Talk:Arabs/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Arabs  (Redirected from Talk:Arab people/Archive 2)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Photo of Arabs

The image File:Ara5.jpg contains a photo of Boutros Boutros Ghali, who is a Copt, not an Arab. Please correct this. Thanks! --Lanternix 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First, User:Serenesoulnyc needs to be aware of 3RR and the policy on the use of different accounts and IP addresses. It's just too convenient that several new accounts and IPs suddenly appeared just to add the picture and make the same edits. Also, Copts are indeed likely not to consider themselves Arabs, so the insistence on including one even though there is no shortage of other images of prominent Arabs can be interpreted as an attempt merely to make a point. Regardless of the fact that Ghali may or may not consider himself Arab, he certainly does not not represent the Arabs to be included in a general article about them unless you can provide a source where he identifies himself in these terms (e.g. the way that Nasser certainly did). As someone else mentioned, there is a disclaimer about Egyptians in the article for this reason, so it's best to include images that would not generate disputes like these. Besides, the image is likely to be deleted anyway because it does not provide adequate information regarding the copyright status of each individual image. — Zerida 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reorganize the article

The article needs to be overhauled by someone at least familiar with the topic. It contains much repeating information and even literally repeating text. The "Origin" section repeats itself a lot, part of the "Defining who is Arab" and most of "Mentions in history" sections are literally repeated in the "History" section, and information from "Origin" is repeated in "History". Also, the section topics are confusing, as origin and mentions in history are topics of history, and "Arab nationalism" reads like part of the "History" section.

I suggest that the "Origin" and "Mentions in history" be incorporated into "History". The text from "Origin" should be overhauled. "History" should be divided into subsections. And perhaps "Arab nationalism" should be incorporated as a subsection of "History". The information from "Defining who is Arab" should be summarized to minimize repetition. Unfortunately, this would result in an article of three sections, including a very long History section. But I think this is more logical than the current section division. -Pgan002 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab Jews

In response to the section below, if there were no Arab Jewish tribes, there are certainly Arab Jews. Despite the fact that many Jews in the Middle East left (or were encouraged to leave) during the 1950s and 60s to non-Arabic speaking countries, many still keep their identity as both Arabs and Jews. Continued pressure within the Jewish community to act more like the Eastern European-descendant Jews only means that it is all the more important to recognize Jewish people of Arab descent (and whose first language was often Arabic, then Hebrew) on this page. It would make sense to do so, however, with the caveat that some Arabic-speaking Jews identify both as Jews and as Arabs, while some do not--just as it's done for Christians from the Arab world on this page.

Not exactly. Jews from the Arab countries have never been Arabs - meaning "ethnic Arabs". They were Jews living in Arab countries. They spoke Arab as German Jews spoke German, but in fact they mostly spoke some Hebrew-Arab or Ladino or French - depending on the country. They do not consider themselves as Arabs. Benjil 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

90% of Arabs are not "ethnic" Arabs either, in the sense that they aren't actual descendants of the original South Arabian Arabs, but it's irrelevant. Jews who speak Arabic are Arabs in the linguistic sense, it's as simple as that. Maronites are Arabs too, whether they like it or not, and if they don't want it to be like that, they should start speaking Aramaic. Funkynusayri 20:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No because the most important thing in being Arab is to identify yourself as such. Jews in Arab speaking countries never did and were not considered as Arabs by the Arabs. And Arab was not really the mother tongue of Jews in these countries, they had there own sub-languages like Yiddish for Ashkenazi Jews. Almost no Jews identify as Arabs. And anyway, almost no Jews in 2007 speak Arabic as a mother tongue. Benjil 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no one definitive definition of "Arab". It is like the term "Hispanic", the definition is relative, and self-designation is largely irrelevant. Native Arabic speaker: Arab, just like any native speaker of English is an Anglophone. The argument of some Mid Eastern Jews using other languages than Arabic is irrelevant in relation to those Jews whose first language was Arabic, and those are the people we're talking about. You could of course argue that Arab Jews arent "ethnic" Arabs, but again, they're as "ethnically Arabic" as your average North African or Levantine Arab. As for Arab Jews not considering themselves as Arabs today, well, that's pretty obvious, but not historically. Here's a useful article. http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/021016_arabjews.html Funkynusayri 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are confusing Arab and Arab-speaker. We are speaking here about the Arab national identity. There are many definitions of the Arab identity. The one taking language as its main criteria also states the necessity of self-identification. Furthermore, Arab, most of the time, was not the first language of these Jews. In fact it was mostly a modern phenomenon - like the Arab identity itself. And the link you give is from a pro-Hezbollah site. Benjil 05:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is confusing anything, and we're not talking specifically about the national identity. You yourself mentioned how they're not "ethnic" Arabs, and no one claimed they were. And again, neither would 90% of Arabs be, using that logic.

When it comes to "being an Arab", the criteria are so vague that in the most fundamental sense, anyone whose first language is Arabic is an Arab, so if you moved to Syria tomorrow and your future children learned Arabic as their first language, they would be Arabs. As you mentioned, the Arabic "national" identity, when it comes to Arabic speakers outside South Arabia, is an extremely recent phenomenon, which has its roots in the nationalist movements of the 19th century, with the Brits helping to create this "national identity" when they wanted the Arab speakers in the Middle East to rise up against the Ottomans. What was the common denominator for all these people? The Arabic language. That's what this "Arabic national identity" was built up on. Only then did the Arab speaking Jews have to choose the Jewish identity over the Arab one, as this was when the two became mutually exclusive, with parallel Arab and Jewish nationalist movements coming into existence.

Ok so we think here almost the same. Benjil 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Before that, "being an Arab" was solely linked to having Arabic as your first language, at least for the arabised Arabs (which is pretty much all Arabs), and if you're denying that any Mizrachi Jews had Arabic as their first language, I'd like you to provide a source that confirms it. There are countless sources that state otherwise.

Before that, "Being an Arab" was being a Bedouin. Very few defined themselves as Arabs before the 20th century but according to religion and tribe. And I never denied that any mizrahi Jew spoke Arabic as first language. Only said it was more common only in the modern times. Benjil 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So language and identity is intertwined here, just like with the term "Hispanic". Are you denying that "Hispanic Jews" exist, Jews who live in Latin America and speak Spanish as their first langage?

Never heard of "Hispanic Jews". I know Argentinean Jews, Mexican Jews, etc... But if you want. I would call them South American Jews or Spanish speaking Jews. Benjil 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, why should they not be considered "Arab Jews", just because they do not live up to one of the many criteria for who is an Arab (the most recent and unstable criteria that is)?

For the exact reason that neither the Arabs and themselves do define them as such. You can talk of Moroccan Jews, Tunisian Jews, Iraqi Jews, Arab-speaking Jews. But they are not Arabs. Benjil

As for that "pro-Hizbollah site", its affiliation is irrelevant, as the article was only re-published on that website. And even if it wasn't, I don't see how it would discredit the article, as it is clear who is interviewing and who is being interviewed. Funkynusayri 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So what ? Obviously these are people with an agenda. In Israel you have a few hard-left wing Sefaradim who speak like that - mostly from an anti-Zionist hardcore point of view. They represent nothing. You have also Abraham Serfaty, a Moroccan Jew who define himself as a Moroccan Arab and was 17 years in jail in Morocco. We are speaking here about a few individuals. Benjil 08:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"So what"? We can agree that "Arab Jew" is mostly a defunct term when it refers to Mizrachi Jews with roots in Arab regions today, and most of them, if not all, don't use the Arabic language as their first language anymore. But historically (early 20th century and before) it's a completely different story (Bedouins were considered the "original" Arabs, but not the only Arabs, that's why you have the old term for arabised Arabs, which would include Jews, "Adnanites"), and that's what we're arguing about. But again, you denied that any Jews had ever used Arabic as their first language, a claim I'd like you to support.

Edit: Ah, I just realised you wrote between my lines. Ok, so you're mentioning how Jews of different nationalities aren't Arab Jews, that can be very true if they speak some sort of sub-group of Hebrew, but if it's Arabic, well, you know what I'm going to say.

As for the "before that" section, what wa the result of "arabisation"? It was that people started speaking Arabic. Take Lebanese Maronites for example, very few of them would consider themselves Arabs, but because their native language is Arabic, they're considered as such pretty much everywhere. In that case, their self-identification is irrelevant, but Jews whose native language is Arabic are somehow the exception. Odd, but that's a result of politics.

On "Hispanic Jews", I'd advise you to go erase this section of the Hispanic Wikipedia site if you disagree with it: "There are also Hispanic Jews, of which most are the descendants of Ashkenazi Jews who migrated from Europe (German Jews, Russian Jews, Polish Jews, etc.) to Latin America, particularly Argentina (Argentina is host to the largest Jewish population in the Western Hemisphere outside of the United States)[28] in the 19th century and during and following World War II. Some Hispanic Jews may also originate from the small communities of reconverted descendants of anusim — those whose Spanish and Portuguese Sephardi Jewish ancestors long ago hid their Jewish ancestry and beliefs in fear of persecution by the Spanish Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition in the Iberian peninsula and Latin America. There are also the now Catholic-professing descendants of marranos and the Hispano crypto-Jews believed to exist in the once Spanish-held Southwestern United States and scattered through Latin America. Additionally, there are Sephardic Jews who are descendants of those Jews who fled Spain to Turkey, Syria, and North Africa, some of who have now migrated to Latin America, holding on to some Spanish/Sephardic customs, such as the Ladino language. (See also History of the Jews in Latin America and List of Latin American Jews.)"

And just to make it clear again, I'm not referring to any Jew from an Arabic region, but the so called Musta'arabim, who are/were native Arab speakers. Funkynusayri 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Arab Tribes

If there were no Arab Jewish tribes, there are certainly Arab Jews. Despite the fact that many Jews in the Middle East left (or were encouraged to leave) during the 1950s and 60s to non-Arabic speaking countries, many still keep their identity as both Arabs and Jews. Continued pressure within the Jewish community to act more like the Eastern European-descendant Jews only means that it is all the more important to recognize Jewish people of Arab descent (and whose first language was often Arabic, then Hebrew) on this page. It would make sense to do so, however, with the caveat that some Arabic-speaking Jews identify both as Jews and as Arabs, while some do not--just as it's done for Christians from the Arab world on this page.

Not exactly. Jews from the Arab countries have never been Arabs - meaning "ethnic Arabs". They were Jews living in Arab countries. They spoke Arab as German Jews spoke German, but in fact they mostly spoke some Hebrew-Arab or Ladino or French - depending on the country. They do not consider themselves as Arabs. Benjil 19:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

90% of Arabs are not "ethnic" Arabs either, in the sense that they aren't actual descendants of the original South Arabian Arabs, but it's irrelevant. Jews who speak Arabic are Arabs in the linguistic sense, it's as simple as that. Maronites are Arabs too, whether they like it or not, and if they don't want it to be like that, they should start speaking Aramaic. Funkynusayri 20:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Funky so the Arab Jews are not Arabs then? because they dont Speak Arabic anymore.--Jolytimes 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

From my own experience in Morocco I must add that Jews in Morocco - except for a small (but wealthy and influent) Spanish-speaking minority - spoke dialect Arabic as their first and native language (unless they spoke Berber, which some did also). The only difference as to the surrounding population was religion. Thus, until 1950 they wouldn't identify themselves not more nor less 'Arab' than the rest of Moroccans. Their own scholars acknowledge that they are not genealogical related to Israel but result of a Jewish mission in North Africa long before the Islamic mission. So, when considering 'Arabs' the arabic-speaking Moroccans, I think they would include themselves in the lot. On the other hand, probably no Moroccan had himself considered 'Arab' before the rise of Nasserism in the fifties, when this identity became a political issue. Nowadays there are so few Arab-speaking Jews left in Morocco (2-3.000) that the whole debate is somehow useless - most of them wouldn't consider themselves Arabs today (but then many intellectual Arab-speaking Moroccan don't, either): virtually all of them identify themselves as 'ethnic Moroccans of Jewish religion'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.225.92 (talk) 10:54:07, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Error in including Israel in List

Regarding the population of Arabs "Outside Arabic-speaking regions" : The State of Israel cannot be listed here since Arabic is one of the OFFICIAL languages of the State of Israel. This means that in the Knesset one can officially (and legally) speak in Hebrew or Arabic. For further details see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Israel#Arabic. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.167.82.111 (talkcontribs).

Israel is not an Arab country. It is a self-defined Jewish state. While Arabic is nominally an official language, you cannot get government services or forms in Arabic in most areas. I am strongly against removing Israel from the list. It has over 1.2 million Arabs living there and they are worthy of inclusion in this template. Tiamut 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just added a note for clarification. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab - not Arab? edit warring

This point is bothering and the article is unstable because of it. Could you please discuss that point here? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A guy called Lanternix keeps removing "Maronite" from Arab religions, though some Maronites do consider themselves Arabs. Furthermore, Maronites are linguistically Arabs without exception, so if Lanternix doesn't come up with a good counterargument, it stays. Funkynusayri 21:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A guy called funky something has not read the following (from Wikipedia by the way):

"Some people asked for my references, most Maronites do not identify as Arabs:

I'll stop here, short of many other references. Enjoy the reading." I'll be glad to discuss the issue here, and if you can't come up with a good enough argument why Maronite should be kept as a religion of the Arabs, I'll remove it again. And just a comment about your last note: not everyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab. Copts, Kurds, Amazighs and many others clearly are NOT Arabs. And also note that I only object to including Maronites because I know most of them would rather be considered French than Arab. Yet, I do not object to having Greek Orthodoxy or Greek Catholicism, since the overwhelming majority of both groups does self-identify as Arab. --Lanternix 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Again, what most Maronites think is irrelevant, that some Maronites define themselves as Arabs means that some Maronites are Arabs. What does that mean? That some Arabs are Maronites. It's as simple as that.

As for Kurds and Berbers, they're in a completely different league than Maronites, as they have their own languages, whereas Maronites use Arabic as their mother tongue. Therefore they are linguistically Arabs, whereas Berbers and Kurds are not. Anyway, Maronism is a form of Eastern Catholicism, so it would maybe be redundant to keep their name in the infobox. That's the only valid reason I could see to remove it. Everything else is just politics and POV. Funkynusayri 01:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Again, what matters is what MOST of them believe in. If one Muslim living in Algeria believes he is French, does this mean that all Algerian Muslims are French? Where would you draw the line then? I've given you ample references of Maronites and Assyrians denying the fact that they are Arabs. As for Amazighs (No longer Berbers) and Kurds, they speak Arabic as well as any native Arabic speaker. Yet, they are NOT Arabs because MOST of them do not believe they are (and because ethnically and historically they aren't). Same applies to Copts and many other ME minorities. Again, I will remove the Maronite bit from the infobox if I don't see any better argument than this to the different references I posted. Thanks. --Lanternix 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Who said all Maronites were Arabs? Where are you getting this stuff? If you look you'll see that Judaism is included in the infobox as well. Does that mean all Jews are Arabs? I guess not.

Why are you comparing Maronites, a religious group, with actual ethnic groups with distinct non-Arabic languages, such as Assyrians (Aramaic) and Kurds (Kurdish)? Arabic is not their first language. But the first language of Maronites is Arabic. What is the problem? Your arguments are vague, especially since some Maronites consider themselves as Arabs. This is pretty much the same argument I had with Benji. Anyway, I'll let your revert be, for the reason I mentioned before (Maronites are already Eastern Catholics, so they don't need to be listed).Funkynusayri 02:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • You're not getting my point. I never said that all Maronites are Arabs, or claimed that you say so. But Maronites are clearly not Arabs, both ethnically and linguistically (most are bilingual with French, and since half of the Maronites live in the diaspora, the new generations do NOT speak Arabic). Maronites are a distinct ethnic group from Arabs, since you seem to object to my comparing of Maronites to other ethnic groups in the ME. Assyrians do NOT speak Aramaic as first language and most Kurds are bilingual with Kurdish and Arabic. So you can't just take a handful of Maronites saying they are Arabs and deny the fact that 1. they are not ethnically, and 2. do not self-identify as Arabs for the most part. On the other hand for instance, Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics, although ethnically non-Arab, do self-identify as Arabs, this is why it's appropriate to include them in the infobox. Got my point now? --Lanternix 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said to Benji, by that logic 90% of Arabs aren't Arabs. I'm not talking about just being able to speak Arabic, but speaking it as your main/first/native language, so stating that many Maronites are bilingual is irrelevant. Arabic is still their first language, which they use when they speak with each other.

Diaspora Maronites who don't speak Arabic aren't Arabs, but how is this relevant? No one other than you brought them up.

As for Assyrians, their main language is Syriac, and yes, that's a form of Aramaic. With Kurds it's Kurdish, Berbers have Berber, and so on. That they are able to speak Arabic too is irrelevant, as it isn't their first language.

Again, Maronites in the infobox would refer to the ones who do consider themselves as Arabs, which is also cleared out in the article itself. But no worries, I already explained why I won't re-add it. But I get your point, and it's a point only made by nationalistic Copts and Maronites. But the only way they can change the fact that they are considered as Arabs by others is if they start speaking Coptic and Aramaic at home, which I doubt they'll do. Funkynusayri 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I do know of Maronites speaking Syriac and Copts speaking Coptic at home. To suggest that people change their self-identification based on where they live is too naive. For instance, this would suggest that an Arab family that immigrates to the US would have kids that are American are no longer Arabs! This makes no sense. And people are not categorized linguistically, because then we would start calling the Senegalese French, the Austrians German, and the Colombians Spanish! In any case, I'll go ahead and remove Maronites from the infobox. --Lanternix 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Your analogies are bad, no one said this is about where someone lives, but it is about what language they speak as their native tongue. An Arab person can be linguistically defined, read this very Wikipedia article where it is clearly stated, Senegalese aren't French because that is not how "French" is defined. Therefore you can't compare.

From the article: "Linguistic: someone whose first language is Arabic, including any of its varieties. This definition covers more than 250 million people. Arabic belongs to the Semitic family of languages." This means that most Lebanese Maronites, by far, are Arabs. And you should know very well that close to no Maronites speak Syriac as their first language (the ones who do aren't Arabs, but we're not talking about those). Anyway, I already said you could go ahead and remove Maronite for another reason, so I don't see why we're still arguing.Funkynusayri 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo at top right

Someone changed the 1910 photo to a tiny montage of four images with no caption. I have rolled it back, could we discuss this first? Joie de Vivre 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WE ARE ARABS

hey all those are jwesh tribes from Yemen, and i'm a Christian Arab that i come back from Yemen too, who told you that we don't consider ourself arabs??? we are proud to be an arab. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alkendy (talkcontribs).

Pre-Islamic Himyarite south & Nabatean north Arabic

The "Pre-Islamic Himyarite south & Nabatean north Arabic" sub-section talks about Semites in general which is contradictory to the the title of the sub-section itself. I believe the whole section should be rewritten. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is an Arab?

Arab is a race, although for some very strange reason it has become a "language" which is absurd, and which is what has led to the muddle and murky use of definition such as ethnic Arab etc. This new "idea" was probably conceived by non-arabs and anti-Arabs. The fact is, in much of the "Arab world" excluding "Linguistically Arab countries such as Sudan, who are not Arab racially", there is a very clear majority of Arabs dispersed among a minority of non-Arabs. In most cases, they consider themselves Arab. In Lebanon, "phoenician" has only recently become a serious consideration, mostly by Arabs with an inferiority complex, who do not wish to be identified as Arabs. In the past, it was dismissed even by many who today claim to be phoenician. Nonetheless, most Lebanese people known themselves to be Arab and dismiss any talk of phoenician origins, as it is a well known fact that Phoenicians are extinct. The idea that just about anyone who adopts the Arab language is an Arab is nonsensicial. Would it make an Arab-speaking German an Arab? LOL ah, the stupidity of the masses. And does this make me, French, British, Swedish and Arab? I speak all four language. Irrer 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arab is not a race as their is no such things as "races". And the idea of Arab language to define arabity comes from Arab intellectuals who borrowed the idea from Eastern Europe - where language has been used to define new nationalities. Arabs are an old people but it had no modern definition fitting to the modern world. In fact, there was no national Arab identity at all, as the concept itself is European. Christians Arab-speakers saw in the National idea a way to stop being second zone citizens - when religion was the main criteria, there were just a minority inside the Muslim world, but if the identity shifted to nationhood, there were to become Arabs equals among other Arabs. Benjil 23:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We need a clearcut definition of who is an Arab. Is it enough to be an "Arabic-speaker" to be called an Arab? Is it an ethno-racial/cultural term? Please let's discuss this here. --Lanternix 16:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Again, when your first/native/mother language is Arabic, you're an Arab, not if you just speak Arabic as a second language. "Arab" doesn't have one single definition though, so there's no reason to have a "clearcut" definition, as there isn't any. In that regard, it's similar to the term "Hispanic". Hispanic can mean someone from Iberia (ethnic, geographic, cultural, not linguistic, as it also refers to non-Spanish speaking Iberians), someone who speaks Spanish (linguistic), and someone from Latin America who speaks Spanish (ethnic, geographic, cultural, linguistic), and any combination of the above. Funkynusayri 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok but what do you do about the millions of Europeans youth of Arab origins who were born in Europe and whose first language is not Arab (usually French or Spanish etc...) ? They see themselves as Arabs, have family in Arab countries, and are identified as Arabs by other people. Benjil 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They're "ethnic" Arabs, as they can trace their ancestry back to "Arabia", or "Arab people", and view themselves as such. They've most likely grown up while being exposed to Arabic culture at home too.

In that sense it is similar to the "Iberian" definition of "Hispanic". None of the definitions are mutually exclusive. Most European Arabs, by far, speak Arabic as their first language though.Funkynusayri 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Most European Arabs" - I am far from sure, in particular for the young ones. I know very well the situation in France and most of the ones who were born in France almost do not speak Arabic at all. Benjil 16:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but who came up with these definitions? This linguistic definition only applies to Arabs in this case (for instance Austrians are not Germans and Colombians are not Spanish). So who came up with the idea that anyone who speaks Arabic as a native tongue is automatically considered an Arab? And how about all these ethnic and religious minorities in the ME who speak Arabic as first language but reject the label "Arab"? Do we still call them Arabs because they conform to that definition? --Lanternix 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That your language defines who you are isn't a universal fact, it is specifically linked to some languages, such as Arabic, due to the somewhat recent mass-arabisation of pretty much everyone outside South Arabia who is an Arab today. Who came up with the idea? Who knows? But that's what is generally accepted, why else do you think the CIA says Lebanon is 90% Arab, with Armenian and Kurdish minorities? Simply because they define an Arab as someone who speaks Arabic as their first language (in that case, someone who has been arabised).

Religious minorities that use Arabic as their first language are Arabs whether they like i or not, that's the consenus pretty much everywhere outside Wikipedia and Maronite/Copt/Jewish, so on, nationalist web-sites. Read any Western encyclopaedia in book form.

Do I prefer that? No, I identify more with the pre-Arabic populations of Lebanon than with the South Arabian invaders, but does that change the fact that pretty much all Lebanese speak Arabic as their first language? And that everyone in the world, apart from a few Lebanese, thus consider them as being Arabs? No, and that's why this article has to reflect that, although with an explanation. Otherwise it's POV. Just take a look at "Hispanic". There's an entire movement of Mestizos who reject the term, but they're still considered "Hispanics". As for the Arab European youth, I already edxplained why they're Arabs even though they might not speak Arabic. Funkynusayri 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe that the self-identification is also a main criteria. If you don't identify as an Arab you certainly are not Arab. You need to remember that the definition of who is an Arab comes from the Eastern European debate over "Nationality" during the 19th century, and has been imported to the Middle-East mostly by Christian Arabs who got a European education. They invented the modern Arab identity as a national one by using the same criterias used in Europe - language and territory (and mostly language in Eastern Europe). But the reality is far more complex than these intellectual constructions. So the definition of who is an Arab is complex, changing, as is the Arab world itself. Benjil 16:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is complex, and in my opinion, the linguistic definition of an Arab is wrong, but that's the worldwide official consensus. And yet again, so is the term "Hispanic". If a South American Indian who speaks Spanish as his first language travels to the US, he's considered a Hispanc person, though he has no ties to Hispania other than his language.

It's wrong, but that's how it is. Change that before you claim that for example Maronites and Jews can't be Arabs, as a fact.

Take a look at this: "Arab 95%, Armenian 4%, other 1% note: many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab but rather as descendents of the ancient Canaanites and prefer to be called Phoenicians." https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html

They explain that some Christians prefer not to be called Arabs, yet they claim 95% of Lebanese are Arabs.Funkynusayri 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "worldwide consensus" on these issues. In fact you have two possibilities: or the identity is defined by Law (citizenship, religion) or it is not, and here the consensus, at least in the western world, is that people define themselves as they want. And that's it. I don't know about Maronites, although I knew one who really did not see himself as an Arab, but Jews from Arab countries do definitely not define themselves as Arabs (but a very tiny minority) so they are not. That's the only valid criteria. Anyway, if you want to see them as Arabs, that's mostly your problem, not theirs. And you will see that nobody counts the Sefaradi and Oriental Jews among the Arabs in Israel. Benjil 17:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And I repeat, I do not approve of that particular definition of Arab, this is not about whether we like the definition or not, but how it is defined.

There are two things we can't just ignore in this article: An Arab can be linguistically (among other ways) defined, therefore everyone who speaks Arabic as their first language can be defined as Arabs. This is not my definition, that's the "traditional" definition, the definition used by for example the CIA in the case of for example Maronites, and the definition used by Arab countries. That's not my fault, so don't blame me for defending it as a view. It's the closest we can get to a "legal" definition.

The other thing is, some Maronites and Jews do identify as Arabs, therefore some Arabs are Maronites and Jews. And that's what you, Benji, claimed was what you believe is the main criteria. Funkynusayri 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The idea that anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab is a post modernist definition implemented initially by levantine intellectuals to fight the increasing Ottoman influence in the Levant. They invented a whole new sphere called "the Arab World" based on language to assert their non-Ottoman heritage (and not necessarily their Arab one). No one paid much attention to the idea until Nasser came to power in Egypt and started the whole pan-Arabist movement. The idea is now rejected by ME minorities. The fact that the West has been traditionally ignorant to these facts does not mean that a CIA definition of who an Arab is is a valid definition. Furthermore, the same CIA website gives the following breakdown of Egyptians: Egyptian 98%, Berber, Nubian, Bedouin, and Beja 1%, Greek, Armenian, other European (primarily Italian and French) 1% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html) with no mention whatsoever of Arabs. Now, since the overwhelming majority of Egyptians are native Arabic-speakers, how can we make the claim now that native Arabic speakers are Arabs? This why self-identification and historical ethno-social facts must be used to replace inaccurate definitions (hence the links I posted about Maronites and Assyrians rejecting the label Arab). In addition, a global concensus of how to identify a certain group of people must be implemented. We can't define an Arab based on language or ethnicity or culture, while we only define an Austrian based on citizenship for instance. --Lanternix 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it isn't our job here to come up with a new global definition of Arab, all we can do is reflect the different definitions that are in use. Otherwise it's "POV". Funkynusayri 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a good enough answer for my objections. You used a CIA link to support your claim, and I showed you, using the same website, that this linguistic defintion does not hold. So this simply refutes this kind of definition, and now a more accurate definition must be found. The POV is not what we're trying to resolve, the POV is to claim that any Arabic speaker is an Arab without showing enough references to support this claim, as is the case in the article. --Lanternix 19:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not my claim, and that the CIA is inconsistent isn't my problem. And I repeat, there is no one accurate definition of Arab, just as there isn't one accurate definition of Hispanic, and the current Wikipedia article makes that pretty clear. I'm not sure why that should be so hard to swallow, unless you're a Coptic nationalist who want to dissociate yourself from Arabs by any means. Funkynusayri 19:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Classic Ad Hominem argument. Looks like Mr Funky got no valid replies anymore. I guess I'll have to revise the article myself to rid it of fallacies then. --Lanternix 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no "valid replies" because there's nothing to defend. If you want a clearcut definition of "Arab", I'm afraid you'll have to make one up yourself, as such doesn't exist. Good luck with that. Either we present all definitions used today, or we limit them to the definitions that serve our interests. That would be POV. Funkynusayri 20:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nusayri Actually Most Egyptians are of African origin, and dont relate to the Arabs culturally or ethnically! Only the Arab nobles and Egyptian elites are Arabs. The Majority of the EGyptians you dont see or hear from are the mixed population descended from the mixing of the Native Egyptians and the various invaders of Egypt. The majority of the Egyptians lack the main Arab traits (Generosity and Bravery), so I really prefer that the Ashraaf and the elite self identified Arab should only be listed as Arabs. And the Egyptian subjects should not be included as Arabs because they are not! Egypt will always have Great Arab leaders like Gamal Abdul Nasser and few genuine Arabs were the nobility fo Egypt for 1400years, Its the Arab Republic of Egypt because its owned by the Arabs. Just like in the UAE where the Arabs are a minority but they own the nation, we are not going to count the Hindus as Arabs are we?!--Skatewalk 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • But do they not view themselves as Arabs regardless of actual ancestry? After all, they are arabised. Funkynusayri 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes nusayri they used to view themselves as Arabs back in the 1960s. You have to understand Egyptians are Not Syrians. Syria has a proud Semitic as far as Arab history goes. Syria was settled by Semites as early as the Amorites times 4500years ago. They shared similar culture to teh South Arabians (although evolved with non Semitic influence in the coasts), but in inner Aram (Syria) it was a continuation of the Semitic culture A desert region that extended from emen to Syria. A common origin and culture so its easy for a Syrian to be an Arab no matter what ethnic background he has. Egypt in the other hand is a mixed nation that never was independent. The Egyptian commons evolved to become submissive through history of diffrent invaders imposing themselves upon them. The 1960s was the highrise of PanArabism so the Egyptians saw it benefitial for them to be Arabs. Now that the West is attacking the Arabs they prefer to side with stronger side and many common Egyptians will express their ill feelings towards the Ethnic Arab nobility in Egypt including Gamal Abdul Nasser. The majority of the Egyptians are not Arabs by their choice. However, it is still an Arab territory and the Arabs elites in Egypt control everything that matters in Egypt thats why its the Arab Republic of Egypt.I didn't change teh population number anymore--Skatewalk 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction

"عرب" is not the singular form, it does not mean "an Arab" as the article implies, but "Arabs." The correct form is, I believe, "عربي"

Arab PEOPLE

I think the name of this article should be changed to Arab people, just like most of the other ethnic group articles

Egyptians are very well known that they are Mediterraneans, not Arabs. Just because they speak Egyptian-Arabic that is a little bit close to these Khaliji Arabic doesn't make them Arabs. (Example: Brazilians speak Portuguese but they're nothing close to being Portuguese)

Please read the edits

Rather than just reverting them because you think information deleted based on the edit summary number. I simplified the text but deleted no sourced information. The edits resolved many contradictions inherent to the text as it was, having been edited by multiple editors with multiple POVs and sources. Please take it point by point instead of mass reverting. Tiamat 01:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, see my edit summary to you. You appear to lack some understanding with regard to Egypt, as some of your edits introduced further contradictions. — Zerida 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I read your edit summary. You accused me of writing that Copts represent 60-80% of the Egyptian population. I did not. That info was there. The correction of 10-20% was made by Egegy and I just redid it when I reverted his deletion of my edits. As for the rest of your objections ... would you care to be more specific. Finally, I know a lot about Egypt. Do you? Tiamat 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now I see that the erroneous percentage was not re-introduced, sorry. The last question sounds a bit sarcastic and is not necessary. Could you explain the specific objections with regard to this part of the article? I was asking about the Arab-Net link and quote that Egyegy restored after you deleted it. — Zerida 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zerida. I see now that I accidently deleted the quote from Arab.net. (I overwrote it. Sorry about that. It's now been restored). I'm not sure what part of the article you would like me to explain other than that, since the majority of my edits were made for flow or logical consistency in line with the sources provided. Is there something in particular that disturbs you? Tiamat 01:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not for my part, Tiamat, but I think it makes sense to keep the info about Copts and Maronites under Identity rather than in the lead, since it is addressing that question. Also, the statement "North Africans who still use the Berber language identify only as Berber, and many Egyptians, whether Muslim or Coptic, identify only as Egyptians" should be left intact, because as you may know it's a topic that gets debated in Egypt across the board. Thanks. — Zerida 02:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections to those two suggestions. Unfortunately, Egegy has wholesale reverted all of my additions (for the third time), so that I cannot restore any of them now and incorporate your suggestions since I will technically be in violation of 3RR. I will come back later though, to readd my edits while keeping the sections you mentioned intact. Unless you would like to make those changes. Otherwise, I feel the bulk of the edits I made improved the flow and clarity and deleted needless repetitions ( of which there are more that could use paring down as well). Thanks for engaging in discussion. Tiamat 02:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
PS. I would further point out that while Egegy is accusing me of deleting info, he has deleted this sentence and footnote (not added by me) in his latest edit:

Multiple definitions of who is an Arab have been offered.[1] Islamized, but non-Arabized peoples form part of the Muslim World, and not the traditionally secular Arab World.Tiamat 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes Zerida. I would just point out that the sentence "Groups using a non-Arabic liturgical language are especially likely to consider themselves non-Arab." is repeated twice in the version you created and some info on Maronites there seems to be twice repeated as well. That is part of what I was trying to avoid by my cleanup and what I guess Egygey interpreted as deletion, but that can be fine-tuned later on. Overall, a very considerate compromise I think. Tiamat 02:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I deleted the duplicated sentence at least, until you feel like making general edits again. — Zerida 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tiamat 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged sections, deleted repetitions of identical material

I have reorganized the article sections per the tags placed there, merging history and mentions in history into one section and incorporating material from parallel pre-islamic history into that new section History and Origins as well. Please re-add any material I may have mistakenly deleted, or any tags I removed that you feel still apply. Of course, the merge was not seamless and could use some work for flow and as always, references. Tiamat 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition again

The latest change I made to article's opening sentence:

"An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎) is someone who identifies as Arab on geneaological, political, and/or linguistic grounds (i.e. those who trace their ancestral origins back to the Semitic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula)."

was reverted by User:FayssalF to:

"An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎) is someone who identifies as Arab on political, linguistic and/or geneaological grounds (i.e. those who trace their ancestral origins back to the Semitic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula)."

The reason given by him was:

"as per source though it is very weird using "economicexpert.com" as a ref (eco expert) - we'll get back to this later!"

I object to including 2 disouted definitions of the term Arab (political, linguistic) within the opening sentence before the widely approved and uncontested definition (geneaological). I think there should be a better argument than the source from Economic Expert. Thanks. --Lanternix 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing i know here is that playing w/ words is not cool. If there is a reference than we can rely on it. If not then we can use our common sense. I don't give a damn importance to which word would be first if the whole sentence would mean the same thing. Change it back if you want.
Now, who added that economicexpert.com ref. That is nonsense. Are people here keen to work hard or just come here w/ anything (not accusing anyone because i don't know who added it) w/o paying attention to what they are doing. So someone could read the source but forgot to read the important, the disclaimer. Xexpert.com are most of the time not fit for wikipedia. They are mainly a mirror of it. That what i call attention to details which most people here ignore or at least avoid it whether intentionally or not. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hadith

According to Sunan al-Tirmidhi in Hadith


Prophet Muhammad said, "Shem father of Arabs,Ham father of habsh(People of Ethiopia), Japheth father of Roman"

the Hadith in arabic ومن ناحية الأنساب وإستنادا إلى الترمذي فإنه روى الإمام أحمد عن سمُرة أن النبي قال: "سام أبو العرب، وحام أبو الحبش، ويافث أبو الروم". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.11.191 (talkcontribs)

You are correct but Hadith is considered as a primary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources as per this part of the policy. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

who is arab today

most Semitic people today are arabs...... arabian tribes before islam and before Ibrahim was have Different languages like Sabaean Minaean Qatabanian Hadhramautic every language Different from another but they Consider Themselves arabs , today most the arabs are Qahtani Arab and Arabized: Which most of them are Semitic and others Ancient Egyptian Berber jews.. who Consider Themselves arabs today , For example Ibrahim was from iraq who Speaks Syriac language and..Ishmael son of Ibrahim father of Arabized He was Speaks arabic language Which are use today Between Arabs and from him lineage to many arab tribes like Banu Tamim and Taghlib and Quraysh and Banu Hanifa and prophet Muhammad who Consider Themselves arab...

  • Hello, please sign your post. And please don't delete other people's entries to the talk page, Lanternix, that is extremely rude, whether it is gibberish or not is irrelevant. I believe he is referring to ancient populations who have been arabised, not present ones, if so, he is correct, not entirely, as not all members of these groups were arabised of course. Funkynusayri 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to the Ibrahim (Abraham). Where did the Mesopotomian Akkadians came from? Where did the Chaldes of Ur (Abraham ppl) come from? They are Ancient Arabs (to the Europeans Semites). They were absorbed into the Arab tribes that settled the region, because they were the same people!
  • However Egypt is a different case, The Arabs dont have anything to do with the Majority of the Modern Egyptians (culturally) they are Africans who were Subdued by the elite Arabs, The Arabs in Egypt today are less than 30% The Arab Nobility of Egypt, They still have their tribal last names and Arab manners (Gamal Abdul Nasser from Banu Judham, Hasan AlBana from Himyar). The Majority of Egyptians are mixed, only few of those mixed Egyptians will show any traits of the Noble Arabs. (The two main Arab cultural traits: Bravery & Generosity ) --Skatewalk 19:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What is this nonsense ? Abraham and the Mesopotamians were not Arabs. These are different people. And please this is a serious encyclopedia, so refrain from writing such stupidities like "The two main Arab cultural traits: Bravery & Generosity. Benjil 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Arab traits don't go well with you. Read history books and Bedouin culture. Bravery and Generosity are the main Arab traits thats why they refer to it as Arab Generosity As for the AKkadians, They are Ancient Arabs (not Qahtani but Ancient). Type Akkadians in GOOGLE and read the first result. They are the fathers of all The Mesopotamian Semites. (Are you aware of that? how do you think the Semitic culutre replaced the Sumerian!) The Akkadians came from the Arabian Peninsula
the Akkadians among the ancient Arabs--Skatewalk 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea of "Arab traits" is in itself racist. The Akkadians were not Arabs, just read the article Akkad, the fact that they *may* have lived (not even a fact) in the North of what is *today* called the Arabian Peninsula over 4500 years ago does not make them Arabs. And you obviously make a common confusion between the modern meaning of "Semite" - which refers to a group of languages and *not* to people - and the biblical one (and they do not overlap). Benjil 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Arab is not a race/racist. Any person can adopt Arab culture and live as a proud Arab. The main Arab traits Bravery and Generosity are part of my Arab culture. Its your personal problem if you can't respect the Arab culture. If you choose not to be an Arab thats fine, but dont call it racism! The Arabs absorbed and will absorb any group no matter what race they are, as you know among the Arabs every DNA type you can list.
  • Racism is Zionist or Nazi German discirmination by bloodlines where the oppressed subject has to be eliminated and can not be absorbed, and if you were the victim yu didnt have any choice! Racism are the groups that decide to live in small racist enclaves eventually bringging havoc upon their heads by singling themselves out!
  • Arabs relate to their Semitic past. Akkadians lived in the Arabian peninsuala, Spoke Semitic, lived a Nomadic life (guess what that makes them) Yes you guessed it right. they are Arabs. The Arabs resemble the Akkadians in every way. At that time there was no (Arab) term. So simply they are part of the ancient Arabs.

All the Semites came from Arabia. The only Smeites we dont consider Arabs are those who chose not to identify as Arabs. (the Hebrews & Self identified Arameans/Assyrians)

  • Arabs Christian or Muslim consider all the Semites Arab, the prophet of the Muslims said (SAM Shem abu Al-Arab)--Skatewalk 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is complete nonsense from the beginning to the end. Bravery and Generosity are part of most if all cultures, and the Arabs are not different from any other people. I respect the great arab culture as any other great culture in the world. I won't comment on your stupid political declarations about Zionism and comparing it to Nazism, but this in itself makes you unfit to any serious discussion. And for the Akkadians - no they were not Arabs, they did not speak Arabic, and did not identify as Arabs. Arabs are the people who speak Arabic. You have *no* right to annex to yourself all the other people of the region because they spoke a Semitic language. You are obviously some Arab nationalist bigot who prefers to live in its own fantasies, that's your problem. But Wikipedia is a serious scientific site, please refrain from posting nonsense. Benjil 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me Benjil me and you know that the Arab and Modern israeli (not ARab anymore) are diffirent culturally. The Arab is brave, generous. The Israeli is wiser, cunning and smarter about spending their money. (Are you going to deny these differences?!) These are traits passed down history through thousands of years. Bravery and Generosity are related to the Arab culture and people with similar lifestyles or close cultural ties with the Arabs (The Pashtuns, The Turks, The West Sicilians, The Southern Spaniards). Modern Israelis are similar culturally to the West Europeans as odd as it is but culturally they are similar to them (after all they lived the last 2000years in Europe, spoke a European language, and those European Jews are the ones who created Israel) thats the main reason we are having a conflict in the Mideast. If the Arabs adopted European manners they will will not look at Israel the way they do now. And if the Israelis adopt the Arab culture then they will be no reason to have a war! Dont deny the turth except the cultural shism between us.
"The Arab is brave and generous and the Israeli is wiser, cunning and smarter about spending their money". Is this a joke ? Will you stop trolling with that, I mean - really ? This really sounds like a racist anthem. For the rest, yes Arabs and Israelis have cultural differences, obviously Israel is a modern occidentalized State while the Arabs countries still belong to the underdeveloped world, and it is part of the reasons of the conflict, if not the only nor the main. Benjil 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse you will deny the Akkadians are Arabs! Did I call uou an AntiArab zionist? Although what you are doing now is being An AntiArab jew (maybe you didnt notice?). Do you see me going to Jewish articles denying the Jews from the cultural past>>>crossing to Egypt leaving it in miracles. It sounds to me like an LSD dream, but I still respect their culture. Akkadians are Arabs read History books. (no not the Israeli books). We speak the Semitic language we know Akkadian is an archaic language similar to the Eastern South Semitic languages still spoken in Mehra. I am actually ahead of a project to that region and Akkad is Arab. Look at yourself and your people before you claim the Arabs are (bigots) and annexing history. Do you see me editing articles on who are the true Hebrews? and where the Ashkenazis really came from? Be a good boy respect other ppl and you will get respected--Skatewalk 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So, yes you are a troll. The Akkadians are not Arabs according to anybody but you. If you have no scientific source about this fact, and you won't have, obviously, it can't be in wikipedia. All the rest of your rant just shows your true colors. By the way, two things: the article about "Arabs" is not for Arabs only as the articles about the Jews or any other people are not for Jews only or each people only ; and I never said the Arabs were bigots, I said *you* were. Thanks to God, you do not represent all the Arabs. With this, I will stop discussing with an ignorant racist like you. Benjil 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Again show me a place were I was racist. or a place I even insulted you? Yet you find it your duty to insult me. I dont have a problem with the Israelis aslong as they assimilate to the Arabs. The Arab culture of the Mideast is natural to the Mideast. Just like Ibn Khaldun said, you can't change the deserts because they are who make the Arabs. Arabs are not racist you are always welcome to become an Arab once you learn to respect our culture, speak our language and love our desert. --Skatewalk 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arabic culture

Would somebody look at Arabic culture and provide some sources and references? It's been tagged for over a year, and it really degrades the quality of the article to have that ugly (but necessary) box at the top. 24.4.253.249 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image in ethnic group infobox

I checked the source of the image, and guess what: "Tourists dressed up in traditional clothing. Palestine/Jerusalem, 1910." http://fai.cyberia.net.lb/detail.aspx?img=0002kh00227

Who are these people? Can it be verified that they indeed are Arabs, and not for example Jewish or Turkish tourists dressed up? Funkynusayri 08:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

How funny! I guess we need a new photo. I hate to say that because I'm sure it's going to lead to disagreements on what, based on previous experience. But it's true. I'll try to look around for alternatives. If anyone has any suggestions, please post them here. Tiamat 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The new one was a pretty good solution! Funkynusayri 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems like we need a new picture after the Egyptian nationalists removed the former one. Any ideas? Funkynusayri 13:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Old picture is back without explanation. Funkynusayri 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab Wiki project

Is there one? If not, I think one is needed. Funkynusayri 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sign up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Arab_Wiki_Project

Funkynusayri 22:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the new photo

The new of Arabs must be changed. Taha Hussein was very opposed to Arabism and always claimed that he, as well as the rest of the Egyptians, are NOT Arabs. His photo must go. In addition, Samia Gamal and Omar el Mokhtar are Egyptians a/o North Africans, which means that calling them Arabs is very questionable (read the article itself). Please whoever created the imgae, take the time to modify it accordingly. Thank you. --Lanternix 15:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, it's been fixed. Egyegy 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add more pictures of "colored" Arabians? Arabians are essential a mix between Caucasoids, Mongloids and Negroids, so why is it there are mostly white-looking pictures on the article? I don't think it is at all fair. InternetHero 06:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Arab population 250 million at highest

  • North African nations have Arab populations but have sizeable non Arab minorities, the ruling Elite are Arab/Arabized, but that dont make the whole nation Arab.
  • In Egypt only the Elite established Arab Nobility (Al-AShraaf) 5 Million claim Prophet Muhamad lineage, 17 Million claim Hashimi lineage and the rest of the 8 Million claim Kinana lineage. Despite how true these claims are, this number indicates the true number of self identified Arabs. The majority of the Egyptians are mixed and don't identify with the Arabs. --Skatewalk 04:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I want say some thing that arabs was White People and Ancient Egyptian was Black People (sam thing with people of north africa) and there arab tribes traveled to Egypt and what call today Eritrea and Somalia and Ethiopia before islam...and mother of Ishmael .Hagar was arab from Egypt..thanks

there 2 article about arab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs --(UNSIGNED)

  • Are you American? Because Arabs have a deep culture thats not primitive enough to go by the color code! White and Black are primitive American terms. Arabs have a well known history that goes back 5000years in history. The reason (MOST)Egyptians are not Arabs is cultural more than anything else. And the EGyptians dont have anything to do with West Africans of America.
  • I didn't say there are no Arabs in Egypt! I said Arabs make 30% of Egypt population the rest are mixed. These are numbers by Arabs. And the Hagar bloodlines only applies to Ismail himself and not all the Adnani Arabs, Ismail became the leader of Jurhum (a big Qahtani Yemeni tribe) so on Genetic terms the Qahatanis and Adnanis are the same, and Ismail bloodlines didnt add or subtract anything. (the Ismaili ancestory of the Adnanis is symbloic for patriarchal lineage for Prophet Muhammad to Ibrahim who used to stop at Adnan 40 Generations from Ismail. And even if you consider Adnanis partially Egyptian by default, the Majority of the Arabs are the Qahtani because they came 40generations before Ismail more than 2000 years before Adnan existed. And on Genetic terms Adnan is part of Qahtan. Adnan gained its elite status by having the prophet and Ummayids, Abbasid dynasties in Charge of the Caliph....etc
  • In Eritrea and the Tigray region of Ethiopia some tribes are of Yemeni origin. Also Rashidya Bedouins are recent Arabs in Eritrea. All together the Arabs in Eritrea maybe a 500,000? I know that some Tigray, Tigriniya claim Yemeni ancestory and the Rashidya are not a big population. In Eritrea Arabic is an official language. However, Ethiopia showed an Anti-Arab policy for the last 40 years so I am not sure how can you consider them Arab except of the minorities in Tigray. I am not sure how many Arabs there are in Eritrea thats why I didnt post Eritrea. --Skatewalk 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Hagar was Qahtani Arab from tribe call Banu 'amlh(بني عاملة) (Yemeni Qahtani tribe) Which traveled to North Arabian peninsula then to North Egypt and Sinai Peninsula
  • and they live with People North Egypt and they Married from them and they Speaks in the Language of Ancient Egyptian.Except Section of Banu 'amlh that was in Sinai Peninsula
  • and there other arab Qahtani tribes Which traveled Africa before islam..like Yemeni Qahtani tribe 'far(عفار) and they stil have the name of tribe 'far today and they exist in Sudan and Eritrea and Somalia and Ethiopia and Egypt and Yemen (UNSIGNED)
  • Banu Amilah are Qahtani but they travelled to Syria around 1st century AD at the earliest. Abraham and Hagar lived aound 2000BC we are talking about 2000years difference! Banu Amilah were and still known in Syria (Lebanon and North Palestine). Never heard of Banu Amilah in Egypt. can you show me any Arab sources indicating Banu Amilah presence in Egypt.--Skatewalk 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
like I said Banu 'amlh traveled to North Arabian peninsula then to North Egypt and Sinai Peninsula and the Ancient Egyptian was call them Hksos,Hoksos,Alhoksos,Hyksos (هكسوس)

At that time Fifteenth Dynasty ruled over Egypt, whose rulers are known in history as the Hyksos kings. They belonged to the Arab race, but had migrated from Palestine and Syria to Egypt in or about 2000 B. C. and taken possession of the country. The Arab historians and the commentators of the Quran have given them the name of Amaliq (the Amalekites), and this has been corroborated by the recent researches made by the Egyptologists. They were foreign invaders who had got the opportunity of establishing their kingdom because of the internal feuds in the country. We also learn from the history of Egypt that the "Hyksos kings" did not acknowledge the gods of Egypt and, therefore, had imported their own gods from Syria, with a view to spreading their own religion in Egypt. This is the reason why the Quran has not called the king who was the contemporary of Prophet Joseph by the title of "Pharaoh," because this title was associated with the religion of the original people of Egypt and the Hyksos did not believe in it, but the Bible erroneously calls him "Pharaoh". It appears that the editors of the Bible had the misunderstanding that all the kings of Egypt were "Pharaohs." Egyptians called these kings "shepherd kings," translated in Egyptian as "hega-khase". Greek authors later rendered this as "Hyksos," (UNSIGNED)

Ok the Hyksos are ancient Arabs who came from Syria/North Arabia whatever you wat toi call it. This happenned in the 15th century BC. At that time Qahatan was still in Yemen and not in Syria. The first Banu Amilah didn't leave Yemen that early. they left along with Kahlan. The reason we know about Banu Amilah, because they were mentioned in Sabaean scripts of tribes they Subdued this was back in 3rd century BC. Himyar will later destory Saba'a and the Qahatani migration to the north occurs mainly in the 3rd century AD. I know about the Hyksos and other Arab invasions of Egypt, but still Egypt was never Arabized culturally as the Arabian peninsual, Syria and Iraq or even Libya. Arabs ususually lived in nations were the Nomads outnumbered the Fallahen to mainatin a warlike nation. the Fallaheen were the smaller class that supported the Nomads. This worked well in North Africa, Spain and Sicily, but in Egypt the majority remained Fallaheen and the ARanbs were never able to assimilate the natives in joinning them instead the natives were just subdued. Name me one Egyptian native Pan Arabist or leader...etc. All Egypts Pan Arabist greats are Ethnic Arabs and thats mainly to the lack of loyality among the native Egyptians. the 1960s hysteria was all the works of Gamal Abdul Nasser personal Charisma and the EGyptians respect for the powerful. Once he was defeated they turned against him.--Skatewalk 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Banu Amilah are not Qahtani tribe they lineage from Amalaiq son of...Eram son of Shem son of Noah and they was in Syria and Jordan and they have Different language like all the arab tribes..I don't know about Egypt (UNSIGNED)

  • Honestly I find the bible lineage misleading and in many time off. However, I will not rule Banu Amilah as an ancient Arab nation that left Arabia in the early times along with the Akkadians and the Amalik and the first wave of Arab nations to leave Arabia. Many times the Qahtanis and Ancient Arabs lived together as the Qahtani Hadhrimites and Ad in Oman. The Hamdani lists Banu Amilah as an Arab tribe among the Yemeni tribes of Jabal Amil. He mentions that the mountain is named after the Banu Amilah Arab tribe and its settled by the Hamdan, Lakhm and Banu Judham. Later to be joined by the Ghassanids. The Hamdani himself was broad in many of his accounts, but he was the best informed on the Qahtani and Arabian tribes and most the Arab tribes books quote him. Afte all he was among the earliest to explain the concept of the symbolic lineage of the Adnanis to Ismail instead of literal lineage. Anyways atleast we agree that Banu Amilah never set foot in Egypt! I am not sure if there is a way to prove if Banu Amilah were Ancient or Qahtani Arabs, especially because they claim a South Arabian origin (doesn't always mean Qahtani) and they shared Jabal Amil with the Qahtani tribes that arrived 3rd century AD --Skatewalk 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Banu Amilah are Qahtani tribe and they are not lineage from Amalaiq and they was in Syria and part of tribe was in Yemen and they but had migrated from Syria to Egypt in or about 2000 B. C and they rule Egypt from 1648 to 1540 BC and Ancient Egyptian named them 'Hyksos' Which mean shepherd kings. (UNSIGNED)

AlHamdani puts Qahtan lineage at the time of UD (ud in the East aand Qahtan in the west) of South Arabia. Now, their are no mentions of Qahtani migrations/invasions before the Kahlan migration out of Saba'a. If they were their in 2000BC why they were never mentioned by the Assyrians, Greeks or Hebrews?. The Hebrews were clearly specific about their nieghbors who were closely related to the Amalik (Its logical to relate them to the Hyksos also, because they lived on the neck of the bottle of Egypt), but its just fanciful thinking to have Banu Amilah as a Qahatni tribe in the North as early as 2000BC. Qahtan it self is a result of the first Arab migration althoug Qahtan stayed in Arabia it eventually settled the far South. Some Arabs settled the North some settled the South. Qahtan and Ad went to the South. (Ad was later integrated into Qahtan around 600BC), but as early as 2000BC Qahtan was still forming. Can you please show me any reference about (Qahtani presence in the North as early as 2000BC). Also the Hebrews who wrote the book had couple of Joktans who are not Qahtan! (Joktan = the Akkadian "Yaqthan" legend that was first heard of in Mesopotamia) and yo can find an Arabic book for kids called (Hay' bin Yaqthan)reciting the legend of the kid who lived with animals paralel tothe Mesopotamian Joktan (Joktan roughly means the Insomaniac), (Qahtan roughly means the haggard which relates to the desert life!). I am waiting for references, I wanted to edit the Banu Amilah article 1 week ago and I stopped because of the 2000BC date you gave me, so I can't just type that in the article and quote the discussion section on wikipedia. waiting for references thanks --Skatewalk 09:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Arabs

  • Noah and Adam are religious figures. I dont want to remove the part where it says "Some Arabs can trace thier lineage to Noah and even Adam! Even if you are a muslim. There is a saying about prophet Muhamad saying that he cant trace his origin further than Adnan and saying "geneoligists lie"
  • Adnan is part of Qahtan there is atleast 2000years between them. The Qahtani Arabs don't have anything to do with (Abraham) was a Semite from Ur. (not Qahtani). Jews and muslims claiming him as their own. However, in ethnic terms he is descended of the Chaldees of UR or other Mesopotamian (SEMITES). We kniw that these groups came from the ARabian peninsula directly (as in with the Chaldees or via Akkad as with most the Mesopotamoian Semites.

The Akkadians came from the Arabian Peninsula
the Akkadians among the ancient Arabs--Skatewalk 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Akkadians are not ancient Arabs, because they mixed with Sumerians. They were Arabs before mixing with the Sumerians and the Mesopotamian Non Semites --Alameer 10:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When I say teh Akkadians I mean the Ancient Arabs who lived around Akkad before they invaded Sumer. The Arabs mixed with the native Mesopotomains, but they remained the dominant culture until the Persian period. Did they give up their Akkadian language when they entered Sumer? No. They adopted many Sumerian aspects of life that made them distinguished from the other Arabs, but thats another issue. Today an Arab from Dubai is very different than a Bedouin from Marib and they will have hard time undertsanding each other although they are Arab. Just like a Sophisticated Akkadian in 2200BC will standout from a Nomadic Arab from Central Arabia in 2200BC and at that time Akkadian and Amorite or South Arabian had more in common than Colliqual Tunisi and Colliqual Bahraini, also the Bedouins of the earlier times had easier time understanding each other aslong as they were Semitic because the languages were still basic and they focused on listening instead of reading.--Skatewalk 09:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkadians were NOT Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:32 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, The fist website on google says they came from teh Arabian peninsula. 1990s Historians link a branch of the South Semitic languages to Akkadian. Today the only people in th world to speak Akkadian live in Oman and Yemen. The modern Assyrians well you know whta they speak today!. Akkadians are the middle people between the Arabs and Assyrians.[[1]]. Today the only Akkadian speaking people live in South Arabia! If I was an Assyrian who wants to relate to the Akkadians I will try to learn the language first! Especially that Mesopotamia didnt have any specific race due to the Akkadians and later Assyrian [policies of deporatations and mixing. Elias its simple you respect other people, you will be respected. Same with history --Skatewalk 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE USE ENGLISH

I put the above comment through Google Translate (view below); It apparently concerns the language, not the ethnicity. I suggest the comment be deleted. --Targeman 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The structure of language any language will not remain stable without change, and Fedha itemized and voice patterns are changing with the use and the passage of generations, and is usually a very slow change, and spoke of things most of the changes that occur, and what changed in life, for example, does not change the English language from year to year; But if he tried to present them to read ancient texts of English they would find it different than talking the difference as the German, Danish, and there are languages are now dead, although some of the assets of living languages of the absence of talk or even understood at the present time, such as the Babylonian, Sumerian, and used abbreviations, and Akkadian, the ancient Egyptian, The Arab Himyaritic, so we Socialized Arabs are the languages of ancient Arabic can not read or understand a word, such as : المسنديه languages : كالحميريه, السبايه, المعينيه, القتبانيه; although they all languages Arabic, but write letters and drawings again, Even if humans learned to read those letters, and he would not understand the vocabulary of those languages - Arabic benchmarked If only a component of modern-easy, and this is still the words that so far their image, even the Arabic language in periods ignorance is difficult for many people to understand many of the terms that are now regarded as a strange, outdated, and became not used because of the theory of evolution in the language, and we look at this text poetic Arab ignorance of a pending Tarafa which was suspended on the Kaaba : Amon molded Alaran Nsatha loved to be on board BRCD aesthetic degradation and Jenna as Svenjah TPRI to Azar Irbid Tabaré Ataka survivors followed, and Deva Deva over the top Gavin Moore temple in Chole Trtai gardens Mule family was Egged Alop Alenza in Dayatha resources Khlagai Qirdad at noon. All this confirms the theory of evolution which languages, and made Arabic language complexes in the modern era strenuous efforts to Arabize many emerging terminology such as : terms of modern civilization, including speeches plane, radio, train, car, and wire. Arabic language Semitism which has witnessed considerable change in the internal stages, and the Holy Qur'an great credit to the Arabic language as the language because of this section are the only languages that maintained the Commissioner Tohjah and universality; While ceased most languages Commissioner What remains of them tomorrow local languages with a small scale such as : Hebrew, pumps, and the Arabic language now spoken by nearly 300 million people, or language, as spoken by non-Arab Muslims nearly the same number as a second language, the first appearance of an Arab is not known exactly when the word appeared Arabs; as well as all the vocabulary derived from the originally containing the characters eyes, a model and perceptive, such as words : Arab voice, and others, and the oldest archaeological text stating the name of Arabs is the nail plate attributed to the Assyrian king (Helmanasr III) in the ninth century BC, in which he said the coalition victory against Aram kings led King Damascus, A sheep and camels from Jendibo of the country Arabs, and reminds some of the scientists-language word - that the Arabs found in some stories, descriptions, Greek, Persian, and was intended to express the Arab peninsula, and there was no Arabic language specific, But all the languages spoken by the tribes and nationalities inhabiting the island, which was called the Arab languages Arabic, a language developed by the Sumerian and others, including language and returned tribe and others, and the languages of convergent, and sometimes after a while to evolve, change, and those languages Mahra ancient language used so far in the tribe and Sokotari, These were not written languages Arabic lettering we have now, the Arabs are Arabs? Had Noah-peace be upon him - many of them sons Sam, which belongs to all peoples-Semitism; Including Arabs, and to Sam Ben Noah five sons are : (toss, and Aum, Arvukhcz, Assyria, Ilam), and people who called later nominated Arabs come back to the first three sons, divided the Arabs to the Arabs past, and the Arabs Sarbh, The Arabs Mestarbh Either toss bin Sam is part of his progeny Arabs extinct, and some Arabs Alaarbh, either of Aum Ben Sam is his progeny some Arabs extinct, either Arvukhcz Ben Sam is his progeny Alaarbh some Arabs, all the Arabs Almstarbh and grandchildren Ibrahim - for-peace; and all of them sons and Muhammad-peace be upon him -. 1-Arabs extinct : the Arabs who were in the Arabian Peninsula in the ancient past, then Padua finished, and returned them to associate hard Awwas returned Ben Ben toss, and called back toss, whom tribe, and Geddis and other descendants toss Sam Ben Ben Noah, and the descendants of Aum Sam Ben Ben Noah : Giants, The owners are Mim - Rass -. 2-Arabs Alaarbh : (and called Qahtaniyah), which they have been old Arabic language, including taking Alaadnanyon modern Arabic, including : Saba, Donkeys, given the contrary - they are the descendants returned, which dates back to toss his progeny Ben-Sam, whom Hadramawt, and Oman - are the descendants of Sam-Arvukhcz Ben, FSPA-for example - which belongs folk Saba is the son deplores Ben expresses bin Qahtan bin Hood-peace be upon him - and Hood offspring returned token, they toss the descendants of Sam Ben Ben Noah, Qahtan Ben Hood who joined him Qahtanion, said he first spoke in Arabic, It was indeed generated express bin Qahtan, the heart of most Arabs and the extinct Alaarbh, it is one of the origin of ancient Semitic languages, and the ancient language that has evolved afternoon after afternoon, divided into two sections : a-language Arab followers old : when folks south of the Arabian peninsula, such as : Almaineh, Sbaih, Himyaritic, writing literally Alemsendi. B-language Arab northeasterly old : when folks north of the Arabian peninsula, such as : Althmoudih languages, Allehyanet, Purism, writing literally Althmoudi, now is not possible for any of us to understand something of these people writing in both North or South, but the characters and those studying literature. 3-Arabs Almstarbh : (and called Adnaniyah), and hard Prophet Ismail bin Ibrahim - them - peace, due to Arvukhcz ratios Ibrahim Ben Noah Sam Ben-peace be upon him - When Ibrahim was God-peace be upon him - that leaves son Ismail-for-peace in the valley irrelevant transplantation; Ibrahim was the instilling Adnaniyah Arabs who will form part of the Arabs later, when the spring of Zamzam water came from the folk dragged Qahtanien lived there with Ismail, taking them Arab southern something old mixing them with the language of his father Chaldean Then came Alamalik and married Ismail of them, and then dragged married, and had a lot of the child, and spread his progeny, and it was - grandchildren after several generations-a man named Adnan, it belongs sons of Ishmael, The affected language in Arabic hangs Northern existing then, including : Althmoudih, Allehyanet affected apparent, and emerged from that intermarriage between Arab languages of the South (contrary, Alamalik), and North (Althmoudih, Allehyanet), in addition to the terms of the Chaldean easy (Ibrahim) created the Arabic language is the mother of modern classical Arabic also come, have lasted for more than two thousand years until evolved into classical Arabic, having undergone a year of development and change. 7 ** classical Arabic : modern Arabic language evolved through hundreds of years, and after more than two years of the birth of Islam has become-as-called language (harmful), and are used in the north of the island, had ruled on the Arabic language Northern old and replaced, while they were called Arabic language of the Old South (Donkeys) ratio to the greatest kingdoms of Yemen then, and almost the first half of the first millennium AD expire until there was a language of the Quraish, and the language of Rabia, and the language of Kdah, called these languages and were still in that stage accents, but people understand each other easily. They also understand the language and Donkeys also less, and was floating in the Koran that period is great event which immortalized one of the languages of Arabs then, is a language which came down-and that was the finest languages Arab-language Quraish, named language Quraish Since then classical Arabic-Allah Almighty says in the Holy Quran - ((and Wert)), ((This book validated Arabic tongue)), ((This is a clear Arabic tongue)). * O evolution of Arabic script : we said that the ancient Semitic languages were written and Althmoudi Alemsendi nets, and then entered with the modern Arabic language Line Alenbeti taken from the Phoenicians, and said that the proportion of the purchased farms Bensmail-for-peace, and this is the line in place Althmoudi Line north of the island, The line has become harmful to the language adopted in Arabic (modern), the Arab language Donkeys (Old South), maintaining Line Alemsendi, taking Line Alenbeti - who is the father of modern Arab-Line is also evolving, The oldest written Arabic text discoverer line Alenbeti is carved (Alenmarh) discovered in Syria, which is 328 m for the year. In the period prior to Islam, there were other lines of a modern language such as harmful : Line Hairi ratio (the confusion), and Line-Anbari ratio (the Anbar), and came when Islam was used in Qureish Line is the line Alenbeti developer, a line used by the Prophet-peace be upon him - in writing letters to the kings and rulers then, and nobody in the images of some of those letters different from the modern Arab line, which evolved from the line, and some experts believe that line Alenbeti developer Arabs old, the oldest of which advances carved (butter), The carved (or beauty) (568 m, 513 m). 8 ** Line modern Arab : Alhijazion was the first to edit the Arab Alenbeti Line, and began to change even more closely Umayyad era began when Abu Black Aldali Ptnekit characters, and then ordered Abdul Malik bin Marwan guarantee Laithy and Yahya bin survive formed characters, Vbdawa action points above crafts indication of the hole, The point beneath indication of the broken, and a point from the northerners indication of the annexation, and then the evolution of the situation to develop a small italics over the opening trades, and J. small break, and F. small annexation, and then the evolution of the situation of the current format in the conquest and annexation of breakage. Arab Airlines has also been widespread in the country and Alamassar. * O One of the advantages of the Arabic language : Arabic language features that distinguish them from all the world's languages, and makes it a real blessing enjoyed by knowledgeable people, and loving it : it is the language of the Koran - which chose the Almighty - that maybe by another written by Sitabd by the end of human history. They are less sophisticated languages of the world since the fall of the Koran, there is no language for over a thousand years and still people can read and understand the texts easily like, and then Hebrew. Expression advantage of the Arabic language, which includes the name of each vocabulary, and act, and characters, and despite the presence of expression in some other languages, such as : Hindi, Hebrew, pumps, and Germanic, and the ancient Egyptian; However, express some minor without some words. It features control the floor as the annexation of the opening and breaking, followed by information-for example - to be read by the seven formed (science, science, science, science, science, science, science).


  • Google bad translater

Ancient Arabs

The article Ancient Arabs has just been created by a new user. That article is of a poor standard, even worse than this, and would be better merged into this. — Gareth Hughes 23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gareth Hughes, The article was created by User:Alameer I recovered the article after User:EliasAlucard moved it to ancient Semites. The article is irrelevant to this article! This article (as of now) is related to the cultural Arab term (which includes Non ethnic Arabs such a Egyptians and North Africans). The Ancient Arab article is related to the Ethnic Arabs and the line should be drawn between the Cultural broad Arab term and Ethnic Arab. I do appreciate your genuine efforts to improve the Arab articles --Skatewalk 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

article content is unsalvageable. The title should be a redirect to Pre-Islamic Arabia. Any valid material can be inserted there. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Dbachmann) Zionists should keep their hands off Arab articles --The12e32nd 00:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right dear The12e32nd, just continue with this kind of racist slander and you will be excluded from Wikipedia. We don't need people like you here. Benjil 01:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Arabia vs Pre Islamic Arabia

These are two different articles.

  • Ancient Arabia dicusses the older History of Arabia (pre Hellenic Invasion 330BC)
  • PreIslamic Arabia is related to the few centuries before Islam.

Ancient Arabia is simply part of the History of Arab nations. Are you an Arab? Assyrianists should focus on fixing their own confusing articles! instead of vandalizing Arab articles--Skatewalk 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Flase numbers

Please change the Cenus numbers of Moroccan Arabs who have completly discluded the Berebrs?. Balu2000 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EgyEGY

I am not sure why many of the people in this page insist on including all Egyptians as Arabs! Last time I went to the Egyptoian nobility website they claimed the Arabs are 30% of Egypt. And modern Egyptian copts? (muslim or Christian) dont identify with the Arab identity (which I dont have a problem with). They have a neutral institute in Egypt (I watched it on Amr Adib), my suggestion is that you contact them and ask them to conduct a survey on how many Egyptians consider themselves Arab. I am 100 sure they are not biased, but I dont know the institue exact name. My estimate goes along the Ashraaf website of 30%, but those are just numbers. Danish people speak the same language as Norweigans but they dont want to be known as Norweigan so they called it Danish, both nations share the same history.

The Arabs conquered Egypt for so long that they lost their identity and it created a modern hybird identity (simlar to Persian, Sicilian, Maltese) although it is close to Arab culture in many ways it is still not Arab. myself I cant identify with Egyptians and I still think Egypt is under Arab occupation. (egyptians were rude to me in many times, which makes me indifferent about the situation, but the numbers should be fixed back to my older version, I used the numbers of the Ashraaf website, they proudly claim to be the Arab minority in Egypt and thats that!) you can get it back from Aug5 version, the other version without the countries gives the impression that the mashreaq and Maghreb is 100% Arab.

I'm not sure why some editors keep insisting that Egypt is not Arab. The official name of the country is the Arab Republic of Egypt (See: Egyptian MFA site [2]. Tiamat 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that EgyEgy are trying to say that there where million of his definetion "ancient Egyptians" in Egypt when the Arabs or "Greek" arrived. Balu2000 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The name "Arab Republic of Egypt" is an artificial creation of Nasser who also created notions such as pan-Arabism and United Arab Republic. These ideas are clearly outdated and by no means reflect the true identity of modern Egyptians. In fact, nobody before the 1952 coup d'etat considered Egyptians to be Arabs, including the Egyptians themselves (see for instance what people like Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, Louis Awad and Salama Moussa said about this topic). Egyptians are clearly NOT Arabs --Lanternix 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No Lanternx, the real reason is that Egyptians are submissive they follow the powerful and mighty. Nasser was an Ethnic Arab who wanted Egypt to be the leading nation of the Arab world. The majority of Egyptians are not Arabs and they rode the Arab wave when it was at strength(back then every one was ARab). Now that the Arabs are under attack by the West. The Egyptians are siding with powerful Anti Arab movement at this time. And myself not an Egyptian and I agree that atleast 70% of Egyptians are not Arab or identify with Arabs. In Algeria , Maghrib these people are Arab/berber mixed but identify as Arabs (because the berbers share many in common with the Arabs, both are Nomadic. In Egypt the Egyptian identity is becoming the identity of the Muslim and Christian (COPTS). Mainly because it doesn't do them any good to be an Arab and its understandable. The Arabs in Egypt are known the Ashraaf nobility and the Bedouins and they will tell you the same thing that most Egyptians are not Arab. AlAshraaf still think till this day that Egyptians are their subjects! I say stop bothering these guys and let them identify themselves as they want! I mean I dont see any benefit of forcing them to say they are Arab?! The name of Egypt is the Arab republic of Egypt because its dominated by an Arab elite class (corrupt and I dont want to be associated with them). The majority of Egyptians identify with the Nile/Faliheen and a few of the disapora admire and emulate the West the best they can.

  • Be it facts are facts either you like them or not. Its "hypocrite works", because most Arabs will end up making jokes about how egyptians (are cheap and dont have a stomach for fighting) then they claim they are Arabs?! how that makes sense? Why do you want to be associated with the people you shun?! --Skatewalk 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source that backs up your claims here? Your analysis as stated is WP:OR. Tiamat 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep racist anti-Egyptian garbage off wikpedia. You wanna know what brave is? Brave is when the Egyptians' performance in wars that the Arabs either couldn't or wouldn't fight is described by a Jewish writer in an Israeli newspaper like this: "hundreds of Israeli tanks were damaged or destroyed by brave Egyptian infantrymen with their hand-carried missiles and rockets....In 1973, after crossing the Suez Canal, Egyptian infantrymen by the thousands stood their ground unflinchingly against advancing 50-ton Israeli battle tanks, to attack them successfully with their puny hand-held weapons. They were in the open, flat desert, with none of the cover and protection that Hizbullah had in their fortified bunkers or in Lebanon's rugged terrain.... Later, within the few square miles of the so-called Chinese farm near the Suez Canal, the Israelis lost more soldiers fighting against the Egyptians in a single day and night than the 116 killed in a month of war in Lebanon - including the victims of vehicle accidents and friendly fire....Hizbullah certainly did not run away and did hold its ground, but its mediocrity is revealed by the casualties it inflicted, which were very few."[3].

Ouch! So much for the "Arab bravery" exemplified by the last popular Arab hero. Who was defeated before that and disgraced Egypt with him? That's right, it was your "Ethnic Arab" nationalist hero Nasser who shamed lots of Egyptians in 1967. Take your "bravery" and run with it. We've set our standards higher since then. Egyegy 07:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all what doe the Jews have to do with this, Why are you referring to me as part of your problem?
  • Hizballah are Shia Arabs and they are obviously different from the Egyptians, it doesnt have to do anything with the religion. The Israelis defeated the Egyptians mainly because the Egyptians are peaceful people who were pushed to the war by an Arab leadership. You should be proud of the peaceful nature of Egyptians. Nasser is still respected by many Arabs and shunned by Egyptians thats why I support your efforts to establish yourselves as a separate group. however, you have to recognize the Arabs in Egyp so you can stand out. Their are 25 Million Arabs that need to be accounted for and you have to tell them you are Arabs and we Are Egyptians. --Skatewalk 08:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, what sources do you have to support these claims? Tiamat 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptian identity section just saw it!

If the Egyptians wanted to be known as a distant group. They have to mention the Arabs (ashraaf and Bedouins 30% of Egypt roughly 25 Million) and the Egyptians Copts 70% roughly 55 Million the majority. And Arabic language as the official language. Masri Dialect? if you want to call Masri a language then their are 300 Arabic languages. I can see why they are not allowing you reverts, because you are doing the same thing to the Arabs in Egypt! Its a known fact that 30% of Egypt are Ashraaf (or claim to be Ashraaf) thats Arabs or self identified Arabs. If you dont recognize them. How do you expect Arabs to recognize the whole Egyptian identity that you are working against by including the Arabs in it?. Egyptian Arabic is not a language, you should revive your old language instead of claiming Arabic as Masri! You can't have it both ways, either go Egyptian all the way or not.

  • AbdulHalim Hafez is Arab, his songs are done in beautiful Arabic. You are hurting your own cause by including writers, singers who spoke and identified as Arabs. You have to fix The Egyptian article and include the Arab big minority and the Arabic language (so people dont get confused when they read the population 77Million and see it again in Arab! automatically they will think..oh Egyptian Arab) You cant convince the Ashraaf that they are Egyptians. They look down at Egypts past and they identify or (claim an Arab identity) which makes them Arab.
  • 70 % of 80 is about 55Million thats the population of Egyptians other wise you are just agreeing with the Arab article that includes all Egyptians as Arabs!--Skatewalk 23:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanternix Why?

The only evidence of an Egyptian identity comes from the voices of the Muslim Arabs (Ashraaf). If you dont admit the existance of an Arab minority that identifies as Arab, then you are denying any distinguishment between Arabs and Egyptians!

  • So using your common sense the Egyptian Arabs who claim to be the descendants of Kinana and the prophet are the same as you. Good job!
  • I was trying to be fair, but I guess you were not around when GOD was giving away manners and wisdom? anyways, now you got one less voice with you. Great job gainning political support for your cause!--Skatewalk 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Estimates and Egyptians supposedly represented as "Arabs"

What you ALL must have in mind is that the estimates and any number given in the box is not there to imply that said people are Arabs or that they even identify as Arabs. It clearly states that! The numbers are there to illustrate the TOTAL number of people who have Arabic or a variety of Arabic as the modern primary language of the community to which they belong. That is, the spoken language of their community; the language in which their communications with others in their community are conducted in, and that their thoughts and cultural expressions are realized in. For example, Egyptian Arabic for all genealogically Egyptians, whether Muslims or Coptic Christian, not the Coptic language (the latest stage of the Egyptian language) which is now a dead language remaining only as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church, and which obviously wasn't preserved as even that with Egyptians who became Islamized since the liturgical language of Islam is Arabic. Together, these represent 98% of the population, to the exclusion of say Europeans in Egypt who speak Arabic natively but which is not the primary language of THEIR communities. And again, I must stress, those within the 98% do not represent or imply that they are either Arabs or identify as such.

Another example, Lebanese Arabic for all genealogically Lebanese, whether Muslims or Maronite Christian, is the language in which their communications with others in their community are conducted in, and that their thoughts and cultural expressions are realized in. It is not the Aramaic language which today for the Lebanese remains only as the liturgical language of the Maronite Church and which obviously wasn't preserved as even that with the Lebanese who became Islamized since the liturgical language of Islam is, again, Arabic. Nor is it the Phoenician language, which in the case of all Lebanese, Muslims and Christian, does not exist as even a liturgical language of any extant religion, much less one that may be practices by any Lebanese. Together, these represent 95% of the population, to the exclusion of say Armenians in Lebanon most of which today would speak Arabic natively (as it is the language of the state) but which is NOT the primary language of THEIR Lebanese Armenian community. Among themselves Lebanese Armenians speak Armenian, is the language in which their communications with others in their community are conducted in, and that their thoughts and cultural expressions are realized in. Together, these represent 95% of the population, to the exclusion of the mentioned Lebanese Armenians and any others who speak Arabic natively but which is not the primary language of THEIR communities.

Are we starting to understand now? That's all the figures represent, and it says that in a painfully clear manner. Any person needing more clarification for a perceived neutrality issue, implying that the figures are still not sufficiently clarified enough to make it clear that they do not suggest the number of "Arabs" or even people identifying as "Arab" might need brail added. Al-Andalus 04:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it's like this: if you include that extremely pov version in the box, I am going to restore the older neutral version. It doesn't matter how many "footnotes" you write, it's pov. All of that footnoting is already explained in "Who is an Arab" and the links to other articles. I kept trying to compromise with you, but all you do is push the same pov, push the same pov. And I don't know how many times must we go over the "language does not equal ethnicity" explanation. It's completely irrelevant. the Irish people are not English just because almost all of them speak English, and just because the English themselves or the "British"-identifying ones have tried to decimate their identity. I'm bringing back the older version which was stable for months before this banned for good troll changed it[4]. As for the Lebanese, they are not my problem and I don't care how they identify themselves, whether Maronites or Muslims or whatever (however, I think the "genealogical Lebanese" stuff is a joke-there was nothing called "Lebanese" nationality until very recently). It's time let it go. Egyegy 06:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Copts vs Muslim Arabs

This message is to EGYEGY since I know her/his stance of including all muslims as Egyptians, fo your identity you have to draw a line seperating Muslim Copts from Self identifed Muslim Arabs, email Niqabat AlAshraaf they will tell you 25million Arabs live in Egypt. I know this might contradict your religious beliefs (I am assuming you are a muslim), but you have to draw the line between the Arabs and Copts regardless of religion.

  • The Christian copts have a clear speech of recognizing the Arabs living in Egypt as the oppressors/invaders. The Muslim Copts as yourself are claiming that all Egyptians are Non Arabs and deny the existance of the Arabs!
  • So someone is not right? If you cant answer a simple question as that (on Wiki, let alone in real life) How do you expect anybody to recognize you? --08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
.There is a disclaimer on this article wich define "Who is a Arab?" and thats did refer to people who spoke it natively like the present day Egyptians, and its no doubt that Egypt now are a part of Arab world and the majority are Arabs (Cultural or Race). Copts does not see themselves as Arabs because mixing this name with Islam, like the Maronites in Lebanon, but they can't hide away from the language they speak, thats prove thats the "Egyptian" without any native language are a loose Identity. Balu2000 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Egyptians are NOT Arabs. It's very easy. Arabs didn't build the pyramids or the Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Modern Egyptians NEVER identified themselves as Arabs until Nasser's coup d'etat. After some pan-Arabist brain-washing over the past 60 years, Egyptians are steadily realizing that it's mere propaganda and has nothing to do with who they really are. Read for people like Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lotfi el-Sayed, Louis Awad, Salama Moussa, and Osama Anwar Okasha and you'll understand better. --Lanternix 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you thin that the history of Egypt did stop after the Egyptians did build the pyramids?, It is very logical that a Copt are telling us that Egypt is not Arab.Balu2000 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me tell you some thing you Copts are not Arabs that great let's make a little dance but now you are making this untrue claims for all the Egyptians?, please be more careful what you are saying, all those people did die for Arab cause are not aarbs their death are worthless? all theese leaders who are fighting for Arab cause are not Arabs?, please read the history of eagypt more clearly. Balu2000 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are you asking me then? Go ask a Muslim Copt and he'll tell you the same thing. No idea if you're even Egyptian, but from speaking with my Muslim friends they all agree they are the descendents of Ancient Egyptians, not the Arabs. They all resent losing their fathers in useless wars in Israel, Sinai, Yemen. But regardless, Copts are not Arabs and most Egyptian Muslims are of Coptic (ie: Egyptian) descent. So go figure. Oh, and by the way, there's nothing such as Arab cause. When some Palestinian terrorists go blow themselves up some Israeli buses full of women and children and when Hezbolla fires Kassam rockets on civilian houses in northern Israel, even though all Lebanese territories have been evacuated, then you have no cause. Let Palestinians and Lebanese mind their own business and let us Egyptians in peace to focus on our own problems caused by your pan-Arabist hero Mr Nasser --Lanternix 13:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

omg you are really frustrated when i am saying Egyptians are Arabs then I am a fan of Nasser or when I am saying that Egyptians who fought in wars in 60s did fight for Arab cause then I support this cause?, please be careful what you are saying you can't just blame people you don't know because they disagree with you. Balu2000 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You should only discuss changes not showing your political opinion, there are almost 100 millions egyptian citizens when Asking Egyegy won't give anyone any guarantee answer. Copts are Arabs, Coptic is only a religious term, tell me any Coptic person which are not Coptic Christian? Balu2000 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very very ignorant claims. Read the list of people I already provided, and you may want to add Adly Abadir if you'd like, and you'll find the answers to your questions. --Lanternix 15:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
ye ye you are ignoring the facts because they touched the heart, may I ask you which language you speak?, I guess would say that you speak Arabic natively rather than Coptic. Balu2000 16:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
hehehe, I'd like to see you call an Argentinian a Spaniard or a Senegalese a French because they speak Spanish and French respectively. Please please take photos of their reactions to that nonsense, that is if you are still alive to do so :) What a comedian --Lanternix 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to "Hehehe", but to the fact that no one is trying to call an Argentinian a Spaniard (although there are those that can trace ancestry to Spain). However, Argentinians in general ARE Hispanic (limited to what that term actually mean) and Argentina is a part of the Hispanic World! "Hehehe"! Likewise, no one is saying Egyptians are Arabians (although there are those, some, many or most, that's not the issues, that can trace ancestry to Arabia). Egyptians in general are Arab (limited to what that term actually means) and Egypt is an indissputable part of the Arab World! as is Argentina an indisputable part of the Hispanic world! "Hehehe"!
Actually, seeing that you brought up the Argentine example, "Hispanic" (as opposed to Spanish) is the most appropriate point of comparison to "Arab" (as opposed to Arabian). Many, if not most, Argentinians (indigenous people, Italian descendants, German descendants, Syrians, Chinese, etc) who would not view themselves as Spanish, and rightly so, as there would be many Mexicans (indigenous people, German descendants, Poles, etc) and in the same way Peruvians, Salvadorans, Colombians, Uruguayans who would not view themselves as Spanish, however, they, together with those who CAN trace Spanish ancestry (unmixed or otherwise) are all "Hispanic"; they all speak Spanish as their native language, their cultures, while different in their own ways from each other (including foundations based on indigenous cultures and histories unique to each country, and subsequent foreign influences) but also different from the culture of Spain, are all nonetheless Hispanic in that they all hold a common legacy, and their modern cultural and nation state evolutions (not ancient, ie. 1000 or more years ago) of the region were not in isolation from each other or untainted of Hispanicity. They thus comprise the Hispanic world. That does not take away from the pre-Hispanic histories of each country, nor does it imply the people are Spanish (though, obviosuly in this case, most, but by no means all, people could trace such descent). It does not negate the contributions of others to the region either. But it would be utter nonsense to deny the blatently obvious. But at the end of the day, an Argentine is an Argentine, a Mexican is a Mexican, a Colombian is a Colombian, etc. And even here, these individual national identities are not solid, they are not defined by race, or religion, or ancestry, or cuisnie, it may also be regional within each country.
So too, would the arguments and truths for "Hispanic" (not Spanish) and "Hispanic World" (not Spain) also hold true for "Arab" (not Arabian) and "Arab World" (not Arabia). It is the most appropriate comparison. The latter arguments, meanwhile, hold true for Egytpians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Libiyans, Saudis, Iraqis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. They are the most appropriate comparisons. It is utter nonsense to deny the blatently obvious. What a comedian! Al-Andalus 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Your ignorance is becoming a burden on this thread. Show me ONE Argentinian who would identify as Hispanic! To begin with, most Argentinians are of ITALIAN descent and many still speak Italian. They reserve the term "Castillano" to what people call the "Spanish language" and identify the Spaniards on a regional not national basis (Extramadurian, Castillan, Basque etc). No one in Argentina would call him/herself a Hispanic! Nor would people in Brazil call themselves Portuguese, nor would Austrians call themselves Germans, nor would Taiwanese call themselves Chinese, nor would Ivorians call themselves French, nor would Americans call themselves English BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS NOT THE BASIS FOR IDENTITY ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD! Why force it on Egyptians then?!!! Will the Arabs feel inferior if they don't include the Egyptians? Do the Arabs NEED the Egyptians in any way to be part of their clique? I am yet to understand this logic, or rather lack thereof!!! --Lanternix 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Show you one Argentine that identifies as Hispanic? The darn country is Hispanic! What on earth does the ancestry of an Argentinian (as you correctly pointed out, half of which can trace back to italy) have to do with whether they are Hispanic or not. As i pointed out in my previous post above, hispanicity has more than just ancestry to do with. The concept of Hispanicity, to my knoweladge, is only relatable and comparable to the concept of Arabness. It is not defined by ancestry. It is not defined by religion. It is not defined by national boundries. You're getting the notion of what "Hispanic" means intertwined with what it means to be Spanish. The terms may overlap with some people, but they are not synonymous. Likewise with Arab. And the people in Brazil who are not of course unmixed Portuguese descent would not call themselves Portuguese, though they are a part of the Lustianic World. And Brazil recognises that fact, and so do Brazilians (to the exception of non-Lustinanified peoples, ie the remote unmixed indigenous population). While the Taiwanese do not indeed view themselves as Chinese (ie from the people's republic of China), they do view themselves as "ethnic" Chinese (or a related word with the same meeaning as Hispanic or Arab but not meaning "Chinese" would be Sino). And as you've been told before. The definition of French has never been in the same category as concepts such as Hispanic, Lusitanic or Arab, so the concepts are not comparable. You're comparing apples to oranges. Sorry about the spelling, but i'm in a hurry. Al-Andalus 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you stick to one definition of identity? First you claimed that self-definition is what matters, but Argentinians do NOT self-identify as Hispanic! Now you're saying language, and like I showed you in so many cases, language does NOT qualify either. What matters is geneology (to the best of our knowledge of course, since this cannot be 100% proven or checked for, unless we genetically-check every single person in a certain population), history and anthropology. Self-identification may be taken into consideration as well, but with some salt on it. But language is an obsolete notion when it comes to identity. Not only doesn't it apply to the vast majority to human being o identify based on language, it's also a notion that changes from generation to the next. Will my children by non-Egyptians if they happen to be born in China and speak Chinese as a first language?! I highly doubt that. And in this case, there won't be anything such as Arab American or Arabs in France! --Lanternix 14:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Akkadians?

As I have noticed that there are some user who still going on with putting the "Akkadians" as ancient Arabs?, thats fully incorect, If its not, then why not put down with sources?. Balu2000 12:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time we agreed was Akkadians are ancient people of Arabia. Arabian not Arab.The Akkadians migration from ArabiaThe Akkadians origin in ArabiaArabia the original homeland of the Semites The references above all suuport the Arabian origin of the Akkadians, all from Britannica, Washington State University hirtory encyclopaedia, THEAKKADIANS.com.

I ignored the article because the Akkadians are extinct and if the Mesopotamians dont feel like they need to change the article. thats fine, every educated person knows that Arabia is the only region of the world thats 100% semitic. Mesopotamia was later invaded by the Akkadians and the Amorites. I am not going to argue with children or people who have identity problems. I can help but if they want to be ignorant thats fine with me too. I really dont care what the ignorant peson thinks, to many people the whole mideast are terrorists and the behavior of some users in wikipedia doesnt do them good --Skatewalk 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes we agreed that Akkadians are from Arabia but not as Arabs, When you writes ancient Arabs then that will confuse people to think that modern day Arabs are the decent ants of Akkadians and thats fully untrue. You may express you this by writing in a different way, then It will be more clear for everyone, I don't think that the Assyrians have something against that Akkadians did orginate from Arabia but they way you write it makes it look as they are the decent ants of Modern day Arabs. Balu2000 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not write "Arabians" then, as I did, but which was removed? Funkynusayri 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Because Akkadians weren't Arabs. Arabic peoples, are a completely different kind of Semitic peoples, compared with the Akkadians. Old Semitic peoples don't have much in common with Arabic peoples. Arabs are the youngest of all Semitic peoples. As for the Assyrians and the Babylonians, look, they were not genuine Semites. They were most likely mixed with Sumerians and some other non-Semitic peoples. No serious scholar or academic will classify Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians as Arabs anyway. There was nothing Arabic over them. Semite, does not mean Arab. This is just another Arab nationalist trying to take credit for ancient and more superior Semitic cultures than Arabic cultures. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:15 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually Semite is biblical so it depends on your religion, secular Mideasterners shun that term.
  • Arab is medieval times means Qahtan or Adnan
  • Arab in the 1960s meant any person who speaks Arabic.
  • Arabic people is a new term invented by ELias, he has to explain to us what that means!
  • Arabian means you are from the Arabian peninsula and that doesnt always mean Arab!
  • Akkadains were Arabians but not Arab.
  • Mahra today are Araboians but not Arab.
  • Most Islamists agree with Elias enlightened genralizations inorder to give a stronger hold for the Islamic domination in Arabia and MEsopotamia today!--Skatewalk 19:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Read again, Arabians, not Arabs. There's a difference. Funkynusayri 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's true but not everyone would get it this way, many non-arabs thinks that Arabian is just another name for Arabs.Balu2000 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOOL thats funny. The Americans consider the whole mideast Arabs because they are (Sand N*****). After 9/111 Non Arabs mideeatern types (Assyrians, Chaldos, Iranians, Indians that look Arab) were harrased in the USA more than Arabs. This is supposed to be an article with facts not a feel good Indian movie, but hey whatever makes the people happy. --Skatewalk 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to impose an Arabic identity on non-Arabs? Don't you get it, we are not Arabs. We have never been Arabs. How stubborn are you? When Akkadians migrated from the Arabian peninsula, the name "Arab", did not even exist. Get this through your thick head. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:57 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Most Islamists agree with Elias enlightened genralizations inorder to give a stronger hold for the Islamic domination in Arabia and MEsopotamia today! — Well, I happen to agree with all Islamists who historically accurately believe that the Arab nationalist, and founder of Islam, Muhammad, was a man of war and that he married a child. What are you trying to say? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:00 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


First of all ELias,

  • who was talking about you? You are an Assyrian. (we are talking about the ancient Akkadians who came from Arabia. Assyrians are mixed and evolved from Mesopotamia who came later. If you want to claim to be Akkadian thats another story lol! I mean you can claim whatever you want, I believe in human freedom.
  • second What is Arabic? that is a new identity you are inventing, please explain it to us? Arabic is alanguage never heard of the Arabic people before!
  • Third you seem a bit slow on picking up things. I said Arabian related to the land (Arabian peninsual its always been there) give me an alternative name for ancient Arabia and I will use it. What they used to call Greece 100,000 years ago. they will say Greece in prehistoric times...etc. Arabia is the land. Arab are a cultural group. --Skatewalk 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Most Islamists agree with Elias enlightened genralizations inorder to give a stronger hold for the Islamic domination in Arabia and MEsopotamia today! — Well, I happen to agree with all Islamists who historically accurately believe that the Arab nationalist, and founder of Islam, Muhammad, was a man of war and that he married a child. What are you trying to say? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:00 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Actually wrong Muhammed wanted the domination of the whole world not Arabs. (he was specific about it in the Quran). The ethnic Arab eilte Christians (Ghhassanids) refused Islam for this reason because the Ethnic Arab christians didn't want to be equated with the African or Assyrian muslim converts. --Skatewalk 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias, before you make rude statements on the prophet be also aware of that Jesus tried to hoax the people who lived in Jerusalem, he did read some of torah and decided to become a "Messiah",needed some attention If he was so great with super powers why wouldn't he just walk down from the cross to prove that he was messiah. he was killed like ordinary men. Balu2000 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not really my problem if you guys have chosen to follow a paedophile and a murderer. You can deny this all you like, it's quite a well known fact that Muhammad married Aisha. That is one of the main reasons I don't want to be associated with Arabs. Of course, aside from the fact that I'm no Arab. Either way, it's quite preposterous to call all Semitic peoples, "Arabs". Yes, it may be so that Semites came from the Arabian peninsula. But why call them Arabs? If you object to the label "Semitic peoples", then call them after the language they spoke: Akkadians were Akkadians, not Arabs. Assyrians, were Akkadians, not Arabs. Babylonians were Akkadians, not Arabs. Aramaeans were Aramaeans, not Arabs. Modern Assyrian people, are Aramaean/Akkadian (since our language, is a hybrid of Akkadian and Aramaic). Well, of course, this is not the right way to do it. "Arab", is not a standard term for Semitic peoples. So let's say you're right, Skatewalk. Why stop at Akkadians? Why not just call Jews, and every other Semitic languages speaking peoples, Arabs? That is your goal, is it not? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:26 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Is it not funny you have choosen to follow a person who are running around playing god, and then just bieng killed and screaming like a girl? Oh, very mighty god (: Balu2000 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying Muhammad was better than Jesus, because he raped women, killed people, and had sex with a 9 year old child? Please. Look, when it all comes down to it, Akkadians, were not Arabs, because Akkadians, simply were not Arabs. This is like saying that Japanese people are Africans because their ancestors migrated from Africa. Come one, cut the Arabist crap. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:51 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

a person playing god is not accepted in any religion, he made a mockery of himself made him self less worth than a dog when he asked to be killed for insulting god. Balu2000 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • You two should keep your religion bashing to emails. Funkynusayri 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure. All religions aside, what are we going to do with Skatewalk's obsession with non-Arabic peoples? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:08 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
      • I find it funny when people say that Egyptians are not arabs, and that the concept of Arabism has began with the Europeans ideology... im really sorry to dissapoint them, but it isnt true, whats true is that there are some arabs dont see them selves as Arabs, but that is not becuase they are related to their Pre-Arab era's wether its phonecian, Babylonian or Pharoes, but it is because they have grown up in a wertern atmosphere that is anti-Arab, thus they dont want to be included as Arabs, as an egyptian i regard copts ARE Arabs, they regard themselves as Arabs , although exceptions are there.

in Egypt some of the rich that are educated in foreign private schools studiying IGCSE or American diploma dont regard themselves as arabs, but the rest do, regardless of their religion. i cant fnid sources for that but i see it in my everyday life.. my description of an arab is that they MUST be an arabic speaker, and they must feel inside themselves that they are arabs, and are connected to the other Wider Arab Conflicts and crisis and causes, such as Palestine, Iraq, Darfur.. if Egypt had a Coptic ethnicity, they would try to make coptic an official language, but its not, and no one speakes Coptic in Egypt, only in special religious schools they teach coptic, and is not spoken in there daily life, Arabic is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talkcontribs)


User:EliasAlucard im shocked, i never knew about Assyrian genocide but from you when i was cheking your profile, and you got my sympathy, then i carry on reading and find insults of the Prophet Muhammed, that showed me your ignorance, so please educate yourself, its redicoulus to be a Wiki-contributer and say these words... Muhammed (PBUH) married 9 women to make a point to a culture that treated widowed women like shit, each of his marriage (except Khadija's) had a cause, he married Coptic Maria so Muslims wouldnt Hate Christians, and treat them as brothers, and a family, he married 9 years old Aisha because her father was a very good man, and they did not get "officialy maried" until she was 14, which was the normal age for marriage back then, and even till now in some rural areas in the developing world.

so instead of picturing the prophet as a child mallesture rapist, please educate your self more... again, i have no hard feelings from you, since you were clearly defending your own religion, which i would support you defending, but not by making the same mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talkcontribs)

user:Balu2000 i cant tell whether your a muslim or not, but if you are, then id assure you that it doesnt need a good man to tell you that your disrespectable, there is freedom of speech in wikipedia ofcourse, but that doesnt give you the right to mock other religions, other religions that Islam (again if your a muslim) has cherished, the Prophet himself said to treat them better then you treat yourself, and to protect them, and defend them from any attacks, then you come and attack christianity?? if you were a muslim i really wouldnt want to think you are one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talkcontribs)

What are you talking about?, Read this board again and you will se that Elias did mock Islam first, I am defending. You did make it as I did mock his religion first. I am a Muslim, my father is Muslim and my mother are Jewish. — Balu2000 07:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not mock islam. Did muhammad not murder people? Did he not marry a child? What's the sarcasm in telling this, when you muslims acknowledge it yourselves? Anyway, let's just leave the religious point of view out of this. Skatewalk, is trying to ascribe an arab identity on non-arabic peoples, like Akkadians (with a capital A, since Akkadians were better than arabs), simply based on geographical locations. This is wrong, because, the area they migrated from, was not called the "arabian peninsula" at the time. So logically, they can't be arabs. And the sources he's using, are shitty, homemade websites.[5][6] Come on? Skatewalk, knock this ridiculous vandalism off. He has not brought any academic sources to any article, saying, that Akkadians were arabs. Yet he has insisted, for an enitre month now, creating lousy arab-revisionist articles like Ancient Arabs, trying to magically turn everyone in history, into "arabs." LAME! — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:03 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
The LAME part is the part where you try to force your Assyrian thinking method into everyone's brains (: , You don't even listen, read again carefully what skatewalk said — Balu2000 10:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's rather than Balu2000 who is trying to force his islamic way of thinking on people: either you agree with him or you are a kafir who must be killed. Muslims of course have not been used to hearing the truth about their religion from their own islamic books. They have ignored for 1400 many simple facts such as Muhammad being a pedophile (marrying Aisha when she was still 8 years old and when he could not have intercourse with her, Sahih Al-Bukhari and other islamic books describe how he used to act: AGAIN THIS IS FROM YOUR ISLAMIC BOOKS, NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE INVENTED!), or the fact that Muhammad went around killing people because hey insulted him (for example the old Jewish poet Om Kirfa who insulted him in her poetry so he had her 4 limbs tied to 4 camels until her body was torn), or the Jewish tribe of Bani Quraiza that Muhammad fought, killing the men, taking the women as concubines for himself and his gang, and selling the children as slaves, and again, ALL THIS IS FROM ISLAMIC BOOKS. But when you tell Muslims that their books contain this sort of information, they go around burning embassies and killing even more people, simply because they have no ability to intellectually refute these eferenced claims. So Balu2000, you either behave and mind your own business and stop insulting Christianity, thus keeping Wikipedia a clean and respectful place for everyone, or we will have to defend our religion in any way we deem appropriate. If your house is made of glass, do not throw stones at other people's! --Lanternix 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, stop this nonsense, either I say Egpytians are not Arabs or I will be attacked?, stop this, you are just fooling your self, beliving in a guy who running around and playing god. — Balu2000 17:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

i seriously find the Discussion has taken an uncivilized, and unethical turn, rather then dicussing normal things that have to do with the article we are mocking each others religions, so would you ALL please stop and act like adults, you can debate on your points of views in that manner on MSN, or ICQ...

just hold yourselves from answering back to each others (pretty much like im doing with Lanternix and EliasAlucard) if your so sure of your knowledge then please tell me the Exact Age where Muhammed (PBUH) had sex with Aisha (perhaps you should look it up)... youll be shocked that she was not a child then, she was over 14 years, as for murduring people ? i NEVER heard a story where the Prophet held a sword and killed some one... stop making lies and believing them, just to irritate others, i really find clashing religions as a problem here, id understand it if it had to do with ethnicity, and comparing Assyrians with Arabs, or Akkadians and other semetic ethnicities, but religions had nothing to do with the discussions...

and please Lanternix send me your Islamic books links and sources that inform these wierd stories... i mean im a muslim and never heard these stories... wierd isnt it?? BTW, i didnt burn any embassies...

so please stop stereotyping muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talkcontribs)

Lanternix is right. I think it's appropriate of me to mention that Balu2000 wishes death upon me, for criticising his peaceful Islam.[7] Not every day you get death threats on Wikipedia. Should I report this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:35 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
I did not threaten you, I wished people like you who hates people and religions and got very radical extreme views to drop down and die. You began insulting Islam [[8]] should i report you for not being civil at Wikipedia?, you should know that there are a rule about this in Wikipedia. Balu2000 19:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
THAT IS WHAT THREATENING AND HATRED IS, MR BALU2000! I will refrain here from putting forward sources that prove my alrady-stated arguments, not because I do not have any (in fact I have plenty), but to make a few points: one, out of respect for moderate and peaceful Muslims both on Wikipedia and elsewhere whom I respect and many of whom are my friends; two, to keep Wikipedia a civilized place for discussion and learning; three, to prove to radical Muslims - many of whom are writing on this thread - that their way is not the only way and that people from different reigious backgrounds can communicate respectfully with each other. Now, this being said, and not to appear like a person who is putting forward a lot of unfounded claims, I will respond by putting links from approved islamic institutions and scholars (such as Al-Azhar and Saudi Arabia's ministry of religious affairs) that support every single word I said, if someone asks me again to do so. But then no one could accuse me of anything, because I warned and made the above stated points in advance. Thank you --Lanternix 20:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The irony here is that I haven't been particularly "hateful" towards Islam. Is it hate, to tell the truth about muhammad? Well so be it. I guess I am hateful because I say that muhammad murdered people. When muslims say it however, that's not hate, he is the prophet. Oh and lest we forget, it could be insulting to muslims, to imply that he was a murderer. I mean, after all, he did kill people. Anyway, I did not anywhere, wish you death. I think it's quite obvious who's the more hateful here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:06 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

IM AN ARAB

the words about Egyptians not being Arab has increased alot, im just here to Say that im an Egyptian and i consider myself as an Arab, so does my surrounding Enviroment, so before claiming that Egyptians are not Arabs, lets look at some facts the fact is that amost Egyptian Copts dont regard themselves as Arabs (even tho they speak Arabic as a mother tongue and not Coptic), so if we assume that the 6 to 10 million Copt are not Arabs, that doesnt mean that the rest of the 80 million are not arabs, the 80 million egyptians do regard themselves as Arabs, as leats the ones thathave enaugh patriotism to there country, and its history, culture and traditions, other Egyptian westernized citizens are free to think that they are not Arabs, since they are also a very small precentage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talkcontribs)

Those persons are only spreading false propagandic views, even my mother who are a Jew did consider her self as Arab. Balu2000 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want to talk about having patriotism for your country, then you are far from it. You are one of the people who want to erase Egypt's 6000 years of presperous history with an eraser in favor of some naked bedouins with no civilization whatsoever coming to Egypt, killing its people and burning its fields. Having patriotism for Egypt is to reiterate what Egypt's most prominent 20th century scholars like Taha Hussein and Ahmed Lotfi el-Sayed said about Egypt and our Egyptian identity in face of some fake Arabian association. --Lanternix 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Lantemix, you should be aware of WP:CIVILBalu2000 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Balu2000, you should be aware that this entails not threaten people and wishing they were dead! Remove the wood from your own eye first before giving advice. --Lanternix 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Link the History page where I did "threaten" Elias?, then come back and talk (: — Balu2000 20:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
So you know you threatened Elias?! Notice I didn't even mention his name! In any case, he already provided this information above, so I won't copy it again here. I can however buy you a pair of glasses. --Lanternix 20:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Buy some glasses, read everything above even the link he provided then come and talk please (: — Balu2000 20:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I did. Now what do you have to say? --Lanternix 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Now, copy and past the sentence where it stands the word "Threat" in my post to Elias? Balu2000 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanternix, Fix the EGyptian identity page so you can get some sort of case! The Arabs in Egypt are 30-17 million in my recent research on request to verify Kinana lineage. You cant list all Egyptians and expect anybody to think you are not Arab! You listed AbdulHalim Hafez Andaleeb AlArab, who sang in beautiful Arabic, his name very Arabic, he is the wrong model of an Egyptian NON Arab. And i only weakens your cause. You have to fix the page of Egyptian identity first. Contact the Ashraaf who are also in seperating themselves from Egyptians (even if you dont like them, thats how things work). But the way you are doing things you will only confirm the complete Arabization of Egypt. --Skatewalk 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"It is people like you who should be killed by those "Muslims" this hate may effect when you write in wikipedia too" Aren't these your words, Balu2000? Still need those glasses? And Skatewalk, Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi also had/have some fake records saying they were Ashraf. Mustafa Bakri has the same kind of record, so not every single person in Egypt who claims to be descendent of Muhammad is one. In fact, if people believe they are ashraf and seperate themselves from Egyptians, like you said, then there's no place for them in Egypt. Let them go to the land of their ancestors and thrive there. Modern Egypt encompasses many ethnical groups, one of them are the Nubians for example. These people are NOT ethnical Egyptians, and neither are your ashraf. The Nubians have a historic and sentimental allegiance to the land where they live today, Nubia. And today Nubia is part of the Egyptian republic, which means that the Nubians' allegiance is also to the modern republic of Egypt. The ashraf, according to you, have no allegiance to Egypt since they are Arabs/Arabians and not Egyptians. Let them go home then! They should be even put forward as traitors in front of Egypt's courts. Furthermore, who said anything about Abdelhalim Hafez? The guy was part of Nasser's oligarchy and one of the many Egyptians who were brainwashed by Nasser's regime! The question is, did Abdelhalim Hafez's family consider itself Arab before the 1952 coup d'etat and the attempted arabization of Egypt by the Free Officers? I highly doubt that, because nobody did back then. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, that link you put about the percentage of your ashraf does not work. I'd like to see that article and scrutinize it first because it makes absolutely no sense. Oh, and 30-17 million is not a normal way of writing numbers. Did you mean 17-30 million? --Lanternix 21:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
He was talking about Muslims who "Kills" Assyrians?, this is a lie and those liers and haters like him should be killed by those "mulims" he talked about, wich does not exsist offcourse, If you are a hater then I say the same thing to you. … Balu2000 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Notice taken, all incomprehensible rambling aside. --Lanternix 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a Threat and yes i wish radical extremists like you guys never exsisted. Balu2000 06:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course there are no "terrorists" who are genuine Muslims. Muhammad was a man of peace. Now, repeat this lie, until you believe it. Balu, you shouldn't run around and wish people death. If anyone is a radical here, then it's you. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:25 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
Forget about him, Elias. It's people like him who damage Islam's reputation in the world. and then they come and complain about other people's contempt for their religion! Funny, ain't it? --Lanternix 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
He's blocked now. Islam's reputation is damaged because of Muhammad. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:19 20 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Al-Ashraaf Self identified Arabs in Egypt

  • I actually doubt that all of them are really related to the prophet, but the point is that they are claiming an Arab identity (you can't force them to deny being Arab).
  • You can't claim an identity without having "the other". For all practical reasons you have to have the contrasting (invaders) other wise you are just going around the same circle. It is just my opinion, I really feel indifferent about this subject (except that it is bringging spamming to the article).
  • If you change the population in the Egyptian identity to (~25 Million Arabs) then we can fix it in both page instead of the 77 Million Arabs in Egypt and the Arab article.
  • Honestly do you consider all the 77 million Egyptians like yourself? there is a difference and you hae to convince your muslim compatriots (the secular ones)to side with you. Myself I oppose the delluted Arab identity and I rather identify with those who "want" to be Arabs in the good and the bad.--Skatewalk 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
No link has been prseneted by you yet to support that number! How would I know you're not just making some numbers up???! --Lanternix 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I'd just like to take this moment to remind everybody to read the guidelines on Civility. Q T C 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:26 19 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


Table top right

There seems to be an error in the table top right under the photo. It claims the following "Estimates merely represent populations that speak a variety of Arabic as their primary language". The second country is Morocco and the estimate is given as 99%. That is not the correct figure for the Moroccan population that speaks an Arab dialect as their native language. Berbers (or Amazigh) are defined as the population that speaks Berber (Tamazigh) as their first language (scores of them - but by no means all - are able to communicate in Arab as well, not being their mother tongue). Now, there are no official figures about Berbers (i.e. native speakers) in Morocco, but all estimates hover between 30% and 60%. That is a very wide range, of course, but nevertheless an estimate we can work with. The only census which included a question about languages, made in the 90ies, has not been published yet... which was interpreted as containing unwelcome information about having more Berbers in the population than the Government would like to acknowledge. I think if we put 40% Berbers and, accordingly, change the figure in the table to "Morocco: 60%" (of native Arab speakers) we are more or less in the safe range.

ilya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.103.225.92 (talk) 11:12:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

As we go, just another detail: the figure of Arab speakers for Morocco is given with 33-odd million, which probably is figured out as 99% of a total population of 33,7 million, estimated by the CIA's Factbook. But the CIA's estimates are usually higher than the official figures. Now, the last official census in Morocco, done in 2004, gave the number of 29,89 million people (less than expected, notes the press) - source here, in French: http://www.maroc-hebdo.press.ma/MHinternet/Archives_633/html_633/nous.html , a serious Moroccan weekly - and an annual growth of 1,4%. Adding this rate, we would have around 31,13 million Moroccans in 2007, and if we suppose roughly 60% of them native Arab speakers, around 18 million Arab-speakers (exact figure would be 18,67 but as the estimate is so rough, there is no sense in putting an exact figure). - ilya -

I've already spoken to another editor about the issue with the figures for primary-language Arabic-speaking population of Morocco. I also vaguely recalled from some corner of my memory (before doing some more recent googling yesterday) that 30% of the population of Morroccans speak Berber languages as their primary community language, independant of their fluency in one or more other languages (including Arabic, so long as it is not their primary language).
After my mentioned googling, I encountered more 30%-ish figures, but none from any authoritative or recent sources. The same situation can be found on the population section of the Berber languages page. The predicament with Morocco is way more complex than Egypt, as hard as it may be to swallow for those users overwhelming this discussion page with the uniqueness of the situation of Egypt and Egyptians cr*p. When it comes down to it, the situation in Egypt and Egyptians is as simple as Lebanon and the Lebanese. All Egyptians have Arabic as their primary community language, whether they view themselves as "Arabs" (Arabized or genealogical, of whatever religion) or Copts (Egyptian-only identified Egyptians, of whatever religion), to the exclusion of course to such communities as European, Turkish or other such minorities.
A very large portion of Moroccans, on the other hand, do not have Arabic as their primary community language, whether they speak Arabic or not. Many do not even speak Arabic at all. The issue with them is that there are no real reliable current figures. It's not as simple as Egypt, where everyone speaks Arabic natively. No Egyptians have Coptic as their primary community language, not even those identifying as Muslim Copts (ie. Egyptian-only identified Egyptian Muslim) or Christian Copts (Egyptian-only identified Egyptian Christian). So it's not hard to put a number to Egyptian primary-language Arabic-speakers. And even though the numbers are not there to imply "Arabs", but to account for primary language Arabic-speaking population, the Arab identity in Morocco is much more contentious an issue if we're real about it. Can anyone here help find a reliable source on what percent of the population of Morocco is primary-language Arabic-speaking, or primary-language Berber-speaking so we can the deduce the other from that point of reference. Al-Andalus 13:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Misconceptions:
1. No Egyptians have Coptic as their primary community language some families do, and they are prominent and very well respected families. They may be a few families, granted, but to make a statement like this is wrong. In addition, many have been learning Coptic in an attempt to revive the language, and the movement is by no means exclusive to Christians (refer to the founding members of the Egyptian Liberal Party as an example, most of whom are Muslims).
2. Language defines identity. Not in any other community in the entire world is this true. Ample examples given above. So forcing it on Egyptians makes absolutely no sense. --Lanternix 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You insist that "to make a statement like this is wrong", but at the same time you inadvertently re-affirm the opposing position. All that was stated, correctly, was that "No Egyptians have Coptic as their primary community language". This statement would of course be to the exclusion of some individuals who may speak Coptic, whether Christian of Muslim, perhaps even in a family setting. Who today has Latin as their primary community language? No one! Are their individuals (as opposed to communities) who still speak it? Of course - among them some hardcore Latinate Catholic families. More power to them, but family is family, not community. Thus in that case Latin is still a dead language, even though that family speaks it because it wouldn't be their native tongue anyway, since they are members of a community where they prime community language is another (and by extension the family's actual native tongue, independant of the fact that the family speaks a second language). Even in the only place where Latin is "stubbornly" official, (Vatican City) it is not the primary community language. Each legal resident of Vatican City (i.e. clergymen and women) have their own primary community languages which are the languages of the communities from where they come are missioned from. It was the same with Hebrew, when up until around a century ago it was not the primary community language of any Jewish community. Each had their own language. The Ashkenazim had Yiddish, their Jewish language for community use, which like German (the non-Jewish language of the gentile neighbours) is also Germanic. Sephardim had Ladino, their Jewish language for community use, which like Castilian (the non-Jewish language of the gentile neighbours) is also Romance, etc, etc, etc. Hebrew as a spoken community language died out eons ago. That's not to say that the rabbis weren’t fluent in Hebrew, or even that some of their families weren't able to speak it too, and occasionally converse in the holy tongue at home. However, Yiddish or Ladino or the other Jewish community languages still remained their primary community language. However, Hebrew has since been revived, and it is once again a primary community language of at least Israeli Jews, displacing dozens and dozens of traditional Jewish languages spoken by the different Jewish ethnic divisions once arrived in Israel. Until Coptic is revived in such a manner that it can be said Arabic has been displaced by it as the primary community language of Egyptians, until all their primary communications are done natively in Coptic (even if they retain knowledge of Arabic, such as the Moroccans), until it is the language of daily cultural expression and dissemination, then it is not incorrect to state: No Egyptians have Coptic as their primary community language, be it the Egyptian community as a whole, or at least the Muslim Egyptian community individually or Coptic Egyptian community individually.

As for your ample evidence given above, there is none. There is more to the contrary. But i think i now know where you're coming from with your persistence. But I think you've gotten the idea that people have AN identity, rather than identitiES. In that respect, i can say that at least I have never implied that Hispanic or Arab or Sino is a person's sole identity. These are pan-identities, which by their very nature are loose, and overpowered by other identities descending in importance. Some may not even see themselves as such, but the definitions of those identities include those people whether that identity makes any difference in the life of a given person.

The Turks for example are an ethnic group which is based loosely on linguistic heritage, which along with that comes cultural commonality. Of course, an Uzbek has a different culture to a Turkish person, or an Azeri or a Turcoman, and their actual shared genealogy is limited to a few people in each group, and it is each group to itself which is more ancestrally common. Even in Turkey alone, "Turkish Turks" can rage drastically in phenotype (what some would call "race") from one to the next, and the same is true of "Egyptian Egyptians". But the features of their contemporary cultural heritage link them as Turks. Their modern primary community languages serve as another visible/audible point of commonality. Which is not to say some or all didn't have pre-Turkic languages. They have an intertwined recent hisotry which did not evolve independent of each other. But "Turk" is just one identity that they have. They also have their identities as Turcoman, Azeris, Uzbeks, etc. Then they have their regional identities. Then their tribal identities. Then their identities as nuclear families. Then their identities as individual human beings! This applies to all human groups and individual humans. Even, yes, Egyptians. People that actively suppress all but any one given identity, anywhere along the most important to the least, they are called ethnocentrists. Embracing commonality among us has always been a good thing. When that is done to the rejection of others, including other identities within us, then it becomes dangerous. In this manner, Pan-Arabism had/has the potential to serve as good or bad. It come down to a matter of how it is implemented. If it is forced. If people are not allowed to identify as any other thing outside of it, whether a larger identity or smaller one. Even a nuclear family identity can be dangerous if it imposes unwanted will on the members, or aims to take always the identity as an individual person. No one is going to say that a family identity is bad in itself, but it is how it is manifested. And so, the identity as Egyptian can be viewed in the same way. There will arise similar problems when people start saying "you're with us or against us. You're Egyptian and that's the only identity you may have, nothing bigger or smaller. if not, you're the enemy." That is dangerous thinking.

As you have stated with Hispanic. Most people wouldn’t say "I'm Hispanic" when asked for their ethnic identity, that's not to say it not an identity. It just not the most important one. This doesn't mean that people don't consider themselves part of the Hispanic world or as Hispanic. It's just not a priority. When dealing with "others" not of their primary identity, and the other happen to be other Hispanic groups, that's when the Hispanic identity kicks in. And again, Hispanic is the prime example. In the streets of Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Honduras, no one walks around with the conscience notion of their Hispanicity. They are Argentines, Mexicans, etc. Or even then, Argentinians may see themselves as porteños or “provincianos” (from the outer provinces), Mexicans may see themselves as norteños or other regional identities. But various groups when taken out of their regional environments, and put into their nation's major city and are forced to mingle with each other, they then become Argentines and Mexicans. When you do this again, but on the extra-national level, then the Mexicans and Argentines, etc. see their commonality as Hispanics. They will always remain, porteños or notreños, and mexicans and argentines, as these identities are the most important anyway. That's what we're talking about. If they live long enough in their new regions or countries, then the will also start to adopt those identities too. Their children will most likely not remain endogamous. And thus they will stop seeing themselves as whatever their ancestors were, and simply identify as Americans, or even here, depending on where they grow and evolve as communities, start seeing themselves as Midwestern, Southern, Northeastern. Especially their children's children, if they are eventually turn out to be part Mexican, part Argentine, part Ethiopian, part Egyptian, part Saudi, part German, part Chinese, part Filipino. Their ancestors identities will definitely be lost. Al-Andalus 07:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Table contradiction

In the article as it now stands, Egypt is both at the top of the table (98% Arab) and the bottom (small percentage unspecified Arab)! AnonMoos 13:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some sources that might help improve the article

    • The second article of Raja Mattar is full of historical mistakes. I would not rely on it as a source for anything. --Lanternix 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Really? What mistakes? Do you have reliable sources that challenge the information he puts forward? Tiamat 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all it's a she, not a he. Read any history book and you'll see how erroneous that woman's arguments are. But in any case, the references are coming soon. --Lanternix 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptian Christians of Egypt are not Arab! in Lebanon we have Christian Arabs _ethnic Arabs_ (mainly Greek Catholic/orthodox) and Christian Syriacs/Arameans (mainly Maronites) and most Maronites dont identify as Arab.

Christian Arabs in Egypt are a very small minority. And in Lebanon the Maronite Christians should not be confused with the Greek Catholics/Orthodox. --Skatewalk 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Skatewalk, you keep singleing out Egyptian Christians as not being Arab (presumably on a geneological level, as their culture is undisputably "Arabized", meaning influenced not replaced by Arabian culture, and they also have Arabic as their primary community language) as if they are ancestrally dissimilar from the vast majority of Egyptian Muslims. Write what you actually mean to say: that most Egyptian Christians (ie all Egyptian Coptic Christians), like most Egyptian Muslims, are not ancestrally Arab[ian], but in addition to not being ancestrally Arab[ian], the vast majority of "Egyptian Egyptian" Coptic Christians (remember, there are also Egyptian Nubian Coptic Christians) don't identify as such either. Also, learn the definition of "ethnicity". It is not the same as "ancestry", although ancestry may or may not be a factor in ethnicity. And in case you've forgotten, just like Islam among Egyptians, Christianity among Egyptians is just as foreign as the Islam that for most Egyptians it later came to take its place.
As for the Lebanese, their situation is the same as Egyptians and every other non-Gulf country in the Arab World. Get over this "we're unique" mentality. Base your arguments on something more solid. Additionally, "Lebanese Lebanese" Christians (ie. not "Armenian Lebanese" Christians) are as "Syriac/Aramean" as they are "Arab" (the latter being an identity that only TODAY most do not identify with). Lebanese Christians underwent Aramaization, just as they latter underwent Arabization. To insist that they are not "Arab" (which I agree with on an ancestral level, as with most Lebaense Muslims), only to then say they are actually Syriacs/Arameans is ignorant considering the factors which leads you to assert they are not "Arab" are the same factors which asserts they are not "Syriacs/Arameans" either. Go a bit further back, and say Phoneacian for ALL "Lebanese Lebanese".
By the way, I said "an identity that only TODAY most do not identify with" in regards to Arab identity and Lebanese Maronites, is because among the earliest and most prominent of pan-Arbism were Lebanese Maronite. Much of the propagation of Arabism was in fact thanks to them! It is a different issue altogether, embedded in much more recent factors in world ethno-politics, that anyone and everyone who can for any reason (which didn't matter before) run for cover from "Arab", is doing so. Al-Andalus 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi AlAndalus, I single them out because we have 3 different Christians we are talking about:

  • Ethnic Arab Christians in Lebanon. I am assuming you are confusing them with the mixed/Arabized Arameans/Syriacs. Read the Ghassanids article and you can see the websites tracing the origins to the Arab Ghassanids who are well known noble Qahtani Arabs from Yemen.
  • The Maronites are a group of mixed people (including few assimilated Arabs), today they identify with the Syriacs, Arameans and even some Phoenician (go figure!). Anyways the point is even if some identify as Arab they are few and of uncertain origin.
  • The Christian Egyptians are non Semitic Africans, they were subjected (not assimilated). And the Christians of the disapora dont even speak Arabic (& dont identify as Arab). (so what makes them Arab?). Thats why I single them out!--Skatewalk 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Iraq is not Arab

You who still putting on around 23 million people as "Arab", please stop this is unacceptable. Irqirq 20:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I completly agree. Only those from Syrian dessert area are Arabs, those from the southern region along with the rivers are Sumerians. — Xeljan 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, we are Sumerians, we where here long before Arabs arrived. Irqirq 20:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How many Iraqis actually identify as such? Funkynusayri 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I surmise that a majority of Iraqi citizens have been Arabized so It's quite difficult to tell who does indetify themselves as Arabs or not, but all Iraqis are agree that they are the descendants of ancient Mesopotamia civilizations like Sumer and Akkad. Iraq Arabs are considered as cultural Arabs. Inhabitants of Syrian dessert like Anbar for example may be genetically Arabs. It's obvious that the Arab identity came along with Islam. Marsh Arabs are the one who claims they are from Sumerians. Irqirq 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • IrqiIrq is starting an Antisemitic movement! the Sumerians ceased to exist after the Akkadians invasion of Sumer. From that day on Mesopotamia became Semitic. However, if you feel you are Sumerian indeed you should start a page on the Non Semitic Sumerians in Iraq today! --Skatewalk 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)