Talk:Nasserism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paigegunnett.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: The Criticism Section

As of June 10th, 2006, this section read: Nasserism operated in Egypt through a totalitarian one-party system, and the mixture of dictatorial methods and socialist-style land reform and other efforts to improve life for the poor, yet however opposing or ignoring Marxism and the concept of class struggle and fervent nationalism, has prompted some opponents to compare it to Fascism. (citation needed) Some present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology, and are generally more left-wing than Nasser himself.

This paragraph is a mess. Nasserism may have avoided direct association with Marxism, but it certainly did not ignore the concept of "class struggle". After all, the pursuit of "socialist-style land reform," one of the primary goals (if not the primary goal) of the early Nasserists, demonstrated the simple fact that the early Nasserists were keenly aware of the plight of the peasant (the Arab "masses") in Egyptian society . Furthermore, it is astounding that someone would assert that Nasserism ignored "fervent nationalism," for Nasser was the face of Arab Nationalism throughout his period of rule. Finally, I have never seen a history which has attempted to compare the policies and practices of Nasser to any Fascistic regime.

In the end, the only practical criticism is the initial statement, "Nasserism operated in Egypt through a totalitarian one-party system." I am going to cut the rest of the paragraph and add a section stub. If anyone has any problems with this, discuss it here. I am kind of on a wikibreak, but I will check back as frequently as possible to see if anyone has any thoughts on the matter. --(Mingus ah um 20:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Also, i'd add the Charter for National action as well as the Statute of the Arab Socialist Union should be added in the refrences section. - Dudecock

I have reinstated a revised version of the last sentence of the former Criticism section at the end of the current Introduction. As such, the former statement ("Some present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology, and are generally more left-wing than Nasser himself") has been revised and reinstated as: "Most present-day Nasserists generally embrace democracy, and tend to stress the modernizing and secular strands of the ideology." I cut out the assertion that modern day Nasserists "are generally more left-wing than Nasser," for their views on "hard" left policies (one party rule v. open democracy; systematic change v. minor-to-strong alterations of the status quo) are far less dogmatic (that is, radical) then they were in the past. --(Mingus ah um 20:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

I don't know much about the rules of the discussion page, but this doesn't really say what nasserism entails, breifly in the intriduction. Should it?

I think it's incorrect to describe Nasser's government as totalitarian, it wasnt, and there is a difference between totalitarianism and dicatoship-I would recomend read Nasser-The last Arab by Said. Also, although Im less clear on this, I do not think Nasser ruled through a one-party system. The free officers could not exactly be described as a party, but a revolutionary group, and as far as I know there were several parties operating in Nassers regime and cooperating with the government, originially even the muslim brotherhood and communist political wings cooperated with the government-However as you no doubt know this changed, and nassser outlawed them. Still, I think, although Nasser maintained ultimate executive power, the system could not be described as single=party, and definetly not totalitarian (a contentious statement which is not sourced).86.156.52.67 (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

support

agree in general with the edits of the criticism section. i originally wrote most of it, but in a haste etc, and it was never any good. but what's the justification for the claim that nasserism receives more support outside of egypt than inside it? what countries would that be? it seems far better organized in egypt than elsewhere, for whatever that means. Arre 22:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Palestine for one, and I surmise in Syria also, though I can't be certain. In any event, it should be made clear that as of now, Nasserism as an ideology and a political tool for change does not receive wide support in Egypt and, in addition, there has been strong anti-Nasserist sentiment among the current grassroots reform movements, including ones with socialist leanings. The article mentions that Nasserism "is generally confined to minor opposition parties, writers and intellectuals," which is true and in so far as Egyptians are concerned, their support usually goes to either Islamist organizations like the MB or the moderate el-Wasat, or to liberal opposition such as el-Ghad and last year's presidential contender Ayman Nour. — [ziʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zerida and all. I can't really totally agree with the above statements "Nasserism receives more support outside of egypt than inside" or "Nasserism "is generally confined to minor opposition parties, writers and intellectuals". They can be easily regarded by anyone as POV since the article provides no citations for them. As for Nasserism in Egypt, i agree it is not a popular ideology but still two parties with the Nasserist ideology exist , one of them the Nasserist_Party is a legitimate one and the other "El-Karama party" which has won 2 parliamentary seats -from a total of 33 seats won by all independents and opposition parties other than the MB- is still under construction. Hamdeen Sabahy, the head of El-Karama party has very high popularity in certain parts of Egypt, mainly Balteem and Al-Hamool in Kafr ash Shaykh Governorate. This support was demonstrated in the Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2005 . Besides, the Egyptian movement for change Kifaya has a nasserist majority. Ayman nour's results in the last presidential elections may be in part attributed to the absence of a MB candidate and to the fact that a large number of poolitical parties including the Nasserist_Party and the leftist Tagammu' party boycotted the elections. Please note i'm neither a nasserist nor a MB advocate but as far as i know Egyptians haven't shown support to any opposition party or group except for the MB. All opposition parties including New Wafd, Tagammu', Nasserist, Ghad, Ahrar,... stand in the same position here. The political ideology of most of the Egyptians can't be confirmed- they neither vote nor take part in any political activity. so, IMHO, the statements i mentioned above may be considered POV and should be removed.--Wedian 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wedian (long time no see!). While I didn't write that sentence, since you do agree that Nasserism is not a popular ideology, I don't see why it should be removed or considered POV. If it describes the Egyptian political scene accurately, then instead of simply removing it, perhaps a citation should be provided? I could dig something up from Ahram Weekly. I, however, have to categorically disagree that Kefaya enjoys a "Nasserist majority". My impression of Kefaya is that, while overwhelmingly left-wing, it's not necessarily Nasserist (though there are Nasserist members), but rather quite diverse.

On another note, I just glanced at el Karama's platform , and I'm sorry to say it appears thoroughly confused. In attempting provide a foundation for its Arab nationalist agenda, it gleans supposed "evidence" from historical events such as the military campaigns of Ramesses II and the 1919 revolution associated with Saad Zaghlul, neither of which has the faintest thing to do with any Arab-based ideology (lest they forget Zaghlul's famous remark to the effect that Arabism amounted to adding zero to another zero!). Also, to claim that the Egyptian language is mixture of Arabic and indigenous words is pure nonsense. No wonder it's been trying to obtain legal license to operate as a recognized party since 1990. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a source for the statement that Nasserism does not enjoy wide support among Egyptians. The AW article states: "The real problem [...] is that the leftist and nationalist ideologies upon which the Nasserist and Tagammu parties were founded no longer appeal to the masses" and "most party members know just how weak the Nasserist candidates -- with the exception of Dawoud -- really are in their constituencies." — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 19:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zerida i can't really think of an Ahram weekly article as a source. It may be used as a source for a certain event or accident but surely not as a source for the popularity of a certian ideology unless it has conducted some sort of survey. After all, Ahram is a pro-governmental newspaper and this article probably reflects the opinion of the writer. Also, i'm sure that there are articles in other newspapers (at least in Al-Araby) claiming the opposite. Overall, I still think these statements should be removed. As you said, this may be my or your opinion but it can't be verified or proved so it certainly doesn't belong into an encyclopedia. As i previously stated, the majority of Egyptians don't participate in any political activities so their beliefs can not be verified. I myself have doubts that Nasserism may still have some popularity among certain elderly populations. Anyway, our opinions are irrelevant if we're considering adding information to an encyclopedia. This information will appear as facts for the reader. BTW, this is also probably irrelevant, but Kifaya has a large number of nasserist (mainly Al-Karama party) members including the official speaker of Kifaya Abdel Haleem Kandeel. Another thing, which is also irrelevant, for parties to get a legitimate licence in Egypt, they must be approved by a certain committee- the committee for parties' affairs. This committee is totally appointed by Egyptian government and i think you can quickly conclude that it approves what the government wants to approve. In fact, after El-Ghad sudden approval and then the sudden imprisonment of Ayman Nour, some voices claimed that this was a deal with the government which went wrong.--Wedian 22:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, if we keep the above statements as they are, we probably have to mention that no other ideology has considerable popularity except for the islamists and MB. This is obvious if you review the membership in all Egyptian opposition parties including the liberal ElGhad and Wafd party or the leftist Tagammu'compared to the total Egyptian population. As i told you, here in Egypt, the majority is considered silent and the only apparent opposition is MB. Finally, i think it is better not to add the information at all than to add something disputable or non verifiable--Wedian 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Actually, if you'd read the article you would see that these were statements made, not by the AW journalist, but by Nasserist leaders themselves, namely Amin Youssri and el-Arabi's chief editor Abdallah el Sinawi. It's up to you if you want to add information to counter their own assertions, but there is no justification whatsoever for removing properly sourced information which in this case is directly relevant to the Wiki article. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 01:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when i read the article, i got the feeling that the writer was analyzing the reasons behind Dawood's loss in the parliamentary elections. And except, for the one sentence you mentioned, the whole article was attributing the Nasserist's party loss to lack of democracy in the party and to the poor performance by Al-Arabi. Since almost all legitimate opposition parties have similar problems and haven't achieved real successes in the elections, and since the article was mainly talking about this particular party failure, i can't really see that this article proves the above mentoned statemets concerning the nasserist ideology as a whole. The claim that nasserism receives more support outside of Egypt than inside it has nothing to do with the article. Reading the article, i also haven't got the idea that Nasserism is confined to minor opposition parties, writers and intellectuals!. Actually, i find it very easy to argue that by the fact that all kinds of political activities in Egypt is confined to minor parties, writers and intellectuals. Thus, generally, i think the AW article might be used a source in an article about the Nasserist Party in Egypt and not about the Nasserism.--Wedian 02:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Then feel free to edit those articles as well. As I am not, however, inclined to keep rehashing the same argument, I'm simply going to insist that properly referenced material remains in the article. I just rephrased the part in question so that it stays exactly within what the source stated, to wit, Nasserist parties receive little support because their ideology no longer appeals to the people ("The real problem, he [Amin Youssri] said, is that the leftist and nationalist ideologies upon which the Nasserist and Tagammu parties were founded no longer appeal to the masses"). — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Your recent rephrasing is much better. However, when i have time, i'll try to find better sources. --Wedian 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

nasserism vs. baathism

What was the difference between the two? I know that Nasserism was pro-Nasser and Egyptian whereas Baathism was Syrian/Iraqi. But what were the ideological differences? BillMasen 12:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not much.  ;) Schwael (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ba'athism at least on the face of things espoused more open socialism and less pan-arabism, but obviously this socialist element died when the Americans decided to back the stooge of Saadam Hussein in the revolution (the Americans would neevr back an open socialist), incidentially this is also about the time the Ba'ath party in Iraq finally lost its christian elements. You could say, although its a POV, Nasser stuck more to his proposed ideology, where as the Ba'ath party really became a power-tool.86.156.52.67 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would be good if someone could explain the real differences if any. [[Mewnews (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)]]

Misleading understatement

I think this statement is misleading understatement:

During Nasser's lifetime, Nasserist groups were encouraged and often supported financially by Egypt, to the extent that many became seen as willing agents of the Egyptian Government.

The Arab socialist Union was founded by Nasser and was the only official party. It is like saying that "Communist groups were encouraged and often supported financially by Stalin in the USSR." Were there other Nasserist groups who were supported? [[Mewnews (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)]]

I imagine it means "nasserist groups" in other countries. BillMasen (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Secular nationalism?

Though mindful of the Islamic and Christian heritage of the Arab World, as with Ba'athism, Nasserism is largely a secular ideology.

• How is it considered secular when it stresses on Arabization (using Arabic language as the only written language & if natives spoke other dialects/languages they should learn Arabic language) which is the language of Quran?
• If Arabism has something to do with Christianity, why almost all of the Arab league nations have Islamic favoring legislations, rather than treating all citizens as equal individuals? Why do many of them have Islam as their official religion? What else has to be made to prove the political-Islamic identity of Arab Nationalism & its supporters? Their flags, their constitutions, their policies! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources are clear that Nasserism is a secular pan-Arabist ideology. Here are a few , , . nableezy - 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It theoretical that Nasserism or any form Pan-Arabism is secular You will find sources that say it is and many that say it is not.Even the Coptic bishoped himself stated that Arabism is something Muslims more feel with inifitity due to their religious beliefs connection with Arabia. Even the fake Christian (muslim convert) Michel Aflaq stated that Islam is the proof of Arabs genius and their greatest achievement. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Muslims feeling a connection to Arabism, or Nasserism, does not make it non-secular. Bring sources that say it is not instead of just saying that it is not. nableezy - 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does especially since its what motivated Muslims to declare war on the Christians in 1958 Lebanon crisis but luckily thanks to American intervention, the had not been ripped apart yet and few people died. Nasser is the one who egged these people on , how can inciting sectarian tensions in a fragile country be considered Secular?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

here are some interesting links, Nasserists advocating islamists http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/parties/nasser/nass90.htm http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/parties/nasser/guard.htm

There are third party, reliable secondary sources published by university presses that flat out say Nasserism is a secular nationalistic ideology. You need to provide a source of the similar quality to even dispute that, much less say otherwise as fact. nableezy - 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an EGYPTIAN national paper not some bias Pan-Arabist or Leftist idealogue the same kind who would make mugabe out to be revolutionary hero out of their own irrational self-hatred for the west. So Nasserist politicans themselves stating their party has sympathy for islamic causes and should reconcile isnt a realiable source?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you cant answer me regarding Nasser in sighting Muslims to fight christians in Lebanon during the 1958 crisis nullifies as secularist because even you cant admit or blatantly this is what a secularist would do. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the paper itself is not the problem, the problem is that it does not say that Nasserism is not secular. They say that certain Nasserists advocate for greater integration of Nasserism and Islamism. Those are two different things, and you are attempting to use that to introduce a an argument that those sources do not make, and which other high quality secondary reliable sources directly dispute. And finally, I can answer you, it just is a wast of my time to do so. I dont care what you think, bring reliable sources that actually support what you want to put in the article, not just things you think prove your point. nableezy - 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FAILURE

Nasser was a racist and a failed politician now ofcourse I wont add this to this already POV propaganda piece with no sources but just to remind everyone this man deported nearly all the jews of Egypt in the name of his racist arabism in 1950s he arabized the Egyptian identity, his socialist policies meant that businesses were nationalized and private property and the Copts who then were 20% of the population but owned 50% of commerce lost out due to his Arab fascist ideals and many left the country in consequence. He turned the country into a police state which only would stem fanatics support and made them go through countless of wars for Palestine in the name of Arabism in consequence meant alot of EGYPTIAN got occupied instead and many Egyptians died for nothing. also the prescne of ethnic Minorities (Italians,Armenians,Greeks,Turks etc) all began to their communities fade or suffer from this man and his silly failed racist policies ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, take your rant somewhere else. nableezy - 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum post just facts, and btw this shouldnt be his propaganda page eihter many these facts of which will go into this article the racism & failures of the Nasser legacy is well documentated despite the fact Pan-Arab dreamers may wish to be in denial. The problems Gamal NAZI Nasser brought into the Egyptian society and region is even the central theme for the novel and film The Yacoubian Building ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you think Nasser was a Nazi shows how ridiculous this is. nableezy - 17:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasser was good as a Nazi with his Nazi Arab fascist Mufti of Jerusalem who he was the protege of, he the Hitler of the Egyptian era but Germans moved on and realized Hitler was a racist bigot and Supremcist idiot many ppl have yet to realize that with Nasser. Infact he's ideology really should of been called Nazisserism, terrible man terrible ideology. http://books.google.com/books?id=HGkthBwbNg8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Nazi+Connection+to+Islamic+Terrorism&cd=1#v=snippet&q=Gamal%20Abdel%20Nasser&f=false ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You are relying on a self-published book to make these wild claims. Learn to recognize scholarship and ignore such low-quality sources. That book is not a reliable source. nableezy - 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing actual reliable sources and replacing them with garbage. You removed two books published by high quality presses and replaced it with an opinion piece first published here. nableezy - 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didnt use that source here is the source http://www.scribd.com/doc/25563937/A-Bloody-Greeting-for-Coptic-Christians-R-21-January-2010 Faith freedom COPIED and pasted that article from the original source, which is text using exerpts from Elaph.You are a propagandist Nablee, we all know Nassers socialist laws deeply harmed the minorites of Egypt especially the Copts lost much of their comerces thanks to this NAZI (Nationalist Socialist) and I dare you Nableezy to tell us who expelled the Egyptian Jews?its SOURCED dont even bother thinking you can use Wikipedia to distort the truth in THEORY nasser had some secular principles.Your sources are mostly from Pan-Arabists or dont go in deph into Nasser's so called secularism how is that realibe? or is citing his biography? You are the one who removed a realibe sourced that indicated HE is the one impleneted that the State religon of Egypt is Islam by constitution in 1956 and blend the sharia counrts.Now I dare you, refute that a secular politician impelents a state religion in the Constitution? what kind of secular politician incites the Muslims in Lebanon to fight the Christians in the 1958 Lebanon crisis? This racist idiot was as secular as Yasser Arafat was people should stop kidding themselves to make him out to be something he isnt. he was an Evil man shame on anyone who tries to hide this,.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and Nazism are two different things, and the paper you linked to is not a reliable source. The books you removed are. nableezy - 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

read Nazism then come here and tell me the Nazis were not Nationlist socialists? do you know what Nazi is short for? like Gamal Abdul al Nazism was —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote more carefully. Nazism and socialism are two different things. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say such things stop wasting my time. nableezy - 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Is Nasserism immune to criticism!

I see that the article is left with no criticism. Well, stating half the information, even if sourced and true, makes the article biased. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The lack of a criticism section is not because Nasserism is immune to criticism, but just a reflection of the article's poor quality. It is poorly developed and mostly unreferenced. Nasserism is not well-defined here and its difference with say the more romantic, fascist and racially-driven Baathism isn't made clear. It's far-reaching influence on the Arab world during Nasser's lifetime is not gauged accurately and the Nasserism espoused by certain political movements today (Hamdeen Sabahi's Karama in Egypt for instance) is also not well-addressed. Bashing Nasser or his ideology (like in the section above) is not warranted in an encyclopedic article of course. If you are concerned about the article's state, you should go ahead and start a Criticism section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

thinking of expanding the part at the end about Hamdeen Sabahi...just to bring it up to date and maybe put things in the right perspective...Hamdeen Sabahi seems to be the heir to Nasserism...anyone have any suggestion??? Should i or shouldn't I??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.95.227.33 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Leftism? Or Centrism?

I think Nasserism (like Baathism) was a more syncretic politics, more akin to Peronism. They even had Nazis making propaganda for them. 186.32.216.85 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment!

Ultimately the problem is that everyone can have a different understanding of politics, and a different view of what is leftism and rightism. To this end, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia - a semi-recent example I remember is that one editor claimed that a left-wing party was "socially right-wing", and they justified it with a single source of the party's leader being pro-life.

This obviously had massive problems - the article source did not mention "right wing" at all, which meant that this label did not reflect the article, but merely reflected the editor's view that a pro-life party cannot be socially left-wing. Because of that, we limit ourselves to sources that directly call a party left-wing, right-wing or syncretic. This way we can avoid situations like "this party is pro-life so they must be right-wing".

Nasserism is listed as left-wing, and this is what several sources, listed in the infobox, say. We do not want to pretend that we are experts on politics, so we rely on what sources, be it published books or journals, say.

Regarding Johann von Leers, your argument seems to be that Nasserism was syncretic because Nasser had a Nazi amongst its political advisors. Unfortunately this means we are guessing and forcing assumptions here, namely that a party or an ideology must be right-wing if they had a collusion with a Nazi. I would not say that is the case.

If you believe that you are able to find a source that explicitly calls Nasserism syncretic, then I think you got a case. Thank you! Brat Forelli🦊 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Nationalism, Power, and Resistance in the modern Middle East

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 5 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ilovewikihow (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Alexdooomm.

— Assignment last updated by Lindz791 (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

I am concerned about the lack of content regarding the ethnic discrimination that happened under various Nasserist governments. Suggested additional content:

Nasserist governments practiced exclusionary ethnic nationalism to benefit Arabs at the expense of other groups. Nasserist policies in Egypt involved the denaturalization and expulsion of Egyptians of Jewish, Armenian, Greek and other ethnicities, and the confiscation of their properties by the state to favor Arabs. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi ordered every Jewish male arrested, all Jewish property confiscated by the state, and all debts owed to Jews cancelled. In Algeria, the FLN restricted citizenship in the newly-independent country to those with two paternal ancestors registered as Muslim. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. This template is for semi-protected pages, not content disputes, but thank you for opening a talk page discussion! You might want to ping the editors disagreeing with you. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The request has been reopened. Per WP:ARBECR (applicable in this instance since it's related to WP:PIA): Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: this is neither an uncontroversial request, nor one that is already supported by consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You are confused about what it means for something to be controversial. The proposed edits are only "controversial" in that some people will feel upset to learn these facts. It is not controversial whether these events actually happened. There is complete academic consensus that the policies cited actually happened. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If you truly believe these events are controversial, then please find me some academic sources saying that they didn't happen. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: @~2025-38106-20: Both of you, stop edit warring over talk page comments. M.Bitton, please don't remove these comments again, they are not directly in the WP:CT/A-I topic area, and it's unnecessarily bitey. ~2025-38106-20, I would suggest requesting dispute resolution help, perhaps via WP:3O. I would also recommend registering an account. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: I don't understand. How is the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt not related to PIA? M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think their comment was disruptive as would be problematic under WP:ARBECR, but the reverting between the two of you is becoming disruptive. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

They ignored all attempts at making them understand the limits of what they can do when the edit is related to WP:PIA (see their talk page), while showing the ability to understand the policies that they want to understand (such as citing an obscure policy to justify their refusal to abide by the rules). M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, you have failed to show that my proposed edits are factually controversial and therefore have no ground to shut down my request. Again, my additions are only controversial in that some people would be upset or angry to learn about them. They are not in dispute by any credible academic source. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

As long as you understood this comment, then my job is done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Dude, get real! I read this a long time ago, that's why I made this freaking edit request!

The page you keep linking to says this: "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive."

I read this and then made an edit request to comply. You then have continually been trying to suppress my edit request on the grounds that it is "controversial". To which I repeat: there is complete academic consensus that the things I wrote about happened. I have provided many properly-cited academic sources, and you have provided zero ones disputing the claims I wrote about, because THERE ARE NONE. The only controversy is that some people get angry when hearing about these facts. There is ZERO factual controversy. The problem is you baselessly claiming that facts some people might dislike are controversial. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I made an edit request, in compliance with the policies you keep sharing, and since then you have been trying to keep delete or close my edit request by baselessly claiming they are controversial. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I am finding my first attempt to improve Wikipedia to be unbelievably exasperating. Jeez. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan Glad that a third party has gotten involved to help. I opened a case on the dispute resolution noticeboard but nothing has happened since I opened it. @M.Bitton has not shown that my edit request is controversial. Again, these are facts that some people may not like to hear, but they are not facts that are in dispute by credible academic sources. So I believe it is valid that my edit request remain open. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 22:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@NotJamestack: The edit likely falls under WP:CT/A-I and is therefore subject to WP:ARBECR so an edit request is required for this addition. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Two previous editors and now a third (me) agree that this is a controversial edit. It is therefore definitionally controversial. I direct you to explanations of what is considered a controversial edit on Wikipedia at WP:SUNS and WP:MAKINGEREQ. This is certainly not an edit that should be made or requested by an unregistered user. If you are this passionate about making your first edit to improve Wikipedia, I suggest doing it on an article not related to contentious topics. Closing edit request. SI09 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused about how this works. Ok, fine: let's go with your assertion that this is a controversial edit. Why are people not then actually discussing the topic? I'm the only person in this thread that is providing any sort of evidence that is backing up a claim. The attitude of others, especially @M.Bitton, is "It's controversial so let's shut down the conversation." You're not trying to discuss the content of my edits. @M.Bitton isn't trying to discuss the content of my edits. Everyone is just saying that they find it controversial even though no one is able to provide a source which disputes the content of my edits. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to include true, well-cited encyclopedic knowledge? I'm doing that. Your exercise of policy is not. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate my perception that the only thing controversial about my edits is that some people with particular political viewpoints may dislike reading them. They are not controversial in the academic, historical sense that Wikipedia is supposed to uphold. They are only controversial because some people don't like it when others know about such things. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I really disagree with you saying that "because three people think it's controversial, it's controversial" when there is zero academic or historical controversy about the content of my edits. One should not conflate one's own person discomfort over the subject with there being an academic controversy, which is what @M.Bitton and others seem to be doing. Unless you can provide credible academic sources disputing the content of my edits, then no, it's not controversial. It just means there are three wiki editors who feel uncomfortable with the content I am writing about. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And I also want to just reiterate how you and @M.Bitton are exercising policy to keep non-controversial, well-cited historical knowledge out of Wikipedia. Isn't the point of Wikipedia to include that? ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that five hours ago I made a page for this dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard, and despite @M.Bitton's user history showing five hours of solid activity since then, @M.Bitton has not responded to the dispute. No one is responding to the content of my edits. They are all just branding them as "controversial" (despite the lack of actual academic controversy) and citing policies to shut down the conversation. This extremely frustrating situation seems at odds with Wikipedia's values and is encouraging me to hold on and be stubborn in advocating my cause. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop opening this edit request. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 02:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't like how both @M.Bitton and @~2025-38106-20 are doing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU thing now. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 02:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I ignored their pings for a reason, and now, I will ignore yours too (for wasting my time with your aspersions). M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@NotJamestack Sorry to upset and thank you for your time. I will not open the edit request again.

So I read the policy about contentious topics that @M.Bitton showed me. Ok, so I learned that non XC users can't edit controversial topics and instead must make an edit request. So I made an edit request on the controversial topic. But now the edit request itself has been deemed controversial despite no one providing any evidence disputing its content. That's the part that I don't understand. I get that there is additional scrutiny for topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I respected that by making an edit request instead of editing the page directly. But given that no one has shown any disputing information, I see no reason why the request itself should be considered controversial except that the content makes people uncomfortable. No one has engaged with the content to show that it is realistically disputable at all. If it's not disputed, then how can it be controversial in an academic sense? ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To me, what's not being acknowledged in this discussion is the difference between "controversial" meaning "academically disputable" and "causing strong emotions for some people". I maintain that my edits are not controversial in the first sense and yet they are being shut down. That feels important for me to point out. ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Having stated that, I officially give up now. I would genuinely appreciate if someone actually considers my words and my reasoning. In either case, have a good life, Wikipedians. I trust this place a little bit less now :'-( ~2025-38106-20 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Infobox

I understand if someone wants to keep the Infobox, but the claim that for someone to remove it they'd better go through translating the infobox's content into concise text has no basis in either policies or guidelines. In fact, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says the opposite (i.e., the purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article).

That aside, does Nasserism have a logo? Which reliable source was used for the logo that is adorning the infobox? Likewise for the colours: the cited source says nothing about Nasserism and the insinuation that the Arab Liberation Flag is "the flag of Nasserism" is unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

adding a thing here.

i think infoboxes, specifically {{infobox political party}} in this case, should be used when it's an ideology, an -ism or any other political movement where the topic is influential and/or controversial. Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 21:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging the involved editors Tokisaki Kurumi, Tonkarooson and Brat Forelli. M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @M.Bitton, thanks for the ping.

I am sorry, I might have worded myself badly - the point is much simpler than this and does not take WP:WIKILAWYERING - the infobox on this page uses several of unique sources that are not in the body text, and which would take converting to article. The infobox does not contradict MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE because it fits the intended serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance function perfectly. It provides the reader with a summary of the movement's political orientation which is then explained in the Ideology section in detail.

This is a much cleaner solution than just doing "Nasserism as been described as X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H..." through text and litany of references. You removed the infobox AND its sources, which can be only interpreted as you also taking the issue with sources. You see how this would be problematic, and I regard it as disruptive, even if accidentally so, when you just did that on an article that you did not work on, with no regard to the sources cited there.

If you want to have infoboxes gone from eponymous political movements then you would probably want to make a general discussion on this, since this is a case for several articles, including Trumpism, Kirchnerism, Orthodox Peronism etc. Though I regard them as helpful in this case, since it allows the reader to understand what e.g. "Trumpism" stands for besides "ideology of Donald Trump". There are exceptions to this rule, for example Peronism, of which nature is too fluid/disputed and so we force the readers to read the text, yet Peronist tendencies usually have infoboxes, since they do not evade undisputed-enough classification.

That aside, does Nasserism have a logo? Which reliable source was used for the logo that is adorning the infobox? Likewise for the colours: the cited source says nothing about Nasserism and the insinuation that the Arab Liberation Flag is "the flag of Nasserism" is unsourced.

Good question. I will look for sources that speaks on this topic. Brat Forelli🦊 13:34, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Your claim that for someone to remove it they'd better go through translating the infobox's content into concise text contradicts what MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says. This is a fact ( WP:WIKILAWYERING has nothing to do with it).

it fits the intended "serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" the first line of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE mentions "key facts that appear in an article".

It provides the reader with a summary of the movement's political orientation which is then explained in the Ideology section in detail if it is explained in the article's body, then why did you make the above claim (about "translating the infobox's content into concise text")?

..which can be only interpreted as you also taking the issue with sources I disagree. I explained why I reverted the editor who restored it.

If you want to have infoboxes gone from eponymous political movements I'm only interested in the issues of this infobox (and I'm not the only one).

on an article that you did not work on How is that relevant? Please elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

contradicts what MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says.

I am remarking that the infobox uses references (sources) that are nowhere else in the article, and thus you are removing them. And why? These are academic WP:RS.

if it is explained in the article's body, then why did you make the above claim (about "translating the infobox's content into concise text")?

In that the infobox summarizes key facts but does not rely on the same body of sources as the Ideology section. It is allowed for references to appear in the infobox but not in the body (MOS:INFOBOXCITE). The infobox section goes in detail by discussing the details of the subject without "name-dropping" particular ideologies that were present in the movement.

I disagree. I explained why I reverted the editor who restored it.

I see. In this case you would be deleting sources for no reason, in what was, I can assume, a WP:BABY edit.

How is that relevant? Please elaborate.

I consider deleting an infobox along with reliable sources that were in there (but not in the body) with no justification for the latter to be disruptive editing insofar it prevents good quality editing from taking place. Brat Forelli🦊 16:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you expecting me to repeat what I said?

Even if true (that's a big IF), it still doesn't explain the contradiction in your claims.

Your assumptions are baseless and meaningless.

Since you decided to repeat the word "disruptive", I will share with you what I believe: I consider making up rules (that contradict the established ones) and acting as if you own the article (by falsely insinuating that one has to have worked on an article in order to edit it) as extremely disruptive. In any case, I said what I needed to say and will await input from others. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind you repeating yourself - what contradictory claims do you see? I do insist that since your edit removed several sources (which is why it amounted to -15k net characters), and you do not question the reliability of these sources, it was disruptive. As regarding the ownership, it is less that than again removed sources which would be useful for the article but were removed, without being moved or repurposed.

Also, thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate input from you. Brat Forelli🦊 20:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You just made yourself irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Great, since this was not about me! The actual problem still stands - while you see infobox as 'optional', in case of this article it has numerous sources that are not used elsewhere in the article, and so this was WP:BABY. Brat Forelli🦊 21:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You made a mistake and doubled down on it by making some uncalled for comments. Whether you admit to it or not is irrelevant, but I won't let you blame someone else for what you did. M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

What mistake? Brat Forelli🦊 07:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Brat Forelli: I actually take a more radical stance: I oppose using {{infobox political party}} for these articles (including but not limited to Trumpism). The reason remains the same—this template is designed to describe political parties. Is Trumpism, an ideology, a political party? Of course not. Therefore, I oppose its use. If we have infobox thought or infobox ideology, I wouldn't object to using them. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

i agree, but we don’t have {{template:infobox ideology}} do we? i say we create that. Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 21:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tonkarooson: Of course we can, and I would support putting the template into these articles then. But for now {{infobox political party}} here is ... inopportune. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 22:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

ok then.

where can we recommend a template to have? Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 00:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we need one? M.Bitton (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

well… no, but i think it's a good idea, and especially for users opposed to using infobox political party. i think it's a good idea. Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 01:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

What kind of parameters would you expect it to have? M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

similar to infobox political party but it's made for ideologies. it'll still have | ideology, | position and affiliation parameters.

idk how the process goes for templates tho. Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 23:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that unsourced claims such as the colors, flag, and logo of Nasserism should be removed, along with ideologies not mentioned in the article body. I can't find African socialism or Third Worldism or progressivism anywhere in the article, so they should ideally either be removed or summarized in under the "Ideology" subheading. Skitash (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a reason those are not covered in the article's body: the used sources consist of nothing than passing mentions of the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point regarding these three ideologies, I added references to them in the ideology section. African socialism is particularly relevant to the subject, and third-worldism was already present in that the Non-aligned Movement which was based on it was mentioned, but an explicit mention is helpful to prevent WP:OR. There are sources that make third-worldism the main descriptor of Nasserism, like:

• Cizre, Ümit (2008). Secular and Islamic Politics in Turkey: The making of the Justice and Development Party. Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics. Routledge. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-203-93733-4. In fact, Egypt lacks a revivable foundational ideology because Nasserism—a third worldist ideology named after Egypt's founding father, Gamal Abdul Nasser… Brat Forelli🦊 21:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No reason to remove the infobox even if there's some issues. There's too many ideologies (you could branch them off forever, like adding developmentalism, statism etc). Reduce to the core ones and the specifics of Nasserism should be described in the body of the article. Maybe it should have images regarding the history of Nasserism (ex. Aswan Dam) so it's not just about the ideology's theses. Polish kurd (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Polish kurd: Although some mention has been made above, the number of Wikipedia articles on ideas that include infoboxes is currently far fewer than those without infoboxes (e.g. liberalism, socialism, conservatism). ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 20:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)