|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arabs article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|Arabs has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 North Africans are Berbers
- 2 Confused Article
- 3 The number of Berbers
- 4 Racist Pseudo-Science in Etymology Section.
- 5 Infobox mosaic
- 6 Arabs and Iranians
- 7 Removal of Eugenics Section
- 8 non-accurate informations
- 9 Requested move
- 10 Keep an Eye on the Infobox
- 11 Racial Pseudo-Science
- 12 Arabs are related to Israelis, exclusive
- 13 Egypt 90% Arab?
- 14 Israel & Eritrea
- 15 Arab identity
- 16 Arab League Arab population
- 17 Sri Lankan Muslims
North Africans are Berbers
North Africans are AMAZIGH(Berbers),yesterday,today and tomorrow.Most Algerians are Berbers and Berbers arabized.Algeria will never become an Arab country. The racist article hiding under fancy words like Arab culture and Arab world and all the BS will never go far.
It is sad that this article is as inherently confused as Arabs today. It seems to constantly flip-flop from historically inaccurate and wholly politically-motivated nationalism and its apologism on one hand, and unreliable pseudosciences and Unrelated Islamic History on the other. This very discussion just underlines this confusion, with laughable terms like "Caucasian Arabs" being used to describe lighter-skinned people in the Levent.
Can I suggest we start from the early History of what Arabs were, and try to undersand what happened to bring about the multi-ethnic Arab world today. There should be a seperate section for Arab people - a distinct ethnic group from the Berbers, Kurds, Circasians and all other ethnicities in the Arab world, all of whom have their ownpages here.
The Earliest sources seem to suggest Arabs were a Leventine Semitic people (Battle of Qarqar & Kurkh Monolith 8CE BC), who were incorporated into the Assyrian Empire with all other groups (Herodotus in Histories, 450 BC "Sennacherib King of Arabians and Assyrians"). By what is known of the Leventine and Fertile Crescent Semites, labels and names are mostly based on region, city or profession - they are not distinct ethnic groups. The earliest Arabs spoke the same language (Aramaic), hadthe same customs and prayed to the same Pantheon as the Caananites, Aramaens, Moabites and other Semetic people in the region. Arab likely refered to the place they lived - in the modern Arabic language it means "country-side". The currently eponymous Arabian Peninsula was unrelated - it was called "Yaman" as late as the time of the Quran - which talks about the Arabs in the third person, ie not those similar to the people of the Hijaz (Quran 9:97). Furthermore, the Hellenic "Aravia" was used to describe Petra (in the Levent) and Yemen, not the entire peninsula. The language spoken there at the time was also more distant to Arabic compared to the Levantine Aramaic. Thus, the Arabic language would have most logically evolved from Aramaic in the Levent. The Arabs also historically had more contact with people of the Levent/Fertile Crescent like the Phonecians than those of the Hijaz/Yemen. There are artifacts chronicling Arabs in Babylon (I'll try to find the source). So what we get is a Pre-Islamic, Pre-Christian Leventine people with no connection to the modern Arabic language or the Arabian Peninsula.
This is really being confused with the spread of Islam, claiming that the Arab people spread from the Arabian Peninsula with Islam. This is despite this article acknowledging the Lakhamids (Menathira) and Ghassanids. By the time of the spread of Islam, virtually the entire Middle-East was speaking the language that is labeled as Classical (or Quranic) Arabic today, with the exception of liturgical languages and some isolated communities who spoke more archaic Semetic languages.
Arabs are people who consider themselves the geneological, cultural and ethnic decendants of these ancient Semetic people. Some of these people immigrated south into the Arabian Peninsula, reaching as far as Yemen, Oman and the UAE. The people in those regions spoken Semetic languages not as closely related to Arabic as Aramaic, and perhaps it is they who were Arabised. The current nationalism and false creation stories of the people of each nation are historically unsound. It is rather irrational that some Lebanese consider themselves "Phonecians" today when the Phonecians became indistinguishably mixed with all the other Leventine Semetic groups, including the Arabs, in a regional melting pot, while the people of the Arabian peninsula were far more distinct from the first Arabs.
It is not actually the case that Arabic was the primary spoken tongue prior to the Arab Islamic Conquest. Only minority groups such as the Lakhmids and Ghassanids spoke Arabic. Mesopotamia was almost wholly Eastern Aramaic and Syriac speaking, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel were Western Aramaic speaking, Egypt still retained Coptic Egyptian, and North Africa spoke Berber.
In fact, many pre Islamic Arabs who wandered into Western Asia lost their Arab identity, the Nabateans were Arameanized for example, and adopted Aramaic.
In addition, the Assyrians did not regard Arabs as a Levantine people, their presence at the Battle of Qaqar does not indicate they were native to Syria. In fact Assyrian annals usually refer to them as dwelling in the deserts south of Mesopotamia, ie; modern Saudi Arabia. Babylonian records also support this. Georges Roux - Ancient Iraq and F Leo Oppenheim's - Ancient Mesopotamia give reference to Assyro-Babylonian records.
As for Pre-Islamic peoples in the Middle East espousing ancient identities, most of them at root are indeed descended from indigenous pre-Arab and pre-Islamic populations, this includes modern Maronites-Phoenicians, Assyrians, Egyptian Copts, Syriacs-Arameans, Mandeans, Samaritans, Jews and Mhallami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Your logic that Arabs could have easily moved to the Levant to fight in the Battleof Qarqar is both sound and logical. I have done some searches on Mesopotamian records of the Arabs and what you say about them originating in the Deserts South of the Fertile Crescent - that is the desert expanses of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia today, not just the Arabian peninsula. Also, there is a record of a man originating from this region living in ancient Babylon. As for the majority of Pre-Islamic people in Mesopotamina and the Levant not speaking Arabic, it again seems to be the case as you say - the Arabic word "'Ijmee" was used to describe these people prior to its use for Persians, which shows at least a significant amount did not speak Arabic. I am unsure of the extent of the pre-Islamic Arabs losing their Arab identities, can I pleaseask for reliable sources to corroborate your claims? Thanks.
- With regards to the article being confused, I would keep my point. I think some better distinction should be made between the genetically and (to a significant extent) culturally different Arabised Arabs and those who trace their ancestry to the tribes of Arabia. This is especially important as today we are seeing a growth of poltical nationalism in the Arab world where, for example, many modern Lebanese identify more as Phonecians, or, more accurately, amixture of various people, as opposed to Arabs. As a result, this article seems to be over-representing Arabised Arabs (who are already mentioned in articles about various national groupsin the Arab world), while under-representing True Arabs. There is an article about the Bedouin People who I helped edit, but many Arabian Tribes only lived Urbanised lifestyles (e.g. Azd Tribe). SaSH172 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The number of Berbers
On 23 November, the infobox in this article was edited. The anonymous editor linked to this to support his claim that there are 80 million Berbers. This document is from 1984 and doesn't contain any number on how many Berbers. The same document is used at Berber people and the number stated there is 50 million. Fox News says: There are no official figures for the number of Berbers in North Africa, but estimates for those who speak one of the many Berber languages are around 25-30 million, mainly concentrated in Morocco and Algeria. So this should be corrected. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Berbers are NOT Arabs, and thus should not be counted as such. There mention on this article is inappropriate unless it is to calculate the number of Arabs in North Africa. SaSH172 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- That was not what I said either. It is in the infobox and there it says that the population is 422 million but that this number includes 25-30 million Berbers. I have not introduced this. However, I have taken a look at the sources and they don't support the claims being made here. I will correct this. This would also exclude the Berbers, which would be correct as you say, because the sources talk about 300 million Arabs in the Arab world (there are probably more, not at least because the book is from 2005). The other one talk about speakers. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Racist Pseudo-Science in Etymology Section.
Someone seems to have added a few paragraphs of racist pseudo-science to the Etymology section. I will delete this because: 1) The field of Racist Pseudo-Science has no place on wikipedia. 2) They are in the wrong section of the article. The Etymology section is for the Etymology of the word Arab (stating the obvious). 3) The source is incredibly unreliable. It is written by an early 20th Century Jesuit Orientalist/Missionary. He is hardly the go-to source for information on pre-historic human migrations and evolution. The claims he makes are also rather laughable. SaSH172 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- You honestly believe that the fact that Arabs are descended from Bedouin tribes is "racist psuedo-science"? Judging by your name, I assume you an Iraqi nationalist or some such who believes Arabs are directly descended from the ancient Sumerians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No I do not believe Arabs being descended from Bedouins is racist pseudo-science. Please review the article history and the claims that I removed. Ad hominem and personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia. I'm actually strongly opposed to Iraqi Nationalism and ridiculous notions of Arabs being descended from Sumerians. Also, refrain from using straw man arguements. SaSH172 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Given the mathematics of Most Recent Common Ancestor calculations, probably the great majority of people on earth are descended from ancient Sumerians... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting claim, I'd like to see some sources for it. Regardless, the idiocy of Iraqi Nationalists claiming they are the sole descendants of, and are only descended from Sumerians remains. In the central regions of Iraq, many are an Arabised mixture of Semetic people (including Arabs), Turkic people, Indo-Europeans, Africans and Europeans. But there is a significant number who hail from endogamous Bedouin Arab Tribes. I've seen some genetic test data showing the latter group being very genetically removed from the former, with far less non-Middle-Eastern autosomal admixture. Not sure of accuracy and reliability (from "23 and me" testing company data), but it seems the Arab-speaking Iraqi people can neither be wholly described as True Arabs, nor can they all be describedas being Arabised non-Arabs. SaSH172 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is some dispute about the infobox mosaic changed here by Tamim506 on Feb 12. Given that this is a contentious area, I have restored the previous mosaic subject to discussion. If there is no discussion within a few days, I will put back Tamim506's version. --NeilN talk to me 05:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Everyone Tamim506 added is fine other than Zenobia, who was a jewish woman not an arab. It would be great if we could find a better quality picture of Averroes as well. And maybe include Antarah ibn Shaddad in place of Zenobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zenobia was not Arab? Well, Queen of Sheba was an Ethiopian monarch, not an Arab. There's more evidence to her being an Ethiopian, and not a Yemenite. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
- As I feared, not having a fixed image, with few carefully selected individuals, will lead to endless edit warring over the damn infobox image. Best thing is to use the old consensus version with only two rows, that everyone agrees on. This is getting ridiculous, like a damn kindergarten. FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I seriously think we should think about Philip the Arab, because the guys over at its talk page are getting pantsy and bitchy for references over his Arab descent and keep deleting my Arabic translation on his page (despite the fact Arabic as we knew it today wasn't in Syria around that time). PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior
Arabs and Iranians
- They're certainly connected in the history of the last 1400 years, but is that what was intended to be meant by "related"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The word "related" on its own is very vague. Arguably the history of Islam and the historically attestable migrations, intermixing and cultural exchanges would definatly meet the criteria of "related". In fact there was significant Arab-Persian cultural exchange from befor Islam with the Lakhmids. However, the biggest opponents of these notions seem to be Persian Nationalists who want nothing to do with Arabs or Islam. Since Raayan himself/herself seem to be Persian, if they believe Arabs are a related people, then I have no problem with them putting it in the article. SaSH172 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Eugenics Section
I'm removing this nonsense paragraph about "pure" Arabs from the lead. (1) The sourcing is extremely out-of-date, from 1932; (2) the author of the source appears to be using pseudoscientific craniofacial anthropometry; (3) the lead is far too long anyway. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that more must be said if you have valid concerns, and want to influence people to fix the problems that you perceive.... AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep an Eye on the Infobox
On the Identity sub-section, someone has added some ridiculous racial-pseudo-science claims from a source dated 1932! I am sure most already know, but such "racial science" studies and claims have long been wholly disproven - I think in the medical and biological fields they are even described as "Scientific Racism". There has been quite a history of adding similar claims on this Wikipedia page. I would like to remove that paragraph, unless anyone objects, and I would really appreciate any input to tackle this in the future. Thanks. SaSH172 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree on removal of the first paragraph in that section.. I saw some similar issues in the Druze, ethnic origins section (removed some of it now). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
There is warning in "related" nations that "Please do not change this section without reaching a consensus. Jews, Assyrians etc. are already Semitic", but Israelis should be exclusively mentioned as to show that Wikipedia is not the place for politics but sources. Israelis and Jews are very much related to Arabs through Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs including Jordanians. Actually Israelis are the first nation closely related to Arabs. Here is not the place for deliberation.-Raayen (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are many kinds of Israelis. Different kinds of Israelis are related to different kinds of Arabs. Ashkenazi Jews less so. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are a Pre Islamic East Mediterranean group, they're closest to other pre Islamic East Mediterranean populations like: Sicilians, Maltese, Greeks, Greek Islanders, Cypriots, Armenians and the Druze. Palestinian Arabs are a post Islamic Middle Eastern population, this group includes: Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrian Muslims, Bedouins etc. The first group I mentioned are more Mediterranean, the latter group are more Arabian/African horn like, so no, the 2 out of 3 largest Jewish groups are not most similar to Arabs but to other Pre Islamic Mediterraneans. If details are unimportant to you, then perhaps you shouldn't focus on such delicate subjects. Guy355 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews aren't exactly European because they get absolutely no West European Hunter Gatherer ancestry, along with Maltese and Sicilians, they're the only European populations who have absolutely no West European Hunter Gatherer ancestry, here's the link for the study: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf Since West European hunter Gatherer ancestry is the admixture that is exclusive to Europeans, and in fact separates Europeans from Near Easterners, and Ashkenazis, Maltese and Sicilians have non of that. Also, Ashkenazis and Sephardis (including Sicilians and Maltese) plot in the gap between Europe and the Near east, between Cypriots and Greeks, so if there was European admixture, it had to be a population that had no West European Hunter Gatherer ancestry, like Hellenistic Greeks, however, the fact that AJs plot where they do may suggest genetic drift, regardless, the lack of WHG ancestry shows a strong recent orientation to the Near East. Now, it's possible and in fact plausible that many Palestinians have Jewish ancestry, however, the 2013 Haber study http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316 shows that there's a large difference between Jews, Armenians, Cypriots and Druze on one hand, and Palestinians, Jordanians and Bedouins on the other, the former group (traditionally the pre Islamic group) shows stronger proximity to Europeans and Central Asians, while the latter group (traditionally the post Islamic group) shows stronger proximity to Arabians and African horn populations, thus it seems like the Levant is quite diverse. As for politics, I'm not entering that maze, however I'll say this, many Palestinians, at least 50% of the those living in the southern part of mount Hebron, are aware of Jewish ancestry, of traditions from their grandparents, such is the case also for some Bedouin tribes in the Negev, suggesting they remained after the 2nd Jewish revolt, and converted to Islam with the Islamic conquest, however keeping and preserving some Jewish traditions, genetic studies also shows that many Palestinians have the Cohen lineage, suggesting both ancient Israelite and Arabian ancestry. Guy355 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
FunkMonk that's true, in the case of Ethiopian, Yemenite and Indian (from India) Jews, these populations share a closer proximity to their host populations than to other Jews, although all of these seem to have some ancient Levantine ancestry. Guy355 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Egypt 90% Arab?
Are we really saying that Egypt is 90% Arab? Does this come from the fact that apparently 90% of Egpyt is Muslim? Last time I checked religion doesn't exactly define whether or not you identify as Arab. In fact, i'm in Egypt right now, the majority of people you talk to would definitely tell you that they don't identify as Arab. You say that "Egyptians are Arabic-speaking, but the question of their identification as ethnically Arab has a long and complicated history of controversy." but then just immediately say that the country is 90% Arab? This really needs to be changed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Israel & Eritrea
- @Teranosor: Just because countries are missing doesn't mean you should remove others with no reason. Better you add the missing countries (with sources). --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- While below 5% Arabic-speakers is very little, Djibouti and Eritrea are members (resp. observing member) of the Arab League, which seems a decent reason to include them in the list. Israel is a special case, but 20% of Arabic-speakers is enough to warrant inclusion, I'd say. What countries are missing? Huon (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Arab League Arab population
The article says 400 million, but... the entire population of the League is only 356 million and certainly not all are ethnically (or panethnically) Arabs, as there are also Kurds (more than 10 million in Iraq+Syria), Berbers, Circassians, Armenians, Assyrians, Turkmen, Yezidis, Mandaeans, Persians, Shabaks, Ahl el-Haqq and communities, whose identity is doubtfully Arab - such as Maronites and Copts. So how many Arabs are in the Arab League?GreyShark (dibra) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sri Lankan Muslims
Sri Lankan Muslim doesn't known as arabs! they are called as Sri Lankan Moors. Their root is from South Indian Muslims who are not arabs. Someone correct that.User talk:Randeepa