Talk:Hasan Salama

Untitled

Interesting. Nothing about his involvement in Operation Atlas in which he and other Nazi operatives were parachuted on the night of November 2nd 1944 near Jericho with the intention of poisoning the drinking waters of Tel-Aviv. The British army caught his associates, but he managed to escape. Avihu 20:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Got any sources? If you do, it'd be appreciated if you add this piece of information. ← ANAS ^Talk? 10:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The only source I know of is the book about his son Ali Hassan Salameh who was involved with the Munich Massacre. The book is "Massacre in Munich: The Manhunt for the Killers Behind the 1972 Olympics Massacre" by Michael Bar Bar-Zohar and Eitan Haber. The affair is described in detail in the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מבצע אטלס which include dates and names of those invloved. Avihu 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at Operation ATLAS. Avihu (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Hassansalameh.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hassansalameh.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files missing permission as of 31 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS

(I apologize because it is a basic comment:) The summary page of the National Archives are not wp:rs. We don't know who made this summary. Only the contents are wp:rs and anyway they are primary sources and must be handled with care.

So, I will remove this : "The mission was intended to supply local Palestinian Arab resistance groups with resources and arms, and to direct sabotage activity primarily at Jewish (rather than British) targets."

Given "Jewish (rather than British" is just an usual pov-pushing.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Poison

Ykantor wrote in an edit summary: "While I don't believe the poison story, it should not be deleted until the MI5 "poison" file content is known". First, Ykantor needs to read WP:ONUS; actually we have to keep dubious things out until they are verifiable, not the other way around. Second, the British files on the mission are known. I would dearly like to read them all myself, but meanwhile Mallman's book "Nazi Palestine" cites them directly (giving the archival identifier) without mentioning poison, and Schwanitz also refers to them (though without an archive reference) and states that the poison story is not supported there. Zero^talk 08:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a min-break from my WIkibreak (due to software-development obligations) to order the KV 2/400-402 documents from the British National Archives. We'll have to find a way to share them. Does anyone know if we can legitimately submit the (legally purchased) official copy into Wikmedia (which would be the best way for all of us to view them). I've tried to get these docs from Stanford (including the Hoover Institution) and UCLA Library systems, and neither could find interlibrary loans or other methods for examining the source material. I've also had a hard time finding secondary sources that have deals with these archived materials. Does anyone have citation to peer-review articles? There are plenty of news reports from the time (see the Operation ATLAS article 'external links'), so there's probably subsequently been a peer-review journal article by academic historian. Any suggestions? Ronreisman (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I started to buy that file from the UK national archives a few years ago but changed my mind when they told me the price. I don't remember exactly but it was something in the order of $400. I hope you can get a better price out of them. I don't know if they charge big money for everyone who asks, or just for the first (after which they have the scan on computer and can just burn it on a CD). Zero^talk 02:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ronreisman: great personal investment but we must all have in mind that 1st sources can only be used to "reject" some 2nd sources if it is very clear that he made a mistake. Eg if a scholar states a first publication would have been in May and that we find a 1st source reporting the publication sooner ; or in the current case if the report undoubtedly state there were gallons on poison on not just pills.

If there is room for interpretation, 2nd sources will always be mare reliable than us...

So the investment may be huge for nearly nothing but I support the proposal.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

wordpress blog as a source

A blog cannot be considered as a reliable source. Even less when it is named Haskalah. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So you object to an Arabic website because it has a name that resembles the Hebrew word for 'Enlightenment'? Do you think it may not be written by Palestinian Arab, and suspect that it may actually be the work of a Jew? Perhaps part of the Jewish population of Gaza City? How much is 'part of' zero, anyway? Thankyou for the entertainment. Nevertheless, you've left the article in a sloppy state, and though you many not have intentionally wanted to vandalize the article, it's in a bad state due to your last edits. Pluto2012: Please don't remove refs and then leave the orphaned text unsupported. Please either find RS to support the text or remove the unsupported (citation-needed) passages.Ronreisman (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, would you mind explaining why you deleted the phrase 'and burning Yishuv orchards' and left the rest of the orphaned text essentially untouched. I'm really very interested in your reasoning process, so please explain fully. In particular, please feel free to dispel the impression that you have deleted this line about 'burning orchards' because that is a popular charge against Zionists, and perhaps a anti-Zionist propagandist may be motivated to falsify the record of Palestinian Arabs who burned orchards that belonged to Palestinian Jews. Please explain how that was not your motivation.Ronreisman (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your source is a website (so not WP:RS) and it is a blog (even less WP:RS). Let's not talk about an Israli blog faking Arab origins.

It is unrelevant to "burn orchard" whereas at the same time attacking British. By the way, it would be a pro-Palestinian argument to remind this given burning an orchard is nothing in comparison with killing people. It would mean they didn't attack Yishuv.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for the reply. Your answer is very revealing. I couldn't agree with you more that people's lives are incomparably more valuable than trees. This is a pro-Human argument, not limited to pro-Israeli/Palestinian concerns. I'm sure you're acquainted, however, with the repetitive usage of the 'olive tree' and 'orchard' imagery to de-legitimize Israeli action that (they argue) preserves the sanctity of human life. Not to mention the success of the Palestinian 'plant-an-olive-tree' campaign, etc. The use of trees & orchards as semi-sacred land-claims is beyond our topic (or our time :-), though you must be familiar with these arguments. In case you're not, a quick google search for "Palestinian plant an olive tree" turned up about 515,000 results, including: http://endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=3744 and https://org.salsalabs.com/o/641/images/Visualizing%20Palestine%20-%20Olive%20Tree%20Info%20Graphic.jpg . In fact, I believe the example of ripped-up olive-trees figured in some conversations that have involved both of us, if you'll recall :-) Ronreisman (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

On a more serious although it may be fun to speculate on the sub-text on talk pages, the business of these pages it to improve the content of the articles. At the moment we have unsubstantiated content in the text; not an acceptable state. What are we going to do about getting RS for the (currently unsupported) text in the article. I'm tempted to write the blogger and ask for his secondary sources, though my less-than-rudimentary-Arabic may not be up to the job. Incidentally, the 'Haskalah' in the blogname is an abbreviation of his name, and I think he'd be offended to be accused of having a Hebrew moniker :-), so I think we leave that out of the correspondence :-) Ronreisman (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

More complete view of his life in lead

The old version of the lead only mentioned his role in the 1947-1948 Palestine Civil War. However, most of the text in the article is about other periods of his life, with his role in the 1947-1948 being only 1 out of 4 sections. I've added a brief summary in the lead to correct this. OtterAM (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

He was first and foremost a Palestinian nationalist, you make it sound as if he was formats a Nazi. AND you have broken the 1RR rule by inserting it for a second time, after you were reverted. Please self servers, or you will probably be reported, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I only did 1 revert. OtterAM (talk)

You added the same material TWICE, in one day, that is a violation, at least since December 2016, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing this. OtterAM (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on what aspects of Hasan Salama's life should be mentioned in the lead

Should the lead only mention Hasan Salama's role in the Holy War Army or should it also mention his service with Nazi Germany and his death at the hands of the IDF? Here are two competing versions [1] and [2]. OtterAM (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative 1 For a start, Alternative 2 is not sourced in the given reference, Mitchell, p. 136. And version 2 makes it sound as if Salama was a first and foremost a Nazi who happened to support the Palestinians, which is simply not correct. Huldra (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to point out, the first sentence in version 2 includes "Arab military and political leader" which is already more breadth than is included in version 1, which only mentions one of his military roles. After this sentence in version 2, the various significant aspects of his life are mentioned in chronological order, which is why his activities in WWII come before the 1947-1948 war. OtterAM (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, stop beating around the bush, what is the chance of you trying to having "the various significant aspects of his life" included in the lead, if one of those "significant aspects" hadn't been "giving his allegiance to Nazi Germany"? I would say zero. Again, version 2 makes it sound as if Salama was a first and foremost a Nazi who happened to support the Palestinians, which is simply not correct. Huldra (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

And compare the lead, with the infoboxes, in this article, with the article of Subhas Chandra Bose, who was a hundred times more important to the Nazis than Salama: still, no Nazi flag in the Bose article. Of course, there are not lots of people still denying the Indian people their independence...Huldra (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative 2 Summoned by bot. Perfectly relevant and encyclopedic, providing that it is adequately sourced. I was summoned by bot to an RfC on his son's article and the sourcing indicated there was insufficient to support the wording. However, if the sourcing is adequate it certainly should be used. Coretheapple (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Alternative 2 Summoned by bot. I don't have any concern with this alternative; it seems perfectly well-sourced by the article's body. It is mentioned without emphasis and it is in proportion to the body of the article. The body of the article itself gives little context to his involvement, citing only the facts of his involvement, so I cannot see how mirroring that language in the lede would give a "first and foremost" impression as feared. Heterodidact (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)