Talk:The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 22 January 2013

Jewish history Start‑class Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2010. The result of the discussion was Keep.

About this book...

So...where is it's ISBN number? The sources that are provided do not actually state that he is the author, there are no sources to indicate who translated it or what the translation contains, and it isn't on the publisher's catalogue. If it was a notable book, sufficient that it needs a Wikipedia article, it would be in the catalogue, no? How many were produced? How was it distributed? In what way is this different from a printed and translated version of somebody's speech?

Not every book by an author is notable, and this one isn't meeting the threshold. Risker (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud 'Abbas, al-Wajh al-Akhar: al-'Alaqat as-Sirriya bayna an-Naziya wa's-Sihyuniya (Amman: Dar Ibn Rushd, 1984)
National Library of Australia Catalog Bib ID 493205

per this, source: MEQ journal appears to me WP:RS for factual description, since it is is a peer reviewed, however it is clearly biased. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification needed templates

I've done a significant copy edit of this article to bring it closer to NPOV, remove the worst of the unacceptable sources, correct some errors, and improve the flow and readability.

I have added {{verify source}} templates to the English "quotes" from the Abbas thesis/book, because none of them identify who made the translation or what its provenance is; the information that we have is that it was published in Arabic, and originally written in Russian, so this is a rather crucial issue.

I've also added the same template to a quote that is reported to come from a newspaper interview, because it does not directly quote the interview itself, and the date of the interview is not provided by the reference source used; therefore, it's not really verifiable. Risker (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On translations, according to Itamar Marcus: translation by Wiesenthal Center. And this is from 2003. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove {{verify source}} templates to the English book quotes, if you don't mind. BTW Arabic is very common language ;).

Erm, no. You need to be able to show that the specific quotes used in this article are from that specific translation. Do you have a copy of that translation available to you? (It would be great if you did, but I can't seem to find a reference to it in the SWC archives.) I know Arabic is a common language, but we're not talking about the language, we're talking about a specific book which so far we can only confirm is held by one reference library. (Good work on that, by the way. That reference was the key to verification here.) The references to the translations must be verifiable, and most of the places where those quotes come from don't state their source, so they need to be confirmed against the translation itself. Risker (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~A partnership~~ It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement... quote translation is by Wiesenthal Center, according to Itamar Marcus in 2003. Should it have {{verify source}} templates? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are reliable sources unless proven otherwise. I don't see why verification is required, per WP:V we are not required to check the truthfulness of what reliable sources say. Marokwitz (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of reference sources

I have reverted the addition of a specific reference source here. The sentence, parsed simply, says "The 2007 report by Institute A says that Person B said statement C", and therefore the subject of the sentence is the 2007 report. A book written in 2003 cannot be used as a reference to verify what a 2007 report said. Because "statement C" is attributed to a living person, the BLP policy applies. That is an improper source for the sentence, and must be removed. Risker (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No argument, that's why edit summary noted the fact of Efraim Karsh chrono precedence. I got edit conflict as I was tweaking attribution by adding him. He cites the article book directly and according to his wiki page he has background in Arabic. So there is a number of sources basically saying the same thing. Any thought on appropriate attribution? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that paragraph is turning into a mess again, and needs some major work. Let's see. First off, how about separating what Karsh says from what the SWC report says; one sentence for each of them. The Karsh sentence could start with "Efraim Karsh, writing in 2003, stated that..." The sentence on the SWC report could start with "A 2007 report published by the SWC concurred with Karsh, saying...." I strongly suggest that each of them only be referenced by the referred to sources; that is, the statements attributed to Karsh be referenced to his book, and those attributed to the SWC be referenced to that report. Because this is a negative statement about a living person (there aren't many people who concur with Faurisson, and I can't imagine many people suggesting that it's a good thing to do so), the attribution of such a statement has to be crystal clear (hence actually stating who the source is in the article), and adding other references that say more or less the same thing muddies the waters. I'll think more on the last part of that paragraph, which has become something of a mess as well, and needs to have direct references for the quotations. Risker (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My impression the those sources basically say the same commenting on Raul Hilberg and Robert Faurisson, that's why I grouped them together and removed Stephen E. Atkins cited text. Go ahead, fix it. Your review and edits are welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

poor quality of this article

It is amazing that an article about a book doesn't actually have any references to the book. Almost the entire article is based on claims made by a small number of hostile authors, whose claims were then parroted by other hostile authors. This is highly unsatisfactory, and it is hard to see the point of the article other than a political point. As it happens, I have access to this book. I don't read Arabic but I can bring copies of a limited number of pages if I know the page numbers. Do any of the sources that claim to know what the book says actually give page numbers? Zero^talk 01:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor and very biased

This article is not professional, very biased and far from being objective and therefore harms Wiki's reputation as a reliable source of information. I think that this article should be erased immediately.

(Nolan, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyNolan (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It reads like a mudslinging article against a political opponent than a reference entry.142.229.90.134 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request to delete the article

As it is clearly seen form the discussion, the biased statments and poor quality of the article itself, there is a good reason why this should be deleted. (ScottyNolan (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Article is not biased, But let's get the First Hand Citations

The calls to delete the article are not valid the article is not biased at all, as it clearly and fairly points out Abbas' view that people should rememebr he wrote his thesis during a time of war with Israel and he would not say such things today. In other words it is commendable that Abbas acknowledges his own bias today about a thesis he wrote in a very different era. The criticism that the citations are second hand and not from the book based on the thesis are fair enough, apparantly the book is available from Amazon see http://www.amazon.com/The-Other-Side-Relationship-Between/dp/5512017772 I'll get it and update the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.211.159 (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC) 98.117.211.159 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Coffeyrod 98.117.211.159 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Coffeyrod[reply]

That "book" is just a dump of this Wikipedia article; don't waste your money. Zero^talk 11:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I assume it is. But it would clear up the objection that the holocaust-denying elements of the article are not primary source references from Abbas' own work. Which I think was in fact your objection !

I don't see how a copy of this Wikipedia article clears up anything at all. Zero^talk 05:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 {{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=Start|importance=Low}}
 {{WikiProject Books|class=Start|importance=Low}}
+{{ARBPIA}}
 {{oldafdfull | date = 28 September 2010 | result = Keep | page = Relations between Zionism and Nazism (Doctoral Thesis) }}