Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 9 November 2005

I think this non-NPOV statement would be better if someone was quoted or a good external link provided.

"Arabs would claim that they currently suffer discrimination in the Western world on a far greater scale than Jews."

I assume this refers to Europe, where both anti-Semitism and anti-Arab sentiment appear much more popular than either is in the US. Ortolan88 21:43 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

PS--I started this article, so I don't think I'm unsympathetic, but the bald statement bothers me.

PPS -- Also, I'm glad someone overrode me and took out the pejorative terms that I included in the first version. I was fresh from fighting to get the White trash article into shape and maybe not as keen as I should have been.

Semantic debate

Some Arab publicists advocate the use of the term "Anti-Semitism" for Arabs as well as Jews; they claim that both Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples. The proposed use of this term has largely been rejected for a number of reasons. The first is that there is no such thing as a Semitic ethnicity; rather, the term "semitic" refers only to language groups, and not to ethnicities or nationalities. Secondly, this usage distracts attention from genuine Anti-Arab prejudice. Thirdly, the term "anti-Semitic" was invented to specifically and solely refer to hatred of Jews, and has always been used as such.

Why was this article redirected? The new title fails the Google test. The previous title ("Anti-Arab") is somewhat common, returning over 22,000 hits, but this new title (Anti-Arabism) isn't used much at all, returning less than 500 hits. When we title an article, we should generally use the most common terminology, unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. RK 19:28 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I can understand why someone disliked "Anti-Arab" as a title, because most Misplaced Pages titles are nouns. "Anti-Arab" isn't a noun, unless it names an entity like the "Antichrist" or an "Anti-pope", which I doubt. The question is, how do you make the title into a noun? "Anti-Arabism" is the most obvious guess, except that it hardly exists as a phrase. The alternatives, like "Anti-Arab sentiment" and "Anti-Arab prejudice", sound a bit woolly, but are closer to what we are trying to describe. -- Heron

NPOV edit may 5, 2005

regarding: "I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity ... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." --(Michael Savage on his radio show The Savage Nation)

Savage never said "Arabs and Muslims." One's opionion should not be displayed as fact on wikipedia. He was referring to terrorists that beheaded Nick Berg, and Paul Johnson. In fact, Savage often states that Islam is a peaceful religion except for a very small, but very violent minority.

Jm51 00:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. So is he saying that terrorists need to be forcibly converted to Christianity? That terrorist being a Christian will automatically make him non-violent? It doesn't make it any less offensive. The quote should stay.Yuber 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Offensive or not, the quote has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Anti-Arab. The only way you can make a connection is if you stereotype and believe all Arabs are terrorists, and all terrorists are Arabs. This quote would belong under a section called anti-terrorist, or perhaps even a list of (subjectively) offensive quotes, but not an anti-arab article. Jm51 05:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What Savage said in the past or following this quote is irrelevant. The section illustrates things people have said which can be construed as perpetuating negative Arab stereotypes. It was a poor thing for him to say, and it is, as with the other quotes, not entirely in context, but the fact remains that he said it. Further, I suspect that nobody is going to be swayed for or against Savage based on the inclusion of this quote. Junjk 00:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think we need to set all stereotypes aside here. Not all Arabs are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Arabs. Once we free ourselves from that mentatility, we will realize the quote is completely unrelated and irrelevant to this article about Anti-Arabism. It would belong in a list of (subjectively) poor things for people to say. Furthermore, whether people will be swayed for or against Savage based on the inclusion of this quote is irrelevant. The motive of removing the quote is not to protect savage's name, but to follow wikipedia's guidelines for factual, npov, relevant articles. Jm51 05:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If we're removing quotes based on unclear context, I imagine a few others (most notably Yosef's) should go also. That said, now that I think about it, shouldn't this quote be moved to Islamophobia anyway? If it's talking about conversion to Christianity, it can't possibly be an anti-Arab quote contextually. It seems to me that since Savage didn't specifically refer to Arabs we ought not to assume that he was making the factual error that there are no Arab Christians. It seems that, whether he was talking about terrorists in particular or a group as a whole, the group he was talking about were most likely Muslims. Junjk 06:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The context of Yosef's is clear. Read the reference. The quote was taken from a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs. Savage's quote, however, was taken out of context from his talk radio show. Savage was condemning terrorists and terrorism, which he does every day (if you have ever listened to his show), not Arabs and Muslims. Savage was only denouncing the extremist terrorist Muslims/Arabs, who are responsible for widespread pain, suffering and death, not the ordinary peaceful Muslims. Again, if you listened to his show, this would be clear. Jm51 18:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have indeed read the article, and it seems to me that in delicate situations such as these we ought to take the word of the speaker. Surely, having read the BBC article yourself, you know that Yosef was, at least supposedly, referring to Arab terrorists. Further, I have listened to Savage's show on multiple occasions. I won't pretend to have any fondness for the man, but just as he rails constantly against terrorism, he has also been known to occasionally slip and refer to Muslims in a similar fashion, as have a great many conservative talk show hosts. It seems to me that the most reasonable courses of action would be to move the quote to Islamophobia and/or provide a disclaimer, either for Savage's quote alone or for the entire quotation section, that often statements such as these are taken out of context or do not reflect the speaker's usual viewpoint. Junjk 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it should be moved to Islamophobia. Savage's dehumanization of Muslims is disconcerting. Regardless of whether he's referring to terrorists or not, he's still implying that only by converting to Christianity will they become human again. I think we're all pretty sure that converting a mass-murderer to Christianity won't change their ways.Yuber 23:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a single quote where Savage dehumanizations Muslims. I can find plenty of quotes where he dehumanizations terrorists. And yes, he is saying that the only way to to make terrorists human again, would be a conversion to chrisitiantiy. Again, there is no Anti-Arabism, or Islamophobia in that belief - only anti-terrorism/terrorism-ophobia/pro-chrisitian. We need to move past stereotypes. Just because a "great many of conservative talk show hosts" slip and are anti-arabic, does not mean Savage is the same. Again, we need to move beyond stereotypes to see the issue at hand clearly and not have our political affilations sway our judgement. Jm51 00:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Why are all the anti Arab quotes on this page from Jewish or Jewish related sources. Surely some should put be put in frok other people such as Robert Kilroy Silk or the far right French politicians.

Find the quotes, cite your sources, and then include them.Yuber 23:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No quotes from Ann Coulter, or nothing from the Anti-Arabist website Little Green Footballs? Prairie Dog

I don't think anyone really takes LGF seriously outside internet bloggers/the internet community.Yuber 13:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV regarding anti-arabic quotes

each of the anti arabic quotes are attributed to Jews. this is hardly a proportional representation of those involved with anti-arabism. what about the media pundits, the american religous leaders, and international politicians who have made such statements? this needs to be changed or the quotes should be removed. --jonasaurus 02:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make the entire article NPOV, just that section.Yuber 10:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In editing this article, I removed unsourced claimes, such as anti-Arab feeling rising after the oil embargo and the perception that some Arabs felt they were treated less well than Jews. The quotes section I removed in its entirety, as all the quotes were from Jews (lack of NPOV) and many of them were in fact irrelevant to the discussion, being more anti-Palestinian than anything else (among other things). I also removed some comments about the JDL that appeared only in the edit section and not the article itself and which were incomprehensible. IronDuke 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this article back to my original edit (with apologies to Jayjg for erasing his request for citations). Yuber, a couple of points: I need to know what it was you disagree with in my editing in order to know if it was justified. For example, some of my editing was for clarity. Did you find that my edit made every section less clear? Please let me know if you did and why you did. Happy to discus this, and happy to have other people weigh in on this. IronDuke 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the anti-Arab quotes section. I didn't revert all your edits by the way. Yuber 00:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for not reverting back entirely. It makes it so much easier to discuss and edit things. My feeling is this, and I would very much welcome input from others: so far everyone but you who has weighed in on this page thinks that the quotes page is inappropriate at best, and antisemitic at worst. I would argue that it is at the very least un-encyclopedia-like. I'll leave it as is for now and wait for other people to express opinions. IronDuke 00:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The quotes section makes this article a complete disgrace and significantly demeans the subject, which is completely valid and desperately needs a serious encyclopedic article. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The quotes section has been here a long time, and it is not "anti-semitic". Humus sapiens removed a totally valid image from this article showing anti-arabism because he felt it was too offensive to the JDL. I feel that because of this totally unilateral removal of his he should not interfere with the quotes section as he has already pushed POV on this article. Instead of solely focusing on the quotes, please improve the article in other ways (as you claim your true intentions are). Yuber 01:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did, as I did earlier - and I don't need a special invitation. Still unable to refrain from ad homs? Check WP:NPA. BTW, a picture from an unknown origin on an unknown wall also demeans the subject. On another note, this article is not and should not be about the Jews or the JDL, or the ADL or unrepresentative quotes that Yuber cherry-picked to validate his POV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The quotes were here long before I came, so I recommend you don't try to blame everything you find offensive in this article on me as I didn't write most of it. I only added two particularly salient quotes, Mr Barak's and Mr. Bukay's.Yuber 02:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The picture wasn't from an unknown origin, and it wasn't on an "unknown" wall either. I got the picture from here . Please look thru that album for other pictures if you don't like this one. Yuber 02:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber blaming the Jooos again. I don't particularly like JDL, but a serious encyclopedia would require a better proof than "I found it on the net", especially on such a sensitive subject. The image looks like a provocation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Humus here. I went to the site the pic came from, and found it to be uniformly anti-Israel (which doesn't necessarily mean the picture isn't real), and also their photo gallery suspicious at best (the handwriting was similar in most of the pictures, the sentiments expressed were in English, rather than Hebrew and Arabic, as would more likely be the case), and I believe the JDL signature likely to be a forgery. Also, I was unable to find any other websites with ant-Arab graffiti in English in Israel/West Bank/Gaza. And again, this picture in combination with the inflammatory, one-sided quotes section raises serious NPOV issues. IronDuke 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)