Talk:Syrian Social Nationalist Party

bias against the party: *alleged* fascism

if it's officially denied then why include it there? 2A02:E0:8E6F:6C00:C47B:7774:714A:DFDE (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Nazi organisatons notoriously lie about themselves to avoid scrutiny. The real question is why the box includes that it's officially denied (and the answer is pro-SSNP/Assad editors)69.157.2.238 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason it says it's officially denied is because that is the official stance of the party. You can choose to believe that official stance or not, but that's your opinion. For a wikipedia page to be valuable it must include all of the facts, including the statements made by the party as well as claims against those statements.

I noticed that you reverted all of my recent edits with the explanation of "Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Nazi sympathizers". Care to explain which parts of my edits were inaccurate? Hopoxal607 (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely not the official stance of the SSNP, it's simply a statement the SSNP makes towards western audiences to improve its image abroad. The SSNP is extremely supportive of Nazism still and there are plenty of reliable sources demonstrating that fact, but two (now apparently three) POV-pushing editors are clearly going out of their way to ignore the overwhelming quantity of sources verifying that fact. Beyond that, you have removed references to an entirely valid source and tried to create a whole section citing party materials. 69.157.2.238 (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If western audiences claim that the party is fascist and the party denies those claims, then the claim that the party is fascist is officially denied. What else would "officially denied" mean?

You've also mentioned here that the "SSNP is extremely supportive of Nazism". Can you share evidence of this claim from reliable sources? Hopoxal607 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

the SSNP has been critical to the Nazi ideology since the start, proven by Antun Saadeh's speech in June 1935. Durranistan (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

there's already been several example sources used that have been rejected without discussion by SSNP-sympathetic editors, here's one example:

https://www.newarab.com/news/syrias-assad-hizballah-courting-german-neo-nazi-group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.106.118 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Going to add that party supporters and the SSNP itself have been directing people towards the Wikipedia page. It's very obvious that many, if not all, of these edits trying to whitewash the party are being done by party supporters abroad. 69.157.3.57 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@69.157.3.57 your only edits on Wikipedia are that on the SSNP so if anything you're the one being directed here 2A02:E0:8E00:D100:BA33:8012:3C7E:5C75 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2024

Change "...advocates the establishment of a Greater Syrian nation state spanning the Fertile Crescent, including present-day Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine, Cyprus, Sinai, Hatay Province, and Cilicia..."

To "advocates the establishment of a Greater Syrian nation state spanning the Fertile Crescent, including present-day Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Cyprus, Sinai, Hatay Province, and Cilicia"

Original writer does not mention Israel which is a very relevant piece of information in regards to the political climate in the region 2A02:14F:17D:C11E:E16B:D1D1:51C5:C025 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I added this to the lead. The source for this sentence does not mention any of these states by name, but the geographic boundaries clearly include Israel and it is already mentioned in the body of the article. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Add (disputed) to fascism in ideology

Seeking consensus on a suggested edit given this discussion to append the following after Fascism in the 'Ideology' section of the infobox :

 (disputed)<ref name="goetz">{{cite book|author=Götz Nordbruch|title=Nazism in Syria and Lebanon: The Ambivalence of the German Option, 1933–1945|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iAWBkDAv4TkC&pg=PA45|year=2009|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-45714-9|page=45 |quote=I want to use this opportunity to say that the system of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party is neither a Hitlerite nor a Fascist one, but a pure social nationalist one. It is not based on useless imitation, but is instead the result of an authentic invention – which is a virtue of our people.}} - [[Antoun Saadeh]]</ref>

I have copied the citation from Antoun Saadeh (which would replace the less formatted citation of the same work elsewhere in this article). Tule-hog (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes on consensus

Bumped to WP:SYRIA here, and courtesy ping to previous registered users in the discussion (unfortunately no way to ping IP users, also I'm sure I've missed some so feel free to tag more involved users): Durranistan, Hopoxal607, Yoshi24517, HapHaxion, and Czello. Tule-hog (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Also noting for formatting consistency that the use of (disputed) is borrowed from the infobox at Hamas. Tule-hog (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC) A form of it was also found in the Al-Qaeda infobox, but instead of (disputed) it's (alleged, officially denied) which can still apply to the SSNP infobox Durranistan (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC) (alleged, denied) is used at Ansar Allah as well. Tule-hog (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC) JJNito197 and 69.157.2.197, please do not make the edits under discussion to the page while the consensus is still forming, per WP:BRD or WP:EDITWAR. More input is needed from other editors - noting for others that this proposal was made when this edit was most recent. (Also noting Czello citation of WP:MANDY, which is relevant here.) Tule-hog (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC) Agree, the IP should stop reverting until consensus is formed. The IP is now reverting updated, sourced information. JJNito197 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Hi User:Tule-Hog! My edits are reasserting established consensus, USER:Jjnito197 is editing against that consensus to push a particular POV that's unsupported by RS, and part of a broader pattern of this user edit-warring for a particular POV on articles relevant to the region. I also strongly recommend perusing the Talk page archives to get an idea of how bad the POV pushing has gotten from party sympathisers. Cheers, 69.157.2.197 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC) After a week of consistent reverts and re-reverts, I highly recommend JJNito197 or 69.157.2.197 take this to WP:ANEW and refrain from further editing the portions of the article under contention. —Tule-hog (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC) I will, but the issue now is that these are IPs now tag teaming, which means I will need to go to page protection to get this page protected. JJNito197 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree - fascism was added without prior consensus, brashly, with outdated sources. JJNito197 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is simply not true, fascism has consistently had consensus throughout the history of this page. You have been repeatedly warned about changing the ideology section without consensus and done it anyways. Your most recent edits discarding reliable sources, then leaving the least reliable, is some of the most egregiously blatant POV-pushing I have seen on this website. You should not be editing this page, and I'm going to put this to ANI in the morning. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources about the political alignment of the party today you say, from 1966, or the way the flag looks, or the way a song is sung. If you lack the discernment to see that the sources provided are inadequate, it is you that should not be editing the page. As mentioned above by another editor, you are overly zealous about this article, strictly editing it based on how YOU perceive to be the truth, casting aspersions about myself and other editors, and being generally obstinate. You even had the gall to call one of the sources unreliable but decided to keep it anyway. I advise you to provide an up to date source that calls this party fascist today, or move it to the historical section like anti-communism which should not be in the current ideology section. Please read WP:IDONTLIKE, and please stop casting aspersions about the motivations of editors which you have repeatedly done, for years now. If there is anybody POV pushing, it is yourself. JJNito197 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Against - there is no good reason to include denials of fascism from parties that are well-established by reliable sources to indeed be fascist. Frankly, I do not even think it's appropriate for the Al-Qaeda infobox. We do not extend this to other fascist parties, and it's not clear why the SSNP should be the exception. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Against. A single source disputing it doesn't make it dispute, and it'd be WP:UNDUE to say so. There are an abundance of sources to say they're fascist, so I don't see why we'd compromise on that. Also bare in mind that WP:MANDY applies — Czello ^(music) 21:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this goes beyond WP:MANDY since SSNP's connection to fascism is a subject of substantial academic debate. Many of the already existing citations in the article address this topic directly. I have collected a few relevant passages below (any users feel free to include more):

references

Carl Yonker (2021). The Rise and Fall of Greater Syria. As Zisser notes, "It goes without saying that the character [i.e. fascist character] of the [SSNP] has been the focus of scholarly debate ever since its founding at the beginning of the 1930s, and certainly since the 1940, when it became a significant political power in Syria and Lebanon. The [SSNP] is discussed more than any other political party…" (Eyal Zisser, "Memoirs Do Not Deceive: Syrians Confront Fascism and Nazism—as Reflected in the Memoirs of Syrian Political Leaders and Intellectuals," in Arab Responses to Fascism and Nazism: Attraction and Repulsion, ed. Israel Gershoni (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014), p. 78) The French and the party's opponents, as will be seen, labeled the party as fascist, but there has been little serious scholarly engagement with the issue until recently. The late German scholar Christoph Schumann, whose works focused on the development of radical nationalism and radical nationalist organizations in Syria and Lebanon between 1930 and 1958, including the SSNP, added more nuance to the debate. Addressing the "fascist" label often ascribed to the party, Schumann noted that the SSNP was among several radical nationalist organizations that arose in the Levant whose symbols and organization resembled that of European fascist movements, often leading to the accusation that these parties were "the servants of the Axis powers in the Levant." By this measure of style and organization, including the party's emphasis on symbols, exaltation of youth, and tendency toward authoritarian and charismatic leadership, the SSNP was arguably fascistic; this was not the case regarding the party's ideology and aims. (For typological description of fascism, see Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914–1945 (New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 7) Schumann's argument was further expanded upon by Götz Nordbruch in his study Nazism in Syria and Lebanon. Nordbruch demonstrates a far more "ambivalent" reception to Nazi advances by Lebanese and Syrians than previously thought. Indeed, the SSNP's response to Italy and Germany, like those of other Lebanese and Syrians must be seen in the context of seeking independence from France. The desire to be rid of the Mandate, rather than any true affinity for Fascism or National Socialism, was paramount. Asad Abukhalil; Daniel Pipes (November 1989). "Radical Politics and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 21 (4). Pipes is furthermore mistaken when he claims that the party "abandoned fascist doctrines and adopted the more acceptable rhetoric of the Left" (p. 310). While it is true that the party underwent a partial political transformation in the 1960s, it is also true that the party never abandoned its fascist doctrines, from racial categorizations, worship of al-za'im, to fascist internal organization. - Pipes' article of the same name in Volume 20 of the journal is the subject of the exchange here, and is relevant with many allusions to 'fascist-style', 'fascist qualities', etc. An expanded quote is "the party abandoned fascist doctrines and adopted the more acceptable rhetoric of the Left. This transformation was completed by 1970 and permitted the SSNP soon after to make common cause with those groups seeking to overturn the status quo." Labib Zuwiyya Yamak. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party; an ideological analysis. It is no wonder therefore that when it first appeared in Lebanon, it created so much concern among the ruling circles, both Lebanese and French, that it was banned and its members persecuted. That is also why the mandatory authorities, seeking to weaken its appeal, attempted to discredit it in the eyes of the people by linking it to Italian fascism and by accusing Sa'adih of being an agent of the Italian government... Drawing heavily on the findings and conclusions of the Lebanese Military Tribunal, the Syrian military prosecutor during the trials of 1955 and 1957 described the SSNP as the agent of western imperialism. Having first been founded by the Italian fascists in 1932, the prosecutor maintained, the party served well its Italian and German masters during the heyday of fascism. Later, when the Axis powers began to crumble, the party collaborated with the French, the British, and finally with the Americans and the Zionists. By this he implied that the SSNP really had no national principles and that it was nothing more than an instrument in the hands of western imperialism and their allies, the Zionists. - This book has numerous passages on the topic of SSNP's relationship to fascism.

But I worry of straying into WP:OVERCITE in the ideology box. I notice there isn't a subsection dedicated to fascism in the article's ideology section, so maybe it is worth building something out there with a WP:BUNDLING? Tule-hog (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really much actual academic debate about whether the SSNP is fascist, most of the sources of this opposing view are either from party activists like Beshara, or sympathisers. Although it's OR, there are also plenty of public records of the SSNP meeting with western neo-Nazi parties, and I suggest familiarising yourself with that content. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think its at all meaningful to refer to Zisser, Yonker, or Pipes as 'party activists' or 'sympathizers', who state, for example:

It goes without saying that the character [i.e. fascist character] of the [SSNP] has been the focus of scholarly debate ever since its founding at the beginning of the 1930s...

and

[the SSNP] abandoned fascist doctrines and adopted the more acceptable rhetoric of the Left...

Do you have a reliable source on the unreliability of these particular scholars' claims? (Also just noting I have moved the portion of your comment on JJNito to an above reply for ease of future editors.) Tule-hog (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Pipes is an old-school Islamophobic activist, I don't support his inclusion at all for either citation, but that's not relevant. My reference to sympathisers had to do more with past efforts by users to introduce Nazi blogs in the past as sources. There is simply no good reason to discard the considerable RS, as user:JJNito197 has constantly pushed to do, nor does it make sense for him to criticise sources for being "outdated" while trying to lean on sources older than those citations by a decade or more. Going into the archives, JJNito has in the past tried to argue that "western" sources on the matter lack neutrality and shouldn't be included. At the end of the day, this guy will never run out of excuses for why sources validating characterisations of the party as fascist should not be included, fight endlessly for this POV against established consensus. Dude was edit warring over this three years ago, he's never going to change. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly fanatic, and I haven't removed fascism. You've removed newly added information, removed citations I've provided for left wing and citations provided for secularism, and decided to remove the historical section. All in all you have been incredibly disruptive, zealous, and you have indeed been monitoring this page for years, and going by your comments above, myself(?!). If you continue to remove cited information, and revert carelessly without due consideration, I will report you for disruptive editing. You clearly are not competent to edit this article; your bias is showing. If you can't be bothered edit the article and prefer to revert to maintain what you perceive to be the truth, you should not be editing. JJNito197 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA — Czello ^(music) 09:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As fascism inclusions are under discussion, I will restore the citations for it until we have consensus to add disputed. I will also restore the historical subheader as there was no reason to remove this nor was any reason or consensus was given for doing so[1]. I have added secularism to the ideology section, again, no reasons were given for the removal. I will add another cite for left-wing under the position "syncretic", again, as this was also removed without reason. The multiple sources that were shoved in were made without reason or consensus on July 5th[2]. The content hasn't been in the article for long. It's worth noting that this user was scraping the bottom of the barrel when looking for sources, hence the citation from 1966. Once we establish that some of these sources are now redundant, which is inevitable, we will re-add the disputed and officialy denied tag that was added without consenus as this was the the standard on this article previously.[3][4] I think Tule-hog has done a great job trying to engage in good faith, it's a shame that this hasn't been reciprocated. JJNito197 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added a neutrality header until this issue is resolved. JJNito197 (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no neutrality issue here, you are throwing a tantrum because you keep getting resistance for trying to whitewash a fascist party. You have been repeatedly told already to not edit the section against consensus, and continued to do so as soon as people aren't paying attention to the article. You have a history of complaining about neutral POV content as "critiques" (as you have on 13:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)) and know full well that there's substantial opposition to portraying it as a "left-wing" party as you continue to do. The prior version of the infobox is going to be restored until this can be resolved on talk. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You are removing sourced information, and this is not how we work on wikipedia. The sources for fascism were restored were they not? That was your gripe was it not? So what exactly do you want to restore. We have guidelines about removing banners aswell, this is not a case of carelessly reverting edits. You have already been warned by myself and others, see your talk page; the next time you do so you will be banned. Stop casting aspersions on me, this is the last time I will ask you. JJNito197 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"You are removing sourced information, and this is not how we work on Wikipedia" is rather disingenuous to say when the entire problem here is that you persistently removed extensively sourced information. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It's still bizarre to me that you would claim the sources for characterising the party as fascist are "outdated," and then start demanding that you should be able to add OLDER content by thirty-years to the infobox that you've been repeatedly asked to not change without consensus. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, a source from 1966 is objectively outdated. And so is subjective opinions about whether something looks or sounds like something. Nonetheless, this will be scrutinised and discussed in due course as I have re-added and acquiesced for the sake of good faith. Now this being said I expect you to engage in good faith and provide arguments for why or why not sources should omitted or included, refraining from personal feelings as made clear above as this is not valid argumentation. Lastly you can't pick and choose when to care about consensus. Look forward to working constructively. JJNito197 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not "picking and choosing" when to follow consensus, consensus was established already before, during, and after your disruptive 3-year editing campaign. It's also extremely disingenuous to tell me that I am arguing based on personal feelings of whether sources should be included when that has been the entire basis for your edits in the first place, because you don't feel it's "possible" for a party with longstanding ties to Nazi organisations to be fascist, that "western" scholarly sources shouldn't count because of undefined "bias," etc. This shouldn't be a question of "acquiescing" either, there is simply no valid reason to purge reliably sourced content because a small minority of extremely disruptive editors takes issue, regardless of whether I agree on the content or not.

Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to maintain the infobox as it currently is, thete's absolutely no valid reason for keeping contentious edits under dispute, or to selectively ignore disputes when they don't allow you to change the page at will and pre-emptively bludgeon people with warnings after being told they intend to go to ANI with your behaviour. If you want people to assume good faith, you should revert the infobox to its prior state as per WP:RV and work it out in talk, which you have refused to do beyond groundlessly disparaging RS.

You have been repeatedly warned about edit warring over content related to the Levant generally, it's obvious to me that you aren't capable of editing content you feel you have strong personal ties to, and difficult for me to believe the SSNP somehow falls out of this pattern.69.157.2.197 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Going to add it's simply not accurate to portray me as removing any RS for any reason other than the fact that it's being added to the infobox without consensus by an editor who have been repeatedly asked not to do so without going to Talk. 69.157.2.197 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we keep the discussion on this article and its content and not about me, and I am not in any way affiliated with it. I only care about the truth and the facts, and today not the past. As I had repeatedly asked, can you stop WP:Casting Aspersions and trying to see things that aren't there, and no I haven't been repeatedly warned, only by you, incessantly, when you perceive I deviate from your truth. You are the one that monitors this page fervently, in good faith for the sake of Wikipedia, but who turns a blind eye to bad faith, inaccurate edits like this by[5], by a user whose edits speak for themselves, and who doesn't leave a summary nor check talk page dicussions or consensus, which is extremely disruptive to this entire project. There is a contradiction here. For the record, I wasn't monitoring this page it seems only you were, as I do not generally edit political pages. Now that we have gone back to your fascist edit with surplus citations, can you let us know why it is not disputed and why they remain the same party with the same ideology as they did 1966? Attack the content not the editor. Thank you. JJNito197 (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not even clear here what you're complaining about, is integrating a collapsible list a sign of bias by that person? Not sure what that person's edits are supposed to speak to either, the only substantial disputes I noticed at first glance are from the problematic editor that's had a history of trying to add Nazi blogs as sources to this page. I'm not sure what exactly your grievance about that edit is, and whatever it is, there is a substantial difference between removing mentions of extremism regarding the subject, and integrating the collapsible list into the rest of the section.

I'm also not sure how you think you're more concerned with the present. The SSNP has been meeting with Nazis more openly than ever before, but OR is not germane to this conversation. What is germane however is the fact that descriptions of fascism on this page have been subject to complaints about not being cited enough, to now being over-cited by a very small section of users who do not want the description to remain. 69.156.105.133 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, if you haven't realised the sources for fascism were restored, it's unsure what problem you have with the article at present. As explained above, the collapsable header was removed for not reason given, and secularism was added per RS. Please stop vandalising further. Take it to talk. JJNito197 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Refer above to this[6] edit made recently, which removed the collapsable header for no reason which shows that the party was historically anti communism, but not now. The historical header wasn't added by me it was restored by me per consensus and the inline text which says any changes should be dicussed on talk, which didn't happen. JJNito197 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see that you now accept that prior established consensus and using the talk page before editing contentious and labelled material really matters. I presume that, following this logic, you will stop trying to restore your edits without consensus. I have made it clear my problem with your edits goes beyond the issue surrounding fascism and is just as much about your unwillingness to consult the talk page in general. Once again, per WP:RV, returning to the status quo ante bellum is the norm, it's not entirely clear why you are extremely resistant on disruptively restoring your contentious edits. I have taken the liberty of restoring the status quo ante bellum against both yours and the other editor's proposed changes. 69.156.105.133 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you removed secularism? This was well sourced and cited. This will be readded in, but just to clarify your thoughts why this is such a problem for you please let us know. Please understand most importantly, Wikipedia doesn't care what is "right" or what is "wrong". Wikipedia cares what can be sourced from reliable sources. When new sources arise which challenge your preconcieved notions, take it to talk and debate why or why it shouldn't be included, but do not defer to personal primal feelings under of the guise of self righteous sanctimony, as this is not valid in a NPOV setting. I expect editors on wikipedia to act more knowledgeable, so please address specifics and debate instead of insinuating everybody is nazis or nazi sympathisers which is disgusting to me and you should be ashamed. Regardless, if you do not provide arguments or provide sources, you should expect to receive resistance. As you have yet to provide any sources for any edit or comment you've made thus far, you are merely an over-excitable observer with no stake in this game. JJNito197 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If you don't want people to think you're acting in bad faith, I suggest not behaving as textbook examples of bad faith, like actively trying to purge mentions of fascism in the infobox. In terms of secularism as a label, I don't think Pipes is a reliable source, and we should draw from the many much better sources that recognise its secularism. But the biggest issue is that you keep packaging your secularism edit with your other changes to the infobox. 69.156.105.133 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Administrator note: I've fully-protected the page for a week due to edit warring. JJNito197 (talk · contribs) and 69.15X, please resolve this dispute without further edit-warring; perhaps an RfC could be used if a clear consensus can't be found due to discussion? Both of you were quite closer to being blocked here. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)