Talk:Arabs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Saudi Arabia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Western Asia / Bahrain / Kuwait / Qatar (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Bahrain (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kuwait (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Qatar (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lebanon (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Syria (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Iraq (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Egypt (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / Somalia / Tunisia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Somalia (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (marked as Top-importance).
 

North Africans are Berbers[edit]

North Africans are AMAZIGH(Berbers),yesterday,today and tomorrow.Most Algerians are Berbers and Berbers arabized.Algeria will never become an Arab country. The racist article hiding under fancy words like Arab culture and Arab world and all the BS will never go far.

  • Most Arabs are arabised. Arabised Arabs are still Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused Article[edit]

It is sad that this article is as inherently confused as Arabs today. It seems to constantly flip-flop from historically inaccurate and wholly politically-motivated nationalism and its apologism on one hand, and unreliable pseudosciences and Unrelated Islamic History on the other. This very discussion just underlines this confusion, with laughable terms like "Caucasian Arabs" being used to describe lighter-skinned people in the Levent.

Can I suggest we start from the early History of what Arabs were, and try to undersand what happened to bring about the multi-ethnic Arab world today. There should be a seperate section for Arab people - a distinct ethnic group from the Berbers, Kurds, Circasians and all other ethnicities in the Arab world, all of whom have their ownpages here.

The Earliest sources seem to suggest Arabs were a Leventine Semitic people (Battle of Qarqar & Kurkh Monolith 8CE BC), who were incorporated into the Assyrian Empire with all other groups (Herodotus in Histories, 450 BC "Sennacherib King of Arabians and Assyrians"). By what is known of the Leventine and Fertile Crescent Semites, labels and names are mostly based on region, city or profession - they are not distinct ethnic groups. The earliest Arabs spoke the same language (Aramaic), hadthe same customs and prayed to the same Pantheon as the Caananites, Aramaens, Moabites and other Semetic people in the region. Arab likely refered to the place they lived - in the modern Arabic language it means "country-side". The currently eponymous Arabian Peninsula was unrelated - it was called "Yaman" as late as the time of the Quran - which talks about the Arabs in the third person, ie not those similar to the people of the Hijaz (Quran 9:97). Furthermore, the Hellenic "Aravia" was used to describe Petra (in the Levent) and Yemen, not the entire peninsula. The language spoken there at the time was also more distant to Arabic compared to the Levantine Aramaic. Thus, the Arabic language would have most logically evolved from Aramaic in the Levent. The Arabs also historically had more contact with people of the Levent/Fertile Crescent like the Phonecians than those of the Hijaz/Yemen. There are artifacts chronicling Arabs in Babylon (I'll try to find the source). So what we get is a Pre-Islamic, Pre-Christian Leventine people with no connection to the modern Arabic language or the Arabian Peninsula.

This is really being confused with the spread of Islam, claiming that the Arab people spread from the Arabian Peninsula with Islam. This is despite this article acknowledging the Lakhamids (Menathira) and Ghassanids. By the time of the spread of Islam, virtually the entire Middle-East was speaking the language that is labeled as Classical (or Quranic) Arabic today, with the exception of liturgical languages and some isolated communities who spoke more archaic Semetic languages.

Arabs are people who consider themselves the geneological, cultural and ethnic decendants of these ancient Semetic people. Some of these people immigrated south into the Arabian Peninsula, reaching as far as Yemen, Oman and the UAE. The people in those regions spoken Semetic languages not as closely related to Arabic as Aramaic, and perhaps it is they who were Arabised. The current nationalism and false creation stories of the people of each nation are historically unsound. It is rather irrational that some Lebanese consider themselves "Phonecians" today when the Phonecians became indistinguishably mixed with all the other Leventine Semetic groups, including the Arabs, in a regional melting pot, while the people of the Arabian peninsula were far more distinct from the first Arabs.

I am no pro Wikipedia editor, so I would really appreciate help from anyone in fixing this article. Thanks. SaSH172 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not actually the case that Arabic was the primary spoken tongue prior to the Arab Islamic Conquest. Only minority groups such as the Lakhmids and Ghassanids spoke Arabic. Mesopotamia was almost wholly Eastern Aramaic and Syriac speaking, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel were Western Aramaic speaking, Egypt still retained Coptic Egyptian, and North Africa spoke Berber.

In fact, many pre Islamic Arabs who wandered into Western Asia lost their Arab identity, the Nabateans were Arameanized for example, and adopted Aramaic.

In addition, the Assyrians did not regard Arabs as a Levantine people, their presence at the Battle of Qaqar does not indicate they were native to Syria. In fact Assyrian annals usually refer to them as dwelling in the deserts south of Mesopotamia, ie; modern Saudi Arabia. Babylonian records also support this. Georges Roux - Ancient Iraq and F Leo Oppenheim's - Ancient Mesopotamia give reference to Assyro-Babylonian records.

As for Pre-Islamic peoples in the Middle East espousing ancient identities, most of them at root are indeed descended from indigenous pre-Arab and pre-Islamic populations, this includes modern Maronites-Phoenicians, Assyrians, Egyptian Copts, Syriacs-Arameans, Mandeans, Samaritans, Jews and Mhallami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Your logic that Arabs could have easily moved to the Levant to fight in the Battleof Qarqar is both sound and logical. I have done some searches on Mesopotamian records of the Arabs and what you say about them originating in the Deserts South of the Fertile Crescent - that is the desert expanses of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia today, not just the Arabian peninsula. Also, there is a record of a man originating from this region living in ancient Babylon. As for the majority of Pre-Islamic people in Mesopotamina and the Levant not speaking Arabic, it again seems to be the case as you say - the Arabic word "'Ijmee" was used to describe these people prior to its use for Persians, which shows at least a significant amount did not speak Arabic. I am unsure of the extent of the pre-Islamic Arabs losing their Arab identities, can I pleaseask for reliable sources to corroborate your claims? Thanks.
With regards to the article being confused, I would keep my point. I think some better distinction should be made between the genetically and (to a significant extent) culturally different Arabised Arabs and those who trace their ancestry to the tribes of Arabia. This is especially important as today we are seeing a growth of poltical nationalism in the Arab world where, for example, many modern Lebanese identify more as Phonecians, or, more accurately, amixture of various people, as opposed to Arabs. As a result, this article seems to be over-representing Arabised Arabs (who are already mentioned in articles about various national groupsin the Arab world), while under-representing True Arabs. There is an article about the Bedouin People who I helped edit, but many Arabian Tribes only lived Urbanised lifestyles (e.g. Azd Tribe). SaSH172 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of Berbers[edit]

On 23 November, the infobox in this article was edited. The anonymous editor linked to this to support his claim that there are 80 million Berbers. This document is from 1984 and doesn't contain any number on how many Berbers. The same document is used at Berber people and the number stated there is 50 million. Fox News says: There are no official figures for the number of Berbers in North Africa, but estimates for those who speak one of the many Berber languages are around 25-30 million, mainly concentrated in Morocco and Algeria. So this should be corrected. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Berbers are NOT Arabs, and thus should not be counted as such. There mention on this article is inappropriate unless it is to calculate the number of Arabs in North Africa. SaSH172 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That was not what I said either. It is in the infobox and there it says that the population is 422 million but that this number includes 25-30 million Berbers. I have not introduced this. However, I have taken a look at the sources and they don't support the claims being made here. I will correct this. This would also exclude the Berbers, which would be correct as you say, because the sources talk about 300 million Arabs in the Arab world (there are probably more, not at least because the book is from 2005). The other one talk about speakers. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I do completely agree with you now. Many thanks for correcting it. SaSH172 (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Racist Pseudo-Science in Etymology Section.[edit]

Someone seems to have added a few paragraphs of racist pseudo-science to the Etymology section. I will delete this because: 1) The field of Racist Pseudo-Science has no place on wikipedia. 2) They are in the wrong section of the article. The Etymology section is for the Etymology of the word Arab (stating the obvious). 3) The source is incredibly unreliable. It is written by an early 20th Century Jesuit Orientalist/Missionary. He is hardly the go-to source for information on pre-historic human migrations and evolution. The claims he makes are also rather laughable. SaSH172 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You honestly believe that the fact that Arabs are descended from Bedouin tribes is "racist psuedo-science"? Judging by your name, I assume you an Iraqi nationalist or some such who believes Arabs are directly descended from the ancient Sumerians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.216.198.44 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No I do not believe Arabs being descended from Bedouins is racist pseudo-science. Please review the article history and the claims that I removed. Ad hominem and personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia. I'm actually strongly opposed to Iraqi Nationalism and ridiculous notions of Arabs being descended from Sumerians. Also, refrain from using straw man arguements. SaSH172 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the mathematics of Most Recent Common Ancestor calculations, probably the great majority of people on earth are descended from ancient Sumerians... AnonMoos (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting claim, I'd like to see some sources for it. Regardless, the idiocy of Iraqi Nationalists claiming they are the sole descendants of, and are only descended from Sumerians remains. In the central regions of Iraq, many are an Arabised mixture of Semetic people (including Arabs), Turkic people, Indo-Europeans, Africans and Europeans. But there is a significant number who hail from endogamous Bedouin Arab Tribes. I've seen some genetic test data showing the latter group being very genetically removed from the former, with far less non-Middle-Eastern autosomal admixture. Not sure of accuracy and reliability (from "23 and me" testing company data), but it seems the Arab-speaking Iraqi people can neither be wholly described as True Arabs, nor can they all be describedas being Arabised non-Arabs. SaSH172 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox mosaic[edit]

There is some dispute about the infobox mosaic changed here by Tamim506 on Feb 12. Given that this is a contentious area, I have restored the previous mosaic subject to discussion. If there is no discussion within a few days, I will put back Tamim506's version. --NeilN talk to me 05:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone Tamim506 added is fine other than Zenobia, who was a jewish woman not an arab. It would be great if we could find a better quality picture of Averroes as well. And maybe include Antarah ibn Shaddad in place of Zenobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.128.53 (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tamim506, can you please comment? --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Zenobia was not Arab? Well, Queen of Sheba was an Ethiopian monarch, not an Arab. There's more evidence to her being an Ethiopian, and not a Yemenite. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101
  • As I feared, not having a fixed image, with few carefully selected individuals, will lead to endless edit warring over the damn infobox image. Best thing is to use the old consensus version with only two rows, that everyone agrees on. This is getting ridiculous, like a damn kindergarten. FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I seriously think we should think about Philip the Arab, because the guys over at its talk page are getting pantsy and bitchy for references over his Arab descent and keep deleting my Arabic translation on his page (despite the fact Arabic as we knew it today wasn't in Syria around that time). PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior

Arabs and Iranians[edit]

Some are removing Iranian peoples as a related ethnic group. Please see Iranian Arabs and Iran. Who else can have such a tight connection with Arabs?! -- 20:46, 8 March 2014 User:Raayen

They're certainly connected in the history of the last 1400 years, but is that what was intended to be meant by "related"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "related" on its own is very vague. Arguably the history of Islam and the historically attestable migrations, intermixing and cultural exchanges would definatly meet the criteria of "related". In fact there was significant Arab-Persian cultural exchange from befor Islam with the Lakhmids. However, the biggest opponents of these notions seem to be Persian Nationalists who want nothing to do with Arabs or Islam. Since Raayan himself/herself seem to be Persian, if they believe Arabs are a related people, then I have no problem with them putting it in the article. SaSH172 (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We are silly. The silly world too, must wait till we come to our senses. I will also wait along. Yes, this "related" mechanics of us doesn't make sense.-Raayen (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Eugenics Section[edit]

I'm removing this nonsense paragraph about "pure" Arabs from the lead. (1) The sourcing is extremely out-of-date, from 1932; (2) the author of the source appears to be using pseudoscientific craniofacial anthropometry; (3) the lead is far too long anyway. --(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה‎ 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-accurate informations[edit]

the whole page contain non-accurate information. no more needed to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.251.119.197 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that more must be said if you have valid concerns, and want to influence people to fix the problems that you perceive.... AnonMoos (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Support votes are more numerous, and more importantly, gave much stronger arguments; neither oppose !vote gave a strong rationale for why the article shouldn't be moved. Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


Arab peopleArabs – This is the more widely used term, you can see here. Charles Essie (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support the more common and concise title per nom. —  AjaxSmack  00:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More arguments would be necessary to support move. Coreyemotela (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
    • Like what? WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:CONCISE (conciseness balanced with precision and clarity) are Wikipedia policy. The nominator provided evidence from quality sources and general usage backs this up.  AjaxSmack  13:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per conventions. See naming of pretty much all other ethnic group articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support common and standard form. Jaqeli (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Keep an Eye on the Infobox[edit]

There seems to be lots of consistent changes with the images. I feel that big edit war my ensue. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Racial Pseudo-Science[edit]

On the Identity sub-section, someone has added some ridiculous racial-pseudo-science claims from a source dated 1932! I am sure most already know, but such "racial science" studies and claims have long been wholly disproven - I think in the medical and biological fields they are even described as "Scientific Racism". There has been quite a history of adding similar claims on this Wikipedia page. I would like to remove that paragraph, unless anyone objects, and I would really appreciate any input to tackle this in the future. Thanks. SaSH172 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree on removal of the first paragraph in that section.. I saw some similar issues in the Druze, ethnic origins section (removed some of it now). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll remove it now. SaSH172 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Arabs are related to Israelis, exclusive[edit]

There is warning in "related" nations that "Please do not change this section without reaching a consensus. Jews, Assyrians etc. are already Semitic", but Israelis should be exclusively mentioned as to show that Wikipedia is not the place for politics but sources. Israelis and Jews are very much related to Arabs through Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs including Jordanians. Actually Israelis are the first nation closely related to Arabs. Here is not the place for deliberation.-Raayen (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many kinds of Israelis. Different kinds of Israelis are related to different kinds of Arabs. Ashkenazi Jews less so. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Details are unimportant. I think you know what I'm saying.-Raayen (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Eh, no details are important. A Yemeni Jew is more related to a Yemeni Arab than either is to say, Lebanese. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are a Pre Islamic East Mediterranean group, they're closest to other pre Islamic East Mediterranean populations like: Sicilians, Maltese, Greeks, Greek Islanders, Cypriots, Armenians and the Druze. Palestinian Arabs are a post Islamic Middle Eastern population, this group includes: Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrian Muslims, Bedouins etc. The first group I mentioned are more Mediterranean, the latter group are more Arabian/African horn like, so no, the 2 out of 3 largest Jewish groups are not most similar to Arabs but to other Pre Islamic Mediterraneans. If details are unimportant to you, then perhaps you shouldn't focus on such delicate subjects. Guy355 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews aren't exactly European because they get absolutely no West European Hunter Gatherer ancestry, along with Maltese and Sicilians, they're the only European populations who have absolutely no West European Hunter Gatherer ancestry, here's the link for the study: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf Since West European hunter Gatherer ancestry is the admixture that is exclusive to Europeans, and in fact separates Europeans from Near Easterners, and Ashkenazis, Maltese and Sicilians have non of that. Also, Ashkenazis and Sephardis (including Sicilians and Maltese) plot in the gap between Europe and the Near east, between Cypriots and Greeks, so if there was European admixture, it had to be a population that had no West European Hunter Gatherer ancestry, like Hellenistic Greeks, however, the fact that AJs plot where they do may suggest genetic drift, regardless, the lack of WHG ancestry shows a strong recent orientation to the Near East. Now, it's possible and in fact plausible that many Palestinians have Jewish ancestry, however, the 2013 Haber study http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316 shows that there's a large difference between Jews, Armenians, Cypriots and Druze on one hand, and Palestinians, Jordanians and Bedouins on the other, the former group (traditionally the pre Islamic group) shows stronger proximity to Europeans and Central Asians, while the latter group (traditionally the post Islamic group) shows stronger proximity to Arabians and African horn populations, thus it seems like the Levant is quite diverse. As for politics, I'm not entering that maze, however I'll say this, many Palestinians, at least 50% of the those living in the southern part of mount Hebron, are aware of Jewish ancestry, of traditions from their grandparents, such is the case also for some Bedouin tribes in the Negev, suggesting they remained after the 2nd Jewish revolt, and converted to Islam with the Islamic conquest, however keeping and preserving some Jewish traditions, genetic studies also shows that many Palestinians have the Cohen lineage, suggesting both ancient Israelite and Arabian ancestry. Guy355 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

FunkMonk that's true, in the case of Ethiopian, Yemenite and Indian (from India) Jews, these populations share a closer proximity to their host populations than to other Jews, although all of these seem to have some ancient Levantine ancestry. Guy355 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Egypt 90% Arab?[edit]

Are we really saying that Egypt is 90% Arab? Does this come from the fact that apparently 90% of Egpyt is Muslim? Last time I checked religion doesn't exactly define whether or not you identify as Arab. In fact, i'm in Egypt right now, the majority of people you talk to would definitely tell you that they don't identify as Arab. You say that "Egyptians are Arabic-speaking, but the question of their identification as ethnically Arab has a long and complicated history of controversy." but then just immediately say that the country is 90% Arab? This really needs to be changed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.136.121 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel & Eritrea[edit]

Why put Israel and Eritrea on the arab world section while some arab countries are not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teranosor (talkcontribs) 19:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Teranosor: Just because countries are missing doesn't mean you should remove others with no reason. Better you add the missing countries (with sources). --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
While below 5% Arabic-speakers is very little, Djibouti and Eritrea are members (resp. observing member) of the Arab League, which seems a decent reason to include them in the list. Israel is a special case, but 20% of Arabic-speakers is enough to warrant inclusion, I'd say. What countries are missing? Huon (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Countries deleted again with no reason why. --NeilN talk to me 21:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Arab identity[edit]

Some recently proposed the creation of a new article called Arab idenity. I would to declare my support for such an article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Arab League Arab population[edit]

The article says 400 million, but... the entire population of the League is only 356 million and certainly not all are ethnically (or panethnically) Arabs, as there are also Kurds (more than 10 million in Iraq+Syria), Berbers, Circassians, Armenians, Assyrians, Turkmen, Yezidis, Mandaeans, Persians, Shabaks, Ahl el-Haqq and communities, whose identity is doubtfully Arab - such as Maronites and Copts. So how many Arabs are in the Arab League?GreyShark (dibra) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Muslims[edit]

Sri Lankan Muslim doesn't known as arabs! they are called as Sri Lankan Moors. Their root is from South Indian Muslims who are not arabs. Someone correct that.User talk:Randeepa

Sri Lankan Moors are descended from Arab traders who married with local Tamil women to give birth to the Ceylonese Muslim community. So chill. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Somali people[edit]

This entire article is rife with issues, but the inclusion of Somali people as "Arabs" is pretty flagrant.

From the article: "Somalia's population of Arab descents are 50% those being originally from the Arabian peninsula and the other 50%being well aware of the Arab culture and language as well." What does this even mean? Even if it was written in remotely proper English, it doesn't hold up at all. How is 50% of Somalia's population originally from the Arabian peninsula? How can we even quantify people being "well aware of Arab culture"???? It's understandable to say that Somali culture has been influenced by Arab culture given the ubiquity of Islam in Somalia, but Somali culture is also very much its own and the quoted passage sounds like utter nonsense.

According to the table, Somalia is 50% Arab and Djibouti is 4.5% Arab. How can Somalia, which is 85% ethnically Somali, be "50% Arab" when Djibouti (~60% ethnic Somalis) per the VERY SAME TABLE is "5% Arab"???? Come on, that doesn't even make any kind of sense.

99% of Somali people DO NOT consider themselves Arab--I have seen two or three who do and are quickly ridiculed by other Somalis. The argument that is typically made is that several Somali clans are traditionally held to have their origins in the Arabian peninsula but this is best described as folklore and has no scientific basis.

The VAST MAJORITY of Somalis DO NOT speak Arabic. It IS considered prestigious to speak and, especially, read Arabic for religious reasons, but Arabic IS NOT spoken as vernacular among Somalis..

Thus, there is no defensible definition of Arab identity that can logically include Somali people. Yes, Somalia is in the Arab League for political reasons.. but this article DOES NOT define Arabs as "people living in Arab League states" and leave it at that. It makes MANY false statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.71.13 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Somalia is indeed not mostly inhabited by "ethnic Arabs", nor are most other nations in the Arab world. The ancient Egyptians, Berbers, Phoenicians, Himyarites, Sabaeans, etc. didn't speak Arabic either, though they too spoke languages from the Afro-Asiatic family. Somalia and Djibouti are nonetheless a part of the Arab world since the standard territorial definition of the Arab world is the 22 territories in the League of Arab States. They also both have Arabic as official languages like the other Arab League member nations. As with most of the other populations, many Somali clans likewise have genealogical traditions tracing descent from the Arabian Peninsula (that's presumably where the percentage comes from). These traditions aren't any less or more authoritative than those of many of the other populations in the Arab League. Bottom line, there is no legitimate reason to single out any Arab League population when most aren't descendants of the original Arabic speakers to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
"Arab/Arabic" is not just an "ethnic" thing but also cultural and pan-ethnic identy; of which Somalis fall under both. AcidSnow (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree -- not speaking Arabic, and not being mainly descended from those who spoke Arabic, means that there's not too much substance to Somali Arabness. I don't think we want to take a political grouping like the Arab League as the absolute definition of Arabness, or else Egyptians would have suddenly stopped being Arab in the late 1970s, and then returned to being Arab a decade later (and of course many non-Arabs live in various Arab League countries)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Arabic is an official language in both Somalia and Djibouti, as in other Arab League member nations. Ties between the Horn and the adjacent Arabian peninsula also obviously didn't just begin with the organization's establishment a few decades ago, nor is the Arab League merely a political grouping. It has social and economic components too, with attendant bureaus. The organization was formed to unite the pre-existing idea of an "Arab Nation". Of course, no such "nation" really exists since most populations in the Arab League, including virtually all Egyptians, are indeed not descended from the original Arabic speakers. They just adopted the language in varying degrees with the spread of Islam. For one thing, Rameses II, Tutankhamun, and other Ancient Egyptians were not descendants of Arabic-speaking Bedouin from the Arabian peninsula. Their actual ancestors were the Predynastic Egyptians, who spoke the Ancient Egyptian language. The latter belongs to the same Afroasiatic family as Arabic, Somali, Berber, Aramaic, etc. A variant of this original Egyptian language, the Coptic language, is still spoken today by Egyptian Copts. What you are thus really referring to is varying degrees of Arabization, definitely not actual "Arab" ancestry. Middayexpress (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
None of this changes the apparent fact that the majority of Somalis don't use Arabic too much beyond basic prayers or other religious observances. The great majority of Egyptians now speak Arabic as their native language; the great majority of Somalis don't, and politics doesn't change this. AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The above isn't politics; it is ethnic reality. But yes, Copts notwithstanding, most Somalis indeed aren't as Arabized as most Egyptians (and Chadians and Comorians). They are, nonetheless, equally as "Arab" as Egyptians in terms of actual ancestry since of course neither Afro-Asiatic-speaking population is descended from the original Arabic speakers. Were they still alive, the Pharaohs themselves would surely confirm this, and in the Ancient Egyptian language at that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to push this agenda, Middayexpress. And to be honest nothing you're saying seems to really address any counterpoints. You just babble on and on about the same things. The fact that the ancient groups you're referring to didn't speak Arabic is HIGHLY irrelevant as the (even remotely modern) idea of Arabness didn't exist at that time!! The groups you're talking about are groups whose descendants are generally regarded to be Arab. It's not analogous in the least. And I'll point out that the Egyptians and the Berbers are completely different situations compared to the Somalis. And, while contentious in their own right, they're not what we're here to address and you're only getting the discussion off the tracks. I'd like to point out that one of the citations being used to "support" the idea of Somalis being Arab is the CIA's World Factbook page on Somalia, citation 62 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html). If you'd be so kind as to open that page and go to the "People and Society" section, you'll note that under Ethnic groups it says "Somali 85%, Bantu and other non-Somali 15% (including 30,000 Arabs)". I think it's pretty clear that that is not, I repeat NOT considering Somalis to be Arab, given that it mentions the country's population of 30,000 Arabs quite separately from the majority Somali population. I'll also point out that the article we're talking about can't even seem to make up its mind. It says Djibouti is 4.5% Arab and includes the note "Djibouti is one of the Arab league members where Arabs do not constitute the major ethnic group." Which is, of course, true.. but contradicting you and other parts of the article. Per the CIA World Factbook, this is Djibouti's ethnic makeup: Somali 60%, Afar 35%, other 5% (includes French, Arab, Ethiopian, and Italian). Again, it contradicts Somalis being Arab. How is the article able to accept the fact that Djibouti is an Arab League country where Arabs are not the majority, when it can't accept that Somalia, WITH THE EXACT SAME ETHNIC MAJORITY is not another such member? Hmm, so let me get this straight. Somalia is 85% Somali and 85% Arab, and yet Djibouti is 60% Somali and 4.5% Arab. You yourself just said we're talking about "ethnic reality", how does that math add up? I really don't think this article is referring to any kind of a reality most of the time. Again, Somalis do not consider themselves to be Arabs. There are not even any citations on the page indicating that they are Arab, yet I can come up with a whole slew of citations that indicate the opposite. Do you not think that for the page to make claims like this, there should be something backing it up? Before you go back to saying "But they're in the Arab League!", as you seem to when you have no way of furthering your debate, I will again point out that the article simply DOES NOT define Arabs as "citizens of Arab League states". It attempts various social, cultural, and even ethnic definitions that fall flat. It doesn't make any sense to include Somalis on this page and, if it is removed, you have no defensible evidence for its reinsertion. That alone proves my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.195.107 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Relax ip, this isn't a personal matter. I also didn't add those percentages you allude to (which btw I agree are largely nonsense), so your gripes are better directed at the user(s) who did. That said, when I pointed out that Egyptians and Maghrebis, like Somalis and the majority of other Afro-Asiatic speaking populations in the League of Arab States, are not actually descended from the original Arabic speakers (who obviously did exist), this is fact not opinion. Genetic studies readily confirm this (e.g. [1]). This is the ethnic reality I was referring to. Despite this, you appear to be insisting that the Egyptian and Maghrebi situation is somehow different; that they aren't merely Arabized in varying degrees like most of the other populations, but of actual "Arab" descent. This certainly can't be because many today speak Arabic as a first language since of course many Chadians do as well, nor obviously was this always the situation given the relatively recent origin of the Arabic language in the Arabian peninsula and the continued usage of the Coptic language and Berber languages. It also can't be because they have genealogical traditions of descending from Arab patriarchs since many Somali clans do too [2] (e.g. Abadir Umar ar-Rida). It likewise can't be because of what the CIA factbook writes since it also indicates that 99% of Egyptians are Egyptians, not Arabs [3]. I could go on, but much of this is already explained elsewhere (see Pharaonism, Coptic identity, Berberism). Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Somalia is an Arab nation and its inhabitance, ethnic Somalis, are Arabs which even the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom recognize and not just other Arab countries. This is why Somalis are categorized as Arabs in their respective Census (here's Canada and here's the United Kingdoms) and not "Black African" or something else. That being said, the United States plans to do the same in their census and not include them in the former. Amongst the reasons for doing so are the historical, cultural, traditional, etc. ties that Somalis poses with other Arabs and just political aspects. As anyone can see, this completely contradicts your last reply, IP. I also encourage you to reread Middayexpress's statements as well. AcidSnow (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Midday, you misinterpreted my reference to your mention of Egyptians and Maghrebis. Nowhere did I say I feel that they are more descended from original Arabic speakers than Somalis are. I am aware that they're not; I simply said that those situations are different than Somalis. By that I mean in Egypt, ethnic identity is extremely complex and "Arabness" can be very contentious depending on who you ask. There is no such complexity in Somalia. Somalis have always considered themselves just that, Somalis. And in the Maghreb, ethnic mixing has led to Arab-Berbers, who are referred to as the ethnic majority in many states. Though trade and cultural influence have been strong from the Arabian peninsula to Somalia, ethnic mixing does not seem to be have played the same kind of role (likely due to the fact that Arabs conquered North Africa--cultural import to Somalia was much more peaceful). I also previously mentioned that oral traditions of descent should not be taken as any kind of scientific evidence, which you seem to be agreeing with. The fact of the matter is, and this should come as no surprise, Somalis cluster most closely with other Horn Africans genetically. If Arabness is truly ethnic, how are no Ethiopian groups considered as such? And to AcidSnow, census data from irrelevant countries should not be regarded as remotely authoritative on matters of ethnicity. As you yourself point out, nations differ in their methods and they're rather frivolous. For instance, in the United States, Arabs are considered a part of the larger "White" population. I can think of more than a few people who disagree with that. It seems rather difficult, even willful, to fail to acknowledge the fact that the great majority of Somalis, and Arabs, do not consider Somalis Arabs: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/awoowe-hamza/arab-league_b_5397888.html https://wazaonline.com/en/power-people/being-black-is-no-joy-for-somalians-and-ethiopians-in-yemen . Look the bottom line is, one of two things needs to happen. Either the definition of "Arab" needs to be more consistent and clear throughout the article, or the questionable groups need to be removed. Presently the definition is all over the place. There is no possible issue if we just stick to the definition that FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARTICLE, we are defining Arabs as citizens of Arab League members. Linguistic and ethnic definitions just aren't possible. As I've pointed out ad nauseam, it doesn't work for Somalis. And as Midday has pointed out in this discussion, there are issues with some of these definitions for other groups like Egyptians. You seem very knowledgeable about Egyptians and Maghrebis, Midday, and I'd like to mention that the differences you point out between them and other "Arab groups" does not somehow make Somalis' "Arabness" more legitimate, it only points out the tenuous nature of the former groups' definition. That's why the article needs a clearer, less ambitious definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.195.107 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"data from irrelevant countries should not be regarded as remotely authoritative on matters of ethnicity", then what exactly was the point of you mentioning the CIA World Facebook? You make it's seem totally worthless now.
"Somalis cluster most closely with other Horn Africans genetically", that's not necessarily true seeing how several genetic studies have come to the conclusion that's Somalis "appear more similar to Arab or Caucasoid than to African populations". Which isn't surprising given the historical relations with other Arabs which even this study mentions.
"It seems rather difficult, even willful, to fail to acknowledge the fact that the great majority of Somalis, and Arabs, do not consider Somalis Arabs", that does not reflect reality at all. In fact, the vast majority of Somalis and other Arabs view themselves as Arabs.[4][5][6][7] The most notable quote is this: "In their own minds, Somalis were always aristocrats among savages: Arabs in a continent of inferior Blacks". Although highly insulting, it sums up the stance Somalis have regarding their identify. The same can be said about how Somalis view their cultural, part of the Arab World.[8] Nobody should be surprised that Arabs mistreat/dislike other Arabs (such as Lebanese people mistreating Syrians). Which is among the reasons why a Pan-Arab Nation has yet to be achieved. That being said, your "source" regarding why Somalia should leave the Arab League is largely one sided and lacks actual facts seeing how there are only 20,000 Somalis in Saudi Arabia so its pretty much impossible for the country to deport over 30,000 which that link claims. However, other Arab countries such as Egypt seems to be pretty worried about the current political instability in Somalia. There is also concerns from the Bahrainis and Qataris regarding the livelihood of Somalis.[9][10] Somalis have also achived substantial financial success in countries like the UAE. That being said, you can attempt to refute this all you want but it doesn't change this reality even the slightest. I am also going to encourage you to remain WP:CIVIL and stop shouting at us. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware that Somalis aren't any more of actual "Arab" descent than are Egyptians and Maghrebis and vice versa. As I indicated, few modern populations in the Arab world are genuinely descended from the original Arabic speakers. They instead almost all descend from populations that spoke other languages from the Afro-Asiatic family, including Somalis, Egyptians and Maghrebis. These populations are today thus Arabized in varying degrees. This old Afro-Asiatic connection, which includes other Horn populations in Ethiopia and Eritrea, is where most of the genetic ties actually come from (see Afro-Asiatic Urheimat). Archaeology, as at Karinhegane, Asa Koma and Agordat, also confirms this. That said, the Arab League population figure seems to be already noted. The main problem imho is the Arab world table's "% Arab" column. It purports to show the number of Arabic speaking people, but doesn't actually do that. I suggest replacing it with a column indicating the official status of Arabic in each nation, as found here. This seems more objective and feasible. Middayexpress (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Picture box not satisfactory[edit]

There are more than a few needless pictures of people who aren't super famous or who came up rather recently. This isn't inherently bad but the variety on this board is very low. How about a famous Arab writer like Naguib Mahfouz, Khalil Gibran, Adonis or Abdel Rahman Munif? What about famed actresses like Hind Rostom? What about intellectuals like Edward Said? Or Arab polymaths like Averroes, Al-Zarqali or Ibn al-Nafis? I'm not asking to make it comprehensive but to add to variety. A famed writer, intellectual, philosopher or actor should make this a more representative picture collage of famous Arabs, as opposed to people like Nawal el Moutawakel or Souad Abdullah who are somewhat obscure compared to the names I listed above. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lihyanites - Banu Lihyan kingdom[edit]

Lihyani Head of a statue (4th/3rd century BC) from Al-'Ula

Lihyan (Arabic: لحيان) is an Ancient North Arabian kingdom. It was located in northwestern Arabia, and is known for its Ancient North Arabian inscriptions dating to ca. the 6th to 4th centuries BC. Dedanite is used for the older phase of the history of this kingdom since their capital name was Dedan (see Biblical Dedan), which is now called Al-`Ula oasis located in northwestern Arabia, some 110 km southwest of Teima.

The Lihyanites later became the enemies of the Nabataeans. The Romans invaded the Nabataeans and destroyed their kingdom in 106 AD. This encouraged the Lihyanites to establish an independent Kingdom to manage their country. This was headed by the King (Timmy), one of the former royal family, which governed Al-Hijr before the Nabataean invasion.

The Arab genealogies consider the Banu Lihyan to be descended from the Adnanite Arabs from Ishmael son of Abraham. The descendants of Lihyan founded the Arab kingdom of Lihyan, and presently live in the desert between Mecca and Jeddah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.78.16.53 (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Queen of Sheba[edit]

I think there needs to be a replacement for the Queen of Sheba. She's just too controversial, not in what she did - there is just little proof of her existence, other than sources coming from conflicting Arab and African legends. She's mostly a topic of legends, folktales and myths, and no direct proof points that she was ethnically Arab or Habesha. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101