Talk:Pan-Arabism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Embedded Islam in the Arabism of "Christian" Michel Aflaq

• Aflaq: "The connection of Islam to Arabism is not, therefore, similar to that of any religion to any nationalism. The Arab Christians, when their nationalism is fully awakened and when they restore their genuine character, will recognize that Islam for them is nationalist education in which they have to be absorbed in order to understand and love it to the extent that they become concerned about Islam as about the most precious thing in their Arabism. If the actual reality is still far from this wish, the new generation of Arab Christians has a task which it should perform with daring and detachment, sacrificing for it their pride and benefits, for there is nothing that equals Arabism and the honor of belonging to it." (In memory of the Arab Prophet -April, 1943)

[1]

• Michel Aflaq was given a token position as head of the party however his objections to ... The government of Iraq claimed that on his death he converted to Islam.

[2]

• ...people and soil... Such themes also come together in that most hideous of Middle Eastern fascist movements, Ba'athism. Ba'athism's founding thinkers, the Syrians Sati al-Husri and Michel Aflaq, composed a Koranic super narrative of Arabism, soil and Islam. They wrote of an Islam as the great cultural and intellectual achievement of the Arab people,

[3]

• ...in the mind of the Christian Michael 'Aflaq, Islam and Arab nationalism were inseparable. [4]

• Though born a Christian, Aflaq believed that Islam provides Arabs with "the most brilliant picture of their language and literature, and the grandest part of their national history."

[5]

What does any of this have to do with pan-Arabism? nableezy - 14:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I do love how Nableezy is usingthe same answer to sources he CANNOT refute and that are very much connected with the Pan-Arab ideology♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You need a source connecting this with pan-Arabism, you just saying it is not good enough. nableezy - 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See: Importance of connection at Pan Arabism's Michel Aflaq to 'superior Arab race' theory, His Islam theme, Nasser's nazi alliance

Michel Aflaq's Arab "superior" race theory (racism / fascism)

• Michel Aflaq... He was a foundational pan-Arabist in his definitions

of Arabism and his ideals regarding the formation and composition of an inclusive Arab nation-state... In the early formulation of his theory on the ‘Arab race,’ many note a marked strain of thinking inspired by fascist and German National Socialist racial thinking, namely in his use of racial rhetoric to foster nationalist action and political unity, as well as the similarities between his state model and that of Nazi Germany. This German strain also comes through in Aflaq’s association with the thinking of al-Husri, who was also heavily influenced by German nationalist theory, especially the work of Fichte. [6]

• The Review - Inside Saddam's mind (Nov 28, 2002 )... Once a dictator assumes the Aflaqite belief in the superiority of the Arab race, ...

The Baathist ideology allows no remorse over the mass murder of those who belong to racially inferior groups. Once a dictator assumes the Aflaqite belief in the superiority of the Arab race, it is practically inevitable that he will find his arena for genocide, he will find his Kurds. Moreover, his theory of history will pardon him if he sets out to commit mass murder against lower races... [7]

This is not an article on Aflaq, this is an article on pan-Arabism. nableezy - 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It has EVERYTHING to do with pan-arabism and arab nationalism that this idelogy is. What a silly remark, Michel Aflaq one of the most important theorists of Pan-Arabism and co founder of the Bath parties views towards non arabs has nothing to do with Pan-Arabism this is the ideology itself♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, somewhere in the article, it should be mentioned that Aflaq believed Sinai was part of Greater Levant and that it did not belong to Egypt. The same belief is held today by Aflaqites. The parallelism with Hitler's Nazism are - to say the least - shocking. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You need a source connecting this with pan-Arabism, you just saying it is not good enough. nableezy - 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See: Importance of connection at Pan Arabism's Michel Aflaq to 'superior Arab race' theory, His Islam theme, Nasser's nazi alliance —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) Toothie3

More OR down there. nableezy - 19:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pan-Arab leader: Nasser & the Nazis

- John F. Kennedy and Israel‎ by Herbert Druks - Political Science - 2005 - 183 pages (published by Greenwood) p. 108 During World War II some Arab leaders had admired Hitler. Nasser adopted that Nazi ideology. [8]

- (Appeared in The Canadian Jewish Chronicle - Jan 11, 1957) The Nazis Who Work With Nasser The fact that Nasser has actually supplanted Hitler as the hief of a fairly notorious group of ex-nazis has been kept very tightly under wraps. ... [9]

- Nasser's Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals [10]

Toothie3 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And what does that say about pan-Arabism? (The answer is nothing). See WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 14:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the fact one of the god-fathers of Pan-Arabism was a well known nazi sympathizer and supporter has nothing to do with Pan-Arabism? LOL seriously Nableezy you are in denial but then again this is what this type of brainwashing idelogy does to people.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You need a source connecting this with pan-Arabism, you just saying it is not good enough. nableezy - 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pan Arab Saddam Hussein, his racism & Islamic theme

THE WORLD - THE WORLD; Iraqi Regime Fights To Kill a Way of Life ...The state-run Iraqi media have been unabashedly racist in their attacks against the marsh Arabs, describing them as "an inferior race" and "un-Iraqi. ... [11]

The Riddle of Saddam Hussein: Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more. The Campaign Against the Marsh Arabs: Hussein did not limit his genocide to identifiably Kurdish groups; he also targeted the predominantly Shiite Marsh Arabs of southeastern Iraq, the direct descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians. By destroying more than 95% of the region's marshes, he effectively depleted its food supply and destroyed the entire millennia-old culture, reducing the number of Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to approximately 30,000. It is unknown how much of this population drop can be attributed to direct starvation and how much to migration, but the human cost was unquestionably high. [12]

Saddam book excerpt (Jan 25, 2010) ... Excerpt from 'Saddam: The Face of Evil' CHAPTER ONE... Saddam's bigoted ravings made it abundantly clear that his racism was in the tradition of Hitler, ... especially the Jews were inferior and deserved to perish. ..... He initiated attacks on Shiite and Marsh Arab Iraqi civilians... [13] Anti Persian, anti Jewish racist [14]

Saddam Hussein & Racism ...Nowhere has Saddam's racism been more apparent than in his actions against Iraq's Kurdish minority, where his personal hatred of Kurds achieved horrific ... [15]

Ninawa is surrounded by Kurdish villages and country towns. Saddam in his “Arabisation Policy” had changed the demography of all the places in Ninawa. Despite the consequences of the Racist Policy against the Kurds, Ninawa is still contain villages continues to be home to a mixture of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen’s, Jews, Yazidis, [16]

On Mandaeans [17]

Saddam has Koran wriiten in his blood [18]

'Mother of all battles' Mosque [19]

Executed while clutching the Koran in his hands [20]

Toothie3 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothie3 (talk • contribs)

None of that has anything to do with pan-Arabism, this is not the Saddam Hussein article. nableezy - 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Importance of connection at Pan Arabism's Michel Aflaq to 'superior Arab race' theory, His Islam theme, Nasser's nazi alliance

Again Nableezy's missing the point.

Once it has been established from RS (like NYTimes & other) that Futuwa (or al-Futuwwa the fascist hating party who also marked Jewish homes in Iraq's Farhud anti Jewish pogrom) was a Pan Arab party, you "can" mention its fascism from another RS.

The same goes to the fact that it was Pan Arab ideolog Michel Aflaq which Muslim activists like to boast as the "Christian" champion of Pan Arabism, thus pinning the racism entirely on him, we show you his Islam theme & his "Arab race" superiority (influenced by Germans). Same goes to Nasser who's also regarded one of the champions of Pan Arabism, we showed you his link to Nazis. Or "secular" (Pan Arab anti-Persian, anti-Kurd, anti-inferior-Marsh-Arabs, anri-Jewish) racist leader)Saddam Hussein's Islamic themses in his battles, his Quran written in blood, etc.

The irrational "request / need" for a one line sentence that mentions all in one (this IS an encyclopedia, may I remind him) is again, a desperate excuse, like above.

No, you are missing the point. Not everything that a pan-Arab party, group, or person has said is related to pan-Arabism. You are making the connection between the topics yourself, see WP:SYNTH. Unless a source discusses these things within the context of pan-Arabism it is WP:OR for you to do so in the article. nableezy - 19:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

When a Pan Arab party does it within the Arabness-strengthening-actions frame, it IS related.

Moreover, since one mention Michel Aflaq, Nasser & Saddam in Pan Arabism as if Pan Arabism is "just secular", the truth against this must be told.

Toothie3 (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You need a reliable source making the connections you are making in the article. You cant just grab unrelated stuff and throw them together. A reliable source is needed discussing these things within the context of pan-Arabism. nableezy - 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A RS linking Islamic & racism themes into personalities (& their actions) whose YOU attribute to Pan Arabism in your attempt to "secularize" Pan Arabism 100% (POV), it not just very much related, but importanbt as well, for historic truth sake.

Toothie3 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not paying attention. A reliable source discussing these things in the context of pan-Arabism is needed. Reliable sources say pan-Arabism is secular, you are using a collection of sources that do not say anything about pan-Arabism being secular or not to try to prove that it really is not secular. That is WP:OR. nableezy - 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes connection by the source in a "one line" or not.

Again you are failing to hear what we say, if you are saying that Aflaq, Nasser, Saddam were the chief Pan Arabists, therefor Pan Arabism is secular and "not" Islamic, we have proved that it is not entirely so.

If you are saying that Pan Arabism is tolerant to non-Arabs or to non-pure-Arabs (like Marsh-Arabs and others), we proved it not to be so.

If you are saying that Pan Arabism of Aflaq & Co. is not about "superior Arab race", we have proven against it.

And so on.

Toothie3 (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that a source needs to connect what you are writing to pan-Arabism. If you are here to "prove" something you are in the wrong place. Provide a source that connects the topics, otherwise it is WP:OR for you to do so in the article. nableezy - 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the statement that Pan Arabism is 100% secular is a POV that was NOT proven... What does Aflaqite ideology Arab superiority, or Aflaq's Arab nationalism mean if not Pan Arabism? - for example? What you are saying is that the source has to be an encylopedia each and every time.

I just added another RS on the nazi pan Arab al-Futuwwa, mentioning Pan Arab and being copied aftr the Nazis, all in one paragraph. [21]

Toothie3 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You simply are not paying attention. You cant just source a, b and c and then say that a, b and c prove x. You need a source saying that. nableezy - 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On top of everything else, you are even "against" includion Nytimes & other RS mentioning specificially A, B & C all in one, like re: Pan Arabist Futuwwa, its Hitlerism, and so on. So how can anyone think anyone sees you are rational or serious AT ALL?

Here's more on the Mufti, his Pan Arabism 7 his Nazi hatred:

Husseini did not act alone. He had a large following and travelled with an entourage. When the British decided in 1937 to stop indulging the Arab revolt, he was allowed to leave mandatory Palestine for Lebanon where he was surrounded by his own retinue. He again had an entourage with him when he settled in Baghdad from 1939 to 1941, one of his close advisors being his kinsman `Abdul-Qadir al-Husayni (Husseini), Faisal Husseini's father. In Iraq he very successfully engaged in pro-Nazi, pan-Arab intrigue. He was in fact one of the major figures in Iraqi politics at that time, helping to instigate a coup d'etat which installed a pro-Nazi government that declared war on the British while Rommel was advancing in North Africa. British intelligence reports show that Husseini was one of the decision-makers of the Iraqi government in this period, while Rashid `Ali el-Kilani was prime minister. (14) [22] source: 14. Cooper, pp 14-16.

Just added above from the JTA more about Pan-Arab fascism explicit link with Gestapo/Nazis [23]

Toothie3 (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That just is not true. You are not paying attention. I oppose the various op-eds you have brought here. I went through every single source in the article, they are overwhlemingly not reliable sources, if you dispute that say why each of the sources I listed are reliable sources, and read WP:RS before you do so. I plan on removing every single one of the unreliable source and the things sourced to them. This article can include information on the various pan-Arab parties, including whatever fascist characteristics some of them had, but not the way you have done it. You are combining separate topics into a thesis set out to prove what you think is true, and in doing so you have relied on largely garbage sources. That is not how an encyclopedia article is written. nableezy - 02:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map of Arab world needs Arab Iran

The map of the Arab world stops short neatly at Iran's western borders. But in fact, there are two major areas in Iran that are Arab: Khūzestān, which is right next to Iraq, and Hormozgān, which is right across from Oman and the UAE at the narrowest part of the Persian Gulf.

See here for a map of ethnic groups in Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Demography

Saddam Hussein attempted to conquer Khūzestān in the Iran-Iraq War as part of his pan-Arab ideology of uniting all Arabs under one government, showing its importance. Therefore it should arguably be shown in the map as part of the Arab world, regardless of its current political status.

There maybe a small minority of Arabs living in Iran but there has never been or will be an Arab Iran, the fact that Saddam would tried to Claim the Iranians land as Arab proves just like most Pan-Arabists how brainwashed and deluded he really was.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources and weasel words

This article is full of weasel words, and it's not sourced to reliable sources. For example, messages posted on venusproject.com are not reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz & vandalism

Dear Malik Shabazz!

Please stop your vandalism on the Pan Arabism the RS has already been discussed in length on that talk page!

Do not abuse your experience here in order to shut down people's voices & push a POV, as said already, the RS have been discusesed, you did TOO MANY REVERT EDITS in the last short amount of time.

If you have an issue with a source please feel free to discuss it on that talk page, reverting so many (DICUSSED issues) edits amounts to vandalism, you should know that by now.

Toothie3 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Toothie, please see the preceding section. If you can, would you explain why venusproject.com is a reliable source. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Or any of the other sources detailed above in the section #Current sources? nableezy - 06:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy, are you referring to the link about anti Persian racist Arabism by Futuwwa's "Sami Shawkat"? Here's more of a RS sAMI... In one of his addresses, "The Profession of Death," he called on Iraqi youth to adopt the way of life of Nazi Fascists. In another speech he branded the Jews as the enemy from within, who should be treated accordingly. In another, he praised Hitler and Mussolini for eradicating their internal enemies (the Jews). Syrian and Palestinian teachers often supported Shawkat in his preaching. [24]

Toothie3 (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the large number of sources listed above with reasons for why the are problematic. Reasons that were completely ignored with you, and Lanternix, repeatedly reinserting unreliable sources into the article. nableezy - 07:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, You are against the NYtimes & other RS links anyhow to be used, in any case I jusr replaced the venusproject with JVL link and pushed YOUR "template" towards the frontpagemag link, even though I can not see anything wrong with that source. ...and we haven't even include all the RS, yet... more to come, wait!

Toothie3 (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Question to Nableezy on his continous actions on the Pan Arabism page

Can you please explain to me why you still keep editing vandalizing the Pan Arabism page so many times after I have seen on this talk page your losing arguments?

Geenahs (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have another account here? And would you care to explain how I "lose" an argument when nobody actually responds to the argument? And would you care to also explain why you inserted that Dawisha wrote that line, sourced to FrontPageMag and MEQ, which also appears in CampusWatch, which sources the same MEQ article, when the MEQ article does not contain that line? nableezy - 06:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not just this page but Nasserism one aswell, Nableezy is trying to cover up the other side of Pan-Arabism and white wash it as something it simply is not and has been proven so. I wont touch the Arab nationalism page because you will find the same mess there I'd rather avoid it, too be in a edit war with it's blinded brainwashed followers. Dont be shocked because he is not alone there are many editors out there with outrageous Arabist bias they want to either vandalise pages or supress other side of the arguement by stating it's not realiable enough. Yet propaganda books written by either radical Leftists or Pan-Arabists are.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, he tries to cover up the largest racism system today which is pan Arabism, victimizing literally millions upon millions. The fans of this bigotry system = Pan Arabism still try to boast its fake unity. The more I see edits by cerrain anti westerners, I can see a pattern of some on wikipedia double standard, those who will "decide" what is a reliable source ONLY when it covers-up Islamic Jihad crimes or by militant leftists that somehow are blinded and believe that Islamists are on their side... Maybe we should add a section about Arabism & Jihad like by Saddam, or Arabism's genocide, starting with the Kurds? Come to think of it, I see no bragging editors on Wikipedia about ideas of pan-Aryanism... think about it! maybe it is correct that true facsism today is in the middle east, specifically pan Arabism? To Nableezy, I ask do you have another account here? since I see your edit and another one's --within miniutes-- just by the same style.

Geenahs (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer the one question that is worth responding to, no, I do not have another account here. Would you care to answer my questions? nableezy - 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yasmina, Geenahs, your hostility and non-neutrality is not helping. Please desist or I will start removing comments that do not comply with WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were a fan of comedy. nableezy - 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue." There's only so much SOAP I can take before I feel duty bound to call in an admin air strike to enforce policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am the non neutral one here (*sarcasm), yet Nableezy and Malik are not. By focusing your attention only on our side you are showing yourself to be non neutral since I have no doubt nableezy has probally contacted other editors or admins in an effort to get this page censored again. That is not SOAP just a rational assumption.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I support policy compliant, content focused, collaborative editing. Don't make anymore statements that are WP:TALK non-compliant or WP:SOAP non-compliant. Focus on the content of the article or stop talking. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Focus on the content on the article only? Why do you think I even edited this page in the first place? seriously what a pointless remark.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in why you edited this page in the first place or any of your opinions about anything other than improving the contents of this article in a policy compliant way. I made the remark in reference to numerous comments you and others have made like "this is sadly the actions of a brainwashed blinded bunch of followers of a dead & racist ideology". You need to stop being disruptive. It's easy. Also you need to indent your replies properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have no interest in this topic why even bother commenting? Pan-Arabism Is a racist ideology it's followers are brainwashed (you want examples I would be very pleased to go into) and It is linked to Nazism. brainwashed to an extent they either threaten other editors with warrants or try to filter out sourced information from the article. No I am not Soap-boxing here other editors who have experienced the same I have will back me up in this, because the same tatics are always used and nearly always wikipedia overlooks it and we are made out to be the bad guy here just for not giving into these intimidations. It's true and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about or what this idelogy even means otherwise you think before commenting on the subject in question to understand this, we have received intimidation,name-calling Yet we are disrputive ones here for raising our concerns♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yasmina, please note that neutrality does not mean "this is what I think, and until the page corresponds with that, it cannot be neutral". You have no idea what any of the editors who are taking issue with your contributions - both to the talk page and the article itself - think about pan-Arabism (for the record, I don't have strong feelings either way). On the other hand, it is clear what you and others think. Now having an opinion is fine, you just have to learn how to edit around or despite it. I note elsewhere that you have added content to articles based on readers comments on a Daily Mail gossip items, and have described, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, a recently deceased Lebanese media figure as a "colossus". This should indicate that you have things to grasp about WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I don't like throwing letters at people, or personalising these issues, but you really need to read and digest the content of those pages, among others. WP:SOAP is another one, as suggested.

It's easy to create superficially sourced pages that swing one way or the other, especially on political or nationalist topics. The challenge is to actually write quite boring articles about what something is and its history, not just to fling opinion and opinion pieces from partisan groups and individuals - whether positive or negative - about every vaguely related issue at the topic. As I noted previously, someone could easily come along and start shovelling in material about how marvellous pan-Arabism is, about the greatness of the Arab nation and its anti-colonial struggle etc etc. There may even be some "truth" in this, just as there is in accounts of the bad things that have been done in the name of the ideology, or by random Arab leaders. Those editors could even find suitably partisan sources for this content. However, despite your assertions to the contrary, no one is actually doing this, luckily. No one for example is saying that this page should not document the contacts some pan-Arabists had with German Nazis, just as the Lebanese Falange did, and various Indian groups did with the Japanese. The question is how you source and present that information. And whether you rave about it, and insult everyone else, on the talk page. N-HH talk/edits 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yasmina, please read what people write before you reply. I have no interest in you or your opinions about pan-Arabism. You are not a reliable source. I have an interest in the topic but my main interest is in stopping the soapboxing and personal attacks here. Please keep your personal opinions about pan-Arabism and other editors off the talk page and focus on the article. If you are unable to do that I will do it for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all I do not put MY opinion on this article anything I add I make sure to source and prior to any of our edits this page was poorly (if no sources at all) and merely a propaganda piece.Where was your concern then? Or did you just come to comment on a page about a topic you have NO knowledge in merely to back Nableezy's corner. to N-HH Lebanese Phalange connection to Nazism is incredibly exaggerated by Pan-Arabists and radical Leftists (btw that group doesnt represent my political representation) I know this since I used to believe in those half-truths and lies myself that is why it's important I dont give in to suppressing information because if knowledge is supressed it only creates ignorance. It's the same with the SSNP that group's connection with fascism is often exaggerated aswell.The connection that group has with Nazism is soley based on the fact Pierre Gemayel founded the organization after visitng the Berlin Olympics Games in the 1930s because he admired the discipline he saw during the games.They didnt murder Jews in Farhud in Iraq and celebrate afterwards with sweets in the name of Pan-Arabism and help of the Nazis infact Lebanon was one of the few places in the middle east before the war a Jew could breathe or it didnt expel the entire Jewish community in Egypt in the 1950s after putting them in detention centres or nationalize most Copts businesses like Nableezy's hero Gamal Abdel Nasser who inciting sectarian tensions in Lebanon yet is false accused of being secular . Also the ID of a Jew in Lebanon was equal to any other sect this is why many of them fled from Iraq and Syria from Pan-Arab pogroms to live in this short lived freedom. Lebanon is one of the few Arabic speaking countries that neither expelled or persecuted Jews so sorry you cant dare compare.The difference is Pan-Arabism is the Pan-Germanicism of the Middle East it IS racist and no we dont need to say that in those words history is evident of that. From Anfal to Darfur. The fact Pan-ARabists were great allies and admirers of Nazism very openly and evidently indicates this also, its all been documented. those random leaders as you put it were key if not the original thinkers of the Pan-Arab idelogy how are they not revelant? are you serious? (btw I am NOT Jewish) but to give an example of how brainwashed as I explained these followers of the DEAD ideology is many suggest that giving sources made by Jews or Israelis cannot be used since it is unrealible if that is not brainwashed what do you call it? First of all I know the only reason you are even bothering to even comment on a topic you have no knowledge in is because Nableezy or some other editor who is scared of this historic information. went complaining to editors or admins they knew have NO knowledge or idea of what this ideology of first hand to complain about POV which is only historic documentation, Anfal is NOT POV it did happen♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yasmina, you asked why I removed your comment. The edit summary gave the reason, per WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. You are turning this talk page into a train wreck. Please confirm that you have read and understood WP:TALK (particularly the 'Behavior that is unacceptable' section and WP:SOAP. Can you confirm that you intend to comply with them from now on please ? That simply requires you to restrict your comments to improving the text in the article based on reliable sources i.e. no more comments attacking other editors, no more soapboxing about your views and no more using this page as a forum. It shouldn't be that difficult. You need to understand that WP:TALK and WP:SOAP apply to you just like everyone else and that the way you are using the talk page is unacceptable and disruptive. This problem has nothing to do with the subject of the article, me, other editors etc. It's about you complying with WP:TALK and WP:SOAP so that this talk page is only used to discuss proposed improvements to the article. Are you going to comply with WP:TALK and WP:SOAP ? If not, what do you suggest I do instead of removing non-compliant comments ? Something has to be done to resolve the situation on this talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never said that a source is unreliable because it is from a Jewish or Israeli author. Please do not lie about what I have said. nableezy - 15:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said you stated that! but many others have, Please Nableezy who is talking exclusively about you your not the first editor I have accounted with similar biases.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are these "many others"? Nobody has said anything like that on this page. nableezy - 17:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to post links I will, it's not even just this page it did happen on this page go check the archive of this page previously what defenders of Pan-Arabism wrote that sources should be considered unrealible since they are created by jews so it's bias.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I want you to post links. nableezy - 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy here [25] ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy has "filed a complaint" of SP [26], his latest attempt to censor those that speak about the crimes and racist nature of pan Arabism. I will say it again it won't help your attempts to shut up anti racist material.

Toothie3 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Toothie3, please read WP:TALK and WP:SOAP and comply with them. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Sean.hoyland, question Is "going after someone" (like Nableezy/Malik Shabazz tried a few "steps" against me) beacuse of disliking of opinions OK with WIKIPEDIA rules?

Toothie3 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How an editor models the motivations for the actions of other editors isn't relevant to anyone's compliance with WP:TALK and WP:SOAP on this page. Wiki policies are about what people write on wikipedia pages. If an editor thinks that another editor's hands are controlled by a tiny implant placed there by pan-galactic space aliens intent of colonizing planet earth, wiki policy has nothing to say about it while the editor complies with policy. If you would like to engage in a battle with Nableezy and Malik Shabazz you can do so off wiki where you have freedom of speech. You don't have it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I dont think the lesson is necessary. nableezy - 06:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So, the pan-galactic space aliens are winning. My suspicions have been confirmed. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Links and edit war

I see that a couple of editors are busy with an edit war, and I don't want to get between them. But I have cleaned up the article by removing a bunch of repeated links and links to plain English words per WP:OVERLINK, disambiguated some links, fixed some other links, and made some formatting corrections per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, e.g., quotations are not italicised in Wikipedia -- use double quotation marks instead. Do not wipe out all of these corrections and improvements in your edit war, please. Ground Zero | t 12:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand but I don't get Nableezy's senseless edits, the funy thing is that he so arrogantly "warrant" me, while he violates the rules.

Geenahs (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

lol the same happens to me with the other Radical Pan-Arabists editors they often like to intimidate others to put them off editing and try to undermine sources and their context. one of them even abusively vandalised a page where stated that many Christians dont relate with Arabism saying they were racists and it was lies from a bigotted minority (yes they got away with writing that until I stepped in and deleted it from the page), then the same person had a nerve to threaten to get me blocked for my disruptive editing. like I said sadly wikipedia is crawling with those wanting to supress or distort information rather than write from an accuarate or impartial perspective looking at the other side rather than the black and white. 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.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yasmina, Geenahs, you have both been asked before a number of times to read and abide by WP:SOAP and WP:TALK. You might also want to take a look at WP:CIVIL. Accusing your fellow editors of being "senseless" or "arrogant" or "a brainwashed bunch of followers of a dead & racist ideology," is uncivil and off-topic. Please stick to discussing article content, not contributors. Thanks.Tiamut^talk 18:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Links etc.

I killed some of the links in the lede and including the sentence they supported. I strongly suspect the sentence is true, but you've got to find a source other than editorials and opinion websites. Academic sources cover this stuff, just look around. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

see above. nableezy - 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I read a lot of that, it's what got me checking to see how bad the sources really were. And I agree, many are horrible. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jews for Justice and this source [27] are not editorials. nor this source [28]. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Justice for Jews from Arab Countries is not a reliable source, the JCPA piece is good for only the opinion of the author (Dr. George E. Gruen, Director for Middle East Affairs of the American Jewish Committee) and the last source is not a reliable source nor does it say anything about pan-Arabism. nableezy - 06:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

<ec> I'd say that they are sites strongly pushing a viewpoint. There is no reason why academic sources can't be used for this--this isn't an article on an obscure Pokemon--this is a topic that has whole departments at major universities (Middle-Eastern Studies). Find something that's been peer reviewed by a mainstream academic. Citing that Pan-Arabism has been (or at the very least perceived to be) a threat to Jews and Christians living in the boundaries of the map shown should be pretty basic. Using cites like the ones that were in the article is like using a cite to Glen Beck to show that Pres. Obama is black. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So you acknowledge Dr.Gruen IS an academic so this stuff about only allowing sources that are from academics is nonsense since you clearly want to restrict that aswell. Come on Nableezy why is Jews for Justice not a realible source? How is Arabs killing Jews prior to the establishment of Israel or confiscating their property opinionated? What and the Pan-Arab books propaganda books often used as sources dont push POV? it's not viewpoint it's fact the Arab world DID expell and persecute jews. It's the not opinion of the Author it actually happened.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • All I'm asking is that you use reliable sources. I've no doubt it is true--none at all. I just us to be using reasonable that aren't A) opinion pieces or B) from highly POV sites. Given the massive literature in this area, it should be easy. Hobit (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

being an academic or having a phD does not make somebody a reliable source, what counts is the publication. Have you read WP:RS yet? nableezy - 13:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Fisk the Biggest Opinated journalist there is often used as source along with other Leftist or Arabists, so why doesnt this qualify? You havent even explained why it is POV or unreliable in words, because you cant refute it. The publication is false and bias? How so? are you denying what is writting and documentated in the source, are you denying Nableezy being the big expert on Nasserism you are that nasser expelled the Jewisih community in the 1950s? or Is is it because some of the sources are made by Jews that is why it doesnt qualify as realible and to you it's just "zionist" propaganda aswell. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to use the word "Zionism" or "Zionist" on this page, nor have I ever said a source is unreliable because it is written by a Jew or an Israeli (as a matter of fact, the first source listed above in the section #Current sources is by Avraham Sela, an Israeli Jew. I said that source is fine). Stop saying stupid things. And it the site is unreliable because it does not meet WP:RS (have you read that page yet?). And yes, the Egyptian government expelled a large number of Jews during the 50s, but to pretend that was primarily a result of pan-Arab ideology is foolish. There were a number of reasons why that happened, the Lavon affair being one. You present the issue as being solely the result of pan-Arab ideology, that is simply not true. And to do this you use a collection of editorials and random websites. That is not how things are done here. nableezy - 17:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Prior the rise of the Arabist idelogy rose in egypt the country had a thriving and prosperous community who had survived and lived there for thousands of years. Its the same in Iraq even baghdad was once 40% Jewish back in the 30s up to the 40s until the Arab nationalist coup. Jews themselves from that area themselves blame this ideology for destroying their existance in those nations and if that is not worthy notification to you than you are in denial. The Lavon affair does not excuse the PAN-ARAB goverment of Egypt and Nasser persecuting and expelling the Jewish community from their homes and confiscating their property Let me quote you what a leading Pan-Arabist and nazi ally the Mufti of Jerusalem stated "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you." Dont even dare deny those comments dont relate with Pan-Arabism. This is the biggest flaw of this ideology it does not recognize the Pluralistic ethinic and religous fabric of the Middle East to them it is an exculsively Arab entity. --♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly sources with information useful to this article

• Chapter on Pan-Arabism and the 1940s by Ellen Fleischmann that focuses on pan-Arabism in relation to the femnist movement in the Arab world, with a focus on the issue of Palestine]
• Section on Pan-Arabism authored by William Sands that provides a good overview on the irrelationship of pan-Arabism and state stability in the Arab world.

I wll add more sources here before attemptng to incorporate information from them into the article. If there are objections to the realibility of these sources, please note them below. Tiamut^talk 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism of Arabism part 3

- A writer: "The Arab Nation was defined within an ideology of pan-Islamism that dated from the 1890s. It promoted a pan-Arab totalitarian nationalism and proclaimed the Arab a superior people."

- While Ba'thism and its Pan-Arab philosophy still formed the doctrinal basis for Iraq's totalitarian regime, ... had been mighty and flourished, so had the Arab nation as a whole. Saddam was positioning the Iraqis as a superior race.

- (From "The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad" by Walid Phares - 2009 - 304 pages, pg 109) Along with Nazism in the West and Stalinism in the East, ultra-Arabism and Jihadism have been responsible for widespread persecution and genocide. But while Nazism and Soviet Communism have disappeared, Jihadi oppression of minorities is still alive. The brutal regimes and elites continue to ignore the plight of oppressed groups and to deny genocides already perpetrated... minorities are victims... among ... minorities (and better known to the public in the west) are the Kurds, the Berbers, and the Africans... The Berbers, the pre-Arab native peoples of North Africa, were particularly marginalized in Algeria after the after the withdrawal of the French in the early 1960s. Denied cultural autonomy, they rose against oppression multiple times only to be suppressed by the Arab nationalist regime in Algiers... In Sudan, one can see extremism in the guise of racism merging with radicalism in ideology -- another marriage of Arab ultranationalism and Islamic fundamentalism... The result, as in the previous examples, is an extreme, inhuman treatment of a minority.

Toothie3 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's locked, let's plan for the future.

I'd like to see if we can reach a conclusion on general principles about where to go with this article.

Ideally I'd like to use Zionism as a template. From my (Christian, non-Middle Eastern) viewpoint these two ideas are fairly similar. I suspect I might have offended nearly everyone involved with that statement, so sorry in advance. In any case I'm proposing the following ground rules for this article:

• A single section on "criticism of Pan-Arbaism" rather than spreading it out everywhere. This is pretty standard (and done in Zionism for example). We'll keep it's % of the article similar to that of Zionism.
• A use of scholarly sources or news (not opinion) sources only. Non-self published books, peer reviewed academic papers, and the like only.
• For each source where there is a dispute about the source actually saying what is claimed, those supporting the use of the source will provide, on this talk page, the direct quote of the text being used.

Support

• Support as nominator. Hobit (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is the only way to bring civility to this article and make it encyclopedic. Using another article of the same category as a template is a perfect idea considering that both the aforementioned article and Pan-Arabism are ideologies.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support On a related issue, I oppose the cherry-picking of quotes from various pan-Arabists, some of questionable notability, in an attempt to equate pan-Arabism with Nazism and racism. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think quotes many have stated about Pan-Arabism should be atleast quoted in the article. was going to suggest something like this but i dont think there should be a section alone, there should be an article dedicated to it just like there is one for the critisism of Zionism,Islamism etc This ideology has had many negative implications on the Middle East and mindset of people there which is evident. It deserves to have an article dedicated to those who criticise and are against Arabism and Pan-Arabism ideology and their reasons why.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

A long line of Toothie sockpuppets has repeatedly reinserted the sources discussed above in the section #Current sources. Now obviously with a user so dedicated that they apparently cannot be stopped I can't deal with this page on my own. But could one of these sockpuppets have the decency to at least respond to the points made in that section? nableezy - 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The returneth of the Anti-Arab sock-puppeteer...

...isn't it time to put this article on semi-protection again? --Soman (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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 [29] removed by Nableezy is an "oped", or see this Yad Vashem piece [30] 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)

"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)

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 [31]), pan Arab cause at expulsion of Jewish refugees from Arab countries [32] 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 [33]), Saddam vs Kurds (here's more [34]), 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)

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)

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" [35], 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. [36] 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 [37] 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 [38] 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. [39]
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. [40]
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. [41] 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)

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)

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" [42] Here's a Kurdish link. [43], 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)

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)

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." [44] on that same page about that genocide [45]. Rocalisi (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 [46].

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)

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)