Talk:Anti-Arab racism/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Arab racism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The source does not say this

I will be removing:

Opponents to the claims of Anti-Arabism blame Arab leaders for trying to segregate Arab-Israelis from Israeli society and undermine loyalty to Israel. They point out that Arab-Israeli leaders who travel to Syria and express support of Hamas and Hizballah, and some Arab citizens who have also expressed support for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish behaviour have helped encourage this:

The leaders of the descendants of the 1948 refugees who are scattered in the Arab states and elsewhere, and of the Arabs who remained and became Israeli citizens, are trying to repeat in a different way the failed attempt of the 1948 generation, with terror from outside and by nurturing a separatist Palestinian narrative from within. The result will be a deepening of the rift and a heightening of the hostility between Jews and Arabs in Israel. The leadership and the liberal Jewish public accept Israeli Arabs as citizens with equal rights, with the exception of certain areas that touch on Israel's essence as a Jewish state (such as the Law of Return and the Law of Citizenship). All would agree that, over the years, the Arab minority has suffered discrimination in certain areas and that this must be remedied. But the leaders of the Arabs in Israel are trying to show that their loyalty is not given to the State of Israel in its present incarnation, but only to a binational Jewish-Arab state on the territory of Israel, or to a Palestinian state on all the territory of the Land of Israel.^[1]

Because apparently the source[1] in no way talks about this. The quote above doesn't appear in the source, and the source doesn't even menion anti-Arabism, let alone justify it.Bless sins 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about; the exact quote is in the source, at the end. The only thing invented is the introduction. I'll fix that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. But I don't think it is right to describe him as an "opponent". He is not opposing Arab right to equal treatement or anything like that.Bless sins 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg can you please top removing the Lewis reference? Thanks.Bless sins 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please quote exactly what he says, on this Talk: page. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, once I get the book back (don't have it at the moment). But you please stop removing him. You have no justification whatsoever for doing so. In the meanwhile you can verify the book yourself, the page number is there.Bless sins 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do; you admit you don't have the source, so how do you know what it says? Don't insert it until you actually have the source, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did have the source, the book. Unfortunately it wasn't mine, thus I had to return it. If you have the source why do you not verify it yourself?Bless sins 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the source either, and I strongly doubt it says what you claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So if you've never looked at the source, on what basis do you remove content? Essentially, you have no reason to remove the content.Bless sins 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because a) it doesn't sound like something Lewis would say, and b) your edits only whitewash, and therefore are all dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bad faith is disgusting ("your edits only whitewash, and therefore are all dubious").Bless sins 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not bad faith, it's the sad voice of experience. This is an example of "disgusting" bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Here is what Lewis says.

"Racist feelings work both ways and may underlie non-Jewish goodwill as well as hostility to Israel. One group, the approximate rather than exact counterpart of the Jew-hating Arabophiles, are those who favor Israel because they hate Arabs...There is no Holocaust to inhibit the expression of anti-Arab prejudice..."

Bless sins 03:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So Lewis doesn't actually say that "anti-Arabism" is racism; indeed, he doesn't even mention "anti-Arabism". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No he specifically says "anti-Arab".Bless sins 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Several sentences later, and Lewis is just one opinion, and he's not an expert in "Anti-Arabism". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is just one scholar, but a reliable scholar. Do I need to go over why Lewis is a reliable source on Anti-Arab?Bless sins 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is indeed just one scholar, so his opinion is his alone. He is an expert in Muslim history, not in Anti-Arabism. And in any event he doesn't say what you claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

He does say what I claim, and I have provided the quote to back that up. Actually, there is a source that seconds Lewis.[2]Bless sins 04:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You've mixed together different statements Lewis to come to a conclusion that he doesn't draw. As for the other article, don't we already cite The Guardian, in the lead? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well now we do. At one point the Guarian reference was removed. Jayjg Lewis uses the words "racism" and "anti-Arab prejudice" interchangably.Bless sins 02:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

According to you. Please don't use his sentences to make points which he himself has never made. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The applies to the article by Whitaker in The Guardian as well. Where in that article does it say "anti-Arabism is considered to be the same as anti-Arab racism" and where in that article does it say "the terms are used interchangeably in the media."? Please quote the exact sections that say that, and please review WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources soon; I'll be removing the material in a couple of days. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurabia

User:Kitrus, please explain your removal of the See also to Eurabia. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was wondering at that as well. Do either of you have any sources/arguments as to why the concpet of Eurabia is/is not anti-Arab?Bless sins 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be blindly reverting every edit I make; that's the only explanation that makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, you observation appears to be true. In any case, you both need a reason to include/remove the the term. While we wait for Kitrus to show up, why don't you explain your reason for adding the term.Bless sins 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a message here.Bless sins 02:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg can you also respond to my last comment in the section "The source does not say this", thanks.Bless sins 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be quite clear to everyone what Jayjg is trying to accomplish here. He earlier replaced the obvious choice of Racism with Eurabia as a See Also topic on a wiki entry fundamentally about racism. He could have placed Eurabia underneath, but didn't. Why would Eurabia be a more relevant sub-topic of Anti-Arabism than racism? It's no different than Jayjg replacing Racism with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion under the Anti-Semitism See Also.

Jayjg would dishonestly argue that the Eurabia theory is "proof" of anti-Arabism, although judging by his Wikipedia contributions, he likely subscribes to "Eurabia".

The edit was done in bad faith. Jayjg intends to belittle Anti-Arabism. He has thrown citations all over the introduction and, needless to say, doesn't want to constructively add to this entry.--Kitrus 05:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That's it? You reverted me because you suspect the edit was done in bad faith? In fact, it was you that initially replaced Eurabia with Racism; here's the evidence. As for the citation requests, none of the stuff in the lead is cited properly; please find proper citations for the claims soon. Oh, and please stop reverting me all over the place, particularly when you are inserting material that violates policy. Engage on the Talk: page instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, please explain why you are removing Eurabia, an example of Anti-Arabism? Also, why are you including in the "See also" section items which are already linked in the text? "See also" is for items not linked in the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kitrus, please join the discussion on this page. You are now continually adding items to the "See also" section which are already linked in the article. This contradicts Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti Arabism Polls

This section needs to be removed or improved. It uses polls in France and Israel only. They are not the entire world. It is also racist because it compares hatred of blacks and arabs only. As if hatred towards blacks is acceptable. It is also misleading. Blacks are a much smaller ethnic group in France and there are far more arabic immigrants. French blacks are an invisible minority in France while arabs are invisible. Check the article on French demographics for proof.YVNP 12:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Europe section

A section on Europe needs to be added, with individual countries as sub-headings. Discretion should be applied in distinguishing between European Muslims and European Arabs.

A 2002 incident:

BELGIUM: Authorities are to investigate the police response to the murder of an immigrant couple in the Schaerbeek area of Brussels. Hendrik Vejt, 79, a Belgian known for his racist views, was shot dead by police after killing a Moroccan couple who were his neighbours.

"Police under scrutiny over gun killings" The Independent, May 10, 2002

--Kitrus 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags in the lead

Can we fix the lead? What do we need in terms of cites, or being able to refer to the cited parts of the body of the article, in order to get the tags removed? <<-armon->> 10:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Since their's now a section on Historical Anti-Arabism, I'm removing the "historical" tag. And expansion tag, as well as a citations tag should be added--Kitrus 07:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ADL

Edits by banned editor removed, by policy.

Yes. The ADL should not be listed in this article. Amaliq (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussing ADL (and other Jewish organizations') condemnation of bigotry aganst Arabs is certainly relevant. Also, Amaliq, why did you insert Ayn Rand's birth name into the article? IronDuke 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, I've removed the ADL (and other Jewish groups) condemnation as it would only be relevant if _all_ non-Arab groups that have condemned anti-Arabism were mentioned. Please note that in the wikipedia article on the ADL itself, the many people who consider the ADL a _leading_ source of anti-Arabism are mentioned. Highlighting a few statements here looks very much like an attempt to disguise that fact.

IF the ADL is discussed, its role in promoting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feeling should be given at least as much space (which I don't think is appropriate). Giving the ADL more space than given to Arab organizations makes this article look like propaganda. 68.218.17.169 (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, I've removed the ADL (and other Jewish groups) condemnation as it would only be relevant if _all_ non-Arab groups that have condemned anti-Arabism were mentioned.

This is consistent neither with wiki policy nor with logic. If you have any legit more non-Arab groups who condemn anti-Arabism, do please add them.

Please note that in the wikipedia article on the ADL itself, the many people who consider the ADL a _leading_ source of anti-Arabism are mentioned.

Uh, can you name one group that refers to the ADL as “a leading source of anti-Arabism?”

Blanking the ADL position on anti-Arabism comes very close to vandalism; please desist. IronDuke 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, I didn't insert Ayn Rand's birth name as you well know. I was just reverting the serious changes you made to the article without discussing it first on the talk page. The irrelevant information has been removed now but see m:The Wrong Version. Amaliq (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Amaliq, you wrote:

IronDuke, I didn't insert Ayn Rand's birth name as you well know.

I was looking at this diff [[3]]. Did you not insert Ayn Rand’s birth name there? And why is it that you did so?

I was just reverting the serious changes you made to the article…

What changes are you talking about having reverted?

…without discussing it first on the talk page.

I reverted at 04:05, then left put a comment on talk at 04:07. Leaving a message on talk within two minutes of an edit is discussing it on the talk page.

The irrelevant information has been removed now but see m:The Wrong Version.

Well, it’s obviously not “irrelevant”, merely information you don’t like. As for the wrong version, why are you linking to that? It has to do with protected articles, which this isn’t.

In sum, did you have an actual point to make? If so, I would like to hear it. Last question: have you edited here before, and would you be willing to say which account or accounts you have previously used? Thanks. IronDuke 21:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you interested in which accounts I have used? Are you wikistalking me? If you have a personal issue with me please discuss it on my talk page, otherwise quit filling this article's talk page with irrelevant insults. Amaliq (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is helpful on Wikipedia for users to have a full record of all edits made. If you feel refuse to disclose it, for whatever reason, there's certainly nothing I can do about it. However, I note that you refuse to answer any of my points above. IronDuke 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies to take the ADL's claim that it fights anti-Arab discrimination at face value, particularly considering that REAL Arab American groups have consistently criticized the organization for it's bias against Arabs. Just because somebody/something claims to be X does not mean that it is X, you must find a reliable source that says it is X. This is basic stuff!

It is common for racist groups to characterize themselves as non-racist, since racism is an unpopular stance, but their claims should never be taken at face value. Amaliq (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One fourteen-year-old claim against the ADL does not make it true. I will also add that your characterization of the ADL as a racist group is troubling. IronDuke 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no time limit on WP:RS -- you seem to misunderstand the policy. If you cannot justify your persistent insertion of biased, uncited material with reference to Wikipedia's content policies (euch as WP:RS and WP:NPOV) then you shouldn't be editing here.. Amaliq (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with your misuse of WP:RS to substantiate PoV-pushing edits. First, a public press statement made by ADL condemning violence against Arabs post-9/11 is not violative of WP:RS, because it means the self-published criteria under WP:V. Second, qualifying ADL as a "Jewish" organization in this context is far from neutral. Third, your selective quotations have mischaracterized the facts from the source you reference.

This is an article on Anti-Arabism not the history of ADL. At the close of the article exists a section dedicated to groups that fight against such discrimination. A quick google search will find plenty of statements substantiating that, though that's not to say that a citation wouldn't be helpful. The press statement citation, which you removed, was a clear, historic example of the organization speaking out against anti-arabism. You replaced that with a carefully selected controversial event from ADL's long history of activism as a means of attacking the organization. You went on to disregard all the comments in the article explaining, excusing, and supporting the ADL's actions, in favor of an attack line. That is clear PoV-pushing. However, if you would simply prefer to see ADL removed from the list of organizations fighting against discrimination, that is not an action I'm motivated to dispute, though perhaps others will. CheshireKatz (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are a couple additional articles from ADL detailing work fighting anti-discrimination towards arabs:

Again, these are WP:RS meeting the self-published criteria under WP:V.

You are correct, the ADL's claims about itself do fall under the category of self published sources. However if you read WP:V you will find that the WP:V policy explicitly requires that these sources can be used only if the author is an expert in the field AND the material has been published by a third party. Neither of these criteria have been met. The ADL may or may not be considered an expert in anti-Jewish discrimination but is certainly not expert in anti-Arab discrimination. And the material certainly has not been published by a third party.

As for your claim that calling the ADL Jewish is somehow biased, it describes itself as primarily Jewish and it's in the "Jewish political oranization" category. Maybe you should change the ADL article before you make this page inconsistent with it?

Further more, these vacuous self-promoting press releases fail the WP:NOT guideline as well - Wikipedia is not an advertising medium.

The infamous ADL files incident is an extremely prominent incident in the history of the ADL's relationship with Arab-Americans and a classic example of Anti-Arab persecution. NOT including it in this article would be a bizarre course of action.

If you don't want the ADL mentioned in the article then by all means remove it yourself. But are you admitting that you are trying to bully me into a compromise by knowingly making the page worse until I give in to what you want and remove the ADL completely? If you don't like ADL material then STOP ADDING IT. Amaliq (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous, please read WP:SELFPUB & WP:NOT#ADVERTISING.

ADL is most certainly an expert in the activities it reports its organizations involvement in. WP:SELFPUB does not require another source where an organization reports on its activities. A "self-promoting press release," which clearly states an organizations involvement or commentary on an event, does not constitute advertising. WP:NOT#ADVERTISING clearly refers to companies & products. If what you meant to refer to is WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, that policy explicitly states that "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." Stating that a group engaged in a particular activity, such as decrying violence against arabs post-9/11, does not violate NPoV & reports objectively about the group's advocacy.
Referring to the org as the Jewish ADL is like referring to America as the Christian United States. Just because it has origins in a particular faith and some of its members feel it continues in that tradition, does not mean every action by a multi-cultural organization are inherently the actions of a Jewish organization. In the articles I linked there are many examples of ADL acting as anti-discrimination organization & not merely a pro-jewish advocacy organization. The qualifier is simply unnecessary and ill-suited for this context except to discredit the organization.
You describing the events as "infamous" does not make them so nor does it make it a significant event in anti-arabism appropriate for this article. If you care to make the case that disinterested experts in the field do not consider the ADL to be an organization engaged in stopping discrimination against arabs, bring sources making such a claim.
My one edit on this page involved reverting your repeated replacement of the statement made by ADL with this single files incident. There is no bullying going on of any kind. Claiming that I "knowingly make the page worse" wiki's presumption of good faith which I have clearly evidenced through my statements on this talk page. It is my preference that the original statement be returned. However, in the interest of terminating this edit war, I am extending the compromise of removing the ADL from the article, bc I can see the reasoning that due to past tensions, the ADL could be considered ill-suited for such a list.

Again, there is nothing in my suggestion that amounts to bullying, I am merely following the Wikipedia's guidelines as described quite clearly in Wikipedia:Consensus. Also you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I am now removing the ADL content and hopefully, in doing so, terminating this debate.

Ah-ha and there's the rub. So I go to remove the ADL references and what do I notice, but the ADC's purported RS is none other than press releases issued by the ADC itself. In the interest of equity & consistency, I'm now supporting preservation of the section as is or its removal in its entirety (but leaving the reference to the ADC under the Organizations section). In the case for modification, I reiterate IronDuke's proposal

I'm for a source that specifically says the ADL practices "anti-Arabism" or is "anti Arabic" (note the quotes--I'm looking for those words). And again, if you want to put more notable orgs in who oppose anti-Arabism, please be my guest. IronDuke 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article cited relating to the files incident does not make the claim except by reference to a press statement by an ADC rep and does not constitute a finding that the ADL is Anti-Arab, but merely that a single action could have been construed as such. CheshireKatz (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added an additional non-ADL source for the ADL's response to post-9/11 2001 Anti-Arab attacks. - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After all of this you still have not provided a WP:RS that describes the ADL an organization that fights anti-Arabism. The fact that you are now calling the ADC into question just shows you are trying to destroy this article rather than improve it and you are violating WP:POINT and being disruptive. Amaliq (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand WP:RS & WP:V. I am arguing that ADL is a group that advocates against discrimination and in particular has vigorously advocated against Anti-Arabism in the past. The statements about the ADL were backed up a source from their website. You contested that source as self-published. I disputed that contention, because self-published sources are permissible where the source is an expert on the topic (knowledge of its own activism) and has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (WP:SPS). In response to your skepticism, I published a third party reliable source attesting to the ADL's advocacy against Anti-Arabism. At that point, I observed that though you contested the ADL's inclusion for citing self-published source, the ADC's inclusion also relied upon self-published sources. The lack of parity in treatment of sources clearly suggests PoV treatment. You seem to be under the false impression that I carry the burden to prove that ADL is not Anti-Arab. Everything about the ADL that has been included in the article has been sufficiently cited and your presumption that the ADL is Anti-Arab does not require rebutting (WP:PROVEIT). - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly provided a WP:RS from Arab civil rights leaders claiming that the ADL has consistently worked to undermine Arab rights organisation, a recent source dating from 1999, a claim which you keep removing with no explanation whatsoever.

Your third party source is an obscure book that is not verifiable by me and thus can not be accepted as a verifiable source until a third person can confirm your seriously dubious claims.

Further more, the ADL cannot be considered an expert on anti-Arabism and you obviously don't understand WP:V if you think self-published media releases are acceptable because an organisation in an expert "in itself". That's ridiculous.

In fact, this whole discussion is ridiculous. You obviously have an agenda here and your disruptive input into this page has served solely to destroy and undermine the article. If Wikipedia followed your logic, every single organisation that had ever once released a media statement advocating against anti-Semitism would be given two paragraphs of advertisement in the anti-Semitism article. Amaliq (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your complete revert of edits made to conform Anti-Arabism with Wikipedia's Manual of Style is completely and utterly uncalled for. They are unbiased edits strictly limited to the WP:MOS guidelines and in no way compromise NPOV. In addition, the published book I cited is most certainly WP:RS and more so than any web content, including your supposedly unbiased WP:RS, the Jewish News Weekly of Northern California's website. The book is hardly obscure, printed just within the last few years, and likely available in your local library (as it was in mine) and in stock at Amazon for $19.45. I now repeat myself: "self-published sources are permissible where the source is an expert on the topic (knowledge of its own activism) and has previously been published by reliable third-party publications (WP:SPS). In response to your skepticism, I published a third party reliable source attesting to the ADL's advocacy against Anti-Arabism."

Since you're citing Jewish News Weekly of Northern California's website as a WP:RS yourself, I'm confident you won't take issue with me citing it for additional evidence that the ADL does actively advocate against Anti-Arabism. As a further demonstration of good faith, I'm going to include a well-cited summary of the ADL files controversy & settlement (absent your WP:OR presumption of illegality). However, your escalation to personal attacks will compel me to involve administrators in arbitrating this dispute upon further reversions since this dialogue is clearly going nowhere. - CheshireKatz (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the use of bulleted lists, the WP:MOS says only Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. Nowhere does it say that all lists must be removed. In this case, the replacement paragraphs certainly do not "read easily" and it is obvious that the data is best presented in a list format. Those lists have remained on this page for years and have been maintained by many editors. You are unilaterally challenging this long-term consensus without any argument or support from other edditors.

Yet again, arguing that an organization may have it's self-published advertising reprinted because it is an "expert in its own behaviour" is Wikilawyering at it's worst and most obvious. Expert knowledge refers to expertise within a notable field of academic study; in this case the relevant field is anti-Arab discrimination NOT "the behaviour of the ADL" which is hardly a "field of study"!

And I appreciate that you have admitted you were wrong to remove the cited data about the ADL files incident. However in the material you removed there is no presumption or insinuation of criminal guilt on the part of the ADL, it just cited Arab civil rights leaders claiming that the ADL was undermining their work. Amaliq (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS prefers content in paragraphs to lists, because lists stop the flow of an article and give undue weight to the statistics provided without clarification WP:EMBED. In the case of a French poll from as far back as 1990, its relevance outside of the French Anti-Arabism section is dubious. However, since it can be incorporated into that section and easily read (no one would be confused about what the statistics mean), I'm not opposed to leaving it in in paragraph form. Even extremist organizations websites may be used as sources regarding their own activities (WP:RS), so of course one can site a political organization's website for its activities. Like I said, at present, the source provided for the ADC is the ADC's website. Finally, you should recheck what you actually wrote: "In particular the ADL was found to have kept illegal files on the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee." There was no such finding. - CheshireKatz (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This article and Arabophobia

I somehow came across this article and noticed at same time that there is nothing on wikipedia about Arabophobia, even though any internet search will show all sorts of reliable sources discussing it in one context or another. Seems it should be part of this article. For anyone who has time, interest to link the phrases to the issue. Carol Moore 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I would think that arabophobia would be pretty much the same thing as anti-Arabism, just a different word for it, so it wouldn't need a separate article or anything. Not every synonym needs to be used in an article, in my opinion. Sometimes it's clearer to use the same term consistently throughout an article. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it clearly refers to the same thing. Assuming Carol has some good cites to present, and it's not a non-notable neologism, it would make more sense to just redirect "Arabophobia" here. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick search looks like it's just Neil Clark in the Guardian. <<-armon->> (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

France Poll

The poll in the France section is from 1990 and I am uncertain of its current relevance. It stands alone without a temporally relevant commentary beside it to validate its inclusion in the article (see WP:NOT#STATS). Much has changed both positively & negatively, since then and I would like to see it updated or removed. - CheshireKatz (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't really for breaking news. That's for Wikinews. // Liftarn (talk)

Updated in respect to the section content. The only other item in the France section is a 2005 incident. A 2005 poll preceding that item might have some relevance to the article in its current state. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The poll gives information about the situation (yes, then, but that's also important). WP:NOT#STATS isn't applicable since it isn't a "Long and sprawling lists of statistics". // Liftarn (talk)

You misunderstand WP:NOT#STATS and neglected to read the next line. Why are the statistics of that year notable though? If I added statistics from similar French polls taking place in 1941, 1966, & 1979, would they also be significant without any further context? Perhaps these statistics were important in 1990 or in respect to a particular event that took place at that time, but in this article without some context they are arbitrary and unbalanced. - CheshireKatz (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the removal of sourced content. If a poll showed significant anti-Arabism in France 1990 then it should be in the article. // Liftarn (talk)

That's rubbish. The article becomes a dump for any poll on Anti-Arabism then. What about a sourced poll showing a lack of Anti-Arabism in New Zealand in 1977? Is that notable for the article? The content requires notability and an arbitrarily taken poll has none. Imagine what the Anti-Semitism article would look like with packed with well-sourced polls. Your personal likes & dislikes aren't pertinent. - CheshireKatz (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. Having something on the level of antiarabism in various countries in the world souns like a good idea to me. If it's published in newspapers it's notable enough. // Liftarn (talk)

"Published in a newspaper" is not the standard for notability. Please note the complete lack of polls in the Anti-Semitism article? Instead of reverting my edit based on your intuitive reaction, please consider looking around Wikipedia for an appropriate justification. The presence of the poll only encourages PoV Pushing, presenting the French citizenry as categorically Anti-Arab. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a response to my last comment. Inclusion of arbitrary polls unaccompanied by contextualizing commentary justifying their inclusion is a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. Barring further objection, I'm inclined to remove the France poll once more. - CheshireKatz (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you misunderstood WP:NOT#STATS. The important is not the exact percentage per se, but the fact that this percentage is large. If The situation changed today, you are welcome to replace. Deletion of valid, relevant ad referenced info reverted. Mukadderat (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. First, this is an encyclopedia, not a regularly-updated status report. There is nothing in the France section to suggest that the information collected in that poll is noteworthy or contextually relevant. If polls were taken in Ottawa, Milwaukee, and Tijuana tomorrow demonstrating anti-arabism in each, we would not include them, because they are arbitrary and don't fit into any particular context in the article. However, a poll taken in San Francisco during the rash of post-9/11 hate crimes committed against arabs would be appropriate if placed in the context of those crimes and the social climate they took place in. Second, by your reasoning, polls demonstrating significant anti-arab sentiment would be included, while polls demonstrating no significant anti-arab sentiment would be excluded. The result would amount to POV-filtering, because only polls supporting accusations of anti-arabism would be presented. By making the argument as you have, you are inviting the inclusion of any amount of poll material to be included, thoroughly clogging the article with arbitrarily collected data, exactly the predicament WP:NOT#STATS seeks to avoid. - CheshireKatz (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If a poll showed widespread antiarabism in France then it is article material. The same for antisemitism if you want to play that game. // Liftarn (talk)

...and polls that show a lack of anti-arabism are excluded right? That's PoV filtering. The antisemitism article is a former featured article, having been around for a long time and edited very heavily. Thus it is among the best guides to follow in composing this article. In a dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of an EU survey, they opted for removal based upon WP:NPOV dispute:

While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others.
The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

In this case the viewpoint that widespread anti-arabism exists in France is given considerable weight, while evidence to the contrary would not be considered notable for the purposes of this article. - CheshireKatz (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tall boils down to sources. Do you have sources for the non-existance of antiarabism in France? // Liftarn (talk)

No, it doesn't boil down to sources, it boils down to Wiki policy. WP:NPOV, WP:N, & WP:NOT are not trumped just because a citation was added. However, if you are sympathetic to WP:V, then I'll also contend that the poll is insufficiently cited. Though it is purported to be from Le Monde, the citation doesn't link to Le Monde but a third entity, the Internation Socialist Review, that does not provide any further information as to how the poll was conducted. Since we can't verify how many people were actually interviewed or in what context, the "fact" is inadequately cited and should be removed on those grounds as well. - CheshireKatz (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't someone just find a newer, more reliable poll? There must be a bunch by now. And in 20 years the number of Arabs has risen greatly; the various negative incidents and negative propaganda have obviously effected things. Carol Moore 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Agreed, this is somewhat out of date. IronDuke 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can find a newer poll, then it would be appropriate for us to keep the newer one. (The older one can still be there but be given a lot less attention). But at the moment I don't see a newer poll, so its best to stick with the best we've got.Bless sins (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Google words - poll anti-Arab sentiment for goldmine I'm mostly lurking on this page, but for those working on it, i just found a bunch of recent polls from around the world when googled those terms. Carol Moore 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Let me clarify my objection to including such polls without context. Wikipedia's No Original Research policy addresses this subject in detail. "Tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires" are primary sources and as such are not in and of themselves reliable sources. For this reason, I've always interpreted WP:NOT#STATS to discourage the inclusion of poll data unaccompanied by explanatory text from a reliable, published secondary source contextualizing the data.

Example: Let's say I want to push the belief that French people hate Asians. I can dig up one or two well-sourced hate crimes against Asians and surround them with carefully selected poll data demonstrating high anti-Asian sentiment in France at arbitrary periods. This synthesis of data gives rise to the perception that French citizens hate Asians. However, without a reliable, published secondary source making that argument, this constitutes original research and even if that belief happens to be completely true, it does not belong on Wikipedia.

As I stated before, the survey-less antisemitism article (a former featured article and thus arguably a quality standard for such articles) should be used as a guideline for this one. - CheshireKatz (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your criticism of the poll is misguided. It is not original researh, because it is not reference to "bare poll". It is a reference to an article descibing the rise of right extremism and racism in France. In fact, more can be added here from it. Mukadderat (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I added more historical context so that the poll data is not an isolated factoid. Mukadderat (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It may not have cited a bare poll, but it was certainly presented in the article as such. However, I genuinely appreciate your efforts to flesh out the material in response to my objection, resulting in a much more encyclopedic section. - CheshireKatz (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

France

Mukadderat, what's going on here?

Because of the 1.5 to 2 times higher birth rate of African-Arab immigrants, there was a marked demographic shift as the number of Muslims rose to 5 to 6 million, or about 10% of the population as of 2006.
<ref>In 2003, the French Ministry of the Interior estimated the total number of Muslims as 5-6 millions whereas the "Front National" spoke about 8 millions, in Jonathan Laurence and [[:fr:Justin Vaïsse|Justin Vaïsse]],''Intégrer l'Islam'', Odile Jacob, 2007</ref>

I'm a little unclear as to how the fact necessarily follows from the reference. Also only a three year period is referred to in that line following a discussion of the entire history of Arab immigration, creating confusion. Let alone the vague degree to which Muslim population increases relate to Arab demographics. We obviously can't conflate the two. The whole line and some of those following it ostensibly appear to be original research. I've temporarily removed the line, but preserved it here for the purposes of discussion. Help me understand what you mean by the line and its citation. - CheshireKatz (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It become "little unclear" because of some other wikipedian attempts to improve language without much thinking, which produced some logical gaps in the text. There was no OR in the text I added. I made a summary of two articles which were quoted. I partially restored the original text. Mukadderat (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You partially restored uncited content and removed the citation tag without inclusion of the reference or explaining the inclusion of Muslim demographic data in an article about anti-arabism. - CheshireKatz (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Demographic data provides the context. And quite relevant, too. I don't think French would hate Arab immigrants if there were only a handful of them. Please state clearly your position on the subject of anti-arabism in France, so that we can start a reasonable discussion. In my turn I claim that there is a wealth of references to this end. I added only a bare minimum, with major points, to prevent the section "France" from deletion. As you may notice, I am not good with English and do not want write much. At the same time I strongly object against any deletion of major relevant points on formalistic grounds. Mukadderat (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First, as stated in the paragraphs above, why is data on Muslim demographics (as opposed to Arabs) appropriate? How does the statement, "Accompanied with the 1.5 to 2 times higher birth rate of African-Arab immigrants, there was a marked demographic shift as the number of Muslims rose to 5 to 6 million, or about 10% of the population as of 2006 necessarily follow from the citation you provided without constituting original research? The citation references neither birthrates nor african-arab immigrants. That's why I removed it and think it should be removed once more. - CheshireKatz (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Now I see your point. Sorry for slow understanding. The vast majority of Muslim in France are from Magreb, and in vulgar worldview the terms "muslim" and "arab" are quite conflated in france, and example of which you may observe in the quotation about the Hijab law: while the law is against a common Muslim religious symbol, it is perceived as specifically anti-Arabic (and not without reason: say, Croats don't wear hijab). This kind of conflation by common people is not uncommon. I bet most of wikipedians don't know that the country with Muslim population is Indonesia. Anyway, I will try to find more relevant references which discuss correlation of demographic change and anti-Arabism in France. Mukadderat (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting Arabophobia to Anti-Arabism??

I noticed that an [[4]] article was deleted 2 years ago as a neologism - there's lots on the topic on line from WP:RS sources. However, I think just redirecting it here would be enough. But I have a feeling the deleting editor might object. Before I bother, is it worth the effort? Currently if you type in the page the search page comes up with "anti-Arabism" on it. Or some one with more time than me could just re-create the article showing it's not just a neologism and get permission from the powers that be.Carol Moore 02:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

{fact} tags

User:Kitrus, please don't remove {fact} tags from the article; requests for citations must be met with citations, not removals. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not true. All tags must be accompanied by discussion by the one placing the tag. see template:fact: "Many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously."Jjdon (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Inserted POV

User:Lapsed Pacifist has inserted unsourced POV into the following sentence:

Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in an illegal West Bank Jewish settlement

(emphasis mine).[5] However, the source used for that material actually says:

"Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement"[6]

Can Lapsed Pacifist explain why he felt the need to insert POV that did not accurately reflect the source? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that "settlement" can mean even the Palestinian villages and cities, its best to describe them as Israeli settlements (and then link to the relevant article). The article is talking about Israeli settlements, as can be inferred from the rest of the article.Bless sins (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what I did. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't know that colonising occupied territory is illegal under international law? Tut, tut. What's the POV you're talking about? The Geneva Convention isn't a neutral source?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, you need to find a source that calls the settlements "illegal" and talks about anti-Arabism, and connects the two topics togethor. Ofcourse the source needs to be reliable.Bless sins (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A source that covers this topic

Hi,

Is there any reliable source that covers the topic of "Anti-Arabism" in general and its fundamentals. The ideal source I'm looking for would talk about the concepts origins and history, then proceed to identify areas in which such a sentiment prevails and covering efforts against this phenomenon.Bless sins (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon???

Is part of the arab world, the arabic language has official status in that country, so claiming to be anti-arabists and that they are actually "phoenicians" is stupid. lebanon (like other middle eastern countries) got invaded by the arabs, so saying phoenicians still exist is retarded.!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.64.238 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, Phoenicianism does exist in Lebanon. Google it and u'll find that what I'm saying is true. Robin Hood 1212 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be added many people in Egypt(copts,pharonists,nubians,egyptian nationalists),Algeria,Morocco(berbers) and especially lebanon(lebanese nationalists,christians) are anti-arabism.

Algeria: unsourced material

I wanted to open a discussion about the 'Algeria` section. After reviewing this section I identified the following:

Doubtful but not harmful content that is relevant to the article but unsourced: See all claims that end with citation needed.
Doubtful but harmful/very subjective content (needs your contribution).
1. ..and destroyed its late Roman and early medieval civilization that was considered as an integral part of the West.
  Needs stating real historical facts at least after the claim.
2. ..and achieve higher standards of living and education when compared to Algerian Arabs.
  Very subjective, missing statistics, re-enforcing stereotypes and contradictory to later claims.
3. ..furthermore many Berbers speak their language and French are non religious, are secular or Evangelical Christian and openly identify with the Western World;
  Generalization that is not precise, no scientific grounds or objectivity. According to public data available the majority of Berbers still identify as Muslims but not necessarily religious.
4. ..violent actions as well as by Islamist (Arab) terror acts against Berbers.
  Victimize only the Berbers population and marginalize Arab Algerians terror victims. Claiming that Islamists are only Arabs.

I know that this section aims to show Anti-Arabism in Algeria but in order to present information correctly, I suggest adding these claims that need to be sourced to Anti-Arab Berbers or movements followed by real facts (negating, confirming or disputing). Example:

Berbers Nationalists claim that the claim text but (to negate) or based on (to confirm) fact/argument text. So in both cases the reader should get an idea on the claim basis (giving a hint if it is: true, false or disputed).

Bestofmed (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer about Algeria

For the questions of history and geography, see any book about the subject, or even wikipedia's pages about it...

For the question of the higher standart of education and living, see algeria's statisticts.

For the question of the french speaking, christian religion, and more of all identification to the west, that's facts known by everyone having a minimum of knowledges about Algeria, and easily found in specialized books.

About the arab being of terrorists, that's a fact related to religious, but also political reason. It must be noted that algerian islamist and terrorist movements are against ALL berbers (especially kabyles), without regardless of religion (christian, muslim or atheist), and don't consider the kabyle muslim community as "real muslims", but as "kuffars" (unfaithfuls) or christians.

A good introduction to the arab-kabyle conflict in english is "A narrative history of north africa", of Gabriel Camps. For people who understand kabyle, there's the excellent reference book "Aγref aqbayli ass-agi", of Lusian Ulaḥbib.

Ianis Georgeopoulos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.129.219 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Before answering you, I consider myself neutral so I do not refute neither support these claims. What I was asking for is sources and references; what mentioned above are just claims and some recommended readings. If these claims are sourced than I am wondering why you didn't put your references instead of simply undoing? On the other hand, I googled for statistics (especially about quality of life, religion and interracial attitudes) and sources that support these claims but I found nothing; I tried even in French. May be, you could tell me about some sources online; I will be glad to have them. One final note, "that's known", "that's a fact", "minimum knowledge": all of these terms are not accepted as sources and they are subjective in nature. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines about sources and references. p.s.: Please try not to forget signing your edits. Bestofmed (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Algeria section rewrite

I already highlighted few content problems relating to Anti-Arabism in Algeria section. The section does not explain Anti-Arabism in Algeria but tries to sell it as a `legitimate cause' by citing questioned and unverified arguments as if Arabophobia (which is a form of racism against the Arab race and people) is something that Berbers should be proud of and justify it. I think this an insult to the Berbers people (portraying them as a racist people) before anyone else and a very imprecise claim.

This section needs a rewrite to convey relevant informations to the article not as a series of weak arguments to legitimize Arabophobia in Algeria. This section needs:

To show aspects of Anti-Arabism amongst some Berbers in Algeria, Morocco and France (thus changing the section's title to Anti-Arabism in Maghreb).
Cite possible causes of Arabophobia according to undisputed/neutral sources (not Berber or Arab nationalists).
Made it clear that Arabophobia among Berbers is not a de facto rule but embraced by some Berber tribes/nationalists (according to sources and statistics of course).

Very important: After checking the claimed sources (especially Maxime Ait Kaki, De la question berbère au dilemme kabyle a l'aube du XXIe siècle). I found no link with the information provided by the editor. The editor claims the following but the source does not confirm what he/she said (unless he/she could explain to me; may be I misunderstood some parts):

The majority of Berbers are Christians and non-Muslims.
Berbers has a better level of education and further more better quality of life (not indication so ever).
The information about Arabs invasion of North Africa does not represent the original intention of the author.

I am going to check the other sources as soon as possible (waiting for other books to be shipped). The editor has to provide answers very soon to his claims and to the methodology he used which is in my opinion nothing but a POV.Bestofmed (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bestofmed, i added the sources of the section "algeria", and i have some doudts about your intentions !!!

The references, including Maxime Ait Kaki's book, cite clearlely the points of the article.

It was never said in the article that arabophobia is a "legitimate cause", the text is just trying to explain the origin of some kabyles's arabophobia.

It's better, i think, to remove the word "berbers", 'cause the question is more about "kabyles". In algeria's today society berber=kabyle (the rest of other berber little minorities, like the chaouis, are :now integrated in the more large kabyle community), the berbers of other countries, especially morroco, are other peoples, with different culture, religious beliefs and more of all another political-social-economic situation, which results another relashion with their arab nationals.

It wasn't said too that the majority of kabyles are christians, but just non-muslims. The exact number of religious communities is very difficult to known, due to the fact that racial and religious census are outlawed in Algeria.

But what is certain is the arabophobia of some protestant evangelical kabyle churchs...and this is the subject of the text !!! But most of kabyle christians are catholics, and don't belong to this religious movement (which is relatively new in kabylia).

It wasn't said too that most of kabyles are arabophobs. The article use, of course, the words "kabyles" and "berbers", but like he's using "australians" or "jewish" in other cases...it doesn't mean that all australians or all israelis are anti-arabs !!!! If you want to discuss this point, you can have a semantic debat, but it doesn't concern the intellectual facts.

To knowldege i'm not the author of "algeria"'s section...i just added the sources, responding to your demand bestofmed. But you seems to be non-neutral.

The sources are intellectually recognized and totally clear. I think that the works of several recongized specialists are more accepted in wikipedia than just a POV of a mysterious editor, who recognize himself that he does't have knowldeges about the subject !!! So please stop vandalising the article without any (valid) reason.

Nabilus junius (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)nabilus junius

I know that you added the sources and I did not remove them nor doubt their credibility AS SOURCES until I received the first book which is entitled `De la question berbère au dilemme kabyle a l'aube du XXIe siècle'. My question was what are the parts that support the mentioned claims because I was not able to find them; I am asking for clarification. In addition my second concern was the relevance of information to the article. What is the relevance of citing claims such as "quality of life", "speaking french", etc. If you want to show that not all Kabyles are Arabaphobes than you should not support the asseveration language used in this section as if no supporting evidence were necessary.

I am going to answer these claims with a more renowned sources:

Not only Berbers speak French and/or are Christians, it is very widespread language in North Africa. You can read the introduction of Ernest Gellner book `Arabs and Berbers: from Tribe to Nation in North Africa'.
About the better quality of life and standards, I found something completely different. Poverty was widespread in Kabylia (mainly because of its isolation). Albert Camus wrote a series of eleven reports, entitled “Poverty in Kabylia”. Kabylia was a very poor region until they started trading with their Arab neighbors and cosmopolitan area near Kabylia. France also contributed to enhancing the situation of Kabyles by employing a positive discriminatory economic/educational policy towards them. Read Roberts, `The Economics of Berberism'; Quandt, `The Berbers in the Algerian Political Elite' and Favret, `Traditionalism” for more information.
The article did not mention the impact of colonial rule on Kabyles and their views against Arabs. Here I am talking about the Divide and Conquer policy. France adopted many decisions and policies to create hostility between Algerian Arabs and Algerian Berbers (including Kabyles of course) which contributed to modern day growing Arabophobia in Kabylia. For more information you can read Abdallah Laroui's book entitled `The History of the Maghrib: An Interpretive Essay' and Charles-Robert Ageron, `Modern Algeria: A History from 1830 to the Present'.

I can give more information that falsify most of the claims put there but I am waiting for legitimate objections or other POVs. In the end, we should respect all POV (not be biased to one).

Another factor of Anti-Arabism this section misses is what Anthony Smith calls the processes of historical reappropriation and vernacularization of political and cultural symbolism. We found nothing of this! Another factor is the forced Arabization policy by the goverment, again no indication. I can continue like this forever to cite real sources of sentiments against Arabs.

I am not going to give prejudices against you as you did to me because there is no usefulness in doing so. But nevertheless, I want to tell you I know that Arabophobia exists in Kabylia and in other Berber tribes, I know that after the independence these minorities were ignored (but minority representives gained high positions such the President of Algeria: so it is not fair to blaim only Arabs); that is something I can not refute but we need always to be objective in our editings. This section sells only one POV and does not show the other.

I bet you (and others) are saying what is the relation between some facts I stated above and Anti-Arabism! That was my question in the first place but I wanted to show you that I am aware of these irrelevant fact to this section.

Finally if we want to be fair, a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of North African societies compels one to pose a different set of questions: How do the historical, socioeconomic, and cultural dimensions of Berber life affect contemporary realities, both among Berbers and between Berbers and the state and the majority Arabs? In what ways have the processes of modernization and political upheaval promoted the integration of Berbers with their wider surroundings? In what ways have they stimulated or enhanced a particular Berber self-consciousness? By having objective answers to these question one can argue and found some origins of Anti-Arab sentiments among some radical Kabyles and cultural awareness among moderate Kabyles.

p.s.: please do not remove dispute frames next time, all I am asking for is a constructive discussion without nationalistic neither emotional views.Bestofmed (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

That's not a question of more "renowed" sources (and i don't think that you will find better than mines)...you're trying to defend a lie, wich is impossible.

If you wanna cite authors, you must ideally choose algerian authors, and not english like you're doing !!! I don't think that foreigners know algeria better than algerians.

you cite Alber Camus, his book was published in...the 40is !!!! many thinks changed in kabylia since this periode !!! Kabylia is not a poor region anymore, it's even the most riche of Algeria !!!!

your knowledge about the subject are very limited, my good friend !!!

I don't know how i can be a "nationalist", 'cause.... i'm not kabyle myself !!! but i'm living in algeria (wich is not your case i suppose !!!), and i know this country very well.

And the removal of the "dispute" is logic, 'cause there isn't any dispute: you didn't give any source yet !!! you're just trying to remove a section of the article 'cause it doesn't satisfy you !!! surely for nationalist reason (you're arab i'm sure) !!!

So, if you want to start a debate, try first to find sources, and after put the dispute frames. Nabilus junius (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)nabilus junius

^ This means war By Avraham Tal

[1] This means war By Avraham Tal

[1]