Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biased opening to ideology section

The ideology section for a political party should describe the ideology of the party as defined by its values, beliefs, and policies. Why is it then, that the ideology section opens with claims that Western journalists have made about the party? These claims include describing the party as fascist, having international ties to the far-right, claiming Saadeh was an admirer of Hitler, etc.

I am not here to say if these claims are valid or not, and I agree that they should be included in the page and further discussed. But why are these claims opening the ideology section and not in their own subsection in the existing criticism section? I propose that this opening of the ideology section be moved to the criticism section. Hopoxal607 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to wikipedia. Some of your recent edits in this article have been reverted due it being nothing but Disruptive. These involved removing long-standing content backed up by Reliable sources and inserting content based on Unreliable, Primary sources. You have also moved academic discussions of "Ideology" to the "Criticism" sub-section.

Accordingly, the page has been reverted to the long-standing stable version. If you have doubts, discuss and do not engage in Editwarring, which may result in the suspension of your editing privileges. If you want to experiment, you may try the sandbox. Thank you Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit you reverted did not add or remove any content, it only moved content from the start of the Ideology section to the Criticism section. Also, the content I moved was not "long-standing content" as it was added some time at the start of this year.

As to the actual content being moved, I do not think it is fair to say that they're backed by reliable sources. The second paragraph makes the following claims:

- Saadeh admired Adolf Hitler

- Saadeh introduced Nazi symbolism into the SSNP

- The party adopted a reverse swastika

- The party's anthem is sung to the tune of Deutschlandlied

- Saadeh aimed to establish a totalitarian state that policed all aspects of life

- Saadeh is strongly antisemetic and believed Jews had no place in Syria

- Saadeh maintained close contacts with officials in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during WW2

All of these claims cite chapter 4 of "All Honourable Men: The Social Origins of War in Lebanon" by "Michael Johnson" as the source. Have you read this book? If not, what makes this source reliable such that it can be cited with these claims? Hopoxal607 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

All these points are cited in this book and it shall be highlighted here:

The 1930s ‘can be described as the era of “shirts* in the Arab world’ when a number of parties adopted the uniforms and militia structures of European fascist parties... Despite authoritarian tendencies, these militia parties usually conceived the particular nation that they ‘imagined’ — Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian or Arab — to be open to all who lived within the boundaries of the homeland. Only the British and French should be excluded.
The most prominent exception was the Syrian Nationalist Party (al-hizb as-suri al-qawmi), whose leader seems to have adopted the title az-za'im as translation of der Führer. Founded in 1932 by Antun Saadeh, a Greek Orthodox Lebanese who taught German at the American University of Beirut, the party was also known as the Parti Populaire Syrien (PPS) after a French official had mistranslated its name. Later it added the word ijtima‘i to give a full tide of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). Saadeh, the party’s 'leader for life', was an admirer of Adolph Hitler and influenced by Nazi and fascist ideology. This went beyond adopting a reversed swastika as the party’s symbol and singing the party’s anthem to the tune of Deutschland über Alles, and included developing a cult of the leader, advocating totalitarian government, and glorifying an ancient pre-Christian past and the organic whole of the Syrian Volk or nation. Saadeh had a corporate view of the state, read fascist texts, and was allegedly in close touch with Italian fascists and the Nazis during the second world war.
He also shared with Nazism a racial prejudice against the Jews, not simply as a result of their association with the Zionist project in Palestine, but because they had 'alien and exclusive racial loyalties’ that could not be assimilated into the Syrian nation.. its geographical definition of the homeland included the island of Cyprus and therefore Greek and Turkish speakers as well as Arabs. But despite this inclusivity, Lebanese and Syrian Jews were denied membership of the party, however anti-Zionist they might be

If you want to understand what constitutes a Reliable source in wikipedia, read WP:RS. This book is a secondary, highly academic and published work; which is appropriate for content editing. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for retrieving the content from the citation and highlighting the points. Does Johnson go into further detail on where he obtained this information? My confusion is that these still seem like opinions. I understand that a professor at a university claiming that Saadeh admired Hitler can be said to be more reliable than a random person claiming that, but how did the professor reach this conclusion? For example, did Saadeh say this in any of his works or speeches? Or is this simply a conclusion the professor arrived at from studying the party (i.e. its his opinion)? Hopoxal607 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

These are purely academic questions, which are irrelevant for editing discussions. What wikipedia requires for editing is to source them based on Reliable sources, as is the case here.

As for your question itself, you should do your research to find them out. Have a nice day. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

The statements being made here are stated as fact, and so the reliability of the source must be judged with this context in mind. A statement such as "Syrian Jews were denied membership of the party" requires a source showing evidence of this occurring. A professor saying that this occurred is not a reliable source for this statement.

My proposal here is to either 1) reframe how this content is stated given the context of the source its citing 2) track down the underlying source that proofs these claims as fact Hopoxal607 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, as per your highlighting of Johnson, he claims that "Saadeh ... was allegedly in close touch with Italian fascists and the Nazis during the second world war" while the wikipedia page states "Throughout the Second World War, Saadeh maintained close contacts with officials of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany". This is a clear misrepresentation of the source Hopoxal607 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The source has already been given. Thats a fact. Editor's activity is only to paraphrase.

As for your second comment, that might have been an editing error. I have changed the text: "Throughout the Second World War, Saadeh maintained close contacts with officials"--> "Throughout the Second World War, Saadeh was rumoured to have close contacts with officials.." Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

A source has been given yes, but I am disputing that it can be considered a reliable source given the context and the statements being made on the wiki page.

Saying that Saadeh admired Hitler and that Jews were denied entry into the party are very strong claims that must be backed with strong supporting evidence. A professor stating this as a fact without any supporting evidence is a weak source, and is not fit for a citation for the opening of a political party's Ideology section. I'm not proposing this content be removed, but it should be moved to a more appropriate section on the page until stronger evidence can be cited

The fact that the citation is published and authored from a professor is not enough to claim that it's reliable, as per this section from WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable.

The topic of Saadeh and the SSNP is mentioned on a single page of Johnson's entire 320 page book. Hopoxal607 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Courcelles you seem to be monitoring the recent changes being made here, could you weigh in on the appropriate path to resolve this? Hopoxal607 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well you are just making WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Fringe arguments now. You dont have a single reliable source for your claim.

Saadeh is widely known as a Hitler admirer and Nazi influenced in the academia. A known Nazi sympathiser will always be known as such.

For example:

Antun Saadeh (Antūn Sa‘āda), the Greek Orthodox Lebanese who founded the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) in 1932, was a Germanophile well acquainted with Nazism thanks to his knowledge of German, which he taught at the American University of Beirut (AUB), and an early admirer of Hitler. The SSNP – ‘Syrian’ refers to the ‘Greater Syria’ of the ‘fertile crescent’, encompassing the Sinai, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, to which Saadeh would later add, oddly enough, the island of Cyprus – is a Levantine clone of the Nazi party in almost every respect: political ideology, including hostility to the Enlightenment and a geographic-racial nationalist theory with scientific pretensions; organizational structure; and leadership cult. Even the party’s flag is patterned after that of the Nazis, with the red and black in opposite places and a helix with four blades in place of a swastika

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

By disputing the reliability of a source I'm making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments? Both sources are a single paragraph that authors made in passing with no additional supporting evidence. I think the concerns I'm raising are justified given that this content is stated as a fact on the page. Without stronger evidence these claims are opinions, and they should be expressed on the page as such.

It's become clear from your push back here and your contributions on this page that you are rather opinionated on the topic of this party. I think it would be best to get a third party to look at this and judge if it would make sense to move the opening of the Ideology section to a more appropriate section Hopoxal607 (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Shadowwarrior8 here. If there's an argument for the unreliability of these sources, it's not given here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

References