Talk:Arabs/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Argentina Numbers

The 3.3 millons of arabs argentine are so high numbers, 8% of the population?? is inaccurate at all, i cant fixed this, if some moderator can leave only 1.3 millon that i think this is more accurate i will grateful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.164.174 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

__Again, Population and proportion.__

The Arab percentage of Argentina's population is plainly (arithmetically) wrong. Doubt should be cast over the legitimacy of either the net or proportional figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.249.34.125 (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

True. Apparently someone changed the absolute number to something more or less correct without bothering with the percentage. I'll change both to represent the source given on the Argentina article, which looks more reliable than what we currently have (the current source says 3.5 million, which seems exceedingly high). Huon (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Protection

This article should be protected indefinitely, I haven't seen other Wikipedia articles that are vandalized non-stop to this extent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Xevorim (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Did experimental OBVIOUS vandalizing and it lasted 2 days. Converting it back now since none noticed the "Coiuntless Terrorist Organizatons" in the Arab Organizations field. Seriously though, be on your toes with that article.--94.69.173.154 (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arab Negro admixture and Arab Mongol admixture in Southern Arabia

Their Arab-Negro admixture and Berber-Negro admixture, and Arab-European admixture, and Arab-Negro-Mongol admixture. The Arab Negro admixture is confined to Southern most Arabia, but their is also Arabized Blacks who have no Arab blood like the Sudanese who speak Arabic and carry own with their traditional Nubian traditions. Their seen by Arabs as inferior, well the Southern Arabians are seen equal because they have genuine Arab blood. The Ethiopians invaded Arabia during Jewish control of Yemen, the jewish king Dhu Nawas, tried to force some of the early Arab tribes who converted to Christianity were presocuted, by Dhu Nawas, according to Arab sources and legends the Ethiopians with Byzatine support invade Yemen with a large fleet, some of the Ethiopians intermarried with the Arabs, and their called Hojures(outsiders) and low caste mostly work as black smiths, the high caste of Yemen usually look Arabid, most of it is. The Negro admixture in the total Arab gene pool is estimated to be 30% do to the slave trade, however the Arabs also enslaved Europeans and especially the women, and even the males. Their is many writings that describe Blacks as not intelegent and weak compared to Al-Qashir or light slaves, the Arabs have always called themselves Al-budayai ie Whites, but it meant light brown. However the Negriod admixture in Arabs is probably less than 30%.

The Nordic Arabs who appear from time to time are actually decendants of real arabs. One brother is blond the other is brown skined. Arabs are largely Caucasiod beloning to the Orintealid race called Arabid and Med races mixed together. Arabs mixed with Europeans, do sometimes face disicrimination because they don't look typical Arab. Arabs also do belive that only Nordics are truely Europeans, they view Southern Europeans to be mixed with Arabs. Arabs still have caste system in which people of pure Arab decent are on top. well those of African ancestory are on the bottom. Their is Arabized berbers,Egyptians,and Blacks which contributes to different Arab types. However most Arabs belong to the Arabian pensiula, and Iraq where their truely found, and the Beduins. Arabs are largely a dark skined people, with Caucasiod facial features often called Arabid and their mostly mixed with the Meds that lived in the Middle East, who were of Semitic origin and spoke Semitic tongues. I hope this answered what you were looking for.--77.125.95.173 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of odd material in the article and in the discussion too. For one, I am surprised to see somebody claiming authority on this matter confusing the English words "Their" and "they are" (it reflects certain American dialects, possibly Hoosier). The writer may not be familiar with more usual sources either. And the idea of "gharb" (west) changing to "Arab" (by dropping the first letter!!!) seems more than weird, although I know that there are "more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in [anybody's] philosophy." But the author of this material apparently thinks the word "Arab" starts with a vowel rather than the consonant `ayn. Only a non-Semiite's untrained ear might not hear this consonant. What would be involved if this contributor were correct is the change of the consonant ghayn to the consonant `ayn. They do look alike (except for the dot on the former, but our contributor seems to be thinking of a development that precedes the Arabic or possibly any alphabet. [not my name, just a login] Eleanor1944 (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources please? Otherwise, this is not very useful to article development, since it cannot be verified. Tiamuttalk 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"I hope this answered what you were looking for." Who ever aksed for anything like this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Define what you mean by 'real arab', what constituted the original Arab tribes? (ie. the Northern Arabian or Southern Arabian tribes?)Domsta333 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • the proto-arabs originated in the anciet central arabia and was caucasoids with sub-type east-med race and not nordic or negroid; the original arabs was meds armenoids and araboids - eastern caucasoid race..the admixture with negroids ocorred only in the post-middle ages and meso-middle ages..the original arabs was the anciet central arabs and not the present-day south or north arabs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.33.193 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the north arabs apenas se preservaram melhor racialmente que os do sul com o decorrer do tempo por que os do sul estavam mais proximos das rotas de escravos do indico e leste de africa e portanto mais expostos aos residuos dos escravos da costa de zanzibar e cia..confundir arabes antigos com actuais é mero anacronixo, tal como proto-arabes centrais antigos com sul-arabes actuais.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.33.193 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard sources (this is only conversation, but I can find them easily) say the Semites originated came from East Africa to southern Arabia. That would explain their linguistic relationship with other "Hamito-Semitic peoples." As such, they likely shared the features of other Africans, but they may have assimilated larger numbers of others who already in Arabia. But why the obsession with this sort of thing? Is this question being raised for other peoples? Eleanor1944 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Numbers for EU

Does anyone have numbers for the European Union to put in the infobox? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Make them up, since that is the norm in this article. Brazil 10mil, US 3.5mil Argentina 3.5 mil australia and Canada 500.000? I live in Canada an there is no way that there are that many Arabs here. Australia latest census said less then 200.000. as for Brazil and Argentina, about 100.000 emigrated to each in the last 100 years, unless they breed like rabbits... so go ahead and make up something for the EU, let's say 25mill, it's a nice round number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.134.52 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There aren't that much real arabs in the EU, there are a lot of turkish people and berbers but not that much of arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.113.206 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Arameans vs. Arabs: The fight between Civilization and Barbarism within Islam

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

In previous articles we underlined the Aramaean ethnic – racial identity of the Arabic speaking people throughout vast parts of the Asiatic parts of the Middle East, stressing the point that the Aramaean speaking people may look today like a minority among the Arabic speaking people of Iraq, SE Turkey, Syria, SW Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, but they simply constitute the most authentic part of the same people, i.e. the Aramaeans, who got arabized linguistically only, not racially – ethnically, not culturally (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-9-2005-74536.asp). We underscored the fact that for the Aramaeans the gradual process of Islamization did not mean cultural arabization, but the contrary happened in reality: the Arabs by accepting the Islam were culturally de-arabized and literarily speaking aramaized. We analyzed why Islam is not an Arabic cultural phenomenon, but – quite contrarily – an Aramaic cultural phenomenon that, preached among the Arabs by Prophet Muhammad was geared to civilize – and therefore de-arabize – the nomads of Hedjaz.

The reasons for which these realities are passed by silence and remain unknown to many people, contributing therefore to confusion about the Middle East and the issues related to the Islamic Terror are many; with them we will deal in a forthcoming article focused on the misrepresentations of Islam from the times of Medieval Europe to the modern Colonial Era. In the present article we are going to check whether Islam achieved one of its announced missions, namely to uproot any Arabic cultural element from among the Arabs.

Vindication of Islam by non Arabs: Shu'ubiya

Less than 80 years after the expansion in Jerusalem, Damascus and Ctesiphon, Islam started being vindicated by Persians. The movement of the Shu'ubiya does not represent any 'Nationalism' as its name lets us think; it was rather a historical-cultural evaluation and a socio-anthropological interpretation of the phenomenon of the rise of the Islamic Civilization, already in Umayyad times. The Shu'ubiya did not pretend that Iranian Culture was superior to Islamic or to Arabic, as erroneous modern interpreters attempt to say. They basically tried to explain to whom the Rise of the Islamic Civilization was due, and they stressed that it was owed to non-Arabs, not particularly to the Persians. The fact that we possess few historical sources about this movement, and the parallel rise of Persian culture in supremacy within Islam misled scholars to conclude that the Shu'ubiya represented a sort of rising Iranian nationalism within Islam; and this is wrong.

There were various cultural influences within the early Islamic Civilization, Aramaic, Persian, Jewish, Yemenite, Greek, Coptic. They were all stronger than the Arab element that was persisting whatsoever. The early Islamic expansion covered a vast area from NW Africa to Central Asia. Arabs from the Hedjaz moved to and settled in various cities allover the Caliphate. In parallel, many proselytes, Aramaeans, Persians and people from Central Asia, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, Africans and Yemenites, moved to Medina and Mecca, the holy area (Haramayn) where the Prophet if the new religion they accepted had lived. So, the cultural clash took place allover the surface of the Caliphate.

It was clear that, after the preaching of Islam, and thanks to their direct contact with the Aramaic world, the Arabs were influenced by late Aramaic rationalism, a current that can be delineated as back as Tatianus in the 2nd century CE. They attempted to interpret the phenomenon of the then rising Islamic Culture and Civilization as a consequence and a derivative of the Islamic religion. Reflecting a narrow-minded and uncultured background, the Arabs stressed what we would call an over-generalized reductionism.

Arab cultural and religious reductionism

1. Methodological reductionism signified that every subject tackled was reduced to the simplest element and meaning / understanding possible. To start with, this approach reduced the Coran, and consequently the Hadith, to flat, graspable, 'permeable' texts easy for all to understand. An example is Ahmed Ibn Hanbal's method of accepting the mutashabihat (unapparent meanings of the Coran and the Hadith) as they have come without saying how they are meant. It was 'normal' for the uneducated and the uncultured Arabs of the 7th century to present the new religion's Holy Book as their 'acquisition', as something easy for nomads to perceive, because only in this way they would be able to levy political – economic profit as ruling class and military (rather than administrators) in the vast Caliphate. Arab religious leaders and preachers denied in the Coran any symbolism, any mysticism, and any mythical – metaphorical element and/or dimension, preventing therefore adequate and pertinent understanding.

2. Theoretical reductionism implied that other religions, ideologies, philosophies, cultures and civilizations were to be replaced by Islam, not because Islam was a new one superseding all the previous, but because Islam had existed since times immemorial as the religion of all the previous prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus), and Muhammad's preaching was only a refinement or completion of the 'older' Islam. Combined with the methodological reductionism, it prevented any interest in search, research, comparison and knowledge.

3. Religious reductionism diffused the erroneous idea that all the events and the developments can be reduced to religious – Coran-based explanations. It accentuated the ignorance about beliefs of other peoples who lived among Muslims, and even worse it led to the irrationalization of the beliefs of the others, as for instance the Sabians, who were centered on Harran and present day Eski Sumatar.

4. Linguistic (Arabic) reductionism diffused the baseless belief that everything can be described in Arabic with a limited number of core concepts and their combinations.

5. Ontological reductionism was formed on the basis of the previous dimensions, and consisted in the aberration that everything is made from a small number of basic substances that behave in regular ways. It pulled several Islamic theological and philosophical systems to Monism.

6. Teleological reductionism involved the belief that everything is made to serve one purpose only, and nothing escapes the prospects and targets set by God. This leads to Eliminativism, and ultimately to Radical Behaviorism, which is at the epicenter of the Islamic Terrorism. For the Islamic Radical Behaviorism everything that matters is a Muslim's behavior.

7. Moral reductionism propagated the erroneous idea that there can be Divine intercession in the Hereafter, which contradicts the Divine Justice. By diffusing the devious idea that in the Hereafter the Muslims, who committed the grave sins and tney became the grave sinners before they died, will be met with Divine intercession, Arab origin bogus-Muslim theologians forcefully changed some of the basic concepts of Islam, promoting among their uncultured fellow countrymen moral negligence and absolute lack of real discipline. If God intercedes the grave sinners, and takes them out of the Hell after they have completed their punishments in the Hell, as the Ashari theologians pretended, morality is reduced to a meaningless non-sense.

What is the quintessence of Arab reductionism?

One has to bear in mind that the change imposed upon the Arabs at the times of Prophet Muhammad with the imposition of Islam was a tremendous event that was difficult for average Arab nomads to accept. When it became clear that Islam would finally be imposed, masses of Arabs realized that they could not avert the event, but they could make it relatively or mostly ineffective or harmless to their past identity and customary way of life.

It is clear that for an Arab of Mecca or Medina in 625 or 628, converted or not, the advent of a great culture and the rise of a brilliant civilization (as we attested them in the Arts, the Letters, the Sciences and the Philosophy of Damascus, Baghdad, Cordoba, Shiraz, Kairwan, Samarqand, Ispahan and Istanbul), as a result of the diffusion of Islam among other peoples, was not expected at all; they could not imagine at all the impact of the Islam on the other peoples because they did not know the civilizations and the cultures developed by other peoples and, in addition, they had not understood Islam in the way many other peoples did. They ignored the link among religion – philosophy – behavioral system – knowledge/erudition – culture. What they expected at the best was a limited change in their lives and customs. They did not perceive Islam as a system based on principles, and they could not conceive the social impact of the loyalty to principles, which is the generating factor of cultures and civilizations.

Very early, and before the diffusion of Islam in Yemen (630) and in the Aramaean-populated provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire of Iran (636 – 640), the Arabs were involved in thunderous ideological, philosophical and theological debates, which was quite new for them. Of course, it would be futile and misleading to compare the level of the arguments employed to the high conceptual thinking of Muslim erudite scholars, intellectuals and philosophers 200 or 300 years after the death of the Prophet. However, the early debates and disputes brought forth two categories of Arab followers of Islam, namely a) those who were more open to the surrounding world and the other Oriental cultures, so able to cope with and achieve cultural – behavioral improvement, and b) those who were totally barbaric and foreign to any conceptualizing.

As it can be easily surmised, the latter viewed Islam as a religion preached by Prophet Muhammad to Arabs, so as an Arabic religion, preached to them by an Arab Prophet. They consequently viewed the Islamic expansion as expansion of their religion, namely of the Arabic religion, and they made of the early acceptance of Islam by other peoples a bogus-legend of 'conquest' and 'epics' in a due effort to be compared to earlier – and of course immeasurably greater and braver – Roman and Persian exploits and heroic deeds. This was the 'party' that around 'Abu' Bakr, Omar and Othman opposed Ali as First Caliph, as he should be, and became later known as Sunni. We do not imply that all the Sunnis in later periods accepted such trivialization; quite contrarily, Mutazilite Sunni Muslims of mostly Aramaean origin rejected all this explicitly. At this point, we want mostly to underscore the fact that these ideas were shared by the early group of Arabs out of which emanated the Sunnis. A typical example of these people was Muawiyah, the murderous thug, who had Caliph Ali assassinated, prosecuted Ali's two sons, and massacred the youngest so that the way is free for him to become caliph. He then called himself 'Khusraw of the Arabs', which is quite indicative of his idea of Islam.

Contrarily to this group, the 'party' around Ali, the First Imam after the death of the Prophet, was more conscious of the fact that Islam as the correct religion, preached by the last Prophet, was a universal phenomenon, and that the Arabs, in order contribute to the making of Islam a universal religion, had to educate themselves and be able to expose the reasons of Islam to people of higher culture. These Arabs proved able to absorb other cultures' elements, acquire a refined non-nomadic behavioural system, and change themselves accordingly. These are the very early Shia, but at those days the present divide existed under totally different terms.

Aramaean – Arab cultural clashes in early Islam

Here, we intend rather to describe a milieu than to enumerate the long cultural and ideological disputes that were unraveled during the first centuries of Islam throughout the Caliphatic territories. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was born in Central Asia but to Arab parents, who transported faraway their reductionism through which Arabs had believed they could preserve their hold on Islam. He testifies therefore to what we mentioned earlier, namely that the cultural clash took place allover the surface of the Caliphate.

As we said, it would not be wise to assume that all Arab origin theologians stuck to Arab culture; many appreciated highly the Aramaic and the Persian cultural heritage and contribution into shaping the Islamic civilization, and made them theirs, abandoning the reductionisms of the nomads. However, the leading figures among the early Islamic Illuminati were mainly of Aramaean origin. The large cultural – academic current that contributed tremendously in incorporating the new religion, viewed as reassessment of earlier movements, ideologies, theologies and systems and as innovative interpretation, became known as the Mutazilites. We cannot enter here into the details of the rise and fall of the Mutazilite movement, but we have to stress two seminal issues: a. the Mutazilite movement represents authentically the Aramaean academic, cultural and behavioral background within Islam; it appeared, when the first Aramaeans accepted Islam, became independent from either Rome or Iran, and turned out to be the academic – cultural – social elite within the Caliphate of Damascus. b. the Mutazilite movement was the generating factor of Arts, Letters, Philosophy, Sciences, Lumieres, and generally speaking, progress and civilization throughout the Islamic World were due to them, so to Aramaeans, who took as their own task to give full dimensions of culture and civilization to the newly diffused preaching of Muhammad.

The opposition to uncivilized and ruthless Arab military rulers and petty theologians was not an easy task; anyone could be accused for apostasy a heresy and be executed on the spur of the moment. That is why it took some time for a structured reaction to be formulated against the Arabs. Around 730 – 740, Wasil ibn Ata (born in the area of the elapsed kingdom of Characene, in modern Basra) shaped into a philosophical system all the earlier disparate elements and approaches that served as criticism of the wrong perception of Islam by Arabs. He sought to set the foundations of a philosophical system able to make of the preaching of Prophet Muhammad a viable culture and a genuine search for the truth. By denying that the Coran has existed forever, and by stressing the concept of Freedom and Free Will, the Mutazilites reproduced basic Aramaic Christological approaches but within Islam this time. They provoked an enormous shock to the Arab obscurantist theologians, who needed also time to shape in their turn the Ashari movement almost 200 years after the diffusion of the first structured Mutazilte ideas. This period was precisely the peak of the Islamic civilization, and the rise of the Ashari heralded the beginning of the Islamic Darkness that the philosophical and scholarly erudition of the Aramaean proselytes had set aside for a while. Thanks to Aramaean proselytes, even Umayyad caliphs were convinced that the traditional nomadic culture and behavioural systems of their Arab ancestry had to be obliterated. Even more so, Abbasid caliphs, like Al Maamun and Al Mutassim, promulgated a sort of Inquisition against Islamic Darkness propagated by Arabs, and the reactionist Ibn Hanbal spent much time in the jail.

The two movements we referred to (Shu'ubiya and the Mutazilites) dynamics of the debates and the disputes they generated constitute sufficient sources for the proper historical understanding of the Aramaean – Arab cultural clashes that shaped the historical Islam.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-17-2005-75015.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hebrewעבר and Arabs ערבsame people

The Word Hebrewעבר and Arabs ערבsame word referring to the same people (ARAB)ערב but diffrently being arranged , just like the word snake נָּחָשׁ in Hebrew, and חָנָּשׁ in Arabic. Plus Abraham is HebrewEber עֵבֶר " (Gen 14:13) from EBER,(עבר) the father of Arabs tribes in SOUTH ARABIA Gen 10:26. Therefore all israelites,Ishmaelites,Zimranites,Jokshanites,Medanites,Midi anites,Ishbakites, Shuahites ,Almodadites, Shelephites, Hazarmavethites, Jerahites, Uzalites, Diklahites, Obalites, Abimaelites, Shebites, Ophir, Havilahlies, Jobabites and Abraham are all ARABS FROM EBER WE ARABS are Hebrews from Eber ,And Hebrews from Abraham ,while Ashkinazis according to bible Gen 10:2 are Goyim from Japheth brothers of Gog and Megog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Semitic etymologies proceed by ordered consonantal roots, so that root `ayn-ba-ra ע ב ר / ع ب ر is not the same thing as root `ayn-ra-ba ע ר ב / ع ر ب , and words derived from the two roots don't necessarily have any etymological connection at all (unless very specific evidence for such a connection -- beyond just containing the same consonants in a different order -- can be found). Furthermore, the basic meaning of ע ב ר is "to cross over, pass through", and forms of the name "Hebrew" have been found in inscriptions from before 1000 BC (see Hapiru), while ע ר ב has often traditionally been considered to have a basic meaning of "to be dry, arid", and it's noticeable that the Arabs don't really show up in the historical narrative of the Bible (as opposed to the tabula gentium of Genesis chapter 10) until around verse 2 Chronicles 17:11, and aren't mentioned in Cuneiform inscriptions until around the 800s BC. AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The word Abraham begins with an aleph (not an `ayin), and is divided Ab-Raham (not "Abra-ham"[sic]), and so is extremely unlikely to have any connection whatsoever with either עבר or ערב. And if you want to know why contemporary Arab Jews or Jewish Arabs are not given a large place on the article page, you can consult the past discussions at Talk:Arab people/Archive 4#There are Arab Jews too; the brief answer is that the Arab nationalists of ca. 50 years ago and the Arab rulers of ca. 50 years ago (with the conspicuous exception of the sultans of Morocco) proclaimed by their actions that they didn't think that Jews could be good Arabs, or trusted with citizenship rights in Arab countries, with the result that almost one million Jews left Arab-ruled countries, and Jewish Arabs in Israel were the strongest supporters of the Likud party for decades. This whole history can't be undone with the flick of a terminological switch. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, the word "Ashkenaz" in Genesis 10:3 probably refers to Scythian tribesmen living in the general Azerbaijan area, and this word as it is used in the Bible has absolutely no connection to any Jewish group. It was only in the Middle ages (long after the Biblical period) that some Jews, who wanted to find a Bible word to use as a geographical name for Russia, semi-arbitrarily plucked "Ashkenaz" out of the tabula gentium of Genesis chapter 10 as a suitable term. Similarly, they plucked Tsorfat out of the book of Obadiah, verse 20, as a suitable pseudo-Biblical name for France... In any case, "descendant of Eber" in the Bible is not at all the same thing as "Israelite" or "Jew", and the word "Hebrew" was originally an Exonym -- it's what others called the Israelites/Jews, but not what the Israelites/Jews usually chose to call themselves in Old Testament times. AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Semitic etymologies proceed by ALPHABETS ROOTS not "Order" for example the word SNAKE in hebrew is :- נָּ חָ ש / ن ح ش where as in Arabic it is :- חָ נָּ שׁ / ح ن ش Both words referring to the same thing, that is the SNAKE. Another example is the word WITH In Hebrew it is ع م / ע ם In Arabic it is م ع / מ ע So the word Hebrew ע ב ר / ع ب ر and Arabs ع ر ب / ע ר ב different arranged words referring to the same ETHNIC people ,the (ARAB)ערב , but diffrently being arranged , just like the word snake נָּחָשׁ in Hebrew, and חָנָּשׁ in Arabic.

Regarding Hapiru issue,This is rebutted by others who propose that the Hebrews are mentioned in these Egyptian texts as Shasu. Even though, that does NOT negates that Arab and Hebrew are in fact the same Ethnic People. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Hebrew and Arabic words נחש / حنش are indeed etymologically cognate (something which is by no means absolutely clear to me, considering that the sibilants do not show the usual pattern of etymological correspondences, etc.), then it would be a highly unusual and out-of-the ordinary case, which would not affect the well established fact that in the vast majority of cases the order of consonants within a root is in fact highly significant in the Semitic languages. The form جوز is presumably related to the form زوج , but that doesn't mean that one is free to randomly move consonants around in Arabic (or any other Semitic language), because you aren't. Such linguistic "freaks" can be highly interesting in their own way, but they don't overthrow the general principles governing the derivation and etymology of the great majority of words in Semitic languages. I'm afraid that your own speculations seem far more questionable than the Hapiru-Hebrew connection (which has been accepted by some highly-reputable scholars very well known in their fields, though of course not by all). AnonMoos (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos Do NOT mixup things, the words Hebrews vs. Israelites vs. Jew are not the same things

•Hebrew/Arabs are the descendants of Eber עֵבֶר who is the ancestor of Abraham Genesis 14:13 whom Abraham is the father of Israelites, Ishmaelites, Zimranites, Jokshanites, Medanites, Midianites, Ishbakites, and Shuahites Genesis 25:2. Eber עֵבֶר is also distant ancestor of many people, including Ammonites, ,Almodadites, Shelephites, Hazarmavethites, Jerahites, Uzalites, Diklahites, Obalites, Abimaelites, Shebites, Ophir, Edomites, Havilahlies, Jobabites , Qahtanites whom all are considered to be Arab tribes Genesis 10:26.

•Israelites are defined to be the biological blood descendants of man name Jacob Genesis 35:11-12.

•Jew is anyone whom adhere to the faith of Judaism( aka jewishness) regardless of his or her race.

•Plus do you know that there is NO single word " Jew יְהוּדִי " being mentioned in the so called five books of Moses (i.e. biblical Torah)? Who is a Jew?" מיהו יהודי?

You seem to be misinformed, since the word Yehudi יהודי occurs (in feminine form as a name) already in Genesis 26:34. However, the main branch of followers of Israelite religion didn't start to become identified with the southern kingdom of Judah until after the downfall of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, during the Divided Monarchy period... AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoss So are you saying that the Jew יהודי is the one whom is descendant of Esau from his wife Judith יְהוּדִית the daughter of Beeri the Hittite Genesis 26:34 ? ! ! ! !

Plus the feminine of the Yehudi יהודי is יהודיהYehudiah NOT Yudith יְהוּדִית —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You said that the word Yehudi יהודי did not occur in the Pentateuch, and I pointed out that the word Yehudi יהודי does in fact occur in the Pentateuch. In Hebrew, the name "Judith" is exactly the feminine singular form of Yehudi. AnonMoos (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are the descendants of Easu from his Hittite wife Judith ? Yes or No ? If the word Jew come from Judith then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the 12 sons of Jacob and their descendants INCLUDING MOSSES BIN AMRAM THE LEVI (Exodus 6:20..ARE ALL NOT CONSIDER TO BE JEWS !..Because Jews are named after Judith. THE QUESTION IS DO ALL JEWS OF TODAY GENETICALLY PROVEN TO BE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF Judith?

Plus the feminine of the Yehudi יהודי is יהודיהYehudiah NOT Yudith יְהוּדִית —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, I am not a Jew (and never claimed to be a Jew), so why don't you just leave that element out of your postings. In any case, I never said anything whatsoever about genetics (or "GENATICS" as you seem to prefer to spell it) -- and of course the word Yehudi derives from the name of the eponymous tribal ancestor Judah (not from the Judith of Genesis 26:34). However, linguistically and morphologically it is in fact true that the name "Judith" (whether found in Genesis or elsewhere) is originally exactly the feminine singular of the word Yehudi יהודי . -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny to see how FunkMonk whom is a Wikipedia scholar refer to Arabs as Trolls. Is this Wikipedia’s point of view on Arabs or his own racist remark? Sorry for misspelling of the word GENETICALLY..Anon...but that is not the issue , The issues are 1. The feminine of the Yehudi יהודי is יהודיהYehudiah NOT Yudith .יְהוּדִית 2. Where the word Yehodi יהודי (i.e. what you think to be the masculine derivative of word Judith יְהוּדִית), in the Pentateuch texts? 3. If Jews are named after the Hittite wife of Esau Judith יְהוּדִית, then what Mosses Aaron , Isaac and Jacob have to do with Judith יְהוּדִית to be called Jews? 4. And if the word Jew come from Judah( one of the 12 sons of Jacb) then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the 11 sons of Jacob and their descendants INCLUDING MOSSES BIN AMRAM THE LEVI (Exodus 6:20)..ARE ALL NOT CONSIDER TO BE JEWS !..BECAUSE ACCORING TO YOUR DEFINITION JEWS ARE ONLY THE DESCENDATS OF JUDAH In Nutshell WHERE IS THE WORD JEW Yehodi יהודי COME FROM ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am of Arab descent myself. That doesn't keep me from pointing out gibberish. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "Jew" never referred to the Israelites in general. It is related to the tribe of Judah--and to the Southern Hebrew Kingdom of Judah/Judea after the death of Solomon(at least in the Biblical account). The Northern Kingdom (or Kingdom of Israel) evolved into the Samaritans (allegedly with some outsiders mixed in, but more than the Israelites of the Southern Kingdom???). Jesus was a Jew. Abraham, Moses, etc. were not. Eleanor1944 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling my people trolls not a racist gibberish remark ???!!!... Funk ? ! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

|}

Your people? Are you an individual or a collective? FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you had said and I quote "Don't feed the trolls " with plural “S” NOT troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a general expression. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I know ? How can I believe you ? where is your prove ? After all this topic is littered with racist hate discussions' comments and shows all the hate against Arabs, which put Wikipedia’s objectivity and neutrality on a question mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the one on this thread who's making claims about "genatics" and loosely throwing around "we" and plural "you" pronouns. AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos Please refrain from referring to a clarification of “the Facts " as "making claims". You obviously misunderstand the difference between "making claims" ( That is allegation based on Shenanigans bug bugs )and a putting FACTS based on irrefutable testable evidences. Your statements of representation of PROOF about Yudith as feminine of Yehodi and Yehuda (one of the 12 sons of Jacob) contradict the texts and the Hebrew language itself. For anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Hebrew language and its grammar would know that the feminine of the word Yehodi יהודי is יהודיהYehudiah NOT Yudith .יְהוּדִית the Hittite wife of Esau ! ! ! And If the word Jew come from Judah( one of the 12 sons of Jacb) therefore Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the 11 sons of Jacob and their descendants INCLUDING MOSSES BIN AMRAM THE LEVI (Exodus 6:20..ARE ALL NOT CONSIDER TO BE JEWS !..BECAUSE ACCORING TO YOUR DEFINITION JEWS ARE ONLY THE DESCENDATS OF JUDAH. You had failed to produce evidences. So take your false PROOF and slap yourself with it. I have no confidence that you be able to understand the complex and intrigued true essence of Semitics Arabic/Hebrew languages. It is very strange that a crucial and important subject such as the topic we discuss is actually been studied, lead and monopolize by group of buffoons. Without serious and sincere introspection (or soul searching) to establish the actual validity/veracity of one’s claim in relation to all the testable facts at hand (rather than a vain sensations/feelings), you will face the real danger of fatally wasting your time in “falsehood”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.71.20 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of your assertions are simply not valid when stated in categorical or simplistic terms. The claim that the feminine of yehudi is exclusively and only yehudiya is not true for either Modern Hebrew or Biblical Hebrew. For Biblical Hebrew, the form yehudiya occurs only in I Chronicles 4:18. while yehudit occurs in 2 Kings 18:26, 2 Kings 18:28, Isaiah 36:11, Isaiah 26:13, Nehemiah 13:24, and 2 Chronicles 32:18, in addition to Genesis 26:34. (For modern Hebrew, see below.) And of course it isn't true (and never was true) that all religious Jews are patrilineal descendants of the tribe of Judah -- the southern monarchy contained significant numbers of Benjaminites and Levites as well as Judahites, along with whatever remnant of Simeonites remained (presumably), as well as a scattering of individuals from other tribes (even 600 years after the fall of the southern kingdom, there's a reference to "Anna daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher" in the New Testament...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos When and How Was the Jewish People Invented? מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי 2 Kings 18:26, 2 Kings 18:28, Isaiah 36:11, Isaiah 26:13, Nehemiah 13:24, and 2 Chronicles 32:18 are NOT the five books of Moses(what it is considered to be the biblical Torah, and the word in Genesis 26:34 is Yudith .יְהוּדִית the Hittite wife of Esau NOT Yehodi יהודי (and its feminine derivative יהודיהYehudiah).the word Yehodi יהודי is a later false invention not being mentioned the five books of Moses/ Pentateuch(biblical Torah)?let alone when God gave his two Covenants to Abraham and all his children in Genesis 17:1-19. Conclusion It is an invention Called 'The Jewish People. There never were a Jewish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.113.233 (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- the transition to Judeans being the main upholders of Israelite religion didn't occur until after 721 BC, while the narrative of the Pentateuch comes to an end about 500 years before 721 BC, so of course the word yehudi is not to be found in meaning number 3 (as defined below) in the Pentateuch. If meaning number 3 were to be found in the Pentateuch, then it would be a blatant anachronism, and people would point it out as a historical mistake!
In any case, I completely and utterly fail to see how meaning 3 of the word yehudi not being found in the Pentateuch has the slightest relevance whatsoever to all the other stuff that you're going on about. AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin and meaning of the Hebrew word יהודי

The Hebrew word יהודי Yehudi was formed by taking the name of Judah (the tribal ancestor) and adding an "i"/"iy" adjective suffix onto it. This suffix is known as the "gentilic" suffix in traditional Christian Bible exegesis, and as the nisba suffix نسبة in traditional Arabic grammar. Ancient Hebrew (like ancient Greek, ancient Latin etc.) had only one word to cover the following three meanings (in presumed chronological order of development): 1] A "Judahite" or member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent. 2] A "Judean" or inhabitant of the region of Judea (or before 586 BC, an inhabitant of the southern kingdom of Judah). 3] A "Jew", or member of the distinctive monotheistic religion which was associated with Judeans. (By the time of the Book of Esther, there's even a derived verb participle mityahed "becoming Jewish".)

The question of whether the feminine singular forms of words with the gentilic or nisba suffix end in "-it" or "-iyah" in Hebrew can be a somewhat convoluted one, but such complexities belong mainly to modern Hebrew -- in Biblical Hebrew, the feminine of Yehudi is Yehudit (or "Judith" as this traditionally appears in English), as you could ascertain for yourself by looking in standard Biblical Hebrew lexicons (assuming that you're able to use them)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos
Sources please? Otherwise, this is not very useful, since it cannot be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by :78.101.71.20 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I mainly used standard reference works on Biblical Hebrew. If you can make good use of these works, then it's quite probable that you already know all about them. If you aren't capable of using them, then I could provide all bibliographic details down to the last ISBN, and it wouldn't do you any real good.
However, to see that the situation in Modern Hebrew with respect to the feminine singular of the word yehudi is more complex than you claimed, you can look at A Textbook of Israeli Hebrew With an Introduction to the Classical Language by Haiim B. Rosén, second corrected edition (1966), ISBN 0-226-72603-7, page 201. AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon you said " I mainly used standard reference works on Biblical Hebrew"..."However, to see that the situation in Modern Hebrew with respect to the feminine singular of the word yehudi ", That is because there is NO word Yehodi יהודי (and its feminine derivative יהודיהYehudiah) in the Biblical Torah(i.e the five books of Moses) !.. Show us where the word in the Pentateuch(biblical Torah)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.113.233 (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- meaning 3 isn't found in the Pentateuch because it would be anachronistic by 500 years (see above), but I fail to see what that has to do with the price of tea in China... AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I may add here another version of the word Yehudi, according to Indian or Hindu understanding that a section of followers of Lord Krishna (a Hindu God) called Yadav migrated to the west after the death of the lord and they are known as judas (an ellipse of the word Yadu) or present day Jews. For curious students it may appear quite interesting to see the great resemblance in the birth story of Lord Krishna and that of Lord Mosses. Yadav people from India claimed that they are from Lord Brahma a Vedic God of ancient Hindus. Abraham and Brahma, can there be some relation?
One more point I see in all the discussion on this talkpage is about giving references. All references are biblical, this neglects the later developments in the Jewish world. I am referring to the conversion of Europeans and Russians (Tartar) to Judaism prior to spreading of Christianity in Europe. This conversion of Germans, Russians and many other people from Europe have added to the original Jews and today what we see as Jews are actually mostly Europeans and hardly any true Jew!
One more point for discussion that the behavior of present day Arabs and the behavior described of Barbara people leads us to believe that Arabs are actually Barbara and the word Arab has come from the word Barbara.

Pathare Prabhu (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

arab identity(from the arabic wikipeida)

Arab people are found only in the Arabian Peninsula (Syria - Iraq - Gulf - Najd and Hijaz (Saudi Arabia) - Yemen) and is located as a minority in Egypt and North Africa, theoretically, scientifically, Egypt and North Africa, Sudan, Somalia and the Comoros and Djibouti are not Arabs speaking Arabic does not make the race Arab for.people of Egypt are Coptic (in English: Copts) and national mix of North African Berbers, Berber and Tuareg nationalist Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti are negroid.

from the arabic wikipeida

I hope you add that part in the article

thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vb4ever (talkcontribs) 22:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Vb4ever you have said

"theoretically, scientifically, Egypt and North Africa, Sudan, Somalia and the Comoros and Djibouti are not Arabs speaking Arabic does not make the race Arab"

Vb4ever define us what is a RACE ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.247.47 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Arabic Wikipedia a valid source? FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

wah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.197.83 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

the total Arab population in this article is not correct.

the estimate number is about 700 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.83.24 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this--->(Arab people are found only in the Arabian Peninsula (Syria - Iraq - Gulf - Najd and Hijaz (Saudi Arabia) - Yemen) and is located as a minority in Egypt and North Africa, theoretically, scientifically, Egypt and North Africa, Sudan, Somalia and the Comoros and Djibouti are not Arabs speaking Arabic does not make the race Arab for.people of Egypt are Coptic (in English: Copts) and national mix of North African Berbers, Berber and Tuareg nationalist Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti are negroid.)

who define that arabian people are one who speak arabian language? arabian people are just arab tribe people who are from arabian peninsula no matter what European perception of arabig world is. this whole article is ignorant. European perception of arab is just technically wrong, so it should not be in wikipeida. hispanic people are too just people from iberian peninsula or spain not people who speak spanish. americans are not the one who define what other people's tribe name mean. if spaniard people call US people english because they speak english, it should be in wikipedia article right? because it's the usage in spain. no one should never try to alter the definition of the word into their own especially american government who try to change the meaning of the word into their own standard or version(latino, asian, hispanic, arabian and football etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chrono's edits about Google searches for sex

In what way is this appropriate in the article: "According to Google Trends, Arabs are ranked first concerning search for sex and other linked material.[1]" It is bordering on vandalism. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How relevant? Well it talks about Arab people Face-wink.svg Do you have any reason to believe that the author or the source is wrong? Vandalism would be deleting the mention of this fact--Chrono1084 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If we found a source that claims, say, that Arabs are more fond of boobies than other peoples, would it be appropriate for the article? No. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly the source doesn't go that much into details Face-wink.svg but fine I won't put it here--Chrono1084 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.228.65.101, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Before conversions the definition of Arab was simple it is the person whose father is Arab. for Jewish it is the person whose mom is Jewish I think that it should be mentioned in both articles.

41.228.65.101 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be mentioned if you have a citation for it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stickee (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Geocultural unit

Unless we can define this, the sentence referring to it should be removed. Actually I'm removing it anyway, since it doesn't include China, which makes it 5th, Japan, makes it 6th, European Community? The Islamic states (which overlap of course) - the Asian Subcontinent ... and it all starts to sound like OR. (Earlier it said 3rd.) I think this was just someone saying "it's a big thing, possibly the biggest.. um well OK lets put third" Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
The Arab World is the fourth largest geocultural unit in the world[citation needed] after Latin America, Russia and Anglo-America, with a population exceeding 300 million and spanning more than 14,000,000 square kilometres (5,400,000 sq mi), from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Arabian Sea in the east. Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Arab world should be at sixth as you have forgotten to count Hindu world of India! Hindu world is actually the second and Chinese world the first by spread and population. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Population of Somalia is badly overestimated

Within the chart mentioning the Arab speaking and the total population of all countries that are members of the Arab League, the data for Somalia are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.184.178 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

huh

What a stupid term "panethnicity" we have never heard of such term, we wont apply the term for our selves because there are some none-Arab Arabic speakers, in that manner people of France must be called "French speaking people" because they have Frenchised people, who is not Arabs must be distinguished, stop using those invented nonsense--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not invented nonsense, it’s just an English word that you are not familiar with. It means الوحدة القومية, or as pertains to the Arabs, الوحدة العربية. It is not necessary that you personally apply الوحدة العربية to the Arabs, it is enough that many other Arabs do so. —Stephen (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
if you care that much in the ethnicities go over and add the same term to the articles of our respectful neighbors, Turks, Persians or whatever ethnicity, it will be rejected there, Arabs are ETHNIC GROUP, maybe because you live in the west you do not realize that, but here everyone where he came from and what is his origin--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
now the article is more, aligned searching its history i have found that the older versions since 2008 upto early 2010 was quite the same of my edit, till some changed its very definition to something arguable, im ready for any discussion or questions over my changes--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, the term "pan-ethnicity" does not imply that a solid number of Arabs does not have common ancestry, it means that there are many sub-groups under that umbrella who often prefer to identify on nationalistic grounds.
For example, as it is stated in the header, many Arab people (like Egyptians, Libyans, etc.) identify on the basis of their ethnicity/nationality, and then as Arabs.
Also, an ethnic group needs to have a lot of common ancestry, when there are many Arabs from places like Morocco (just an example), who have nothing in common with Lebanese (example) except for the language and culture.
That is a characteristic of a linguistic/cultural link, rather than an ethnic one. It is like stating English people and Canadians are the same ethnicity (in fact, Canadians are composed of numerous races and ethnicities) just because they share a common language and similar cultures.
I may be mistaken, but I think that a significant portion of Arab people is African ("black" for the lack of a better term), and many other Arabs are quite caucasian, which also puts in doubt the common ethnicity theory.
In any case, I do not have a strong opinion on this, but I think that for objectivity, both opinions could be stated in the header, if that suits you. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, i appreciate your participation in discussion, some others keep blind reverting to a chaotic unorganized article. the article since its creation in 2001 refers to Arabs as an ethnicity, and ethnicity means a group of people sharing common culture language and feelings, the new term does not apply for Arabs in their homeland, it is usually refers to immigrant people of some race, examples are: White Americans, Black or Asian Americans, but not Arabs, can you find me a reliable source that states that Arabs are panethnicity rather than an ethnic group?, you are mistaken to say Moroccan Arabs has nothing to do with Lebanese, many of Lebanese people nowadays trace their origin to morocco where they settled after their expulsion from Al-Andalus. Moroccans participate in Lebanese, Saudi TV shows, Arab relations are deeper than an "Umbrella", im not speaking of Arabized people who are in my opinion a very small minority in the Arab world -with exception of Egypt- for example Libyans are %95 tribal Arabs upto this Date they are of Arabian Tribes, you are so mistaken to think Sudanese for example Are not of Arab ancestry, Sudanese Arabs are almost fully tribal, for example Sudanese president vice president are of Ja'l tribe. honestly many memers of minorities in the Arab world claim ((In the Internet)) that the rest of people in their reign are Arabized rather than ethnic Arabs, a thing that might fool some non-Arab but they cannot say it to Arab people of the street, for example in Iraq there are no Arabized groups whatsoever, and every one there knows his full origin, even a none Arab he will be called after his remote origin, objectivity is against this meaningless definition of Arabs just check the old version of article of 2008-2009-early 2010 before its vandalism, its quite like this one, and even those before it have the same meaning i gave but with little non-essential changes, we are not obliged to add someones strange opinion to be "objective", if it is like that go to the british people article and add that it is a pan-ethnicity rather than ethnic group since some black people are living there and carrying its nationality. those active minorities are pushing those stupid ideas to gain support from the west, it's fully political for them to gain some privileges as natives, i will soon start an article refuting their claim, the usage of Arabic speaking people instead of Arabs is also promoting that they are merely Arabized!, lets add "Berber speaking" to the berber article or Kurdish speaking, to the kurd article, such perverted terms are never bias, you can see how some people try to push their ideas just check the talk page!, i just want it to become stable with realities rather than chaos and fanciful and full of hate!, the previous article is accusative and lacking essential information, reverting my full edit is an unexcused waste of my time and effort, if there are some who are willing to be constructive to the article im ready to help them--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Please start with only the first item. Explain why you don’t like it and show what you want to replace it with. If we go a piece at a time, perhaps we can make some progress. Or else, maybe some of the other editors can understand you better than I. Don’t be in such a rush, this will take time. —Stephen (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Re your note to "keep the tidy version till you have time to discuss it"...you don’t get to make and keep all these changes until we have time to discuss it. The burden is on you to convince us that you are right. So far, I think what you wrote is a mess and you are being unreasonable. —Stephen (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
If reliable sources don't label Arabs as a "panethnicity", it is simply original research (or a fringe view at best), and should be removed. We need a deep revert here. Arabs are neither a "subethnic group of the Semitic people", no such thing exists, Semites are defined by linguistics, and are not an ethnicity. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, i have waited for your participation in the talk page. My edits are clear tidy and makes sense, the old version doesnt even has its sections right, the section over science rediscussed the islamic conquests, the definition above discusses identity and religion with some detail, if it is ok for you, it is not ok for others, please compare between my edit, your edit and something like this Persian people Turkish people, BTW i have been to English schools and graduated from the university in which i used to study in English if i was so bad i wouldn't have passed.
Funk, i would like you also to remove Iranic peoples, and Turkic peoples from Turkish people and Persian peoples article
  • Semites are a race, they share the same origin ((Arabia)), they speak closely related languages, many cultural things must indicate a common origin, the race is called Semitic race, search for it, they must also have Arabid race features

--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Turkic and Iranic are also just linguistic groups, not ethnicities. "Arabid" refers to physical features that are found in high percentage among Arabs, and even then the term, which isn't used anymore, was never supposed to define what an Arab is, raher to describe the features that are shared by some Arabs. Arabs are not a "race" in the genetic sense. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
man you have just removed what proofs that Arabs are a race it is DNA, not all Arabs are supposed to have the same looks, even brothers look different, beside the hybridizing by each Arab group with the nearest people around vise visa,,, the article now is much better that before, although the definition on the top of the article seems long to me, but one now can work on it,, i will work the other chapters tomorrow, im going to sleep right now, i will leave the definition as is till i find some support, thx FunkMonk--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You mean the pictures? Did you read what I wrote? "Haplogroups do not represent modern ethnicities, but prehistoric adaptations that predate any modern self identification." These haplogroups evolved long before anyone thought of labeling themselves as Arabs. Therefore, equating their presence with say, Arab admixture, is wrong, since it could just as well have occurred before the term existed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There are many sources stating Arabs are a pan-ethnicity.
Just of the top of my head: http://www.hgm2011.org/ghazi_tadmouri_-_abstract.html - A scientific article From the human genome conference.
I don't mind adding both points of view, but it would be unfair to delete a well-sourced point.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
What matters isn't that some sources saying so exist, it's what most sources say. It's a safe bet that they're simply labeled as an "ethnic group" in the far majority of sources referring to them. It could be mentioned somewhere in the article text that some researchers regard them as a "panethnicity", but it should in no way replace the term "ethnic group" in the intro, or even mentioned alongside it. It just isn't a common description. And it seems to be POV as well, if panethnicity is defined as being "self-identified and self-sustained ethnicities into one all-encompassing group of people", it simply does not apply to Arabs. Arabs in different countries don't identify as separate "sub-ethnicities", unless you for some reason equate nationality with ethnicity. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as there are several scientific reputable sources, the information must be used. How would you define "most sources"? Would you take all the millions of sources in the world and find out if 50% use that definition? If you read the article I listed above, (written by an Arab, at a conference dedicated to Arab gene and ethnicity studies), you will see why using "ethnic group" is an issue. In a way, it is similar to Americans not being an ethnic group (because of all the diverse backgrounds.)--Therexbanner (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Several more (there are hundreds of potential sources, just use Google):
http://histclo.com/country/cou-mea.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=40Zv8DC4g38C&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=arabs+panethnicity&source=bl&ots=h7x2ODT1_I&sig=kGTXpQAttO1BebQcOq2ZmOQXqv4&hl=en&ei=V4ZpTfCzK8mxhAeR-IihDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_latin_american_geography/summary/v007/7.2.miyares.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=iAPLHidx8MkC&pg=PA405&lpg=PA405#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also stating that "it just isn't a common description" is irrelevant (although I could agree on a personal level). That is because you need sources to back everything up, and what you stated is an opinion, not a fact. At this point, there are equally many sources stating both sides, so it would make sense to use them both equally.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Therexbanner in that manner i dont think Spanish people in spaim are Spanish, they are not an ethnicity, coz they are a mixture of French, Vandal, Arab, Goth, Germanic elements, and their DNS looks like a cocktail. the word ethnic comes from greek ethnos i guess, it means a nation, a thing we are. since Arabs are defined well in the article, and how come one can be called an Arab, there is no need for panethnic crap, i still insist if someone is going to use such a term for Arabs, let him go to other articles as well and use those dubious things, in that manner there will not be ethnicities, it will be only "XXX Speaking people!", go to other middle eastern people articles, there none has a "identify" section, only in ours!, im against it at the first place, it should all be replaced with the definition above,, i wander Therexbanner how hard have you searched google books to have these results because i have also searched them and found nothing, good work!. the first site is a private site, so we are going to agree to put the same sentence in all middle eastern people articles. Anyway i would leave the definition as is, and i will expand the other parts, and try to make it better--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Using haplogroups is not a good way of determining ancestry. They reflect population movements of 10000+ years ago, when ethnicities were irrelevant.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
As for common use, when I search "Arabs are an ethnic group" on Google, I get 32,800 hits. If I however search "Arabs are a panethnic group" or "pan-ethnic", I get simply nothing. If I search "Arabs are a pan-ethnicity", I get 4.440 hits, but all of them seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. All ethnic groups are "panethnicities" to some extent, so why you should single out Arabs is unclear. If Arabs don't identify themselves by "sub-ethnicity", and most sources by far describe them as an ethnic group, then it doesn't mater what a few geneticists or whatever choose to describer them as. It's a fringe view. FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The search results you mentioned don't prove anything. It all depends on the phrasing, and if you honestly believe that comparing Google hits is a good way, then you need to re-read RS guidelines.
There are obvious differences in that real ethnic groups have never been called pan-ethnicities by scientists or other reputable sources. There are a multitude of reasons for that. If we went with your analogy, it would mean Slavs, or Turkic people would be called "ethnic groups", when they're not. (Although they also sometimes share languages, religion, and genetic markers.)
Earlier, you claimed that there are no sources stating Arabs are a pan-ethnicity. I provided several sources that state that.
Anyways, I never said it should be the main theory. What I mean is that, since there are solid sources, the information must be reflected in the article. It may belong to the "Identity" section, I don't know, but it is definitely very important.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As expected, there were no further replies in a one month period. Any further removal of sourced claims will be reverted, and, if necessary, taken to arbitration.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

"Some religious minorities within Western Asia and North Africa who speak Arabic or any of its varieties as their primary community language." Some...do what? There isn't a verb in this statement (aside from the one in the identifying phrase "who speak Arabic"). Every word other than "some" in this text serves merely to identify who "some" refers to. --Khajidha (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabization

There seems to be a highly subjective effort to 'pick and choose', as it were, which peoples from the various Arab States are "really" Arabs. As the intro points out, however, Arabs "are identified as such on one or more of genealogical, linguistic, or cultural grounds, with tribal affiliations, and intra-tribal relationships playing an important part of Arab identity in tracing descendant of a national from an Arab state". Unless that intro is somehow wrong (in which case it needs to be reworked, as it would rule out pretty much all of the peoples deemed 'Arab' except for a few tribal groups in the Gulf region), then all of the main peoples in the Arab states do indeed meet that criteria. Middayexpress (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These questions can be asked about any ethnic group. If "ethnicity" means biological kinship, there is no such thing. All peoples have mixed genealogies, and identity is something that is "invented" for everybody. Yes, the word "Arab"--as used today--refers not just to the blood descendants of Arab tribes from Arabia but also to the descendants of ancient Phonecians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Berbers, etc. who have been linguistically assimilated and generally use the label "Arab" for themselves. The Turks of today's Turkey, similarly, are not mainly descended from the Turkish invaders of the 11th century CE. All evidence points to the existing population of Anatolia having been assimilated by the invaders and adopting their language and identity. Many/most Turks may be of Greek or Armenian descent. The "English" may be thought of as ethnically distinct from the Celtic peoples of ancient Britain, but a recent study reported in the New York Times points to their being closely related to the Celtic peoples of Britain, although the Anglo-Saxon invaders assimilated them. If someone wants to insist that Egyptians, Iraqis, or whatever are not really Arabs, then he/should accept that the citizens of Turkey are not real Turks and that the people of England are not really English. Eleanor1944 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal Content insertion from Ishmaelites

Even though the Ishmaelites' blood are hard to track in our era, but I suggest merging Ishmaelites to Arabs, as it truly is the beginning of the nation. I've already added all the content here, waiting for editors' opinions! My suggestion was based upon additional smaller articles being created, trying to link Arabs to Ishmael. Therefore, it should be better to keep all the content in one place and redirect here. Thanks everyone in-advance. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely do not think this is a good idea. This is religious/biblical, not fact and should remain in its own article. This is inappropriate, especially as this is from a biblical perspective and does not take into account other views on the matter. The ishmaelites article is fine for itself and perhaps there should be a link to it but going further than that is problematic. Otherperson2011 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I sounded abrupt above! Let me explain further: ishmaelites is the specific term for a group in the bible that in time has been associated with arab people. This has not been confirmed by anything outside the biblical references though, and the two concepts are distinct. While some Islamic scholars have linked the Ishmael with Arabs today, throughout Islamic history, esepcially in the beginning (for example see Al-Tarabi's commentaries) this has been in dispute as the Qur'an does not in fact name the son offered for sacrifice by Abraham. Even if some could argue present Islamic consensus recognizes this supposed lineage, that would not be enough to necessitate a merge. A link, yes. Merge, no. This is because arab people is about modern arab people and their descent; ishmaelites is about the particular group referenced in the bible that sometimes has been linked to the arabs and plays a distinct role. Having two separate articles is necessary to maintain this distinction that is already globally acknowledged. Merging would cause confusion and would not be appropriate in this circumstance. Further discussion on this may be helpful though if others feel strongly about this, but I doubt that would be the case. Most have acknowledged this distinction, and certainly all academics have. Until this is resolved, though, I edited things back to the previous state. It should probably remain so until some consensus arises to change the status quo. Sincerely, Otherperson2011 (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm so unsatisfied with your reverts. You broke the discuss link, removed content that is already explained (but needed additions), and you're showing your sensitivity toward the Bible while the Qur'an supports the same content (I've studied both). The sacrifice has nothing to do with this topic, so I'll try to ignore that too :p
Straight to the point. I didn't say that Arabs and Ishmaelites are the same now, but I'm referring to traditional history (not historical). The term deferred during history, so we should provide all details. I'll be replying below, as IZaK made good categories. My suggestion was meant to merge Ishmaelites to, what is now, "Traditional Arabs" under history, which can also be separate (like "Traditional History" and "Ethnic History" OR it can all be "Ethnic History"). ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge because (a) strictly speaking the term "Arab" ONLY means those peoples who speak the Arabic language. (b) Ethnically Arabs are diverse, ranging from dark-skinned African Arabs, to light-skinned Syrian and Lebanese Arabs, to the unique tribes of Saudi Arabia. (c) The phrase "Ishmaelites" is more of a religious notion derived from the Bible while the term "Arab" is a later term. (d) The term "Arabs" can include a variety of groups, there are Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs, as well as Arab Jews but it would be absurd to class them all as "Ishmaelites". (e) The term "Ishmaelites" is derived from the Biblical name and personality of Ishmael, but NOT all Arabs can claim or do claim direct descent from Ishmael. (f) The term "Arab" is a very diffuse term that includes a vast array of ethnicities and religious groups that share a certain Arabic culture that is not tied to terms such as "Ishmaelites" that may have other meanings, usually religiously connected in the Judeo-Christian heritage. IZAK (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to clear-up some points: especially that I didn't mean that Ishmael means or directs to Arab, but to be directed to its related content in a section under history. There is no modern term or track to Ishmaelites, just like the Judea tribe (they were first called Jews, then the term grew broader and broader). My effort was to keep the full historical origins in one place, as some editors were working after separate articles to current Arabs, Ishmaelites, Ibrahim Arabs...etc. I've seen that it's more productive to keep related content in one place (if it's not too large), then have titles redirecting to specific sections. At least we can have the focus to improve one article, instead of having many small low-quality articles.
  • (a) So, I'm considered Arab just because I speak Arabic?
  • (b) Ethnicity is related to merge and division, as even the early version of the article has a part about Ishmaelites in the history. Therefore, it's not bad to expand it (it's not much anyways).
  • (c) The Bible mentions historical Arabs (as a tradition); Arabia as a land separate, and the Arab people separate. An updated term never erases history, so we're still discussing content inside the history section, even though the term and tribes aren't here anymore.
  • (d) Already explained in the intro and (b), as I never claimed nor inserted that Arabs' origin is Ishmaelites.
  • (e) Already explained
  • (f) Already explained, as we're not talking about modern Arabs. ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are distinct subjects.Griswaldo (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
So the content that was talking about the Ishmaelites before was distinct, too? ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose it can be a stub summarized section and then link, no need for a merge esp when Arab on its own is such a heavy topic if we merged every Arab related info it will be unbearably long.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough; I was thinking that Ishmaelites is the only missing term, but I found a list of others too. Do you think we can use traditional terms instead? A brief on each. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is there to merge? The Ishmaelites article has not a single secondary source, and the only place where it mentions "Arabs" is followed by an explanation that those are not the same as the modern Arab people. I don't think any of that would improve this article. Huon (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm suggesting some insertions instead, probably traditional terms? For the disagreement about the lack of sources, this and this has some details about the relationship. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As an Arab i do not see any good reason for merging the two articles, i do value the above explanations to refute this suggestion. Quoting from the main article " Medieval Arab genealogists divided Arabs into three groups one of them is the "Arabized Arabs" (musta`ribah) of center and North Arabia, descending from Ishmael son of Abraham " So even in medieval times the two terms ""Arabs" and "Ishmaelites" were not synonymous. History (section) in (Arab people) provides link to the article concerning the specific term "Ishmaelites"..Specification matters here otherwise we should merge "Jews" and "Israelites", and then what about other supposed suggestions concerning historical terms related to the Arabs as "Saracens" and "Moors"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelmohdy (talkcontribs) 23:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I later proposed a section expansion (as there's not much content, excluding the children template), but the reverts didn't help at all. Anyways, nevermind; however, the three Arab sectors need expansion, by whomever is familiar with the content. ~ AdvertAdam talk 04:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Prevent further restoration of this incorrect section

All Semetic people did not come from Arabia!

Arabs came from Arabia. This is an Arab page, if you want to put Arabs come from Arabia put it.

You cannot write that "Semetic people as a whole originated from Arabia" Because they did not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Origin

The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites.

All of the middle east. Not just Arabia!

(cur | prev) 15:49, 1 July 2011 2.97.44.123 (talk) (54,797 bytes) (This statement "There is a consensus that the Semitic peoples originated from Arabian peninsula" is not correct & you can't see the content of the named source. Semitic people did not all originate from Arabia. Semitic meant all the middle east) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:13, 1 July 2011 Huon (talk | contribs) (56,272 bytes) (Undid revision 437239833 by 2.97.44.123 (talk): re-add sourced content) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:02, 1 July 2011 2.97.44.123 (talk) (54,797 bytes) (All Semetics did not come from Arabs.Arabs are not the same as Aramaens.Aramaens are a different branch:north semetic.Aramaens are not a child of Arabs.Arabs are not known before 900 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Ancient_Semitic_peoples) (undo)

Update

To help you further - I have also found this

"When written records began in the mid 3rd millennium BC, the Semitic-speaking Akkadians and Amorites were entering Mesopotamia from the deserts to the west, and were probably already present in places such as Ebla in Syria."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Origins

Which says that Akkadians and Amorites both came to Mesopotamia from the West and were probably already present in Syria. It does not say they came from Arabia. And to me Syria is the opposite in direction to Arabia. And west of mesopotamia is not Arabia either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.44.123 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Update 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Classification

Akkadian is classified as East Semetic language. Aramaen is classified as Northwest Semetic language. Arab is classified as Arabic separately.

All three are classified as separate branches. And so neither Akkadians, or Aramaens came from Arabia, or are any kind of Arab child or ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.44.123 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The book used as a source is rather old, but it can be found online. Apparently it does say that the consensus favors Central Arabia as the "primitive home" of all Semitic people. I can't tell whether that's still the consensus, and a newer source would be preferable, but unless you can present a source disagreeing with this one, I see no reason to disregard it. Since the migration this book is talking about is said to have been in progress in 5000 BC or earlier, it clearly predates the Akkadian (3000 BC?), Aramaic (1200 BC?) and Arabic (800 BC?) languages - by the way, the Arabic language is apparently classified as a Central Semitic language. Huon (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Explanation 3

The sources are here on wikipedia Huon. As is already written a paragraph above your comment here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Classification

Akkadian is classified as East Semetic language. Aramaen is classified as Northwest Semetic language. Arab is classified as Arabic separately.

All three are classified as separate branches. And so neither Akkadians, or Aramaens came from Arabia, or are any kind of Arab child or ancestor.

There is no consensus except that the one source says itself what it thinks. The fact that I am disagreeing, because wikipedia shows that semetic is a word for a geographic area of all of the middle east, not a word for an ethnic single group, shows that there is not a consensus of your view. Semetic is clearly defined as just a word which was used to group all the people of the middle east coincidentally by geography, but not an ethnic grouping. They were separate people. And lived and originated in separate areas of the middle east. Arabs are south Semetic. Because they were in Arabia. The others are Northwest, or east, because they were in the middle east, from the mediterranean to iraq, and were not in arabia. It is similar in useage to the word european which is a geographical grouping, but with different ethnic groups inside and not all related.

By the way Huon. If you read your source page again. You will see that it says, his claim of the migration, must have come from either of two directions (he is talking about which direction the migration of semites (akkadians) into mesopotamia came from, because before the akkadians there were not semites in mesopotamia, there were non semetic sumerians). He says it must have come from either south from arabia, or north from the euphrates which is north from syria down to mesopotamia. And wikipedia says to describe the migrations of akkadians, and arameans, that they probably came from the north or west, of mesopotamia. It does not say south.

The source does not just present its own opinion, the source says there is consensus. I have yet to see a reliable source actually disagreeing with that supposed consensus - and no, Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source, neither is your (or my) personal opinion. And while that source says there was miration by one of two possible directions, that is Semitic migration either way. Those are just different routes by which they might have reached Babylonia from their "primitive home" in Central Arabia. As I said above, the language classification is irrelevant because all of those languages postdate the migration we're discussing here. By now you have removed another two reliable sources. Unless you can provide reliable sources of your own contradicting those we currently have, that is not acceptable. After all, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Huon (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian Territories population

Our table of Arab populations does not provide a source for the Palestinian Territory number, nor a percentage of Arabs among that population. The CIA World Factbook says:

That would amount to a total population of 4,225,710 people, 90% of which are "Palestinian Arabs and other". Do we have better numbers, or should we use those? Huon (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It's better than the 2009 Israeli estimates on the Palestinian articles. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Arabization

North africa is not arab. The original people of north africa are the Imazighen. Amazigh people have 10000 years in North africa. And they have different language , writing!. north africa is amazigh, not arab. arabs came later. 45% got arabized, but they are amazigh race!. hope you understood me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.95.55 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what part of northern Africa you refer to, but northern Sudan, Egypt or Tunisia are usually considered part of the Arab world. For what it's worth, all three countries are members of the Arab League, with Egypt a founding member. Tunisia, which has the largest proportion of Amazigh people of the three, still has 98% Arabic-speakers compared to a 1% Berber-speaking minority. Libya still has a ratio of 95% Arabic-speaking to 5% Berber-speaking. Huon (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

North Africans today likely are in large part of Berber descent. But those who have become Arabized in language and culture fit the usual definition of "Arab." The same is true for Palestinian Arabs of ancient Israelite descent and Egyptian Arabs of ancient Egyptian descent. Even the "North Arabian" tribes before Islam had the tradition of having been Arabized by the original Arabs from Yemen. It is like the English today, who apparently are descended in large part from ancient Celtic peoples who slowly adopted the language and culture of the Anglo-Saxons. But what I actually came to this page for pertains to the end of the first paragraph of the article: "with tribal affiliations, and intra-tribal relationships playing an important part of Arab identity. [15]". I was bothered by this sentence, as affiliation with tribes is not so common in many Arab countries. I checked my copy of the Hopkins and Ibrahim book (cited in note #15) and found nothing like that on p. 6 or close by. They are respected scholars. The introduction to their anthology is not worded ideally, but the point is that they don't even say that. So much for "sources" if they are used carelessly. Eleanor1944 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Yemen arabs.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Yemen arabs.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

please edit info box

the population of arab league is 350-355 million not 280 million and thats according to the source cited in the article and to the Arab league article which is not linked(somone please link it)--Riuken (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

While the population of the Arab League is 360 million, not all of them are Arabs. 280 million seems a reasonable estimate for the Arab population in the Arab League, especially as we have sources putting the total Arab population at 300 million worldwide. Huon (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Why are Somalis mentioned there? Somalis are not Semitic people, they are Cushitic people and only very distantly related to Arabs. Someone please remove them from it. Wadaad (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically that's mentioned on Template:Arabs, not here. Anyway, I agree and have removed the Somalis. Huon (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
As of the Sources I have mentioned it is proofed that the Somali people are closely related to the Arab people then first though. First of all did you read the sources? And verify it?Runehelmet (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote at Template talk:Arabs, three sources were given. The first was empty (just a ref tag without content), the second required a password which I obviously did not possess. A further search indicates that it was probably this paper which deals with populations in Sudan, not with Somalis or Arabs in general. According to the abstract, the paper could distinguish between "recent" migration from Asia and the native African population, which seems to undermine that the Africans and the Arabs were all that closely related. The third was a paper from Molecular Biology and Evolution: [1] It does not support the claim that Somalis and Arabs are related ethnic groups. At most, it could be taken to state that Eastern Africans and Northeastern Africans share some genetic traits, but they differ in others, and the article does not distinguish between Somalis and other Eastern Africans (including Kenyans and Ethiopians). Even if we had a source unequivocally stating that Arabs and Somalis are genetically related, that still does not relate them as ethnic groups, especially since Arabs are rather diverse genetically. For example, there seems to be little to no relation between the Eastern Africans and the inhabitants of Arabia. Also, most of the genetic relations mentioned in the article seem to date back about 8,000 years - that's a little much in my book to still call the ethnic groups related nowadays. Huon (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The Kenyans referred to in that link are actually a sub-group of the Oromo Ethiopians (a Cushitic people). Also, the affinities between, on the one hand, Somalis and other populations of the Horn, and on the other, the adjacent populations of Arabia, are actually quite considerable. They also date from both pre-historic and historic periods, particularly in terms of mtDNA and autosomal DNA (e.g. [2]). That said, I agree with your overall point & Wadaad's that the ties between Arabs and other Semitic people are obviously more immediate than those with other Afro-Asiatic groups, including Cushitic peoples. On the Berber people article, I notice a link through has been added to the general Afro-Asiatic page as a compromise, which makes sense here too. Middayexpress (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in but I think Ethnic groups - Ethnic groups. Arabs are not an "ethnic group" so they are no "related" ethnic groups. It is like Adding related ethnic groups on the Black people page. Amhara to Oromo (related ethnic groups), Masai to Samburu. I will add also that while some Arabs are related , you will find other Arabs that are not. Those Arabs of Iraq and Syria and Liban might be linked to Whites in Europe. Proving as Huron said "Arab" is too diverse. It is a term that covers more than ethnicity.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The term "Arab" is indeed quite broad. Middayexpress (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor1944's edits

I have just reverted two edits by Eleanor1944 which consisted mainly of the addition of unsourced qualifiers. In my opinion most of those qualifiers were unnecessarily cautions ("Some members of certain groups that fulfill this criterion sometimes reject ...") and made the article harder to read. The one piece of content that I reverted was the claim that Arabic became the lingua franca of the Islamic world instead of just the Middle East. To my knowledge, while Arabic spread widely in North Africa, it did not really penetrate Persia - the use of Arabic in religion is more akin to the use of Latin in pre-Reformation Christianity and does not imply that those Muslims are really conversant in Arabic. If I'm wrong, I would like to see a reliable source.

I actually agree with Eleanor1944's criticism of the "political" definition, but adding even more qualifiers and calling the proponents of that definition names is not the way to go. Since there were no sources for the political definition, I have removed it for now. Huon (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it is controversial, it needs solid sources to be included. It doesn't, so it should e removed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
"Lingua franca" doesn't necessarily mean "language spoken by the majority of the population". If when an educated Persian and an educated Arab met, they would likely talk together in Arabic, then Arabic could be considered the lingua franca for scholarly discussions between Persians and Arabs at that time, even if the majority of Persians knew little Arabic beyond what was necessary for daily prayers... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
You are probably be right, and I've changed the text back to "Islamic world", but I would still like to see a reliable source. Huon (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look for some written source for the qualifiers. There was a cover story on Time or Newsweek in about November in which, as I recall, portrayed even Maronites in Lebanon proud in this moment to call themselves Arabs, but I would not propose using this for documentation. Nor would I use my own personal knowledge of people. But is there any source for saying that all or almost all of such groups do not accept the Arab designation? I think it is safer, in the absence of proof, to say "some." It is the absence of a qualifier that needs to be sourced. I won't make an issue of it,though, until I find something to cite. As for Arabic, it did not become the lingua franca of the Islamic world in the way French is of France, but it is the language of religion throughout the Islamic world (although Turkey eventually translated the Quran into Turkish, and Turkish--I'm pretty sure--became the language of the call to prayer for a while, although that too was changed back to Arabic in the post-WWII period. Arabic is at least the religious lingua franca for the Islamic world. As for being the everyday spoken language (with variations in vernacular dialects), that is limited by definition to what we call the Arabs (that's a circular statement). Yes, Arabic became the lingua franca in the way Latin did in the Western Christian world. And eventually Persian--although it disappeared as a written language for a while and then reappeared as New Persian later--became a great literary lingua franca in the Islamic world to the north and East of the Arabs--the Ottoman Empire, Iran, India, etc. Marshall Hodgson calls it the nearest thing to a world language during the 1400s. But Arabic remined the religious language. I think I made some improvements, but I expected to get back with more citations and also to polish the article some more (sorry about using the word "some" so much!!) This may be another section of the article, but I made some changes regarding sects two or so days ago that got cut out. Ismaelis are listed as distinct from Shiites. That is not correct. They are one of the sub-sects of Shiites, along with Twelvers and Zaidis. I also mentioned the Druze and the Alawites as highly heterodox offshoots of the Ismaelis and Twelvers respectively, and that got cut out. To complete the picture, I mentioned that the third early Islamic sect, the Kharijites, have one moderate offshoot, the Ibadis, that survives as the dominant group in Oman, and that got cut out (I wonder if this is because the Ibadi sect is not so well known or because some Omanis don't like to have this discussed in the face of Wahhabi prejudice). Personally, I would have left the question of sects out of this article, with a reference to other articles. Eleanor1944 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I omitted the last phrase in the first sentence of the article (something like "tracing descent from a national of an Arab state"). It was a careless wording that is not even accurate. There are Arabs who are indigenous to Hatay Province of Turkey, who do not live in an Arab state. There are Arabs in Arabistan/Khuzistan Province of Iran. Palestinian Arabs do not live in an Arab state, nor are they descended from people living in an Arab state. Many of them are stateless (without legal nationality/citizenship). On the other hand, some people (Kurds, Berbers) living in Arab states are not Arabs. I also tried to change "part of" to "role in" in that sentence, largely as a stylistic matter. More needs to be clarified (e.g., the word has had several different meanings over the centuries, and sometimes even today, but I can bring that up later. Also, I want to add some references if they are welcome. Eleanor1944 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Spain has no 800.000 Arabs.

Spain has no 800.000 Arabs. The information is untrue. The reference (in Spanish language) does not mention that in Spain there are 800,000 Arabs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paracelso86 (talkcontribs) 05:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[file:Arabic_speaking_world.svg]

please update the map again! because South Sudan is independent state now ut still show there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.47.86 (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2011

dear wikipedia

Please i want to edit your article about arab population outside arab world, i think you should add indonesian arab population there because according to wikipedia indonesia there are 5 million population of arab in indonesia Source : Id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-indonesia

39.209.106.59 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please present a reliable source for the changes you suggest. The Indonesian article's sole source is a blog post, which is not reliable. Huon (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)