Jump to content

Talk:Racism in the Arab world/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

RfC

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted renaming as "Arab supremacy"

I have reverted the renaming of this article as "Arab supremacy". It is not an obviously uncontroversial move and would require discussion and consensus. My own first reaction is that this move would transform the scope of the article and require major restructuring and rewriting, not to mention the problems we would have - rather like those being seen at White privilege - in debating what "Arab supremacy" is (for example, a justifiable source of pride, a regrettable bias, a danger to world peace, or a useful concept for scholars). Such a discussion could well turn nasty and the editor who made such a move could find their motives called into question, whether for thinking such an article title appropriate or for provoking conflict. NebY (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your first point because i checked the content before the move and the scope is roughly the same. Your second point is pure speculation. Pass a Method talk 16:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

rfc

I propose moving this page to "Arab supremacy". Do you support or oppose? Pass a Method talk 16:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Other racial groups are titled the same way, i.e. white supremacy and black supremacy Pass a Method talk 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline As there is no such a thing as an Arab ethnic group. The peoples of the Arab World are to diverse to stuff them together and call it "Arab supremacy". It is not the same as Arab nationalism and Pan-Islamism, where they feel connected in respectively language and religion. Racism in the Arab world refers to discrimination inside the Arab world, regardless of the ethnic groups within and culture. And by the way, the lemma "Arab supremacy" is just an Islamophobic term without any academic value. Runehelmet (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even assuming that there is such a thing as a racial group, as your question does, Arabs are not one, so the examples are not parallel. Furthermore, racism, the belief that other peoples are inferior, is different from X supremacy, the belief that people X ought to run everything because they're superior. It's not what this article is about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, plus a few points:
  1. Our "Racism in" articles range from Racism in Argentina to Racism in the United Kingdom. The argument that we should change this simply because we have white supremacy and black supremacy articles is so superficial that I remain perplexed as to the thinking of the proposer.
  2. The connotations of "supremacy" vary accordiing to context; a historian may use it to describe a period of domination or hegemony without implying supremacism. Our use of "racism" here is much clearer, especially in its inclusion of the local and the day-to-day, and follows both general and academic usage.
  3. The article would have to be thoroughly rewritten. It has been developed to discuss racism, not supremacism, as shown by the repeated use of the terms "racism", "racial" and "race". Likewise the sources and quotations used are concerned with racism, not supremacism.
  4. The article has a specific geographic focus, which the proposal would remove. NebY (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and strongly so, per everyone above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and actual RS usage. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are a fairly large number of articles titled "Racism in ..." e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=racism+in - so a precedent has been established. Certainly documenting racism is an encyclopedic topic. The title "Racism in ..." seems plainer than "supremacy". BTW: the Wikipedia:Requested moves process is available for requesting page re-names. On the other hand, lots of folks also use the RfC process. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I Oppose per (the support rationale) of Pass a Method and (the decline rationale) alf laylah wa laylah, and Noleander's comment, but register my categorical opposition to the rationale of the first oppose, the "decline" of Runehelmet, for 1) drawing Pan-Arabism on solely linguistic grounds (whereas language largely defines Arab ethnicity, along with point 2), and 2) drawing Islamism purely across religious grounds, when it is often united by ethnicity and language (historically, at least: look at the Ba'athists and Sadat's Nasser's regime in Egypt: there are striking similarities in "Pan" ideologies even if very few in religion), and 3) for comments regarding the so-called "Islamophobia", a politically-incorrect, illiberal term that is used - by poor analogy with homophobia, and by even poorer analogy with pre-homophobia actual "phobia" - to emotionally indict all criticism of Islam. Further, Islam is minority-Arab, even if Arab Muslims seem to think that theirs is the position of supremacy due to their tongue having in it their holy book; but Arabs are largely Muslim. Not all Arab racism has to do with Islam, and not all Islamic religiously-based (or, more accurately, rationalized or justified, given that the Koran actually issues some scathing remarks towards racism within the ummah) racism is Arab. /sopabox I received an invite to this RfC from the FRS. I am previously uninvolved. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ
  • Comment This RfC isn't well-formed. Are there reliable sources that refer to "Arab supremacy"? Linguistic parity with other articles about various racist groups really isn't sufficient to motivate this change. The Editorial Voice (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. "Arab supremacy" is not a thing and, to the extent it was, that namespace would be about American prison gangs or a massively-inappropriate POV article arguing the factual racial superiority of Arabs - the appropriate NPOV article discussing that racist view would still be here at "Arab racism" or "Racism in the Arab world". "White supremacy" and "black supremacy" are just bad attempts to reformat the white supremacist and black supremacist movements in the US without discussing it in the context of the entire country; they don't need more company.

Why are so many hard core Zionist Jewish nationalists being cited on this page?

I am not in anyway disputing the reality of Arab racism, but why are open Jewish ethnic nationalists like Alan Dershowitz and Irwin Cotler being cited as sources?

There are lots of Anti-Zionist Anti-Racist Jewish people you could cite, but instead you cite Jews who subscribe to an ideology of ethnic nationalism on a page about racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.28.97 (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is because they are notable. If you know any notable person, who criticized these 2 personalities. You can cite them. OccultZone (Talk) 05:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz and Irwin Cotler can hardly be considered unbiased sources as they have a well know agenda to support Israel that overrides impartiality. In fact I fail to see how this topic can be covered, racism within the Arab world, using American authors without Arabic backgrounds. A review of potential Arab (writing English) authors, reveals a clear preference for writing on racism towards Arabs by others. This article needs sources of Arabic origin which likely are written in Arabic to start with. Without that it is verging on Orientialism. Akayani (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Palestine no longer part of the Arab world?

Is Palestine no longer part of the Arab world? Is Israel no longer in the Middle East. While I can see why adding 'Pandora's Box' to the article is perhaps worthy of avoiding there should be at least some explanation of the exemption. Akayani (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The officially acclaimed Palestine territory has existence, it has been recognized by a number of countries. OccultZone (Talk) 11:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly—It is hard to justify it being ignored. Akayani (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good sources, terrible prose

I read this article while Wikisurfing the other day. It is free of original research and POV pushing and, from my visits in the Middle East, seems absolutely true regarding the unfortunate racial situation there. However, the writing here is just plain awful. I at first assumed that this was written in another language and then copy-pasted into Google Translate, but then I realized pretty much all the sources are in English. I don't mean to offend anybody, but this article needs to be almost entirely rewritten. Not to actually change what it's saying, but simply to make it readable. The punctuation alone makes me want to scream. If there are no objections, I might start rewriting several sections sometime in the next week or so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Been watching this page for a long time, and editing. I've always thought that this article has potential, it can be expanded as well. OccultZone (Talk) 04:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It can, a lot. Like, a lot a lot. That's very unfortunate but it's true; there's a lot of reliable sources about this topic, and the different facets of racism there are notable. For the time being I'm mainly thinking about the quality of sentence structure, though. If nobody else minds, I might try to amend that starting from the last sections of the article moving up. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Author draws parallel between Arab nationalism and Turkish nationalism, both were "likewise evolving into the "racial" stage, the ideal being a great "Pan-Arab" empire, embracing not merely the ethnically Arab peninsula-homeland, Syria, and Mesopotamia, but also the Arabized regions of Egypt, Tripoli, North Africa and the Sudan." [25]

Lothrop Stoddard draws a parallel between Arab nationalism...

It's not good enough to start a whole section with 'Author' you look it up. Where is 'Arabizing' defined? Akayani (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Better separation of racism from religious intolerance.

Racism and religious intolerance are jumbled together into a messy lack of separation. As the topic is "Racism in the Arab world" it should deal with exactly this or the name of the topic changed to "Racism and other Othering in the Arab world". Egyptians are certainly treated as the Other in nations in the region, I doubt the root of this can actually be considered to be racism but socioeconomic Othering based on a willingness to work for less dollars.

For this article to have clarity it needs for divide up what is being said into nations, topics; racism, religious intolerance and Othering and not mix this with that into a fruitcake claiming Arabian racism. It makes some excellent points but the mixing dilute what is actual racism. Far better it the article make clear what is and what isn't racism in a context of Othering. It does not mention, for example, that Othering based on country of origin is via spoken language rather than 'look'.

"Racist incidents by Arabs" This for a start should be "Racist incidents by Nation in the Middle East" Akayani (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No, there is nothing about religion in the whole article. It has been largely avoided. OccultZone (Talk) 12:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Groups that identified themselves as neither Arab nor Muslim had it even worse: Southern Sudanese, Copts, Jews, and Assyrians were plunged into a protracted nightmare that saw their communities ground into anonymity, forcing many to emigrate permanently[citation needed].

There're historic racial divisions,[43] racial and religious prejudices in Iraq, including on Kurds, on Shia and the Marsh Arabs.[44] (There're? There are...)

The racialised discourse prevalent in modern times was alien to pre-Islamic Arabs and early Muslims. The Arabs did not have a racial typology to divide people from different ethnic groups and specific races. Racial discourse began towards the end of the seventh century as the Muslim Arabs came into contact with the Biblical 'curse of Ham' story and the works of the Ancient Greek and Persian philosophers discussing race.[37]

I don't call that avoided. But I don't class religious prejudice as racism. I'm not suggesting the balance is wrong but the failure to separate issues is a fail if the article is ever expanded. Akayani (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, you can definitely reword it. Once I've re-checked those references I will do that myself. OccultZone (Talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This would be a better reference on the topic than a signal line without a link.

Terrifying Muslims: Race and Labor in the South Asian Diaspora

Junaid Rana

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jfFGJmCU5I4C

OT: OccultZone, yes I happy for you to edit as you see fit. I think we can make this a bit more worthy as my experience in ME is that Arabs aren't particularly 'racist' at all. There are issues of Othering based on other factors. Akayani (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Defining racism

Accounts of racism, Essed argues (1990, pp. 3–4, 60–65), locate the narrators as well as their experiences within the social context of their everyday life. According to Essed, who conducted a comparative study of educated black women in the United States and the Netherlands in which she analysed their experiences of everyday racism, once it is recognised that racial oppression is inherent in the nature of the social order, it becomes apparent that...

the real racial drama is not racism but the fact that racism is an everyday problem … To expose racism in the system, we must analyse ambiguous meanings, expose hidden currents, and generally question what seems normal or acceptable. (Essed, 1990, p. 10)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1350463042000190994#.U39NuCjfItU

That looks like something that could be added into the start of the article as a means of binding all Othering into a unified topic.

Akayani (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The main problem of racism in the Arab world is the colonial settler state of Israel

... and that should thus be the main topic of this article. Otherwise it looks like a racist slur to justify colonial intervention against the Arab nation. --L.Willms (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Umayyad Caliphate

The Umayyad Caliphate known as their ethic nationalist practices/laws as far as I have remembered. Hence, I want add them to the "See also" section. Do you have a comment? Lamedumal (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lamedumal: We shall need a new section for that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Racism in the Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

News: Blackface "family-friendly TV programming" during Ramadan

This issue has attracted some attention and perhaps deserves a place here, the (disgusting) issue being the usage of 'family-friendly' programming in some Arab countries during Ramadan that essentially promotes racist views through "humour" including blackface :

[Al Jazeera has a pretty good article documenting what happened].

Some other testimony:

[being black in Egypt in the time of Black Panther (the movie), according to one (non-black) Egyptian writer for Wa-Post], [treatment of black migrant workers], [Lami El-Hanan's opinions, in Afropunk], [role of Gaddafi in muting criticism by the African Union], [in Arab communities in Detroit, which obviously is not the Arab World, but has connections to it] [more on what it's like to be black in Egypt]

Hope good use can be made of at least some of these. Cheers all, ---- Calthinus (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sudan

There needs to be a discussion of racism in Sudan by "Arab" Sudanese against "black" Sudanese. I think the reason that there isn't this discussion is that in the US the vast majority of native Sudanese (North or South) would be considered "black." But in Sudan there is a profound division between those who identify as ARab versus those who identify as black; this division has led to genocide. It should be discussed in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Both are black how can there be racism? A black person speaking Arabic is not technically Arab. Magherbin (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This wall-of-text argument has persisted long enough and yielded no beneficial results. It has devolved into disruptive personal attacks. I am closing this as an admin action to stop this disruption. Start a new section iff there is new and legitimate issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Halliday section is a practically verbatim copy-paste from the copyrighted source, which is a copyright violation WP:CV and must not be present under legal requirements. The content, included in this article in 2015, was a direct copy-paste from a 2012 revision to another article, too, with no attribution per WP:CWW. In terms of general RS, the source was published by a small indie publisher Lynne Rienner and the work itself includes various dramatic, exaggerated language and some rather unique conjecture theories, so it's a questionable source at best.

In the source, the context and lead-up of the particular text in this Wiki article is a strange association fallacy that a relatively insignificant (especially to the conclusion made) figure al-Husri, who served under the pro-British monarchy and he had not been in Iraq since 1941 (the monarchy continued to rule until 1958), was a sort of overarching absolutist who determined and influenced the course of Iraqi baathists' (who were, among others, persecuted by the monarchy) policies and ideology and ties it in with a couple passing mentions of unrelated and mutually exclusive events. Nor was Husri even affiliated with the Baathists, but rather with a government that persecuted them. While they may have shared a couple specific ideals common in the Arab world at that time such as closer ties between Arab states, Halliday makes a profound stretch. The overall passage in the book itself is a hand-waving and inaccurate / minimal coverage aside to the topic to make a unique claim with exceptional implications and with further hand-waving, tie it to a couple unrelated events, all of this within a few sentences. Curiously, there's no mention of Michel Aflaq in that passage and no more than one fleeting reference in the whole book, who unlike al-Husri had significant influence on the Iraqi baath branch and was the founder of Baathism as a whole, nor the Nasserist influence on Baathists in exile in Nasser's Egypt.

This is striking in a book called Nation and Religion in the Mideast, considering Aflaq is generally credited with being one of the more influential ideologues of the modern Mideast while greater attention is given to minor, lesser-known figures erroneously tied in a substantial manner to groups and governments. Nor is there any point made of decades of poor, sometimes hostile, relations between Iran and Iraq such as Iran's support of militants and civil war in Iraq among other things that led to propaganda and actions Halliday alludes to, though such things were conducted by both nations. Another point is the content is clear it was a sentiment between countries (Iran and Iraq) despite passingly conflating this with race so it appears out-of-place here and Halliday appears to contradict himself. Juxtapositions and better cases can be made such as claiming the US Democratic party's and Roosevelt's rather dehumanizing propaganda against Japanese and internment of Japanese-Americans to be pure racism by the highest leadership of the US, but the evident reality of this was motivated by poor relations and armed conflict between the two nations. This is despite Japan having been homogeneously Japanese and the only largely Japanese country in the world such that for Roosevelt to be against Japan could be argued as synonymous with racism against Japanese culture, albeit erroneously or controversially. US Presidents such as Bush and Trump have had formal, devastating anti-Iran policies, but like described in the source about the Iraqis this was on the basis of one country versus another. Considering actions even by 20th century Iran such as the takeover and dismantling of the Emirate of Arabistan on the Persian Gulf, it's quite a stretch by Halliday to spend a few strong words to brush it off as a "chauvinist myth" (no mention of this emirate or Iranian state's actions are present in the book either, fittingly). Again, this copy-pasted content in this article is Halliday's own strange associations and redflag-leaning claim with next to no substantiation between Husri and everything else he states. The inclusion of redflag and uncyclopedic trivia i.e. the Flies pamphlet, that has been problematic on Wikipedia in general and also led to an article's deletion, does not help the argument for the content either and frankly does not have a place on Wiki. Other points can be made, but overall this is an evident mix of WP:REDFLAG, WP:ONUS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in addition to the it being a poor source both in general and specific to the content, and evident copyright violation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Your entire wall of text fails to give any convincing argument against that source besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bringing up unrelated historical events (what does the Emirate of Arabistan have to do with Iraq exactly? It was a part of Iran since the 16th century), as well as WP:OR Arab nationalist claims doesn't help your case at all. I'm going to reinstate that source since you've clearly failed to provide any logical reason to consider it unreliable. --Qahramani4 (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If your only response is demeaning and insulting language, then you really don't have a case to make here. Also, you're adding back a copyright violation, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and its removal is a legal obligation, not even taking other issues into account. Plus, the only "relation" I have to Arabs is getting deployed to an Arab country. You however revert anything you don't like across Wikipedia. Should also add that by here and other places describing this as some sort of ideological battle for you against "Arabs" and against "Ba'athists", please read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND regarding what Wikipedia is NOT. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to mention above: Yet another error Halliday makes in that short passage is claiming that Feyli Kurds are of Persian origin, despite being two completely separate cultures. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The paragraph I re-added is not a copyright violation in the slightest, and the Iranica source in the paragraph states Persians were expelled in addition to the Feyli Kurds. It's you who constantly attempts to remove paragraphs and reliable sources that paint this Arab neo-fascist ideology as what it is. This constant moving of goalposts by you and baseless accusations of "ideological battling" is getting quite tiring at this point, hypocritical claims will get you nowhere here. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Fred Halliday doesn't mention Persians being deported, but rather Feylis. This looks to be your own OR. It is clear you should consider taking a break from this website instead of relentless stalking/harassment, battlegrounding, personal attacks, and long history of obvious poor editing. Also, I took a look at the source you added and it doesn't make any mention of Halliday writing on this. This is another example of your poor combative editing. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
To be more specific, "According to Fred Halliday, the Revolutionary Guards were numerically larger than the regular army, but other sources disagree (Halliday, p. 4)." is the only mention of Halliday's statement on anything in the Iranica article. The article for example doesn't mention the comparison to "Zionists settling Palestine" or al-Husri, and it does mention expulsions but not as something Halliday says and without referring to Feylis. The source is a mix of failed verification and a slight case of WP:SYNTH. Since it is an accusations section and we're recounting Halliday's writing (as was originally the case), Halliday's source is clear while including this other source weakens and confuses the point being made. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
As an FYI for uniformed and combative users, one of the primary issues of this and which these stem was/is the copyright violation. Since TheTimesAreAChanging appears to be in denial regarding this, note that Qahramani44 was warned by a moderator for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQahramani44&type=revision&diff=1001355898&oldid=1000579200 Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 knows that the admin he cited previously has already determined that there is no COPYVIO here, yet he continues to just ignore that and pretend otherwise (cf. WP:IDHT) In fact, here is a diff of him arguing with said admin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 has given up even a pretense of good-faith discussion and is now just trying to bait and troll his way to "win" a content dispute while painting Qahramani44 as some sort of Persian chauvinist. To illustrate Saucysalsa30's rhetorical strategy, let's reexamine a couple of the exchanges above.

Qahramani44: Bringing up unrelated historical events ... , as well as WP:OR Arab nationalist claims doesn't help your case at all. I'm going to reinstate that source since you've clearly failed to provide any logical reason to consider it unreliable.

Saucysalsa30: If your only response is demeaning and insulting language, then you really don't have a case to make here. Also, you're adding back a copyright violation, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and its removal is a legal obligation ... the only "relation" I have to Arabs is getting deployed to an Arab country. .. by here and other places describing this as some sort of ideological battle for you against "Arabs" and against "Ba'athists", please read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND regarding what Wikipedia is NOT.

Did you catch that sleight of hand? Qahramani44 focused his comments exclusively on sources and content, but Saucysalsa30 responded by saying, in effect, that it was "demeaning and insulting" for Qahramani44 to call him an Arab... even though that never actually happened. In addition, Saucysalsa30 knows that the admin he cited previously has already determined that there is no COPYVIO here, yet he continues to just ignore that and pretend otherwise (cf. WP:IDHT). Now, let's take a look at another exchange:

Qahramani44: The paragraph I re-added is not a copyright violation in the slightest, and the Iranica source in the paragraph states Persians were expelled in addition to the Feyli Kurds. It's you who constantly attempts to remove paragraphs and reliable sources that paint this Arab neo-fascist ideology as what it is. This constant moving of goalposts by you and baseless accusations of "ideological battling" is getting quite tiring at this point, hypocritical claims will get you nowhere here.

Saucysalsa30: Actually, Fred Halliday doesn't mention Persians being deported, but rather Feylis. This looks to be your own OR. It is clear you should consider taking a break from this website instead of relentless stalking/harassment, battlegrounding, personal attacks, and long history of obvious poor editing. Also, I took a look at the source you added and it doesn't make any mention of Halliday writing on this.

At this point, Saucysalsa30's comments are so disconnected from the facts, the sources in question, and the comments that he is ostensibly replying to that you would be forgiven for asking if he is from an alternate universe (and they get even more disconnected still as he continues...). Qahramani44 calmly rebuts Saucysalsa30's previous false aspersions regarding COPYVIO material, stating that "The paragraph I re-added is not a copyright violation in the slightest," which is uncontroversial, and then explains that he added material from Encyclopædia Iranica regarding anti-Persian racism in Ba'athist Iraq. However, Saucysalsa30 ignores the reference to Iranica and responds that "Actually, Fred Halliday doesn't mention Persians being deported," "refuting" an attribution that—again—Qahramani44 never made. Playing chess with extra pieces is fun! An hour later, Saucysalsa30 decided to finally address the Iranica source, but went completely off the deep end:

Saucysalsa30: To be more specific, "According to Fred Halliday, the Revolutionary Guards were numerically larger than the regular army, but other sources disagree (Halliday, p. 4)." is the only mention of Halliday's statement on anything in the Iranica article. The article for example doesn't mention the comparison to "Zionists settling Palestine" or al-Husri, and it does mention expulsions but not as something Halliday says and without referring to Feylis. The source is a mix of failed verification and a slight case of WP:SYNTH. Since it is an accusations section and we're recounting Halliday's writing (as was originally the case), Halliday's source is clear while including this other source weakens and confuses the point being made.

The statement above is so unfair and disingenuous that it's hard to know where to begin. It's difficult to untangle given the level of mendacity that we are dealing with, but there are three major fallacies that I have been able to identify:

  • For starters, I count six references to "Halliday." Read that again but with an extra emphasis on "Halliday," as in Iranica "does mention expulsions but not as something Halliday says ... Since it is an accusations section and we're recounting Halliday's writing (as was originally the case), Halliday's source is clear while including this other source weakens and confuses the point being made." Saucysalsa30 appears to be stating that Halliday is so authoritative as a source that he is virtually the sum total of all knowledge on racism or racially motivated deportations in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere in the Arab world, so much so that there is no point in citing any other reliable source with additional information on that topic, such as Iranica. But wait... this entire thread was predicated on Saucysalsa30 denouncing Halliday as an unreliable source with (barely coherent) walls of text... right? Didn't Saucysalsa30 (falsely) assert that notable academic expert Fred Halliday was "published by a small indie publisher ... the work itself includes various dramatic, exaggerated language and some rather unique conjecture theories, so it's a questionable source at best. ... Halliday makes a profound stretch. The overall passage in the book itself is a hand-waving and inaccurate / minimal coverage aside to the topic to make a unique claim with exceptional implications and with further hand-waving ... it's quite a stretch by Halliday ... Again, this copy-pasted content in this article is Halliday's own strange associations and redflag-leaning claim ... overall this is an evident mix of WP:REDFLAG, WP:ONUS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE in addition to the it being a poor source both in general and specific to the content"? I mean, I'm not the one living in an alternate reality, am I?
  • Moreover, Saucysalsa30 is just making things up when he says that "it is an accusations section and we're recounting Halliday's writing," or, at least, he is conflating this article—Racism in the Arab world—with the "Allegations of racism" subsection in a completely separate article—Ba'athism. Besides a newly-invented standard conjured out of thin air by Saucysalsa30, there is no particular reason to think that this article should follow the "precedent" of any other article, or that describing the Iraqi Ba'ath Party's racism, anti-Semitism, and assorted campaigns of ethnic cleansing and genocide as a mere "accusation" by Halliday would be a good way to neutrally present encyclopedic information to our readers. To the contrary, "attributing" noncontroversial facts to highly respected academic specialists as an "allegation," as Saucysalsa30 did here, violates WP:WEASEL and is not necessary because readers can always check the citation if they wish to learn more.
  • Finally, Saucysalsa30 faults Qahramani44 for failing to provide a citation for the "Zionists settling Palestine" analogy. But that doesn't make any sense, because the analogy was added by Saucysalsa30 after Qahramani44's edit (see diff). As the kids say: wtaf?

If you have made it this far, congratulations, but it's really just the tip of the iceberg. Saucysalsa30 is edit warring across multiple articles in mainspace, but his WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:IDHT WP:BLUDGEONing of talk pages is no less serious as a conduct, not content, problem.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The above is a mix of manipulation of cherry-picked items, erroneous claims+hand-waving and ad hominems (including false in nature, too) building on top of Qahramani44's, with both users having stalked my revision history to engage in malicious behavior here and on other articles. This horrendous behavior is indicative of exactly what is not allowable on Wikipedia. Everything in TheTimesAreAChanging's comment should be considered in the light of aggression and harassment, not at all in good faith or remotely correct. But to humor the point, for example, TheTimesAreAChanging's wall of text is easily dismantled by the fact that he didn't check on anything he's claiming, and makes false claims and accusations based off of that. For example, Lynne Rienner is a self-admitted small indie publisher based in Boulder, Colorado, and they're proud of it. [1] [2] Why TheTimesAreAChanging erroneously claims this is false is just another case of not knowing what he's talking about but just making points to make bad-faith attacks with, or simply lives in an alternate reality of sorts. As another example, the article content included and attributed a specific claim to Halliday, which since 2015 on this Wiki article had specified as such in line with WP:RS WP:NPOV presumably (having been copied from a 2012 revision from another Wiki article). As noted in the original comment in this section, Halliday makes a specific claim based on a unique association theory about Husri who ironically was part of a government that oppressed the ba'ath and other parties and had fled Iraq in 1941, while another source was added that did mention the deportations part but 1) has otherwise nothing else to do with supporting Halliday's particular association and cause-and-effect type claim and 2) nor attributes Halliday's statement, which is a case of WP:SYNTH. In addition is the embarrassing error of claiming Feyli Kurds to being Persians. How TheTimesAreAChanging turned this matter into being about the deportations happening or not (which was not the argument at all) in question is bad faith manipulation or a very poor understanding of the subject by TheTimesAreAChanging.
Yes, there was a blatant copyright violation [3], as noted in the original comment. What the TimesAreAChanging refers to is a later revision (that to be fair still did included some copy-pasted statements). I confirmed the original copyright violation with Wiki mod Berrely over IRC, and which Qahramani44 had brought back in the blanket reverts across articles in my revision history as done here [4]. To give an example from the passage:
Wiki diff: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, Baghdad organised the expulsion of Iraqis of Iranian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. Halliday says that it was the Ba'athists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Iranian migrants and communities in the Persian Gulf region."
Book: "over the decade and a half after coming to power, the Ba'th party organized the expulsion of Iraqis of Persian origin, beginning with 40,000 Fayli Kurds, but totaling up to 200,000 or more, by the early years of the war itself. ... It was the Ba'thists too who, claiming to be the defenders of 'Arabism' on the eastern frontiers, brought to the fore the chauvinist myth of Persian migrants and communities in the Gulf"
Carbon copy of each other. How TheTimesAreAChanging can claim this isn't a copyright violation is shocking, which is what the original comment in this section was referencing, days before the stalking of my edit history and subsequent vandalism.
TheTimesAreAChanging writes: Finally, Saucysalsa30 faults Qahramani44 for failing to provide a citation for the "Zionists settling Palestine" analogy. But that doesn't make any sense No, what I faulted Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging on were their edit warring reverting including that content [5] [6] because of their denial of this being in the source. This proves yet again neither of the bad faith editors checked the source as well as TheTimesAreAChanging's distortion of what actually happened, because this is the precise analogy that Halliday makes in his book. Its exclusion in the Wiki article transforms the meaning of Halliday's claim, and TheTimesAreAChanging's lying of the events and conveniently forgetting his edit-warring reverts is another evidence of his manipulation and falsities in his above comment. TheTimesAreAChanging and Qahramani44 fail from making an argument from ignorance as well. Just because you didn't check the source at all and insisted on edit warring doesn't make you right, as much as you may want to believe that. That is a textbook example of absolutely bad-faith editing and WP:BLUDGEONING. I could go on but I just wanted to point out a few glaring holes in the above comment.
Probably the most humorous thing about this all is TheTimesAreAChanging evidently does not have an idea about anything on this article (and the others on which he stalked and harassed me), who the publisher or author are, what any of the content in this article is about, what the sources say, et cetera, as of course his only involvement here was to stalk my history and harass me across Wikipedia. More important to note, Qahramani44 and TheTimesAreAChanging stalked my edit history reverting various edits and engaged in aggressive ad hominems and comments across the board simply because they were upset that 2 months of various noticeboard discussions refuted Qahramani44's and TheTimeSAreAChanging's laughable claim (which they aggressively defended) that an individual(s)' personal blog website, Iran Chamber Society, was reliable. Much to their dismay, it was unanimously labeled as an unreliable source across Wikipedia discussions. The removal of said blog as a source on another article caused the very malicious response from both users. This is the only reason why they are participating in this particular article. Such WP:HOUNDING, WP:NPA, WP:BLUDGEONING and edit warring, and general harassment and misconduct is very indicative of their aggressive intent here and on other articles they talked me on, as well as their general Wikipedia editing which follows the same behavior. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV coatrack

This page is just a racistly framed WP:COATRACK. What possible cause is there to discuss racism at the level of the entire Arab World -- a vast and socially diverse geography -- other than in an attempt to racistly generalize about an entire region on the basis of one, very limited aspect of ethic identity? Racism is best discussed at a societal or community level; this is neither, and just tends towards the addition of coatrack content about isolated grievances related to racism is individual countries in a way that gives rise to no coherent, unified topic - precisely because it isn't a coherent, unified topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Just some thoughts:
I suspect many of the "Racism in (...)" articles have similar problems, even without an ethnic term in the title, simply because they assume it's useful to discuss everything labelled "racism" in one place, which is arguably not justified: some types of racism are definitely related, others less so, some need a lot of additional context, etc. Trying to do that over a more or less arbitrarily defined region further compounds the problem with what Iskandar323 describes above.
There are various real issues mentioned in the article that can be discussed responsibly, but I don't see why they can't be discussed in more specific articles instead, if they aren't already. This is just roughly speaking, but for example:
  • Specific ideologies often have their own articles; e.g. Arab nationalism could include criticisms of the ideology, including (but not limited to) those relating to racism, if it doesn't already.
  • Specific types of racism or discrimination are often easier to discuss on their own. E.g. Antisemitism in the Arab world already exists, though I'm sure it faces its own challenges, and anti-black racism is real in the region and has its own history and related issues, but it doesn't need to be specifically framed as "Arab".
  • Some issues are specific to socioeconomic environments in certain countries; e.g. the treatment of migrant workers in the several Gulf countries is at least partially covered in various articles like Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia, Human rights in Qatar, Kafala system, etc. It could still have its own overview article, if desired.
Another way to have an overview article touching on a lot of issues in one region, if desired, might be something like "Human rights in (...)" or "Social justice in (...)", whose purpose can simply be to summarize different socio-political issues and link to relevant main articles. It doesn't have to be specifically racism, and it can also include discussion of ongoing attempts to fix the problems rather than only listing problems. R Prazeres (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_the_Arab_world/Archive_1&oldid=1236633194"