Jump to content

Talk:Arabs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.70.35.233 (talk) at 10:43, 6 September 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Science - names?

What are the names of the Arab people making science? Let's be more specific. I looked more into it to help in finding it but the only names I've found Avicenna, Jābir ibn Hayyān or Rhazes were PERSIANS! Let's help in finding real Arabs here Merewyn (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of Arab scientists and scholars. Averroes is probably the most prominent, though I don't know whether you'll consider him "real" enough. Since science is a rather urban endeavour, you're unlikely to find medieval scientists from the nomadic tribes of Arabia. Huon (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only mean that the paragraph Arab people#Science gives no names. I wanted to complete it but the names widely known as "Arab" are in fact Persian. Let's extract some the most prominent names from your list.Merewyn (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface in lead

Dzlinker and I disagree on whether to put "panethnicity" in bold in the very first sentence. I agree it's important, but WP:MOSBOLD explicitly lists the appropriate uses of boldface, and "emphasis" is not among them (in fact it's listed among WP:BADEMPHASIS). Italics may be used for emphasis, but only sparingly, and not just because a fact is important (in contrast to introducing an important term that is then discussed in the article, which "panethnicity" is not). The position in the very first sentence should be sufficient emphasis for that fact. (I also doubt the single most important fact about the Arab people is that they're a panethnicity, but that's debatable.) For these reasons I've again removed the boldface. Huon (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara

Dzlinker added an entry on Western Sahara, citing p. 214 of Levinson's Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook as a reference. Page 214 of Levinson deals with China, not Western Sahara. That's not even the right continent. Levinson mentions Western Sahara on p. 178, but says nothing about it except that it's occupied by Morocco and that "its status as a nation is under discussion." Levinson's entry on Morocco adds no relevant information, though the Sahrawi population may have been included in the Moroccan statistics (not sure either way). Furthermore, Dzlinker gave Western Sahara's population as "400.000 to 3.000.000", whereas the CIA Factbook gives a number of 522,928. I have no idea where the three million are supposed to come from, but that number is literally incredible. He also linked to the demographics of Western Sahara article, but it does not cover the ethnic composition and does not mention Arabs. Since the total population is dubious (to put it mildly) and no source exists for the percentage of Arabs, I have removed the entry. Huon (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting here, these are some new references about arab culture in Western Sahara. Ethnologue says there are two varients of arabic language spoken in Western Sahara link. The same report include a total population of 440K, and Joshua Project says they are 567K according to the UN 2012 Census. 700K according to this. Those are the Sahrawis who live in Western Sahara and Tindouf Refugee Camp. This shows a world population (of Sahrawis) of 3.5M mainly leaving in Marocco. This is why i put 400K to 3M.. - Dzlinker (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think saharaterritory.webs.com is a reliable source; I have no idea where they got their numbers from, but I believe the "Saharan population" is population that lives in the Sahara desert, not Sahrawi population - for comparison, they give a "Saharan population" of 12 million in Sudan, and I doubt a quarter of Sudan's population are Sahrawi expatriates. Even if they were, they should still be counted among their country of residence (ie Morocco, not Western Sahara), as we do with the guest workers in Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE. Peoplegroups seems to give the number of Moroccans who are ethnic Sahrawis (who may or may not be expatriates from Western Sahara), and that number, while possibly relevant to Morocco, is irrelevant to Western Sahara. Their entry on Western Sahara is empty. The Joshua Project is hardly a reliable source; if their number comes from an UN-led census, we should cite that census directly, but I don't see that there's anything on how many of the inhabitants are considered Arabs. Rather, the majority of the population seems to be classified as "Moors", who are variously described as "an Arab-Berber people" and "of mixed Berber, Arab, and black African descent". Huon (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huon and Dzlinker... though saharaterritory.webs.com is not specially precise on its data - and that not because of lack of interest by the writer, you can bet -, it is obvious that many people still do not differentiate between sahrawi and saharan people. The saharan population that saharaterritory.webs.com refer is an estimated (+/-) population on the desertic (therefore saharan) territory of a given country, which is calculated by crossing data between a satellite map together with province demographics information. And all the source data used came from Wikipedia. But well, Wikipedia is far from being gold, however; I myself corrected an article about Mali geography while writing saharaterritory.webs.com.
The article says the classification as arab is not ethnic but cultural, since Sahrawis seem to speak Arabic they should figure here, Moors, Berbers, Mesopotamians, Syrians, Arabians, .. are considered arabs in this article. I propose to add the Western Sahara territory, with the population given by un 2009 census 513K (page 19) , plus around 150K refugees, with a precision note about the ethnicities. OK? - Dzlinker (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Berbers are counted as Arabs depends. For Morocco, Levinson divides the population (which is 99% Arab-Berber) into 66% Arabs (and the rest non-Arab Berbers, plus the 1% Spaniards and others). To classify Moors as Arabs seems synthesis to me; we do so for Mauritania, but I don't think we should. I wouldn't mind the addition of Western Sahara with the UN Census information on the total population (though the refugees probably should be counted among their country of residence, not among Western Sahara), but finding a source which gives precise information about the number of Arabs among the Sahrawi population will probably be difficult. Huon (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new row about the Western Sahara, with references to the total population, ethnic groups and languages spoken. -Dzlinker (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Western Sahara entry has to be kept on the list, since most inhabitants consider themselves as Arabs (same statement than Mauritania), even if two of the three major groups (Tekna and Reguibat) are mostly Arabic-speaking but of Berber descent. However, no flag should be associated to the entry to keep the neutrality of the article. --Omar-Toons (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bull shit

bull shit article written by arabists specially the funny numbers and table with percentage ratios in the bottom and the reference book. --MasriDefend (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

funny they invented a new race called eastern hamatic arab wow, arab is arace now, Arabian peninsula people have their race and have mixed with other race. bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasriDefend (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We base our articles on what reliable sources say, not what some random person on the internet knows is right. You deleted what reliable sources report on the ethnic makeup of a number of countries (those countries known as the Arab world). I realize that there some people that feel that such and such group is not Arab, and they (you) are entitled to hold that view. And if you can bring reliable sources that dispute whatever material is in the article, then Wikipedia will be more than willing to accommodate any other perspectives on the topic. You are not however entitled to delete what reliable sources say because you feel it is bullshit that is written by arabists. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's common sense that's why I am saying and sorry "bullshit". For the source, wikipedia here is source, there are many article who say other wise here. Arab is an ideology which is not ethnic or race nor arab is a race as the source says, only illiterate people would say that. You can not say that 90% are arab in Egypt first, because it's not an ethinic or race and I am stressing here many times; secondly, you did not survey 90% of Egyptians who say that they are arabist and believe in arabism or nasirists. In Egypt and any where in north Africa many people say they are arab because they want to be from prophet mohamed or because of the influence of nasirism as an ideology and because of Islam is from and arab source and arabic language. Those people are illiterate except the idology where some people believe in arabism and naserism and they are free to do that; however, these people are very small group now specially seeing what this idology brought to their countries such as Egypt, syria, lybia, yemen, and iraq specifically their regimes. Thank u for ur fast response. --MasriDefend (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the word arab in middle east and north african countries now is the same as the word western, or european in europe. Although I don't like the name and that what most people dont like and the dispute mainly is the name since it's originally an ethnecity name of the people of the arabian penesola and I would like it to be replace with the geographic name the same as europe are european and have a european uninue not say english league same as arab league; that's what I hope to be done, to have a north africa middle eastern union instead of arab league. The people of the region share many things the same as europeans share many things such as similar culture and languages. So currently, u say the country of Egypt is arab same as u say the country of England is europeans and not say the percentage of european in England is 90% and btw, Egypt dont have immigrants. Regards --MasriDefend (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i propose changing title to Arab world people, it is very disputable i believe, but it will clearly make the point about ethnic mixture, and redefine the people as the guys who live in the arab world. -Dzlinker (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've had these discussions billions of times. There will always be some nationalists here and there who dislike what they see in this article, but that's irrelevant, reliable sources are what matters, not nationalist opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get what FunkMonk does not like. If u think that Arab is a race then I am sorry ur stupid. If you think 90% of Egyptians are Arab ancestory just check out The Egyptians #Genetic history article and go search for the modern Egyptian DNA. real arabians in Egypt is less than one percent mainly the Bedouins. And I agree with Dzlinker --MasriDefend (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that the article in its very first sentence says that "Arab" is a panethnicity, not a "race"? Regarding "Arab world people": That seems a neologism to me; we'd need to see it used in reliable sources before we discuss changing the article title. Huon (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely in the mid east north africa, not new. As I said only illiterate people are who think that they areab for the reasons I stated above so It's not panethinic since many people now day are educated and read their genetic history and know that they are not ethnically arab but are arab by culture and language, in other word, there are similar and common and related cultures and languages and specially religion between the people of mid east north africa and these people recognize it. Dont confuse with arabism or nasirism since its the ideology that of belonging to one "united arab state" and not the individual countries this was popular at the time of ottomn and english colonism in the area but now it very unpopular. I dont understand what kind of source do u need that states that arab is currently other word for the brothers in the mid east north africa region who share many similarities. There is unfortunatly alot of confusion between arab the term and arab the ethnicity. --MasriDefend (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab by culture and language" is exactly what "ethnically Arab" means. I don't know what kind of source we'd need, but the source we currently have is the abstract of a talk given at the Human Genome Meeting 2011. I somehow doubt you can claim the speaker is illiterate. Huon (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by arab as ethnicity is arab by DNA. --MasriDefend (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC) ".. but are arab by culture and language, in other word, there are similar and common and related cultures and languages and specially religion between the people of mid east north africa and these people recognize it."--MasriDefend (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When we agree that "ethnicity" is defined via language, culture, and religion, not DNA, you'll find that the article already says what you want it to say. Huon (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huon please understand, there are similar cultures and languages same similar cultures and language between European and not the same culture and language. --MasriDefend (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're saying here. How are the laguages and cultures of Europe relevant to Arab people? Huon (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

omg, Huon please understand, there are similar cultures and languages in the mid east north africa not the same culture and language. The same as Europeans have similar cultures and languages between them and not the same culture and language. Hope u understand it right this time.--MasriDefend (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another catastrophic thing about the article, Arabians redirects here !! Arabians are the indigenous people of the Arabian peninsula! Do we agree?? If so i have an other proposition, let us create an article for Arabians, and put a disambiguation tag at the top of each of those two.

There is articles for Berbers (actually two considering Maghrebis) for Egyptians for Syrians and for Mesopotamians, but not for Arabians which redirects to Arab people where we find all the ethnic groups cited before !! despite, and considering the arabians fashion, that doesn't exist anywhere else in the arab world, those people deserve an article for them alone. -Dzlinker (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True There is confusion between arab the term and arab the ethnicity and this the cause of the whole dispute and issue. --MasriDefend (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the inhabitats of the Arabian peninsula, but I don't know enough about that topic to write the article myself. Be bold and go ahead! Regarding the Arab people: The wide range of people so classified makes them not just an ethnicity, but a panethnicity. The corresponding European equivalent would probably be "Western culture", which is an equally broad, if not broader, classification. Huon (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think european is the more equivelent example. First, it not one culture, there are many culture. Add to this the broad history of the region and its differences. And adding north africans to the composition making it similar to european eastern and western sides. arab itself is not a culture, but alot of common things of many cultures. --MasriDefend (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this article Culture of Europe --MasriDefend (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do at least a startup. -Dzlinker (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea. We have an article for Arab world and demographics of the Arab world, any new content forks will be redirected back. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well its your personal opinion that its a bad idea and u should keep that to urself. And who do u think u are to "redirect things back", this does not seem like cooperation to making a more meaningful article or a constructive argument. What demographics are u taking about? dont tell me the one with the ratios which I dont know what the hell are they based on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --MasriDefend (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am from the arab world and I am muslim and I know more about it than many of u and I dont think any one from the arab world would oppose my suggestions to improving the article.--MasriDefend (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, MasryDefend should take it down a notch, insults and exclamation points won't get you anywhere here and opening a thread titled "bull shit" is not helpful to the discussion either. Congratulations on being a Muslim from the Arab world. This alone does not give you any special qualifications in deciding matters related to the Arab world on Wikipedia. This article is about the "panethnicity" of people who share the Arabic language (with varying dialects), a similar Arabic culture (with regional, national, and local variations), a similar history and geographic region. It does not deal solely with those with Arabian ancestry (i.e. genetics) and thus includes Egyptians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Palestinians, Moroccans etc. However, the article itself needs a lot of work, including a better explanation of what subject it is specifically dealing with. There might indeed be a need for a separate article about Gulf Arabs who without a doubt form their own subcultural group. I have reservations about an article on "Arabians" though. What would this article cover? People from the Arabian Peninsula or all people in the Arab world who have Arabian ancestry i.e. of Bedouin descent? --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who could say how many arabs are of arabians ancestry?? I believe it's hard to find out, due to their tiny number they must have been totally absorbed by populations they've been living with. Never the less we can make a section for "arabian diaspora in the arab world..". Actually their is an article about bedouins, which talks about arabians who still live in tents among camels. I've started a new article about Arabians, some help would be welcome. -Dzlinker (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of the point I was trying to make. Therefore, the article you are working on would then cover the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula only? Why don't we just start an article on Gulf Arabs instead of Arabians? Arabians and Arab overlap too much and the term is confusing. It would also put the Gulf Arabs and the Yemenis in the same subcategory which is inaccurate. I think we ought to discuss this more before making a move. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with al Ameer. "Arabians" has no separate meaning from Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NO arab is no arabian, arab is the arab native speaker, and the arabian live in arabia (gulf). Two different things. I would rather keep arabian, so people will stop confusing them with arabs. -Dzlinker (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's your own, personal definition, which is irrelevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ya ameer. I am not doing this for my own benifit but for more public correct knowledge around the issue when read. I lived most of my life in Egypt meaning the I know the situation more than many foreigners that's all. Now for the panethnicity, this term means there is some culture and many cultures are sub of it from this original culture. And this is not applied in Arab situation where every region in the Arab world have very great history, different cultures and different spoken languages. What you can call panethnicity could be Egyptians, there are many sub culture and people in Egypt today such as Sharkawys(people from the eastern province), Alexanderians, etc or more broader upper and lower Egyptian division. But u know All Egyptian now are affected by each other and they are not the different from Each other maybe in minor things. For this article, I got an idea of removing it. There is no article here for European people but there is an article for Culture of Europe and I think we should follow this example as I stated the similarity between the Europeans and arab world situation. In The Egyptian Arabic wikipedia, the article about arabs deals with the arabians both terms are the same only in English there is different terms. I dont agree with the golf arab name because then are going back to the issue of panethnicity of culture sub from a parent original culture. --MasriDefend (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
u know what people, we need to be frank here. There is nothing such as arab accept the people from arabian penesuila. This is the historic term from the quran, and over centeries. The only time where this term was used to refer to all people from north africa and middle east was at the time of gamal abdel nasser who forced Egypt with the arabist from the middle east and forcing all of north africa to this new ideology of one state called "united arab republic". Many people that are not educated enough wrongly think that since we speak "Arabic" as they are all taught sice the islamic times and we are arabs because they think is no way for us to be speaking arabic and be muslim accept by being real arabs, knowing nothing about real arab and we all know today that this is wrong. So if we choose to go with the wrong facts then u keep this article and continue to assert this wrong assumption. If we choose to go with the right facts then we do what's right regardless of the arab ideology and wrong facts from uneducated people. That's the whole story. --MasriDefend (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that there's no such thing as Arab people except people from the Arabian peninsula, you have to explain sources like Levinson saying that there is. When it's your personal opinion against multiple reliable secondary sources, the sources win. Huon (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated my sources, the quran and history until the 50s. And all the sources u have including the source that say arab is panethnicity are from arabist websites, just look on the top of the site. And from westerners who dont understand the situation well. --MasriDefend (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
look at this map, it names arabian peninsuila as the country of arabs. http://arz.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Khaleej_ajam.jpg its from a book I think --MasriDefend (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"History until the 50s" is not a source, and the Quran is at best a primary source. Levinson, on the other hand, is an expert who published with a reliable academic publisher. Ghazi Tadmouri, our source for the "panethnicity", is an expert speaking at a scientific conference (not an "arabist website") and not a Westerner. You cannot dismiss reliable sources just because they disagree with your preferred theory. I'm not sure what the map is supposed to tell me, but when we have to choose between a 1908 Ottoman map and a 1998 academic reference book, the latter is obviously the better source. Huon (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already said what I wanted to say. Quran and hadith in the times of islam specially hadiths(talks) used to refer by arab as the inhabitant of arabian peninsula. TO sum up this issue:

1)there are similar and common and related cultures and languages and specially religion between the people of mid east north africa and these people recognize it wrongly by using the term arab today effected from 2 and 3. The same as Europeans have similar cultures and languages between them and not the same culture and language.

2) Many people that are not educated enough wrongly think that since we speak "Arabic" as they are all taught sice the islamic times and we are arabs because they think is no way for us to be speaking arabic and be muslim accept by being real arabs, knowing nothing about real arab and we all know today that this is wrong.

3) The arab ideology come from 1 and 2, It's pan-arabism to create one state comprimising whole of mid east and north africa into a state called united arab republic. It has be attempted alot and always failed. This movement is very unpopular today. --MasriDefend (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is mostly an individual opinion being hoisted upon a group of people with no sources. Just to respond to the last point, as most everything else has already had somebody respond, a pan-Arabist received over 21% of the first round of the Egyptian presidential elections. To claim that pan-Arabism is "very unpopular today" is a personal opinion masquerading as a documented fact. nableezy - 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he was going to win not because he was pan arabist but because he was libral, he was not that pan arabist though. anyway do whatever u want --MasriDefend (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANK GOD, I found the source u badly want. Arab is a geographic term! http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/4/48593/Opinion/The-Republic-of-Egypt.aspx --MasriDefend (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece in a newspaper. nableezy - 05:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, other sources states solid undisputed facts right. And I am saying that arab is stated as a geographic term and I did not mean the opinion about removing arab from the offical name of the country. Here is a source that say that arab is a "geographic term".--MasriDefend (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt a reliable source for statements of fact. The most it could be used for is to source that Abdel Moneim Said holds this opinion. nableezy - 16:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed replacement in the infobox

I was thinking of replacing John of Damascus with Mariam Baouardy another Arab Christian, although a woman. This would even out the sexes, but not ruin the religious and regional balance we have now. A minus could be that her article isn't very long, and perhaps she is less notable. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure since John of Damascus is more famous, no strong opinion on the matter through. What do you think of adding another level or two of images? Or would it be too much? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could maybe add a level more, but I think we should be just as careful in picking individuals as last time, the Palestinian info box was recently expanded with several rows, not due to the particular notability of the people included, but simply because there were free images of them. I think that's a flawed approach. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. i propose Avicenna and Ibn Arabi, and Tarik ben Zyad in addition to the one you proposed (Mariam Baouardy). I can do the work. -Dzlinker (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avicenna was Persian while Tariq bin Ziyad was Berber. I think we should discuss the new additions before making a new collage --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thorough discussion is key to prevent edit wars. I'm surprised that the current image received so little criticism. There was a bit from some Egyptian nationalists for including Nasser, but no one can dispute he always identified as Arab. FunkMonk (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He always claimed arab origin ansistory. So let gamal be who he wished to be. I don't care about him as an Egyptian.--MasriDefend (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a survey about who should figure on the next row. I propose 4 people:

File:Ibn khaldoun in a maroccan stamp.jpg If any other suggestions, please add it (with a portrait) to the list above. Thanks! - Dzlinker (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is very al-Andalus-heavy. I'd get rid of either Ibn Arabi or Leo Africaus, probably the former, so we can keep John of Damascus, add Mariam Baouardy, and get a 3 by 4 block of images.

in north africa are arabs and berbers

i want to informe some people, in north africa's countries there are arabs and berbers, not only berbers, the native people of north africa are berbers, but centries ago the arabs came to north africa, the majority of people of north africa are arabs.

UAE demographics

Arjun G. Menon brought the UAE entry in the Arab population section in line with the demographics section of the United Arab Emirates article. Unfortunately that article's numbers bore no relation to the source; in fact, an "arab" demographic not mentioned in the source seems to have been made up, and all other numbers except the natives were too low to make up the difference. Thus I reverted to the old CIA numbers. Huon (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabized Arabs descending from Ishmael

I removed the "no evidence has been shown" comment. This is your own personal belief. If you actually have a reliable source that argues that point of view then put it. I don't see "no evidence has been shown" when it comes to the claim that Jews are descendant from Jacob. The Arabized Arabs section is according to Medieval Arab genealogists who took pride to their lineage and recorded who their father were for thousands of years. Plus, Jews and Arabs along with other semitic groups like Assyrians share the same genetic heritage which is obvious since they all come from the same tight region.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabs&oldid=511049416"