out that al-Husseini in his own memoirs admitted to having been aware of the Holocaust no later than the summer of 1943, when Himmler personally revealed to him the plans for genocide and the number of 3 million Jews systematically exterminated by then. Al-Husseini mentioned only surprise towards Himmler's revelation in his memoirs, but no aversion, and historian Zvi Elpeleg goes as far as calling him "very pleased by the Nazis' Final Solution'".

Al-Husseini particularly contributed to Axis propaganda services and to the recruitment of Muslim and Arab soldiers for the Nazi armed forces, including three SS divisions consisting of Yugoslavian Muslims. While clearly lauding at least the publicly declared and implemented anti-Jewish measures by the Nazi regime (such as boycots, stripping of civil rights, internment, and expulsion) as an example to follow, some of his Axis propaganda openly endorsed the concept of genocide of the Jews not as an on-going crime organized by the Germans, but in the form of appeals declaring it a "holy duty of all Arabs" to achieve during the war or later; for instance, he wrote a pamphlet translated as Islam i Zidovstvo ("Islam and Judaism") for recruitment and instruction of the 13th SS Handschar division composed mainly of Yugoslavian Muslims, in which he endorsed a quotation from Bukhari-Muslim by Abu Khurreira (also incorporated as explicit justification for genocide in the Hamas Charter today) that states: "The Day of Judgement will come, when the Muslims will crush the Jews completely: And when every tree behind which a Jew hides will say: 'There is a Jew behind me, kill him!'", on 1 March 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, he said: "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.", and on 3 November 1943, the Berlin-based radio program "Voice of Free Arabism" that al-Husseini worked for contained the following statement: "Should we not curse the time that has allowed this low race to realize their desires from such countries as Britain, America, and Russia? The Jews kindled this war in the interests of Zionism ... the world will never be at peace until the Jewish race is exterminated. Otherwise wars will always exist. The Jews are the germs, which have caused all the trouble in the world."

Plus, I'm proposing to change the section

• After the war ended he claimed that he never knew about the extermination camps or the plans for genocide, that the so-called 'evidence' against him was forged by his Jewish enemies, and even denied having met Eichmann. He is still a controversial figure, both vilified and honored by different political factions in the contemporary Arab world.

into

• After the war ended, he claimed that he never knew about the extermination camps or the plans for genocide, that the so-called 'evidence' against him was forged by his Jewish enemies, that he had only spoken out against Zionism but not against the Jews, and even denied having met Eichmann. He is still a controversial figure, both vilified and honored by different political factions in the contemporary Arab world.

--87.180.197.207 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Achchar's bollocks

I've read through Mein Kampf and Arabs are not described as an inferior race. I have taken out the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.229.4 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Maghreb vs Mashriq

The overall sense I am getting both from this article and from others is that there was a rather noticeable difference between how the Arabs of the Maghreb perceived the war and how those of the Mashriq did. Would that be fair? It would appear that the former leaned towards the allied side and that the latter leaned towards the Axis side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.11.49 (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Abu Ali and Mohammad Haidar

I thought you might like to see the source that Patterson gives for the claim that Hitler was called Abu Ali in Syria and Mohammad Haidar in Egypt. It is a hate site, see here and look down for the heading "The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection". That's what Patterson gives as his only source; a web article full of ignorance and blatant lies (eg. that the Handschar "slaughtered 90% of Bosnia's Jews"). As I noted somewhere else, Mohammad Haidar was the name of the Egyptian Defence Minister. Zero^talk 01:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

lol. I didn't believe you, so I wasted my time following the Wikipedia article's footnote's link to the book which (of course) linked to the wrong page in Patterson's book. The correct link is here, and (of course) you're right: Patterson cites the p.o.s. article at "Militant Islam Monitor" written by a couple of unknowns named Paul Longgrear and Raymond McNemar (Google them to see their "qualifications"). What a joke.

PS: Great review of Patterson's book here, describing it as "founded on an utterly absent methodology and frequently lapsing into mendacious and polemical tactics". 107.10.236.42 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The review is far too kind to him. For example it assumes that the Husseini quotation is genuine, when in fact it is fake. Zero^talk 06:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't use your original research to discredit an academic source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

lol. Citing a negative book review on a Talk page is not original research. Maybe you ought to read that policy. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My comment referred to Zero's attempt to use personal research to try and discredit an academic historian holding an endowed chair in Holocaust History. I am not debating anything with you - a scrutiny evading, sockpuppeting IP hopper. If you want to discuss articles with me, you're going to need to log into your registered account . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

lol. "I'll revert your edits but I won't discuss them with you." How mature.

Before you make a bigger ass of yourself, please read WP:NOR and consider that your argument is that reading the source and the author's footnote constitutes original research. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You're going to quickly find out that the kind of crap you got away with when you had a respectable , registered account won't fly when you are a a scrutiny evading, sockpuppeting IP hopper. Log into your registered account . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Adequate sourcing

I have removed

</Among eastern religions, Hitler described religious leaders such as Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad as providers of spiritual "sustenance".blockquote>

As any google search would show, this can be sourced, but the sources all cite for it Michel Angebert's Hitler et la tradition cathare, Paris, Robert Laffont 1971 p.172. That is a book arguing for the esoteric side of Hitler and Nazism's worldview, and is not reliable. Anglebert was a pseudonym for the writer Michel Bertrand. There are very good sources for this aspect of Nazism, and this is not one of them. If one wants to edit difficult articles, it is not sufficient to plunk down stuff from tertiary sources, which are then disguised, citing blinding secondary sources, to have it then tagged with a cn request for months or years. Nazism is thoroughly documented in reliable academic books and they must form the basis for any edit.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

در خبرها و نظرهای چند روز گذشته اشاره‌ای به این نکته که آلمان نازی به حاجی درجهٔ "آریایی افتخاری" داد ندیده‌ام. برخی اهل تحقیق که نوشته‌اند این به‌رغم تحقیر "نژاد پست سامی" از سوی نازیها بود شاید توجه ندارند فلسطینی، از نظر قوم‌شناسی، عرب و سامی محسوب نمی‌شود. عربهای دبش از بالا به ساکنان فلسطین نگاه می‌کنند و آنها را از خودشان نمی‌دانند ـــــ تحقیری که ادوارد سعید، مسیحی فلسطینی، را می‌آزرد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.50.156 (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:RS

This article repeatedly cites the Nazi general Felmy as a reliable source. It is perfectly obvious that that isn't within a light-year of the rules. Parts of it that aren't removed altogether will have to be rephrased as Felmy's claims. Zero^talk 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The fake "Arab Nazis" pictures

I deleted the image that pretended to show Arab Nazis. Actually there are tons of good reasons for doubting this description. (1) The uniforms of the men in the back row are British. (2) Why would Arabs write "Palestine" in German rather than Arabic? But, sources, sources, I am reliably informed that this picture appears on page 71 of "The German colony and Emek Rephaim" (Hebrew) by David Koryanker, who identifies it as a photo of Jews displaying trophies they found in the German houses when Israeli forces occupied the German Colony in 1948. Nothing to do with Arabs. Zero^talk 15:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Arabisches Freiheitkorps

There are several mentions of the Arab Legion composed of Arab volunteers from among those fled from Middle East and North Africa to Nazi-occupied Europe. It was established by Amin al-Hussayni, but the information is now very limited. How significant was the unit and what was its role?GreyShark (dibra) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Medoff says (without source): "For example, in 1942, Husseini helped organize (from among Arab students in Germany and North African emigres) the 'Arabisches Freiheitkorps,' an Arab Legion in the German Army that hunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front". Achar (The Arabs and the Holocaust, p141) says "the Wehrmacht's Arab unit counted a mere 130 men" -- if that's the same unit it is trivia. Zero^talk 08:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

July 2020 edits

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Albert Speer is an unreliable witness; undue". --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• A related diff; my rationale was: "Former Wehrmact general (Hellmuth Felmy) is unsuitable as a source; excessive intricate detail about a single soldier". --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parnian shiraz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing issues, bad faith editing

I think I made a valuable contribution by following up on something on this page. Finding that the provided reference re: a 1938 memorandum concerning internal debate among Nazis concerning German-Jewish emigration to Palestine was non-existent, I found an historical document which seems to be the basis of this inaccurate quote, but which substantially corroborates the quote, and so I updated the reference. The reference I provided is a U.S. govt (State Dept) publication, so it's not a "primary source" and its "impact on German policy" well... I guess you can take that up with the the State Dept since they're the ones who found it worthwhile to translate & curate & publish in 1953. So, I don't understand the thinking behind --not just the reversal of my edit-- but the removal of this information entirely. 2601:644:8E7F:1F30:4424:633:9C6B:C939 (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You found an (interesting) document of Referat Deutschland which is provided in support of the text "In 1938, the German policy toward the Jewish homeland in Palestine appears to have substantially changed". However, the document does not support the text. There is no change of policy indicated here at all. Instead, the document urges a change of policy ("For more than a year Referat Deutschland...has been trying to obtain the termination of the Agreement", which shows that RD did not have the power to change the policy on its own). There is nothing in the document to say that policy actually changed as a result. For that we need a source saying that the policy was changed. It is perfectly ordinary for government departments to urge some change but in vain. Also, we can't ever write "appears to have substantially changed" in Wikipedia voice without a source that contains a statement of that nature; i.e, we aren't allowed to conclude what "appears" to be the case from a source that doesn't say that it appears to be the case. Zero^talk 06:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler.

The sentence "Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler." is the start of the 3rd paragraph of the "Arab perceptions of Hitler and Nazism" section. Is it implying that Hitler was widely popular in the Arab world ? I can't see where that had been stated previously in the article. I can see references to the mufti and that Arab views of the Nazis were complex and Nazi propaganda attempt in the Arab world but nothing explicit stating Hitler was popular. Apologies if I missed something. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I see now the suggestions that Hitler was popular among Arabs and that Rommel nearly as popular comes from the de Spiegal link refernce 23. Maybe, like de Spiegel, the article needs to include the line "Hitler was celebrated in large parts of the Arab world, and some newspapers even likened him to the Prophet." before the Rommel claim - at least then it would have a logical flow. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyway it needs a better source. There are tons of academic studies that this information should be available in if it is true. Zero^talk 01:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-war nazi emigres

Johann von leers, Otto Ernst Remer, and Alois Brunner are all good examples of Nazis who travelled to the Middle East after the war simmilar to how many Nazis went to Argentina. StrongALPHA (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

subject on recent edits

I don’t think political opposition such as newspapers should be combined with military opposition such as wars, and instead placed as they were prior in there own tabs Bobisland (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

a lot of entrees also seem poorly organized among opposition and can be given a summary with a attached link to the topic instead of repeating such large volumes of other wiki pages into this one Bobisland (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Which entrees do you think should be changed. I wrote a large part of the opposition section (plus the Egypt in WWII article).

Personally, I'd rather see it broken down country by country and have both sides (opposition and support) be written for each country Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I just think there’s too much being put from the news wiki page onto this one and that the information could be more easily summarized, there’s almost as much news information as there is government and military information Bobisland (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the press information shows how comtemporary Arabs actually viewed Hitler and Nazism, contrary to the idea that Arab commentators never spoke out against Nazism. Arabs militaries largerly did not participate in the war and the official government position was more muted (technically Egypt did not declare war until 1945 and Iraq never even formally joined the Axis). Newspapers are good source to see what Arabs actually thought about fascism, but I could summerize it more, later Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know but the word I should’ve said is balanced, also there is already main topic pages for this information so why not add a further reading or main article link above it so readers can read more about it compared to copy and pasting large amounts of the other wiki page and repeating the information Bobisland (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean. Tommoroww if I have time I will clean it up. Also, I was thinking of adding a section of Nazi exhiles to Arab countries, but I don't know if that counts Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

i think there’s already a Nazi exile to Arab world wiki page that covers this also another example with actions themselves is Helmy getting his own section but the lead to the former opposition tab already had the “Arabs defied Nazi laws by rescuing Jews during the Holocaust.” link which showed him, meaning readers who clicked the link will now be re-reading information they read on that wiki page, maybe the news coverage of the Arab world of nazi stuff should have its own wiki page or be put in its own tab here because there’s so much of it and it’s dominating all the other information, the way it’s currently written seems it would make people loose interest in reading the article over a lack of summaries I know I’m not wording myself well but there’s a wiki editing guideline which talked about not putting every little detail and when wiki pages have similar topics thus similar entrees they should be summarized and linked to the other as to not make the page too long and specific to a point where it’s disliked, maybe the opposition actions should be separated from the opposition news i don’t know it’s up to you I just know the way it’s currently worded is a lot less interesting to read Bobisland (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the name of the Nazi exiles to Arab world wiki page? I couldn't find it. I know Otto Skorzeny, Otto Ernst Remer, Johann von Leers and Aribert Heim went to Egypt and Alois Brunner and Walter Rauff went to Syria.

I just added a short thing on Helmy before. Technically he was living in Berlin at the time, so I guess that doesn't count, so I removed the mention of him.

I just re-edited the Egyptian section so now its just a paragraph on newspapers, a paragraph on cartoons and KEM, and a paragraph on al-Aqqad's book "Hitler in the Balance". I will also add a section about Egyptian in the coopartion section to talk about Aziz al Misri's failed flight to Syria to join the Iraqis and Anwar Sadat's attempt to collaborate with the Nazis. I found some reliable sources on that.

I'll work on the Palestine opposition section later. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s just Europe but here’s one Ratlines (World War II) of Europe only, maybe you can build on it if the phrasing doesn’t just mean specific escape routes excluding the Middle East but i don’t know, here’s a good source from Wikipedia called “ Category:Exiles from Nazi Germany” if your looking to add them here, what your editing is up to you I’m just giving feedback Bobisland (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

EI is a blog, but it is being used here as a reliable source, I suggest removing quotes from EI and any material relying on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacker1968 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP El

Intifiada is not a reliable sources and can't be used to support wikipedia articles ("There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction"). Please remove anything that is based on it. Sunshine SRA (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an interview, so it can be used to directly quote Achcar. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)