Jump to content

Talk:Omar Hayssam

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

Comments

[edit]

There seems to be a storm in a cup on this page, and you guys could avoid the revert war over that one sentence by adopting one of two solutions. First of all: I have rephrased the sentence to "many" instead of "most", because Jurnalul was not conducting a survey, just expressing an opinion over what was arguably a significant number of Arab students, who may or may not have been the majority of Arab students. The other way was to attribute the estimate to Jurnalul. (As I side note, I could point out that many to most Arab students had very little financial security after December 1989, which Jurnalul does not mention.)

Isn't the rephrase OR? After all, "most" to "many" is quite a change ...Anonimu 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the original uses mai toţi. You tell me. Dahn 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's best translated as "almost all". Much more than "many". So i'd say OR.Anonimu

1.Anonimu, do stop referring to that sentence as "fascist" or "racist". It does not even address the matter of Arabs or even Arabs in Romania, just the matter of Arab students, and, with this in mind, it would have been an exaggeration only in its original form ("most"). What it currently says is basically that "many of the (couple of hundreds?) Arab students in Romania allegedly made a living illegally after communism fell, and probably because communism fell". With this in mind, the phrase could easily stay.

Actually the "allegedly" is in relation with Omar. So those 6 words are an outright racist remark about Arabs.Anonimu 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how "allegedly" may also be read (one could just as well move it around for clarity, if that is really the problem), there is nothing specifically racist in those 6 words, and there is nothing specifically about Arabs. If anything, that sentence is not relevant enogh to add here. Dahn 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one trying to keep it. Anonimu 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.On the other hand, Biru: is that section of the phrase really necessary in the text? It does not say anything about Hayssam himself, and it does not really provide context (as opposed to a source saying that, for instance, "he was involved in such dealings with the Libyan Name Familyname and the Sudanese Name Familyname" - provided that would prove traceable to a source and relevant enough to mention). With this in mind, the phrase could easily go.Dahn 17:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, let's all remember one of Biru's confessions: "I will insult Islam, because Islam as a religion is a false doctrine"Anonimu 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is between him and Allah :). Plus, I know for sure that Biru does not edit on the basis of his real or alleged prejudice. Dahn 18:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you diffs that prove the contrary, but let's not hijack this talk page.Anonimu 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do. Anyway, what's so surprising about that statement? As an Orthodox, of course I see Islam and all other religions as false. Islam in particular is worthy of insult because some of its adherents have promised death to those who do insult it (just today, in fact), but there's nothing especially unusual about my statement, and I defy you to prove the contrary. (As an aside, you're talking about my views on Islam; Hayssam's religion has no bearing on this discussion, and I await any evidence of anti-Arab sentiment I may have displayed. Please don't try to obfuscate this issue; it won't work.) Biruitorul 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was an exclusive offer for Dahn. You already know them. Generalization based on some minor group is a very [add word here] thing to do. Most of the Arabs (and probably Omar too) are Muslims, so it has very much to do.Anonimu 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't show them, then don't claim they exist, because you end up casting a dragging down my reputation by hurling unsubstantiated allegations. Jurnalul (which you revere at F.A.M.) never generalised about Arabs, but about Arab students in Romania in the 1980s. And no, the two issues are unrelated, because the students' participation in these activities had far more to do with their being Arabs (ie, there were very few of them, they spoke the same language, lived together, went to school together, frequented the same establishments, etc) than with their being Muslims (ie, praying together), because they were likely not very religious and there was no mosque in Bucharest at the time. So my views on Islam are immaterial here.
And by the way, let me clarify on Islam: the Muslims worthy of insult are not people like Murat Yusuf, who has actually been fighting extremism; he's a nice man, foarte la locul lui şi cu scaun la cap, and unless he has been practicing a particularly wily taqiyya, I see no reason to upset him. I consider his beliefs false, like those of the Dalai Lama or the Pope (insofar as they diverge from those of Orthodoxy), but I'm not out to hurt him, because he's not interested in hurting Christians. I'm sure that's true of many Muslims, but unfortunately not all. Biruitorul 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn: yes, I actually think it provides an important level of context. It shows that his activities were fairly typical for people of his background (Arab students in 1980s Romania), and that he was not selling contraband in a vacuum. Let me provide a sort of analogy. Writing of Meyer Lansky (I know accusations of anti-Semitism are sure to follow from Anonimu), it might be advisable to write, "Like many poor Jewish youths in the ghettoes of early 20th century New York City, Lansky turned to petty crime for his income". Such a version simply adds an extra touch of information that better situates the subject in the particular time and place within which he operated. In addition, the setting of Hayssam's early activities, as opposed to that of Lansky, is, I would surmise, quite a bit less familiar to the general reader, further arguing for its retention. (Also: I think it refers to the 1980s, as it deals with his university years, which happened in that decade if he arrived in the early 1980s as a student - let's say 1982-6, when he was 19-23.) Plus, it's sourced. As to the almost all/many/most issue, I could go either way. Anonimu's cries of "OR! OR!" are probably just a way to get rid of the whole thing. I'd say "many" is reasonable, within the bounds of the permissible here, and open to various interpretations - 20%, if that was the real number, or even 90%, the figure the Jurnalul phrasing would have us understand. Anyway, I suppose it's really up to you: he's a Communist, I "am" a fascist, and you're somewhere in between, able to cast the deciding vote. Biruitorul 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important change in meaning you did by putting "many" instead of "almost all" is not supported by the source, thus is OR. I, as a communist, have no interest in bashing or praising ethnic groups/races/religious groups... you on the other hand...Anonimu 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, please point out even one place where I "bashed or praised ethnic groups/races/religious groups" (as opposed to religions, which is different). Please do so, or retract your baseless charges. Second, your claim of OR is, as usual, an obfuscatory stretch. "Many" could mean 20% or 90%, and lacking a scientific survey, I think it will do (unless you want a direct footnote for "mai toţi". Biruitorul 23:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual with Anonimu, anything he touches (and I mean, only through revert edit wars, POV tags, etc, forgeddabout adding any meaningful content to WP), almost immediately turns into a textbook illustration of Godwin's Law -- throwing around with abandon accusations of "fascism", "racism", "waffen", "brownshirts" (or is it greenshirts?) for anything that does not meet his POV (frozen in time at circa March 5, 1953, I guess). Yeah, yeah — whatever, dude. Turgidson 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's a pity that there are users who edit blindly just to illustrate a WP:POINT.Anonimu 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who are these "blind" users, would you care to enlighten us, O, Anonimu? Your repeated personal attacks are getting to be tiresome. As Dahn cogently makes the case, the sentence you want to delete is clearly referenced, so deleting it is, according to what you insist on another page, "vandalism". Furthermore, the reasons you give are completely spurious. So, stop interfering with the work of legitimate editors -- as per WP rules, do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, whatever that point may be in your own mind. Turgidson 18:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the same thing as in FAI... we've just established that, outside of being racist, that phrase is also OR. And i notice that again words are put in my mouth. Anonimu 19:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't "established" anything; for that, you would need facts, references, and logic—all sorely lacking in that verbiage. And, why would I put words in your mouth, when you keep running off at the mouth? As I advised you in the past, (1) learn how to write correct English (hint: I is written "I", not "i"), and (2) try adding content to WP, instead of bloviating. Turgidson 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another lame edit war. Please, Anonimu and everyone else, stop making personal attacks. Comment on the article, not each other. It's simple, really; if any statement is sourced to reliable, neutral sources (preferably English), then it should stay. —Anas talk? 11:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is lame. I am offering a compromise solution in the article. Please study my edit before reverting. NikoSilver 12:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, edit wars are stupid. The compromise solution User:NikoSilver offered strikes the perfect pitch, I think. I'd say, let's stay with it, and move on. Turgidson 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i read this talk page, i understand that the issue is simply about assuming bad faith towards eachother. Don't forget that by calling someone fascist/racist s/he will response by i'll insult islam and vice-versa. We have guidelines that may help us understand how to discuss articles in a much better and civilized way. Please, AGF.

Well! Back to the article. As per Anass, this edit war is just lame. Arguments which are not based and supported by wikipedia policies and guidelines are unworthy. As an admin and an uninvolved party in this discussion, i urge all of you to read and understand the following points:

I believe that those parts of our policies would sort out your issue. Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I believe this whole article is biased, it could be because at the time it was written it was still rather fresh in people's mind and the media reported only one (deficitary) side of the argument. However, I believe it should be rewritten entirely to clearly point out when assumptions are being made as opposed to facts. Sufitul (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where it is not clear? In the "Kidnapping" section, it says "Prosecutors claimed..." and "Romanian media speculated..." and so on, i.e. it is stated that those are speculations and claims. The article as a whole is essentially based on the news articles in the references section. If there is any claim which is not found in the news articles, you are welcome to point out and remove. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omar_Hayssam&oldid=1207596658"