Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Holocaust and the Nakba: Difference between revisions

The Holocaust and the Nakba (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)

I am unable to understand why this warrants a Wikipedia article, it appears to be almost entirely made up of original research and just lists comparisons made between the two events by various authors and historians.

Googling the name of the article just brings you dozens of search results for a book by the same name, but I can’t see any established prominent comparison — the sources are excerpts from old books and the topic has received no media coverage (except from the rare comparison by Al Jazeera, which is a questionable source when discussing anything related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). I’d be open to a merge into the Nakba article that mentions comparisons that’ve been made, but this doesn’t appear to warrant a standalone page.

There is also some questionable phrasing used , i.e. “Palestinians see themselves as the ultimate victims of Nazi Germany”, which just offends Jews and portrays Palestinians in a bad light.

Much of the article consists of sentences like “Both during the Holocaust and the Nakba, there was large-scale looting of the property of the victims.” — why is this relevant? Looting has happened in every war, conflict & genocide throughout human history and it certainly doesn’t establish a connection between the two events. Aesurias (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge if a good merge target can be determined. As is, this looks to be plenty of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I could go for a Merge to Nakba if consensus seems to be going in that direction. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, History, Military, Judaism, Israel, Palestine, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: see the “Sources” section of the article, with its numerous scholarly sources with the same title as this article. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. This nomination is anyway malformed, consisting of two arguments: “I did a quick google” and “the content needs improvement”. That second comment may be true (the article’s main author Buidhe can comment), I haven’t reviewed it in detail, but that it not an argument for this forum. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  15-year old archived studies from pro-Palestinian university professors does not prove a topic passes general notability. I could find studies and papers connecting any variation of topics, it wouldn’t mean they’re fit for a Wiki page.

  The page consists almost entirely of original research (WP:SYNTH) about things that are loosely tied together. I think some of the info is certainly relevant, but much of the page is not relevant. (IMO) the relevant details should be merged to the Nakba article. Aesurias (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general notability guideline states that a topic must have significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Which of those criteria do the laundry list of books with the exact title do you think not qualify those criteria? Katzrockso (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an astounding nomination given that there are enormous amounts of reliable sources discussing the topic, both those who think they are similar and those who think such a comparison is offensive.

Any issues with WP:OR and WP:SYN are WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues that can be solved by editing. Katzrockso (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I hope someone volunteers to rewrite the entire thing, given that it is completely and entirely original research — many of the sources just briefly touch on the fact that other people have compared the two events.

There are reliable sources discussing and comparing everything, but not everything has an article on Wikipedia. I don’t understand what knowledge can be gleaned from the article. Big woop, two genocides are similar — it’s hardly surprising. Much of the current content is also somehow both insulting to Holocaust survivors/victims and Palestinians. Aesurias (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least if the article it kept, its name should be changed to ”Comparisons of the Holocaust and/to the Nakba”, as the article is just listing comparisons made by random professors and Palestinian activists. Aesurias (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the article scope is not limited to comparison, it also includes causal linkage (t · c) buidhe 11:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has a causal link Aesurias (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not the first misguided attempt to delete this article, but it obviously meets GNG and other relevant policies. It’s not SYNTH when the sources are explicitly about the linkage between the two events, and being “offensive” is not a reason to remove content or articles—see WP:NOTCENSORED. (t · c) buidhe 13:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well sourced with references from high quality publications (e.g. Journal of Genocide Research) and noteworthy genocide scholars explicitly linking the two events. Complaints that the subject is not mentioned in the news are irrelevant as we prefer academic sources per WP:SOURCETYPES. No evidence of OR/SYNTH has been presented but even if it were that’s a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. The remaining reasons are variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fyi I learned of this article by seeing a post about it on Reddit, read it, and then saw the AFD. There are multiple scholarly references about comparisons between the two, which allow it to meet notability. WP:OR claims look to be wrong, everything seems to be cited to sources that compare the two. Whatever problems exist with the prose and title of the article, and I am somewhat inclined to agree that they do exist, AFD is an inappropriate venue for resolving them. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The obvious notability of comparisons/comparative analysis is shown by the multiple academic research articles and books used as citations throughout the article. I would also like ask the OP who characterises the sources as 15-year old archived studies from pro-Palestinian university professors, how the variety of notable leading experts in both genocide and Holocaust studies used as sources all amount to pro-Palestinian university professors, and how books and articles published in:

• 2018 (The Holocaust and the Nakba; Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion)
• 2020 (Between Apartheid, the Holocaust and the Nakba: Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s Pilgrimage to Israel-Palestine (1989) and the Emergence of an Analogical Lexicon; Postnational memory: Narrating the Holocaust and the Nakba; Entangled suffering and disruptive empathy: The Holocaust, the Nakba and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in Susan Abulhawa’s Mornings in Jenin)
• 2021 (A Tale of Two Narratives: The Holocaust, the Nakba, and the Israeli-Palestinian Battle of Memories; The Problems of Genocide: Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression; The German Catechism)
• 2023 (Genocide, the Holocaust, and Israel-Palestine)

are 15-year old archived studies? — Cdjp1 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Outside of the ridiculous statement “Palestinians see themselves as the ultimate victims of Nazi Germany”, which was both added relatively recently & now removed, I don’t see any evidence of WP:OR, nor outstanding issues requiring deletion. The idea that all the sources cited are outdated is both not a reason for deletion & inaccurate, as several citations are to works from 2020-2021. This is, at most, a proposal to improve the article, not delete it. – Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that statement was summarizing “In contrast, Palestinian writers draw a direct connection from the Holocaust to the Nakba and see themselves as the final victim of the Nazis”, which is still in the article and in previous versions used the word “ultimate” instead of “final”. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A major rewrite is undoubtably needed, but the article itself meets the standards for continued existence as I read them. The war crimes of a country that was created in large part because of war crimes perpetrated against the people of the country, are unquestionably linked to the war crimes they experienced. Conceptually, the fact that Israel has used the same rhetoric used by Nazi Germany during the holocaust is enough of a reason to justify an article comparing the two. The comparison is hardly novel, and while sources certainly need to be improved, I have no doubt that they exist. Foxtrot620 (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Blank the Literature section as irrelevant, failing WP:SIGCOV, and collectively failing WP:NAUTHOR. Edit out the extensive WP:OR from the remainder and merge what’s left into Nakba. This article isn’t just WP:SYNTH, it’s some kind of text collage. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is the literature section irrelevant or fail WP:SIGCOV? Every citation in that section explicitly compares the Nakba & the Holocaust in their titles. Also, WP:NAUTHOR refers to an author’s notability for a standalone article, so irrelevant here, besides many of those authors cited actually already have their own pages due to independent notability.

  As such, could you please give some examples of what you believe is extensive WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely not. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you linking someone else’s edit unrelated to this article? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason. To answer your question, the whole idea that historical analysis comparing the Holocaust and the Nakba belongs alongside fiction using the Holocaust and the Nakba as overlapping narrative tropes is itself synthesis. Unless the implication is that the historical analysis is also based in fiction, in which case maybe the page creator is onto something, hermeneutically. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having an article cover a topic from several different angles is not SYNTH. There is no implied conclusion being arrived at through synthesis. See WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there’s a category that better covers the example of two superficially but not actually connected considerations mashed into a dog’s breakfast of an article, I’m open to learning what it is. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you — I feel as if I’m going crazy with some of the above comments. The entire thing is original research weakly stitched together Aesurias (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Holocaust has it’s own page and so does the Nakba this page seems like it was created as a deliberate way to equate the two instead of a page made in good faith. These are historically distinct events. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Read WP:AND; we have Buddhism and Christianity. if reliable sources cover, compare, or contrast these topics then we can have an article on them. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 20:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Nakba. Most of the sections seem to have significant overlap with background and history of the Nakba. The relationship to the Holocaust seems like it would be just as relevant there if and where it is well sourced here. As others have stated, this article as written suffers from WP:OR WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues. It makes broad sweeping claims in Wikivoice rather than attributing them to their sources. (“The Holocaust is a universalized memory in Western culture and has tended to block out the memory of the Nakba.”, “In Israel, all Israeli Jews are considered survivors of the Holocaust who must implement the imperative of “never again” in regards to being a Jewish victim.”, “Palestinians see themselves as the ultimate victims of Nazi Germany”, etc.) This is especially problematic when these clearly do not nearly represent a consensus or even common view. Polinova (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  100%. Reads like somebody’s college essay Aesurias (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per the more detailed arguments above, which I find convincing, but especially because the list of sources for the article clearly established notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the multiple scholarly sources already in the article that establish the notability of the topic, a quick search at Scholar shows that many more could be added. The current content can be improved like most articles but that is not a reason for deletion. Zero^talk 07:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]