Jump to content

Talk:Pan-Arabism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 130.83.12.163 (talk) at 19:07, 23 November 2012 (→‎Aflaq impacted by Arsuzi who was fascinated with the Nazi ideology of "racial purity"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Removals

Dear Sean Holyland, if this you consider a disruption, wouldn't you consider this as well? Rocalisi (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would personally because those issues should be dealt with at WP:SPI (and perhaps it was) but since it doesn't specify which editor it is referring to specifically I can't justify removing it. This talk page is for discussing article content and only article content. It says so right at the top of the page. Comments here need to comply with WP:TALK. If someone would like to personally attack another editor they should do it elsewhere (after having read Plaxico#Accidental_shooting) and be prepared to take the consequences. The article has been fully protected yet again because of the disruption going on here. This isn't rocket science. There are simple policies that have to be followed and that includes dealing with sockpuppets. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that person (...) 'accused' me of being another person, it cast doubts more than enough on the 'decisions' of sock puppets as related to one POV here. The page was only protected after that user (...) asked to be protected under his version... By the way, this is also, clearly a personal attack, with his "sock puppet charges." Rocalisi (talk)

Again, no individual specified=no personal attack. There are sockpuppets active on this article. This is not speculation. It has been investigated, is still being investigated and proven sockpuppets have already been blocked. If you don't want to appear to be a sockpuppet don't carry out the same actions as editors who have been proven to be sockpuppets. This is another reason to approach the RS issues on a case by case basis, address each issue one by one, make small edits once agreement has been established etc etc. For the version issue see the wrong version. Edit warring produces an article that no one on the planet can edit apart from wiki admins. So, the actions of a few individuals are paid for by everyone else. All of this is easily avoided by people simply following the policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, doesn't it seem to be so strange that all these have been blocked? - 1) Lanternix - 2) LeeSeem - 3) Miss-simworld - 4) Toothie3 - 5) Geenah - 6) Beyruthi ??? If he (...) wouldn't be so eager and desperate in his actions I would probably not even notice this, but it's exactly his edits, again and again, removing all the RS that i have proven to him, which he did NOT respond to, that was again and again a red light, I am proud of my background but I am also a critic, a self critic as well, this is an encyclopedia, there's no reason for information to be removed just because someone feels offended or has a different personal POV. giving in to such a person/action is a disservice for history, for humanity. Rocalisi (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem strange that people will sociopathically and repeatedly create sockpuppet accounts to force their political views down other people's throats and ignore mandatory policies about things like reliable sourcing despite having agreed not to do that by signing up for a wiki account ? No, not at all. It's very common in wikipedia. To quote the great Chris Ware "People are getting less smart every day, everywhere. It's a real world movement" Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an encyclopedia. So if you want to use a source whose reliability is in dispute then you must prove that it is reliable for the information that it is being used to support and proof must unambiguous. Wikipedia provides you with a tool to do that, the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for an editor to repeatedly insert material from a source when the reliability of that source has not been established. It is a blatant violation of the WP:V policy. You don't know what another editor is offended by or what their personal POV is unless they tell you and it doesn't matter anyway because editor's views are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is policy compliance. That's it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Rocalisi, the text in question is garbage-y original research that is based on opinion columns, essays, and other sites that are not reliable sources. That is the reason why it keeps getting removed from the article, not some global conspiracy of pro-Arabist editors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik, I come from Arab land, don't tell me what racism is by this terrible ideology, please, fahem?. To you Sean I say, the real strange part is that it's that user (N.) who removed so much chunks of information (aka vandalism) all the RS content by JVL, NYT, The Guardian and shoving down people's throats of his POV (take for example his removal of the information of the pan-Arab pan-Islamic leader al-Husseini, as if his pan-Arab ambition or his fascist Hitlerism is a secret or a "pov," come on! The Holocaust Memorial site [1] removed by Nableezy is an "oped", or see this Yad Vashem piece [2] whereby in these sources al-Husseini's pan-Arab plans agreement with the Nazis are stated clearly, what on earth are you talking about?) or that the Kurds were victims of pan-Arabist Saddam, or that Nasser's pan-Arab policies persecuted the Copts, now it's protected under his POV version, look at that. as I said before if his objection is that one or two sources might be an opinion that he disagrees with, he already has put a POV on top, which is more than enough.Rocalisi (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am not surprised at you Malik, I saw your bias already earlier on this page", what the fuck! golly gosh! Get this crap off the page now or I'll delete it. I would appreciate it you would kindly remove statements about editors from youir postings or I will. How many times do I have to tell you ? You appear to have accidentally forgotten what I said. Stick to the content of the article forget about the editors. Go through the sources one by one. Create new sections if you have to. Don't edit war under any circumstances whatsoever. Don't make any comments about any editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, the already discussed: al-Husseini's pan-Arabism (Holocaust Memorial, JVL, YadVashem and other - quoted above (yet a 5th link source for al-Husseini's seeking pan-Arabism [3]), pan Arab cause at expulsion of Jewish refugees from Arab countries [4] the rise of pan-Arab fascist movement at Hitler's era (nytimes and other quoted - above, Here's more al-Muthanna Club, a government supported forum for pan-Arab activists, Dr. Sami Shawkat, which imitated the Hitler Jugend ), Nasser vs Copts (Here's more [5]), Saddam vs Kurds (here's more [6]), have no legitimiate reason to be removed.

Note, the reliable sources I quoted from contributions by others here, or/and provided/added now, do mention clearly the pan-Arab effect. Rocalisi (talk) 10:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly does the Karsh book on Hussein say about the Kurds and pan-Arabism? The book Christians versus Muslims in modern Egypt contains the word pan-Arabism exactly once, it says the Copts were "disquieted" by Nasser's pan-Arabism. The JCPA piece says a few people were pan-Arabist, but doesnt really relate pan-Arabism to the things you are pretending that it does. This is a common tactic of past Toothie3 socks, to bring some respecatble looking sources and assert that they say whatever evil thing you want them to say. They often dont. nableezy - 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the phrase "it doesn't mention," whereas in fact it does, like you wrote before on this page that Magdi Allam doesn't mention pan-Arabism in context of chasing out the Jews? his words: "advent of ideological pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism" [7], let's see more of Karsh:
The Iran-Iraq War - Page 11 by Efraim Karsh It suppressed the underground organizations, expelling some 100000 Iraqi Shi'ites from the country, attempted to organize a united pan-Arab front, and supported separatist Kurdish and Arab elements within Iran. [8] Let's quote from the JCPA: the other refugees, Jews of the Arab world... pan-Arab and pan-Islamic parties and movements in almost every Arab state have fomented mob violence against Jews [9] I can't believe that all above users are 'sock,' if you had an administrator to block them, that still doesn't mean they are. I would expect an equality in commenting on your this personal attack, just as much, this ongoing repeated trick of blaming others? to borrow your words "this is common tactic?" Nor does it make sense what you wrote above in this page that "justice for jews" from Arab countries [10] is not reliable, why should we exclude a source for being Jewish, only Arab sources fine? Since you talk about Karsh, here's about Karsh's words on pan-Arabism vs Iranians (from the NewYorkTimes) Pan-Arabist thought -- which dominated Arab political life for most of the 20th century -- insisted on the creation of a unified vast empire "from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arab Gulf," provoking sharp confrontations with Iran since the late 1960s. [11]
And more from Karsh himself; the rejection of the contemporary Middle Eastern state system by pan-Arabs and pan-Islamists has triggered many wars among Arabs and Jews, Arabs and Arabs, Arabs and Kurds, Arabs and Iranians, and others. [12]
Subject Kurds and pan-Arabism, here's more:
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, p. 28, by James R. Arnold: Iraq's Arab nationalists supported pan-Arabism. Iraqi Communists and the Kurds, who were not Arab, opposed pan-Arabism. [13] What's the argument of only mentioning once as opposed to mentioning 10 times? I suggest you get less personal, less disruptive and more 'to the content.' Rocalisi (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the quote from the book by Karsh does not say that pan-Arabism had anything to do with the expulsion Shias, it says that the party was pan-Arabist and that it expelled the Shias. That isnt the same thing as saying pan-Arabism caused the Shias to be expelled. The NYTimes piece is an op-ed which could be used for an attributed opinion, but even then it only says anything about pan-Arabism causing tension with Iran, the MEQ doesnt say much about pan-Arabism at all except to say that they rejected the "contemporary ME state system" and that caused conflict, and the last source doesnt say much of anything besides the Kurds were against pan-Arabism. It does not say the pan-Arabism was the cause of the Anfal campaign, nor does it say any of the other nonsense you and your past incarnations have been placing in the article. And please dont play me for a fool, we both know who those other users were a sock of and we both know what past usernames you have used, dont pretend that I am blind. nableezy - 22:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not regardless, but thanks also to the actions [User_talk:Rocalisi#Edit_war ] against me I was willing to study this page, more and more.

Or, how about the Human Rights Watch bookm is that 'unreliable source' too? If you want another specific connection of Kurds/anfal/pan-arabism title of book: "Genocide in Iraq: the Anfal campaign against the Kurds," (Middle East Watch report - Author George Black - Publisher Human Rights Watch, 1993 ISBN 1564321088, 9781564321084) on p. 32: "The radical pan-Arabist ideology on which the party had been founded was hostile to the non-Arab Kurds" [14] Here's a Kurdish link. [15], so you agree on the quote of pan-Arabism vs Itranians, why did you remove anti-Iranian pan-Arabism charges? if the nytimes piece is an oped, you already put a POV on top of the page for it, right? I am asking you again to concentrate on the material not on the people, personal attacks, no, I don't know what you mean by "we both know", asides from the foolishness that it sounds, I don't get your "codes." still saying that Magdi Allam on Pierrerechov doesn't blame pan-Arabism for the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries? Rocalisi (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was removed from the text about Iran? And the source does not say pan-Arabism is "anti-Iranian" that is your predictable spin on the source. I discussed the pierrhoav article above, I dont see the point in repeating myself. And a POV tag on an article does not mean you can continue your months long campaign to slant this article to your own personal beliefs and dislikes. nableezy - 22:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you put a POV request on top that's more thyan enough in case you are not in "agreement" with pierreRechov (I saw, you absoletely failed in your argument with a user miss-simworld above on this) I amasking again, do you still, insist/repaet yoursel and hold that Magdi Allam doesn't blame pan-Arabism for the expulsion of the Jews? or the newyorktimes. Note! when you have a rant against me, talk to me, not about "months long" with someone else, got it? Yes, if pan-Arabism was the motivation to go to war against Iran, that means it's anti-Iranian More about Human Rights Watch activists on this subject, in the:The New Yorker 1992, in dicussing the chemical attack on Kurds and pan Arabism: "The Baathists expouse Pan-Arabism and insist that Iraq must be an Arab state." [16] on that same page about that genocide [17]. Rocalisi (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works here. And two words being on the same page doesnt mean anything at all. I can find books that have the words "Jesus" and "evil" on the same page, do you think that means I can say that the book is a source to say "Jesus is evil"? (the answer, in case this was too complicated, is no). And what else does the first book say? Or is the snippet from google books all you have? If so, you can say that Baath party was pan-Arabist and insisted that Iraq be an Arab state. That snippet does not support anything else. And I already discussed the Allam source in the section #Current sources, I dont intend on repeating myself. Matter of fact, I dont know why I am spending so much time arguing with an obvious sock puppet. Ill be back when you have a new username.nableezy - 23:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That joke about Jesus... If you have read that book you'd see the one subject it talks about on that same page, the genocide on the Kurds by Saddam, the cause effect of Pan-Arab ideology. I have answered your questions there, look at it again #Reliable sources, the content deleted by user name nableezy, in too many portios, here's more: what does this nonsense mean (from your link "current sources' that you keep quoting, you wrote above: "The sourcing for the Nazism is either a. completely unreliable" besides the RS quoted above JVL, contributed from others, and I added yesterday [18].

In other words, from your comments here, it seems that if it's a source by the victim, i.e. Kurd, Copt, Berber, Jew, Persian, then you dismiss it as unreliable, if it is a common source you either avoid it or say it's "mentione only once", or you brush everything as "oped opinions." what the heck? I am now really re-thinking for agreeing to remove venusproject. Do you have another username? what is this obsession of yours, is "sock puppet" your middle name? (I quote here what a user by name yasmina wrote above #Links_and_edit_war, "When they dont get their way they are willing to go to great lengths to vandalize or stop you from editing one of them even tried to (falsely) accuse me and Lanternix of being socks to get us banned. Like I said this is sadly the actions of a brainwashed blinded bunch of followers of a dead & racist ideology.") concentrate on material please, that's if you have tangible answrs of course... personal attacks doesn't help. Rocalisi (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you dont understand what I am saying, so dont try to interpert my words. As to your question, no I do not have another username and I never have. I used to edit as an IP many years ago, but not since registering this username. nableezy - 05:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork Arabism

The Arabism page, which used to redirect here, has been re-created. It seems to be fundamentally about racism of Arabs against non-Arab minorities, and none of the references I spot-checked actually used the word "arabism". Was creation of the other page ever discussed, and what was the consensus? Thundermaker (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. There's a endemic sockpuppeteer user that is obsessed with scapegoating Arabs as racists, these types of pages pop up everynow and then. --Soman (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what happened to this article?

it used to have so much more content... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.22.35.12 (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aflaq impacted by Arsuzi who was fascinated with the Nazi ideology of "racial purity"?

In fact Arsuzi stated that he did not see in Aflaq's young movement more than "un mouvement droite soutenu par l'Allemagne nazie et ainsi incompatible avec les idéaux du nationalisme arabe". Aflaq's answer was, that in spite of his stance, regarding the enemy's enemy as a friend, there was no need to copy an ideologie whatsoever. You may reed this in Guingamp's book Hafes el Assad et le parti Baath en Syrie Paris 1996, p. 44). ----130.83.12.163 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pan-Arabism&oldid=524537303"