User talk:Mayoria
Look man, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish at Pan-Arabism. The stuff you're trying to add are isolated incidents of antisemitism by Arabs, what does this have to do with pan-Arabism? What? Khoikhoi 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Khoikhoi!
How can one avoid the historic Arabism militant bigotry against Jews long befor the current Israeli-Arab conflict (1888-1948)? or the current massive (not "isolated") wave of cases of innocent Jews (passers by) attacked by Arab street in Paris, Brussels, London, etc.?
(Will be showing now the 1886 attack on Petach Tikwa)...
A deeper view I see from previous editors that try to relate the Arab Muslim antisemitism to Arabism not ONLY to Islamism, thus an argument can be made (in defense of 'Moderate - Islam') that the Islamo Arab antisemitism is not purely Islamic in its root. Another argument can be made who radicalized whom, Arabism Islamism or vice versa?
I appreciate your comentary, please take a second look at this.. Thank so much!
Mayoria (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. The problem is most of your sources don't even mention pan-Arabism at all. Why don't you add all that stuff to Antisemitism in the Arab world? Khoikhoi 23:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please respond. Khoikhoi 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Most cases mentioned are in Europe, it has nothing to do with Antisemitism in the Arab world, most of my sources mention Arabism (though not pan-Arabism), as to long list of racist Arabs' attack on Jews in Europe they don't have to mention Arabism, Do they? Take a look at anti-Arabism the radical editors there "found" all isolated cases against Arabs without mentioning Arabism there either!.
I am adding now an opinion written that Arabism is not secular 100% according to all...
Mayoria (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:SYNTH. Look at some of your sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. In all of these the word "pan-Arabism" is not mentioned once. To quote from the policy page:
- Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.
- Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[1] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
- ^ Mr. Wales disapproves of synthesized historical theories and states: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)
Arab racism is radical Arabism
If (any of OUR links) do not mention Arabism, then they mention ARAB RACISM or bigotry by Arabs / Muslims, Trust me, you don't want me to create a page called Arab Racism, again see anti-Arabism where we took the precedent of anti Arab racism to call it anti-Arabism, and applied here Arabism to Arab-racism.
Eventhough most links were not ;posted by me I can explain their relativity, here are examples to the links you asked about:
The Lindasog link was (probably) posted just to show the record of attacks as a whole since the 1920's. Mayoria (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- You still give me no reason why that info doesn't belong in the Antisemitism in the Arab world article. And it does not only talk about Europe. I see sections titled Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Arab newspapers, Syrian TV, etc. And the Anti-Arabism is a very bad article, you shouldn't use it as a precedent. Just because it violates Wikipedia policies does not mean that you have a right to. Khoikhoi 23:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Because outside the Arab world is not related to Arab world per se, what's the connection from that link (Antisemitism in the Arab world) to Arab street in Paris or London by a serious wave of Arab gangs on Jews? how is this connected to anti Jewish attacks in Europe and even in South America by racist Arabs? or by Arab academics in US Iniversities on Jewish students? Mayoria (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that you have no proof that Arab street gang attacks in Paris or London on Jews is tied to pan-Arabism, the belief that Arab nations should unite. That, my friend, is the definition of original research. Khoikhoi 23:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you read about what we took parralel from anti-Arabism to define anti Arab attacks as [Anti-Arabism]]? so is Arabian anti-Jewish attacks (when it's racist in nature), that is (racist) Arabism! Mayoria (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Simply because one page does not adhere to all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean that you can use that as a precedent. Please read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Khoikhoi 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually can understand a logic for that page seeing it as adhering to the rules, so does this one. My argument was not only based on "two wrongs making it right". Mayoria (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Mayoria (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)