Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was no consensus. The core issue is whether this topic and/or content is (irremediable) original research by synthesis. About this we have no consensus here. The "keep" side argues that any synthesis can be or has been editorially remedied, whereas the "delete" side argues that the article's topic (or rather, the connection between two topics it implies) is insufficiently covered in reliable sources. This is not for me as closer to decide but needs further discussion among interested editors. Sandstein 08:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Original research and argumentative essay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 Can you elaborate? I see quite a few citations to scholarly sources. While I agree there are quite a few WP:OR bits (e.g., making a claim above a movement, then citing only some individuals who hold it rather than an RS describing the movement) there does seem to be a core of reliably sources describing things from the outside. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete sources need to be presented showing that this phenomenon is being discussed in a systematic and named way. A compilation of news stories about something happening separately is the definition of synthesis. Jahaza (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep; the article, as-written, is very bad, but sources 4 and 5 (Mandel and KrollZeldin) seem to indicate secondary, in-depth scholarly discussion of the topic. Removing the litany of "survivor X said this. Survivor Y said this" OR can be done by normal editing; WP:TNT doesn't require deletion first. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete; per my response to WhatamIdoing below, the Kroll-Zeldin source does not appear to mention Holocaust memory. Only one in-depth source fails WP:GNG, and so I revise my !vote to support deletion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I do not have access to either sources 4 or 5, the page numbers referenced span just 2 pages each. This to me is an indicator of a lack of in-depth scholarly analysis, and at most, I presume (although again I do not have access to either source) that the sources may have mentioned the concept in passing. This to me seems like WP:SYNTH because the very concept "Holocaust memory in pro-Palestinian activism" is not mentioned in any reliable source I could find. This seems to be taking lots of disparate instances and putting them together, the definition of SYNTH. Cherrytxrt 📧 21:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I can provide transcripts of the relevant passages, which are valid. However, they make it clear that a WP:FRINGE viewpoint is being described and that few holocaust survivors were what the article called "radical left activists" (that Mandel calls "communists"), but the scope of this articles is solely about them. Anti-vaccine activism, for example, does not attempt to portray a fringe belief as a mainstream one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This raises major OR and SYNTH concerns. It largely puts anecdotal information together and spreads it out enormously. The limited mention this has in relevant literature can be covered elsewhere under NOPAGE. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am in agreement with EducatedRedneck, and do not see any reason for deletion. OR and SYNTH is referenced but not explained. I checked the page and the sources and they are all about the topic. Ismeiri (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep Not convinced a delete is warranted here. SYNTH is about editors making new connections between unrelated facts, not how reliable sources cover a subject. The recent title change made sure the sourcing matches the topic now, and the sourcing is enough to warrant its own article. Any issues with writing style should be addressed through regular editing. Genabab (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've gone ahead and removed the bulk of the blatant SYNTH from the article. I'm sure there's more I missed, but this should present a better view of what the article could look like. I'm noting this to keep the context for the above discussion. The old version at the time of the nomination can be found here. The version as-of my latest edit can be found here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Keep. I have seen this phenomenon on e.g. AlterNet and in The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History, so I am unconvinced that this topic is a new idea without encyclopedic value. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 09:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This new article was created after an editor watched a YouTube video and wanted to see that video’s viewpoint displayed more prominently in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_memory_in_pro-Palestinian_activism&oldid=1332329558. He succeeded; the page is now the top Google hit for "intellectual roots of terrorism". We do not have a page on Holocaust Memory in Zionism, although the memory of the Holocaust had quite a lot to do with 1948. Nor do we have articles on Pan-Arabism in pro-Palestinian activism or Antisemitism in pro-Palestinian activism. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
The nom asked me to look at this, and I think it's complicated. Bottom line up front is that I suggest a merge to the under-developed Jewish pro-Palestinian activism as a practical matter, and alternatively that we keep this but expand its remit to be a bit broader. Mostly I think that WP:PRESERVE applies (i.e., Wikipedia should have some information about the phenomenon of the Holocaust being invoked against Israel's destruction in Gaza), but that doesn't necessarily need to happen in such a narrowly focused article. Here are some sources that I think might be helpful for developing an article that discusses how different understandings of the Holocaust produces different responses to the Palestinian situation:
  • Wermenbol, Grace (2021-05-27). A Tale of Two Narratives: The Holocaust, the Nakba, and the Israeli-Palestinian Battle of Memories. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-84028-6.
  • Gutman, Yifat (2021-04-30). Memory Activism: Reimagining the Past for the Future in Israel-Palestine. Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 978-0-8265-0391-6.
  • Bashir, Bashir; Goldberg, Amos (2019). The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-18297-3.
  • Khoury, Nadim (23 April 2019). "Postnational memory: Narrating the Holocaust and the Nakba". Philosophy & Social Criticism. 43 (1). doi:10.1177/0191453719839448.
  • Segal, Raz; Daniele, Luigi (2026-01-02). "Gaza as Twilight of Israel Exceptionalism: Holocaust and Genocide Studies from Unprecedented Crisis to Unprecedented Change". Journal of Genocide Research. 28 (1): 69–78. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2325804. ISSN 1462-3528.
  • Klein, Shira (2026-01-02). "The Growing Rift between Holocaust Scholars over Israel/Palestine". Journal of Genocide Research. 28 (1): 179–199. doi:10.1080/14623528.2024.2448061. ISSN 1462-3528.
When looking for sources, I used keywords such as holocaust nakba and holocaust palestinian and then scanned the results. Although "Holocaust memory" is a term of the art, I thought it sufficiently unusual that it missed sources that address the subject of how the Holocaust is invoked against the Israeli state and in favor of the Palestinians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - I proposed the recent title change to resolve any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues, and there was some problematic content leftover that I'm glad to see User:EducatedRedneck has taken care of. The article clearly satisfies notability guidelines and can be expanded further as noted by other editors. Tashmetu (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to Holocaust memory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This article in previous iterations was an absolute disaster and I then advocated its deletion. It still has problems but, unlike when the previous merge proposal happened (when I opposed the merge), a much higher proportion of the content is actual encyclopedic material, rather than dubious statements sourced largely to opinion pieces and advocacy groups.
There are still things here that don't fit in the scope, but that would fit in the scope proposed in this comment - the material on Holocaust memory in Israeli policy for example. A reasonable treatment of the role Holocaust memory plays in the conflict would be served by this move. Centering the frame exclusively on pro-Palestinian activism is an unfortunate legacy of the flaws of the original article. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus that there might be something but also that that something might not be this or could be something similar but different. That definitely feels like we need more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am still convinced that the article name change and the work that has been performed before, during, and following the move process has resolved the issues with the article. We've removed OR and NPOV violations; there are plenty more sources for us to use. Disagreeing with the content does not mean it's not notable or deletable. I stand by my previous !vote and/or comments on this article and we should keep and improve it, not delete. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Or merge to existing articles on the subject. WP:SYNTH heavy, and doesn't appear to be strongly sourced for this specific subject, rather than being a more over-arching subject that this article has spun-off from. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as having a non-neutral title/scope that is insufficiently justified by sources. Noting that the so-called Holocaust memory referenced in the article's first sentence is not even its own article, rather a redirect to The Holocaust#Remembrance and historiography. Other options are plausible, such as a merge to Jewish pro-Palestinian activism or The Holocaust and the Nakba. A move to other titles could also be viable, such as Samuelshraga's suggestion. I prefer delete because this article is still poorly written and overly anecdotal; best to start over and add well-sourced content to more encyclopedic articles that treat this important topic broadly. NicheSports (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously a thing. If the title needs changing change the title. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
    "Obviously a thing" isn't the standard for what makes a subject pass WP:GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any OR issues here. Considering that the sourcing is extensive and the content is presented in a balanced manner, there's no reason for removal. Holocaust memory plays a significant role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, meaning that it's commonly referenced and analysed in pro-Palestinian discourse, which is contested by the other side. The material doesn't belong in the Holocaust and Nakba, as it's not about a comparative analysis between the two events. There isn't even a single use of "Nakba" in this page. It also doesn't belong in the Jewish pro-Palestine activism one as most of it is not about Jews but activists and scholars generally including Palestinians. Zalaraz (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep there is enough sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Per WhatamIdoing, WP:PRESERVE is applicable here. The WP:HEY process has already resulted in meaningful improvements; several additional RS cited during this discussion have already been added to the article, so further expansion is possible. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reasonable argument for deletion. I would also note that concerns regarding neutrality and WP:SYNTH have been invoked without specific examples being identified, either in the discussion itself or in the nomination. If there are instances of synthesis, they should be identified and addressed through normal editorial processes. Perhaps the title would benefit from a minor adjustment, specifically changing "in" to "and". But that might be outside of the scope of this discussion. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    @Paprikaiser Per my comment above, I removed a lot of the most egregious synth. Prior to that, it was harder I think to pin down parts that were NOT synth rather than point out parts which were. For what it's worth, I expect that's why the discussion hasn't been about specific instances of synth. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll look into more of these sources soon, but so far I looked at a few. First the Kroll-Zeldin source... In the link provided by WhatamIdoing, I don't see anything related to Holocaust memory. The word Holocaust came up ten times in the rest of the book. I could only manage to see the snippets but I saw nothing that connected Holocaust memory with pro-Palestinian activism. Next, the Maud S. Mandel source. They list a number of cases of Jewish radicals, but they go on to say that their attitude was not representative of Jews as a whole. Again I wasn't able to find the whole book, but I found a review of the book from Purdue University Press that said Mandel sees many cultural and religious similarities between the Jews and the Muslims, as well as common experiences, such as minority status and problems of integration. She evokes the variable memories of each: for Jews, Vichy and the Holocaust; for Muslims, colonialism and the Algerian war. The Jews overwhelmingly support Israel, while the Muslims support the Palestinians and maintain an active interest in Algeria. So this is at odds with what the article says. It appears that the article is using Mandel's assertion of a fringe view and characterizing it as mainstream. Then I looked at another random source, the one by Sim Kern who is an environmental journalist, speculative fiction writer, and activist. This does not look like a good source. Whatever the result of this, the first two sources should either be clarified or deleted from the article, and the third one should also be deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks