Talk:Arab League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Organizations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Arab world (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Arab League:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : A new sections might be useful for Foreign relations. A "Criticism" section needs to be added, or re-added, to provide balance to this article (right now it appears to just be propaganda).
  • Cleanup : The lead section contains a very long list of cultural targets and responsibilities for the AL. It could be more concise and material be shifted to the body of the article.
  • Expand : The governance section needs extension: The duties of the different institutions of the AL (Council, Committees, Secreteriat, and possibly others) have to be explained and brought into context. A small short paragraph for each institution might well be appropriate.
  • Stubs : I am sure you know more than one book on the AL to suggest for the Further reading section.
  • Verify : The demographics section lacks references. Nice would be to make a table with the largest cities.
  • Other : A map illustrating the economic potential of the member states would be useful. This might be done by a GDP (potentially per capita) map.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.


Sudan on the map is still shown to include South Sudan, so can someone please change this. Remember, South Sudan isn't a member of the Arab League yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 (talkcontribs) 12:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Order of Members[edit]

Is there any kind of order to the list of members, 0.2? It's not chronological or alphabetical, whatever it is. If no one objects soon, and I don't find a rationale in the history, I'll probably do it chronologically. Or maybe alphabetically. But somehow. ;-) -- JohnOwens 00:50 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Obviously, this was fixed long ago... Just placing this note here so no one wastes any time double checking. --(Mingus ah um 01:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

RASD¿?¿? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Language[edit]

Could anyone tell me what the official language or languages of the Arab League are? Obviously, one must be Arabic (a specific dialect?), but given the range of mutually unintelligible dialects, I thought English or some other language might also conceivably be used. I didn't get a response from the official website in answer to this question. - Brettz9 00:53 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Arabic is the official language. Every Arab nation has its own slang and accent, but formal arabic is the language used in the meetings. Even if slang arabic is spoken, other arabs will comprehend it easily. -- Mostafa Hussein

Excellent. Thank you. A few things further, however, if you don't mind...Would you know if there is a webpage source I could cite which says that Arabic is the official language (preferably an official website)? Is formal Arabic quite a bit different I assume than classical Arabic? Also, I could swear reading in a linguistics course that although some dialects can be mutually understood (especially by speakers in nearby countries), that the "dialects" (at least when spoken) are so different at the extremes (like maybe between Iraq and Morocco), that they could not be mutually understood. If the latter is the case, I am curious whether the differences are mostly just pronunciation, or whether the grammar, vocabulary, etc. is varied to the degree that the speakers couldn't understand the written language of each other as well. Thanks! - Brettz9 15:39 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)
OK, ... formal/proper arabic is tied with lots and lots of grammar.Its also very rich in vocabulary. Its used in written documents. It is funny to speak in formal/proper arabic with my friends, but if I am giving a speech, it is the other way round. Well, in algeria and morroco they speak very fast, but if they speak a bit slowly, all arabs can understand them. Almost all dialects are derived from formal arabic. The differences are mostly the accent and a little vocubulary that deals with very intellectualy low stuff, like food, dress and household objects. Casual arabic is just an easy way to speak with others, to avoid lots of grammatical stuff. Illiterates might have a problem comprehending formal/proper arabic.--Mostafa Hussein

Thanks very much for your help...But do you know an official source I could cite which stated that Arabic was, as you say, the only official language? I would like to include this information on a webpage, and it would help to have an official source. Thanks!

Nope, sorry :( --Mostafa Hussein
One website you could use would be the official site of the Arab League, Though it doesn't say anywhere that the official language is Arabic, the entire site is in Arabic and there is no other language available for it to be translated into, so that should give you some clue as to the languages used. Audancer1993 18:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Formal Arabic, usually called Modern Standard Arabic by English speaking linguists, is just a updated and standardized (by the Arab language academies) of Classical Arabic, containing coined vocabulary for modern technological and philosophical innovations and favoring one or the other grammatical variants found in Classical Arabic. On occassion a writer may intentionally slip into an older usage, but this is not considered as much of anachronism as using say a Shakspearean usage in English.

Ybgursey (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: the Iraq-Iran War[edit]

Since members are forbidden to attack each other, should we mention the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war? Seems to me that Iraq's attack on Iran would be a violation of the Arab League charter. Did any Arab country take note of this? --Uncle Ed

Iran was never in the Arab League; among other things, they are of the hated despicable Persian race and speak Farsi even (OK, I'm exaggerating a little :-) ), so they're not in any sense Arab. Indeed, note in the article a mention of support for Iraq against Iran in 1987. Muslim brotherhood only goes so far I guess. Stan 23:54 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
Well, not precisely 100% "they're not in any sense Arab". There is an Arab minority in Iran, concentrated along the Iranian shore of the Persian Gulf - an area at least informally called "Arabistan". PML.
Most interesting! I love Wikipedia... BTW, Iran mentions an Arab minority, but I don't see a ref to the geographic concentration... Stan 01:55 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Whether Iran is or isnt Arabic is a very contentious issue, but they aren't part of the Arab League. Dietary Fiber

No, it's not a contentious issue at all lol. Iran is as Arab as Ireland is Slavic. The Arab pop in Iran is probably smaller than in France, a country about the same size. Note that Arabs often refer to the Persian Gulf as the Arab Gulf. It's also got the highest percentage of Shia Muslims in the world which further sets it apart. Marskell 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, so it's all right then: they're only Muslims and therefore not brothers. --Uncle Ed
Are you implying something? --Dejitarob 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting Confusion[edit]

Does anyone know how it is that, if there are 22 countries that have ever been members, and Libya withdrew in October 2002, there was a 21-1 vote in March 2003? Did Libya not withdraw immediately but after a period of time (at least 6 months) from the announcement, or did they rejoin, or what? -- John Owens 00:34 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like this could use some updating. Does anyone knwo the actual status of Libya as it stands? If they rejoined, why? And shouldn't that be added to the timeline? —thames 18:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amr Moussa is working hard to change the voting system from unanimous to majority. I will keep my eye on that and tell you(or edit the article). Eventually, this might improve the current role of the league.-- Mostafa Hussein

Re: the Political Nature of the Arab League[edit]

Is the following a Wikipedian opinion, or an advocate's opinion, or what?

It is similar to the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe or the former Organization for African Unity, in that its aims are primarily political; all of these organizations can be considered to be regional versions of the United Nations [emphasis added by Ed Poor]

What is a "regional version of the United Nations" supposed to mean? Is it intended to suggest (a) that the UN is neutral and objective; and thus (b) that the Arab League is neutral and objective?

My assumption is that the League of Arab Nations exists SOLELY to advance Arab interests, and probably at the expense of other countries like Israel. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And why would the Arab states form an organization to advance the cause of someone else? Did any organization ever? Was the OAS formed to benefit the bushmen in Africa, or the EU to help Zimbabwi? Even the UN was formed to further the interests of the 5 permanent Security Council members. As for Israel, it is not the Arabs fault that Zionists choose, freely, to colonize an Arab land and turn the area into hell for its natives.A.Khalil 03:10, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, it is "The League of Arab States" and not the "League of Arab Nations."A.Khalil 19:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a mention should be made of the rather 'tumulteous' atmosphere of some Arab League meetings? For instance, the one before the second Gulf war [3]

For your information A.Khalil, you are just thinking like most mainstream Arabs, brainwashed by the media. The Jews (Zionist is a derogatory term) did not colonise any Arab land. The British Mandate of Palestine was divided into two by the British, not colonised. Many other previous colonies were also divided in various ways. As the current rulers of the land after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the British have the right to give the land to whoever they want. Get that right please, and don't be racist towards Jews. "Giving them hell" is your opinion and is not a fact. For your information, it was members Arab League who incited the war (and therefore, the tension) immediately after the creation of Israel, and not the other way round. Arab leaders at that time were racist and didn't want a new race of people in the area. Please get your facts right and do not be so obviously racist, A.Khalil. --Terrancommander 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[offtopic] So it's Ok for a colonial power to do with the captured land what they want? When the Otteman Empire collapsed more than 90% of the population was Palestinian. --Ramy "Giving them hell" is a fact and you can go to Gaza or west Bank and test it yourself...

I think the only thing racist is that terracommander seems to think that the UK has the right to devide lands that aren't theres in the first place. You seem to be very protective about Jews but what about the Arab's rights. It was an Arab land before the British tought they could give away a piece of land to the Jews as a gift for all the suffering they had been trough. So why didn't they give them a piece of Germany? They occupied that too, didn't they? Arabs can't be held responsible for what happened in WWII. So maybe you shouldn't sound so obviously racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

ZIONIST is not a derogatory term for Jew. It CAN be used as such, but no matter WHAT your view on the Israel/Palestine issue, Zionism is still a contemporary political movement, not a slur for all things Jewish. Jews can call themselves "Zionist" or "Anti-Zionist". I am Jewish and I have friends who I would describe as both. Terrancommander, if you're a Jew, you're letting your political sympathies get the best of your ability to discuss rationally an admittedly intense issue, and if you're NOT Jewish, I would say that you need to talk to some more Jews before you decide what is and isn't inherent to our culture/religion/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand why on the map, Lybia is not considered as an arab country? 500LL 22:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is if Libya, as a state, is a current member of the Arab League of not. As a nation they are Arabs.

For the last time people. Libya is an arab nation. Twice it has threatened to leave the Arab League in protest. The first time it made the announcement on the 24th of October 2002 and it would have been effective one year later (i.e. the 24th of October 2003) but this decision was cancelled on the 16th of January 2003. The second time Libya threatened with withdrawl was on the 3rd of April 2003, but again was cancelled. This time it was cancelled on the 25th of May again before the one year deadline. Got that good.

Current Member States[edit]

According to the official web site [4] these are the current members: About the Arab League >> Member States • The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan • United Arab Emirates • Kingdom Of Bahrain • Republic Of Tunisia • Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria • Republic Of Djibouti • Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia • Rebuplic Of Sudan • Arab Rebuplic Of Syria • Republic Of Somalia We currently include (I've asterisked the countries that match):

  • Algeria | *Bahrain | Comoros | *Djibouti | Egypt | Iraq | *Jordan | Kuwait | Lebanon | Libya | Mauritania | Morocco | Oman | State of Palestine | Qatar | *Saudi Arabia | *Somalia | *Sudan | *Syria | *Tunisia | *United Arab Emirates | Yemen

Thoughts? May 5, 2005

Take a look again and notice the "Next" button in the lower-right corner. The countries all match. --rob 20:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


I think the timeline should be improved, to drop some lessor points, and add bigger ones. For instance, in 1967 it mentions South Yemen joining (already stated in article), but says nothing of what the League did regarding the war. Without turning this into a "conflict timeline", I think some improvements could be made, by those familiar with the role of the League in the different wars. --rob 20:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Uncle "Kraker" Ed[edit]

To the lazy editors of this Page.


You have broken Wikipedia's no personal attack policy here. Please sign your comments too, or no one will take note of them. --Terrancommander 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


will arabs and persians never become friends ? (officially, no taazi and ajami shit)

I highly dout it.Cameron Nedland 04:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Arabs and persians ARE already friends... diplomatically at least, All Arab states, (except Egypt) have official diplomatic relations with Iran, tho Iran tends to interveine in Arab matters, ignoring other arab states, causing furthur tensions with Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen in the ongoing Houthic war in yemen, and in Lebanon with Hizbullah, and already supported the assasinator of the Late EGyptian President Sadat, yet Iraq, Syria, the Maghrib region and most of the gulf states have cordial relations with Iran (well, except perhaps the UAE, still arguing about three islands that UAE claims that Iran has Occupied...)

Arab League User (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Western Sahara[edit]

I removed the recently added mention of Western Sahara state as it is very NPOV at best. 1) The issue is very disputed, and 2) this AL's page definitely isn't the place to talk about this dispute anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Western Sahara has been added to the map as a blue "disputed area." --Kralizec! (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Can anybody explain why and how Somalia is a member of the Arab League? I can away from the article sadly unelightened. --Quintucket 23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

From Somalia Demographics and languages: "As early as the seventh century, indigenous Cushitic peoples began to mingle with Arab and Persian traders who had settled along the coast. Interaction over the centuries led to the emergence of a Somali culture bound by common traditions, a single language, and the Islamic faith." In other words, Quintucket, Somalians are viewed in much the same way as North Africans; they may not be entirely Arab, but they have been assimilated into the greater Arab nation. --(Mingus ah um 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

The question is a good one, since the Somali people are not predominantly Arab in ancestry and still speak non-Semitic languages, and is one best posed to the Somalis themselves. I've wondered this myself. This may be a matter of cultural identification, because Somalia's African neighbors are not as heavily Muslim.---Heff01 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The main reason Somalia is part of the Arab League is because during the Barre regime, he had close allies to Arabia and the rest of the Arab World. To build on that, he applied to join as Somalis share the same religion as the Arabs, some culture similarities, Arabic as a second language of Somalia and a script for the Somali language, and Somalia's strategic location. FAH1223 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to that, East Africans on a whole are from Arabia and are MORE Arabia thant those peopleS called arabs in North Africa r even SW Asia. Just look at Haile Salasee.


That' what I heard about the Y chromosome of somali males being the same as the Y chromosome of arabs, you could look it up on google ppl and find varies sites saying the same thing, it has being proven before so theirs no point in denying it.

"Only 15% of Somali Y-chromosomes are of Eurasian origin, and only part of that belongs to haplogroup J*(xJ1) which is a signature of Arab intrusions. "Hisham —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Hisham's comment "Just look at Haile Salasee", I hope Hisham is basing those classifications and groupings on something other than limited observations. African people have the most diverse genetic make-up on the planet. Why is this? Outside of recent genetic studies:

MSNBC article by By Maggie Fox, "Gene studies confirm ‘out of Africa’ theories"

If we are to believe Africa is the cradle of man as some proclaim, then other distinct ethnic groups around the world are adaptations of other African groups. So Salasee doesn't look like anything except African. And his features are not foreign to me or other Africans. Certainly East Africans have lighter features than others. And certainly there has been trade and ethnic mixing with Arabs. However, someone wouldn't claim African-Americans as European because of ethnic mixing with other Non-African ethnic groups. Likewise in this case.

Spencer leon (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


In reviewing (briefly) various Islamic and Arab intergovernmental organizations, I've noticed an absence of judicial organs. Neither the OIC, the Arab League or the Gulf Cooperation Council seem to possess a sitting body to mediate or adjudicate disputes among member governments. Is this reflective of some aspect of Arab or Islamic culture? Tfleming 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

... well my dear friend, it is because Arabs never fight, and never have problems.... umm... no thats not it, oh, ok, the Arab League actually has a security council that discusses tensions, and inner Arab problems, and im working on it in the Life in the Arab League project, but its moving slowly because im having my midterms...

--Arab League User 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Is Eritrea still part of the Arab league?

It was never a part of the Arab league, but it has been an observer since 2003, I believe. — ዮም (Yom) | contribsTalk 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I dont think the per Capita GDP of the Arab League is 28,100 dollars. This is simply not possible. Germany's GDP for example is 2.504 trillion dollars and its population only 82 million and its per capita is 30 thousand dollars. So how an area with a LOWER GDP and 300 million people have roughly the same per capita? This would put the League on par with the EU which is illogical as the Arab League is dominated by developing and lower-income states. Simply Divide the total GDP by the population anf you get 4 thousand dollars which sounds more reasonable, so Im changing it, it must have been a typo or something. --Doge120 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

well... Doge, im not sure if the figure 28,100 $ is accurate, and i also doubt the german figure too, but the average Arab GDP is around 16 to 14 thousand $, you must not forget that around 40% of the Arab population live in rich oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, Kuwait, and UAE, and also there are non-oil producing rich arab countries like Jordan and Lebanon, and Tunisia...

--Arab League User 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the population to 80,648,647 and provided the source(Egyptian government) because the number used was from a 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Arab League[edit]

I recently noticed that Israel is included as part of the Arab League. I can understand it being included as the Arab League likely considers it part of Palestine, but i'd imagine that Israelis would not consider themselves a part of it for obvious reasons. I dont have any sort of axe to grind, but i think that the map should either be changed to reflect Israel not being a part of the Arab League, or Israel highlighted in a different colour to denote it as disputed.

Xeolyte 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Israel was likely not intended to be depicted as an Arab League Member, but it is small enough to begin with and very narrow to boot that it blends in imperceptibly into the included map, which is a small map of a quite extensive area. The best solution would be to use a map large enough to distinctly show Israel as present and a non-member.---Heff01 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Along with Western Sahara, Israel has been added to the map as a blue "disputed area." --Kralizec! (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Eritrea on Map[edit]

As Eritrea is an observer shouldnt it be included on the Maps ? Not in solid green of course but maybe striped/hatched ?Xerex 13:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In the new map, I noted member nations as green, and observer nations are light green. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arab League Flag[edit]

Does anyone knows whats its written on the flag?-- 02:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it says league of Arab states (جامعة الدول العربية‎ - Jama`at-u-d-Dawlaat-i-l-`Arabiyyah).[5]ዮም | (Yom) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Somalia, once again[edit]

Somalia is still part of the Arab League. When did it go into observer status?

The people aren't Arab, but the membership has been there since 1974 and that membership still stands with the Transitional Government still representing it to this day. The new map needs to be changed, until then, this one stands. FAH1223 01:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The map has been updated and zoomed in on the region to better show the individual countries. Thank you to you and (talk · contribs) for catching and correcting the fact that Somalia is a full member and no longer and observer state. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


When did India become an Arab state? I find this very strange especially that there is no mention of this in the official website of the Arab League. --Maha Odeh 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that India is a member of the Arab League. --Kralizec! (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Neighter an observer !! , i'll post the {{Fact}} template. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

India is not arab country —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said it is? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

India is not Member of Arab League —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said it is a member? I believe the article states that India has been an "observer since 2007." --Kralizec! (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of History section[edit]

I cleaned up the History section to remove errors in punctuation, capitalisation, spelling, etc. I think I succeeded in doing this without changing the meaning, but somebody should read it to make certain. EmmetCaulfield 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The History section is quite problematic, it incorrectly asserts that Arab nationalism began by British imperial intervention, primarily after WWI. Modern Arab nationalism more accurately dates to the late 19th century and the intellectual movement known as the Nahda, or Arab renaissance, and not to British manipulation, intervention, or colonialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Largest cities[edit]

why Riyadh is not included although it is 1,554 km² (600 sq mi) this mean it is bigger then Baghdad who is 204.2 km² (78.8 sq mi) and bigger then Cairo who is 214 km² (82.6 sq mi) and Damascus 573 km² (221.2 sq mi) and i did not find the area of Alexandria or Khartoum but i think Riyadh is also bigger then them so why it isn't in the largest cities Arabian soul 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It means in population, not area. Zazaban 02:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Zazaban, i would really like to know where you got your information from, because according to your Information, Riyadh city is thrice the size of the Entire Kingdom of Bahrain..

and as for Cairo's Size, i recall that it was around 400 km² a few years ago, i doubt it has Shrunk..

Arab League User (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt all these numbers are accurate - or they may be refering to different things. I've been extensively to both Baghdad and Damascus and I can say for sure that Baghdad is at least two to 3 times as big as Damascus, yet the numbers say something else. There is defintely something wrong.

--Maha Odeh (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

...New Map...[edit]

The first map of the Arab League in the World, with Observers, and possible Members... i was thinking of changing it to a normal Arab League's location in the World, then another map showing observers and possible members in the Enlargement Section...

ill be changing it within a week if no one has problems with it... thank you..

Arab League User (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Two comments:
Kralizec! (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
On April 20, (talk · contribs) changed [6] the primary map listed in this article from Image:AL.GIF to Image:Map of League of Arab States countries.png. On April 7, Arab League (talk · contribs) changed the map back [7] to the one he created, Image:AL.GIF. However as that map does not address either of the issues previously raised above, and as Image:Map of League of Arab States countries.png clearly and legibly shows the individual countries in the League, I have reverted it back. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ummm Krazlizec, with all due respect, but you can decide and put regulations and Issues and standards for a map upload... any map can be included in Wikipedia, as for the watermark, it credites the efforts of the creater of the map, nothing more..

back to the point, the map you prefer to include shows the arab league in North Africa, rather then the organization's world location.

also your kind of map is only used for the Arb League, while all other regional organizations, such as the EU, ASEAN, AU, etc... show the location of the region in the world, rather then in a slightly bigger regional map... --Arab League User (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "all other regional the location of the region in the world, rather then in a slightly bigger regional map" is incorrect as both the Organization of American States, Rio Group, Commonwealth of Independent States, and several dozen others under Category:International organizations all show regional rather than world maps. Regardless, Wikipedia's official Image use policy clearly states that images should not be watermarked. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

the Organization of American States doesnt show a Map in its primary template, and the Rio Group, isnt as significant as the Arab League, as for the CIS, it needs to be changed, the Arab League, which is a significant Organization in the region, like the AU, ASEAN, EU, etc... and other major regional international organizations should be shown its location in the World, rather then in a region, even the organizations mentioned by you above...

other similar maps of your desire are shown later on in the Article, including the demographics, provinicial, linguistic enlargement maps, which i agree with you dont need to show the region's location in the world, since it will simply be irrelivent, but in the primary infobox, i find it a neccessity to show the organization's location within the world..

as for the watermark, Wikipedia allows a water mark under certain licsening. but i dont mind removing the Watermark, i mean, it not like ill sue Wikipedia, anyways if it is found uncomfortable i dont mind. And rasd?¿?

--Arab League User (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethiopia - Axum[edit]

The Geography section listed Axum as being within the modern borders of the Arab League Members. This is incorrect. Ethiopia is not a member. And Axum is within the borders of modern & ancient Ethiopia. In fact, Ancient Ethiopia's terrority extended farther north and west.

Please reference existing WikiPedia entry for Axum to maintain consistency.

Spencer leon (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

a great part of Aksum Kingdom was in Sudan, and it sometimes reached Djibouti, South Yemen and Jizan in KSA...

--Arab League User (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflated statistics[edit]

As usual, the figures for almost every single country's GDP (adjusted to PPP) and its corresponding GDP per capita is wildly inflated...such as Egypt's GDP, according to the CIA factbook. The ACTUAL figure is $404 billion.

Please fix this. (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed image[edit]

I have removed the image that tried to show something about the GDPs of the member states, see here. Please, try to fix the issues mentioned in the diff and post this improved map again. Thanks. Tomeasytalk 13:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

infobox map[edit]

Ok, I have seen the map in the infobox being changed four times in less then a week. This does not seem productive to me. Perhaps we could exchange the pros and cons of the respective versions and come up with a stable solution.

I would like if the shade used for the league was green, since this is somehow the color for this body. So what else could you guys add to this discussion. Tomeasytalk 19:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To my eye, Image:Map of League of Arab States countries.png is the best one of the lot, as it allows the viewer to actually see all of the nations in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That is also my favorite. Actually, I introduced it to the article on July 9, but it was reverted. I like two things with it: It's green and does not show the entire world, but only the region of the AL, which makes all countries appear somewhat larger. Now, I am interested why this map is objected by some. Tomeasytalk 15:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Because it was made by the wrong author? --Kralizec! (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Authorship cannot be an argument. Thus, we will have the proposed map now. At least until serious concerns are raised. Tomeasytalk 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
i completely disagree with the current Map in the infobox, since the purpose of the infobox is to show where in the world does the Arab League extands, while another map should be included to show the Arab Members, later in the Article.

--Arab League User (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main argument for the closeup to the region (i.e., Image:Map of League of Arab States countries.png) is that the AL is confined to this region. Hence, such a closeup is possible without excluding any AL territory. Doing so the AL shows up much larger, obviously. E.g., the Comoros are clearly visible as member state already in the thumbnail version in the infobox. At last, I would argue that the location in the world is doubtlessly made clear, because even the closeup shows such a large part of the world that everyone will recognize the AL is located in North-Africa and the Middle East. So far my point of view.
However, I have an idea on how we could come together. A world-wide view would make sense to me if it was really needed. I would see added value by also showing the 3 observer states in a light green shade. This would definitely require a world map, which user-AL wants and it would convey one more message, which I would endorse. What do you think? Tomeasytalk 07:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

well, yeah putting the observers in the map will mean another more reason on why their ought to be a world map in the infobx, but it will aslo be confusing, since i still get confused whenever i open the Caricom page, or the ASEAN page, but there should be a map to show the observer states of the AL...

what do you think..

--Arab League User (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what is confusing about the ASEAN map. It shows only member states, all in dark blue--very simple. The Caricom is certainly a good example on how not to do it. I agree that this map is really more confusing than enlightening.
I think the color code chosen here Image:League of Arab States map 2007.png is not confusing at all. I think this is how we could do it, but for the world, since Venezuela needs to be included too. Tomeasy T C 20:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Since observers are now less relevant than we expected, I created a new version of the map using the same colour scheme, but sans observers: Image:League of Arab States members.png. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your map also appears as a good compromise to this discussion, as it shows all countries large but also an image of the whole world as a reference.
@AL Would you prefer this version? Tomeasy T C 18:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the same map, but with western Sahara in Blue, and a few more countires in africa shown... i dont understand why people complain that the map needs to show all members clearly in the infobox... i mean, thats why their is a Members sections in the Article, with a map showing all Members, why not just do it like the rest of the Major organizations in the world, ASEAN, European Union, ECO...etc... anyways, i dont relaly care anymore, since im starting to sense that their is just a disapproval of the map i created in general, with several almost identical maps created as a replacement...

my point of view is clear, if its not a map of the world, and showing where the League is located in the world, like the rest of the Organizations, Mercosur, PARTA, AU, GCC then its useless. the map currently shown in the Infobox is similar to smaller organizations (Area wise), like the CARICOM, EFTA etc...

Anyways, if people decide to make the current map the perminant one for the infobox, i only have one thing to say, the blue presented in the Western Sahara is off theme, (might i say), i think it would be less hesitating if it was a lighter green, or olive green, or simply another color in the Green color area...

--Arab League User (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me this: I do not consider authorship when I decide on my preference for a map. Really! Tomeasy T C 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

im not saying you prefer a map over the other, but you refuse to understand my Clear point of view, and refuse to discuss it...

--Arab League User (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"im not saying you prefer a map over the other", well I think you did exactly this here, relating it with the claim that there exists an author bias "anyways, i dont relaly care anymore, since im starting to sense that their is just a disapproval of the map i created in general". Really, before I read this I did not even bother looking up who had created which map.
"but you refuse to understand my Clear point of view, and refuse to discuss it...". Thank you, but I do not think this is true. Just look, I always reply to your comments and I reply to what you really write.
However, on the other hand, I also do not want to have an extended discussion on this topic. I think, it is not of the paramount importance that the length of this threat indicates. If in the end we use a global world map, I can live with it. It will be better than arguing about it endlessly. BTW, I summarized some points that appear more important to me in the above to-do list. So it really makes you very uncomfortable, than change it, I say from my side.
To your points. You give examples of other organizations. If we were always doing what is done elsewhere, how could there ever be an improvement on Wikipedia? In deed, I would also recommend a regional map for the AU article. In the global map you are likely to miss the very interesting fact that Morroco isn't part of it, while Sahara is. Also, I do not understand why ASEAN uses a global map. A frame showing South-East Asia would really clarify its location to everyone. Last but not least, I thought that the map Kralizec showed in his last post might serve as a compromise for us, as it has a global map included while its main feature is a regional zoom of it. You have not replied as to how far this solution can serve as a compromise for our situation.
Before I forget it. I agree with you that blue for Sahara is much to prominent. Your suggestions AL, of dealing with it are all more appropriate. I would like to add the possibility of hatching it with the same green and background colors. Tomeasy T C 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that we should blindly copy what others do, what i meant is that most organizations, and countries that have an area over 3 million km2 are shown in a larger worl map, their is an idea behind that, and that is to show to the reader, where exactly is this landmass on earth, and to show the member states, their is always an entire section for that, usually with a map similar to the current infobox used one is their.

i agree with you that this discussion is being extended too much, and needs to be resovlved, what i meant by you not replying to my point, is that you did not tell me WHY their shouldnt be a map of the AL's location in Earth, while i have answered to your point of view, almost in every post, waiting for a response, that i have not yet receieved...

and finally, for the ASEAN map i was refering to was not the map in the infobox, but a map showing the observers of the region, and forum holders etc...

--Arab League User (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a compromise for you to use a world map with the emphasis on a regional zoom? Tomeasy T C 14:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah, i see this as a pretty good compromise..., but ofcourse the colors need to be the same, green shade...right!!

do you want me to do this, or will you be doing it??

--Arab League User (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, if you can do it. You're the map expert, isn't it ;-) Tomeasy T C 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I made the requested changes and swapped it into the article. How does it look? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with it. Thanks for your work. I would have made some minor things differently, but not worth mentioning from my side. After all, I do not want to do it myself. Therefore, I am glad we might have found a compromise. Tomeasy T C 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of AL summits[edit]

The list is very long.

I propose to organize it in two columns. I have tried this once, but had to revert myself, because the numbering re-started for the second column. The result was that not summits 1 to 30 appeared, but 1 to 15 and then again 1 to 15. I can well imagine that another user is able to solve this problem.

Short comment. When reporting date spans like 1 to 5 April, the word to is not substituted by a hyphen (wrong: 1-5 April) but by an en dash (correct: 1–5 April). Please have this MOS pattern in mind in the future. I have it on my list and will correct the respective instances in the article once I have the time for it. Tomeasytalk 08:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments suggestions? The en dash thing has been solved in the meantime. Tomeasytalk 08:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have solved this two columns issue with the columns-list template. Unfortunately, this template does not work for IE. Those users will still se one long list :-( Tomeasytalk 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Size comparision figure in Geography section[edit]

In the Geography section we show an image comparing the surface area of th AL to other global players (Russia, USA, Canada, Europe, Brazil, and greater China). Basically, I find this kind of map useful in this section. However, I see specific problems with the current version:

  • The USA, Canada, China, and Brazil are all of very similar size. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to me to compare all of them to the AL.
  • The six comparisons are currently presented in one array of six rows. This gives the picture a very unhandy aspect ration. That is why it had to be scaled down immensely in the article, in order to prevent it from spanning over multiple sections. Solutions might be to present the six comparisons in 2 columns of 3 rows, or simply follow bullet 1 and present comparisons only for USA, Russia, and Europe.
  • The case of greater China (China plus Mongolia) lacks motivation and appears contentious to me. I communicated this to the author and it seems to be OK not to do the comparison in this specific way.

The bottom line is that I think we need to have a file with a better aspect ratio, if we want to include it. The preview in the article might then show details twice as large, which I think is necessary. Tomeasytalk 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the map myself and uploaded a new version. I hope you will like it. Tomeasytalk 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
May I request some feedback with respect to this change. I think the new image with only 3 comparisons is much better as it does not present redundant information and therefore uses space more efficiently. Does anyone agree with this? Objections? Tomeasytalk 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I especially like the nicely contrasting colours. Nice work! --Kralizec! (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

League observers[edit]

The subject of Arab League observers has been rather confusing, so I contacted the Arab League mission [8] here in the United States. The Ambassador's office stated that the League does not have observers per se, as the League Charter makes no provisions for anything other than full League membership. However some nations are occasionally invited to send observers to some League summits, which is why different news media have on occasion reported Eritrea, India, and/or Venezuela as being observers at various summits.

Does anyone have any ideas who we can update the article to accurately reflect this, or should we just drop the observers altogether? --Kralizec! (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar experience with Liechtenstein once. There exists an urban myth that Switzerland is responsible for Liechtenstein's defense, as the country itself has no army. Even the CIA factbook reported so, and I had to admit I also thought it was true long time before seeing it on wikipedia. Well, one user started erasing the statement denouncing it as what it was. He was asked for references which was of course not possible. How would you find a reference to a treaty that does not exist. Finally, we contacted some embassies and they confirmed that there is nothing like that. We somehow linked than the e-mail correspondance as a reference, which I found a very nice solution.
Admitted this case here is not as revolutionary as the other one. What I am trying to explain is that such first hand information can be interesting. With respect to your question; i would imagine to make a subsection in the section Members and dates; define what observer means in the context of the AL; link this to your communication; and state who was observing when. That's at least my first idea. Tomeasy T C 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


The Saudi Arabia article says, referring to the Palestinians, that there are "Arab League instructions barring the Arab states from granting them citizenship in order "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland."" Is this true, and should it be mentioned in this article? Muad (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if it is true, but it sounds reasonable and relevant to the AL article. It would fit well in the section Status of Palestine. So, if you can find sources for this claim, I look forward to see such contribution. Tomeasy T C 11:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Observers needed in Map[edit]

The map which shows the Arab League countries should probably also indicate the Observer countries: Eritrea, India and Venezuela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:55, 15 October 2008

See the League observers section above for the reason we no longer show observer nations on the map. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Really Slow Loading[edit]

It takes a long time to load for me. ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohsoh (talkcontribs) 04:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong in map[edit]

This map shows Eritrea is part of ethiopia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)



thank you.. Arab League User (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you shouting? Tomeasy T C 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional Remarks[edit]

I was reading through this wiki page and came across a comment that I felt was very unprofessional, and poorly written at that.

Under the Members and dates section, is the following statement:

Israel is not a member thank g-d ! despite 15% of its population being of Arab origin, nearly half the Jewish population being descended from Jews from Arab countries who were forced out by arabs, and Arabic being an official language. Neither is Chad a member, although Arabic is in both official and vernacular use there.

Whatever your personal feelings are toward Israel, the Arab League, or anything else, the comments are simply not professional. If however you wanted to remark on the fact that Israel is not a member despite having a sizable Arab minority, that seems perfectly fine. One could also include Russia, France or any other country with a majority or minority of Arab descendants in that discussion as well, if they felt it pertinent.

--Wiki1605 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are of course right. Note that this was nothing else than IP vandalism, which was removed almost as quickly as it was introduced. Whenever you see these kind of things here on Wikipedia, just go ahead and remove them. Tomeasy T C 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map again[edit]

I didn't notice that there was a discussion here (although from two years ago) before changing the map from the previous North Africa-centred map to my version, and when changing it back to my map from the orthographic projection map, so I'm chiming in now. There are a few reasons why I feel my map is better than either the orthographic projection or the previous North Africa-centred map:

1. Over the North Africa-centred map:
a. The inclusion of observers is useful, particularly since the infobox lists the observers. This demonstrates the importance of the Arab League outside of the traditional Arab world.
b. The inclusion of observers increases the section of the world which is displayed on the map to better situate the Arab League on the globe in size and location.
2. Over the orthographic projection:
a. The orthographic projection map, while it increases the area of the globe visible, doesn't particularly add anything to the viewer's understanding of the Arab League aside from its position at the top of the continent of Africa.
b. The line of longitude running through Egypt and Sudan is distracting (and, actually, why isn't the line of longitude going through Algeria visible, and why doesn't the line of latitude extend from Egypt through to Morocco?)
c. The orthographic projection map is larger than necessary; it's taller by a significant amount simply to show the "empty space" in the rest of Africa.

Lexicon (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. However, in my opinion, both of the other versions of the map that you are presumably referring to are preferable to the one you have proposed since the observer states are not actually a part of the Arab League nor are any of them considered a part of the Arab world. They are just allowed to sit-in on certain meetings. This is why, for example, on the Arab League's own website, it only shows the actual so-called 'Arab States' in its map of the League (on the left & again in the website's header). For these reasons, a map that actually parallels the League's own map of its member states is preferable. Middayexpress (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't find your arguments persuasive. What the Arab League does on their maps is irrelevant to what we might find useful here on Wikipedia. By definition, an "observer" is not a "member state", but a map that shows observers and members (both "involved countries") gives the reader quick access to useful information regarding countries that have formal involvement with the Arab League. The observers are clearly marked differently (and a simple legend could be added to further differentiate if need be), so there is no mistaking them as members. Nothing is lost by adding them, and much is gained. That, to me, is a solid reason to include them. Lexicon (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
All articles on Wikipedia should ultimately be based on reliable sources. And there is no source more reliable on just who is a member of the Arab League then the League itself. If the League had believed that, as you suggest above, it were important to highlight all countries that have some form of formal involvement with it, then it would have created at least one map reflecting this. But it hasn't. Instead, the League's own website (on its homepage & header, no less) only features maps of its actual member states. That speaks volumes. Middayexpress (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I made no comment about observers being members, so your argument is flawed. Also, I made no comment about what the Arab League feels is important. Furthermore, what the Arab League has done on its website with regards to maps is wholly irrelevant to this discussion. We do not take our cues from the Arab League as to what is and isn't important for inclusion on Wikipedia (maps or otherwise). Lexicon (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You indeed did not say that observers are members, but you did state that "a map that shows observers and members (both "involved countries") gives the reader quick access to useful information regarding countries that have formal involvement with the Arab League." I then explained to you that if the League had believed that it were important to highlight all countries that have some form of formal involvement with it, then it would have created at least one map reflecting this. But yet it hasn't. Instead, the League's own website only features maps of its actual member states, not "involved countries". This is because member states are, in fact, the only countries that are actually a part of the League of Arab States (the so-called 'Arab States'), not observers. You then argued that what "what the Arab League has done on its website with regards to maps is wholly irrelevant to this discussion". My response to that is to point out that Wikipedians obviously do take cues from reliable sources (even maps must be based on something, otherwise it's original research), and that most definitely includes the Arab League itself in this case. It has also been explained below that there have been various observers over the years, that the position is non-permanent & even includes actual organizations (not just countries). The Arab League itself, in fact, has served as an observer in the past in Mediterranean Union meetings. That doesn't make it a part of the Med Union either. Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lexicon... its pretty simple really... if the user wishes to know the observer, he will have a small click, which will immidiatly direct him to th Observer map...

IN ADDITION... and MOST Importantly... the Arab League does NOT have ANY official observer nations... but has intermminent observers... more than 14 countries and organizations have observed on the Arab League summits, yet not one is a perminant observer, except the African Union and Islamic Conferance Organization, which have been observing for more than 5 summits in a row... yet they TOO are not official observers... thats my first point...

second point is, almost ALL major global organizations and countries have a projectional map, and its very unusual to see a map like the one your supporting to be put in an area for such a large organization.

Third point is that the readers need to know the LOCATION of the Arab League on the globe.. and the map your proposing only shows the mediteranean area, N africa and w. asia... full stop

fourth point is that the readers also need to know the size comparison of the Arab League, in comparison to other areas in the world, (aka Africa, Russia, Europe) the nearest areas to it.

fifth point is that the readers ALSO need to have a simple easy way of understanding Wikipedia,.., and not find each pag they have, has a differant map that they will need to re-start undersanding over again...

i hope i was clear Lexicon, i mean, the beauty of Wikipedia is to devlop it, and not to keep it the same way that "WE" the contributors, want...

yet i think the map with the observers, Definatly needs to be included in the member section (with regards to stating that these are "some" of the countris that have observed in some Arab summits...)

moreover, the new map that is thir. DOES NOT have the logntitute annoying line that divides Egypt and Sudan...

Arab League User (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well said. If the map of observers is to be included at all, then it should obviously be in the section where some of the observers are discussed; definitely not in the info-box or lede. Middayexpress (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I find my original points made above in support of the map that I proposed to outweigh any arguments either of you have made for the other map. Likewise, you two feel the opposite. As we are simply going in circles, let us simply agree to disagree.
P.S. - Yes, the lines of longitude and latitude were fixed. I further fixed the map by modifying the SVG version of the map, which was highly irregular in that is was modern when it came to Europe but was very backwards when it came to Africa and the Middle East. Lexicon (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we can agree to disagree. Middayexpress (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


How come Iran is not a member? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

They're not a member because they're not Arabs, they're Persians. Liu Tao (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


It is great to show the diverse religious body of residents in the Arab League, particularly in demonstrating the diversity of the Gulf Cooperation Council nations. It is important because these countries are often accused of being intolerant, when in fact they extend substantial tolerance to foreigners regarding behavior which is impermissible for their citizens.

However, the percentages in the religion section are inconsistent, misleading, and inaccurate.

Inconsistent Some countries include numbers for nationals only (see Lebanon & Saudi Arabia) Some countries include numbers for all residents, including very large, temporary expatriate populations (UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait)

This lack of consistency leads to a misleading representation. Numbers should include either a) all residents, b) all nationals, or c) footnotes stating which it is. There is also no statement regarding who is being included.

Inaccurate KUWAIT - Listed as 95% Muslim, 10% Christian, 10% Other

Because a large percentage of the populations in the Gulf Cooperation Council is made up of temporary workers, the table should say for which year the numbers are accurate and according to which source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethnoquest (talkcontribs) 22:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding to that list Saudi Arabia listed as 100% Islamic. Which is different from what the country's article states (97%). (Cia world factbook states 100%) (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Literacy rate[edit]

I have a doubt on the literacy subsection, why the countries rank is different than the countries literacy rate? Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Tomeasy T C 20:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

File:The Flag of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:The Flag of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


Sudan on the map is still shown to include South Sudan, so can someone please change this. Remember, South Sudan isn't a member of the Arab League yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobin08 (talkcontribs) 12:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge. howcheng {chat} 06:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

All the below articles constitute a clear case of content forking WP:CFORK

All of the above can be summarized in a table/maps. The same material already exists in this article. Regards Tachfin (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Member states of the Arab League and Charter of the Arab League, suggesting to start importing only sourced material here. Then we can redirect each to its section as a duplicated material. ~ AdvertAdam talk
Oppose Enlargement of the Arab League, as it's notable enough and carry enough content to have its separate article. A link here is good tho. ~ AdvertAdam talk 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Support merging of Member states of the Arab League. and Charter of the Arab League to here, but oppose merging of Enlargement of the Arab League per Adam above. --hydrox (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Support merging Member states of the Arab League, but it would be better (in my opinion of course) to merge Enlargement of the Arab League with History of the Arab League. cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Support merging Member states of the Arab League and Charter of the Arab League as per Adam & Hydrox above, considering they are much of the same, and also merging Enlargement of the Arab League with History of the Arab League as per Vobiscum since they are related in content. N·worsn (parlez-moi) 07:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I object to this motion because for an entity like the EU (which is just as large, therea re no disputes over merging three articles into one. Further, those articles are part of a defined category of pages ("life in teh Arab League") --Thehistorian10 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Note: Merge Enlargement of the Arab League with History of the Arab League. - Secondat of Orange (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Edit request[edit]

i request editing Egypt's population because the source cited is very old Here is alink for Egypt's Central Agency for Public Mobilization And Statistics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riuken (talkcontribs) 11:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC) --Riuken (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Already done, probably by you. Actually, we're suppose to only use official published reports, instead of a calculated population clock on their website. ~ AdvertAdam talk 18:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the data on Egypt's population (91,450,563) is highly exaggerated. Even the population clock used as a source here cites a quite different number - 82,766,242 inhabitants. Where does this 91,450,563 actually come from?Trutnuth (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

League of the Arabian States[edit]

is the correct translation of the name, since it is 'League of the Arabian {Peninsula & its environing}{sovereign} States'. The adjective used in the arabic name is 'al arabia' meaning 'arabian' & not 'arab' or 'arabic, which would be in arabic 'al arab' & 'al araby' respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question no. 'al arabia' (feminine form of 'al araby') translates as "Arab". Arabian derives from Arabia. Tachfin (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Be wary of data overflow[edit]

Please do not add indiscriminate statistics to the article. Instead, see if you can merge the data with pre-existing tables, or think twice if the data is really that necessary. Someone had "dumped" a population density table at the end of the aricle, and it took me almost an hour to merge it with the pre-existing population table, and I am still not sure which one of them had more correct figures, as data for some countries differs. --hydrox (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypocrisy of the Arab League[edit]

Should not a criticism section be present in this article? Such as one mentioning the Arab League's hypocrisy while completely ignoring the genocide of Sudan's indigenous African population by Sudan's Arab rulers, yet all of a sudden acquiring a moral compass and sanctioning Syria when its ruler kills a relatively tiny (when compared to the genocide in Sudan) number of his fellow Arabs? Does the Arab League only care when its member states oppress fellow Arabs? This should be added to the article in a criticism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amid hasan580 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are looked down upon, as they are heavily inclined to be nonneutral. If you have a source showing criticism, it can be integrated into existing text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The current criticism section seems heavily biased to me. Quoting big blocks of editorials explicitly against the AL is not NPOV at all. de Bivort 21:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Observers again[edit]

The article says 4, the infobox says 6. The official website lacks a list. Do we have any current sources? I see this problem has arisen before. I say we remove the list if we can't find anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I've removed the above section per WP:CSECTION. It was especially unbalanced in regards to the Syrian observers, which seem mostly seen as a good sign by a lot of media sources. CMD (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was it removed?[edit]

Dear Chipmunkdavis, why not provide another pov countering the so-called "unbalanced" facts on Syria. Why remove it? Isn't is totally unfair to the fairness of the article that there is no criticism at all' on this heavily criticized body??? First you removed it under the 'reasoning' that it was based on quotes... What do you have against criticizing it. Is the (exclusivist) Arab League all "so Mr. wonderful" in your POV? Please provide a valid argument before removing. Thank you.


Criticism [Jan 29, 2012][edit]

The Arab League has been branded by critics, a totally racist organization. Its main victims: non-Arabs, especially Kurds; Copts[1] Berbers,[2] Jews[3],[4] Palestinian Arabs.[5] and Africans.[6][7] Some even categorized the Arab League as the KKK version by Arab nations.[8]

A wave of criticism rose as the Arab League sent in Dec 2011 a commission "monitoring" Syria's violence (massacres) on its own people who protested its tyranny. The commission was headed by Mohammad Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, who served as head of infamous Omar al-Bashir's military intelligence, while heinous war crimes including genocide were committed on his watch.[9][10][11]

  1. ^

    Arab League unless the league changes its racist organisation and identity to allow the recognition not only of the Kurdish nation in Iraq and Syria but also of many other nations in Arab nation-states such as Amazighi nation, people of South Sudan, Druzes and Copts? The Arab League as a useless ideological racist Arabist institution has existed only to promote Arabism and Arab racism against colonised non-Arab nations. This league has a criminal record in supporting Iraqi Ba'thists' genocide against our nation in Southern Kurdistan and supporting Syrian Ba'thists' racist Arabising policies in Western Kurdistan.

    Dr Kamal Mirawdeli, "Kurdistani intellectuals must unite now - lest history should repeat itself as a tragic farce!" Pt. 1,, September, 24, 2003,
  2. ^ "Moroccan Berbers Call for Independent Berber State, Say Arab League is 'Racist.'", March 3, 2007;, March 3, 2007.
  3. ^ "Germans Probing Anti-semitism." − Spokane Daily Chronicle, Jan 14, 1960.

    Several hundred demonstrated again in Paris last night against the signs of racism. Jacques Soustelle, French minister in charge of the Sahara, told the crowd that "the Arab league and pan-arabism are the source of the anti-semitic outbursts.",3242302
  4. ^

    Despite Israel's lack of importance and despite the weakness of the moral charges against it, Israel is an outcast. Israeli nationalism - Zionism - has been declared racism. The Arab League enforces secondary and tertiary boycotts against Israel. Jews may not enter Saudi Arabia, except for American soldiers. Malaysia forbids the performance of "Jewish" music. This endless policy of boycott and non-recognition is officially the policy of most Arab states. Countries like Libya, Iraq or Saudi Arabia have never suggested that they would make peace if Israel did X or Y or Z. Their opposition to Israel, supported by leftists everywhere in the world, is one of permanent enmity. Since such a stance excludes the possibility of peace, it is implicitly genocidal and therefore radically evil.

    George Jochnowitz, "The blessed human race: essays on reconsideration," (University Press of America, 2007, 123 pp.) p. 39,
  5. ^

    In 1959, the Arab League passed Resolution 1457, which states as follows: “The Arab countries will not grant citizenship to applicants of Palestinian origin in order to prevent their assimilation into the host countries.” That is a stunning resolution, which was diametrically opposed to international norms in everything pertaining to refugees in those years, particularly in that decade. The story began, of course, in 1948, when the Palestinian “nakba” occurred. It was also the beginning of the controversy of the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the blame heaped on Israel, because it allegedly expelled Palestinian refugees, turning them into miserable wretches. This lie went public through academe and the media dealing with the issue.

    "The Arab Apartheid By Ben Dror Yemini," Maariv, [Hebrew], (translated from Hebrew) May 14, 2011. FPM, June 3, 2006,
  6. ^

    Egyptian diplomacy moved in March to mislead the Arab world on Southern Sudan by pressing the Arab League to pass a resolution opposing the right to Self- determination of the people of Southern and the Nuba mountains... the Arab League has adopted a racist stance on what has previously been considered to be an internal Sudanese matter. As such, it marks the internationalisation of the conflict. The resolution was so racist... The resolution incites the Arab world to join Khartoum in its racial and religious war against the South. Egypt now appears prepared to commit its own resources to the war in Sudan... The Arab states are also members of the overtly racist Arab League of Nations which passed a resolution in March condemning any moves towards granting Self- determination for Southern Sudan...

    ."Sudan democratic gazette: a newsletter for democratic pluralism: Issues 44-55, (1994), pp. 50, 120.
  7. ^ "Arab League SG a 'racist' says Darfur JEM, demands public apology." March 15, 2011,,38296
  8. ^ Elhadi Adam Elomda, "Arab League and KKK are Two Faces for One Coin." − SudaneseOnline, March 23, 2005,
  9. ^ D. Kenner, "The World's Worst Human Rights Observer." Foreign Policy, December 27, 2011. As Arab League monitors work to expose President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown, the head of the mission is a Sudanese general accused of creating the fearsome "janjaweed," which was responsible for the worst atrocities during the Darfur genocide.
  10. ^ "Syrian activists slam Arab League mission head," CNN, December 28, 2011,
  11. ^ "Violence in second Syrian city ahead of Arab League monitors' visit," The Guardian, December 28, 2011,

Amazighistan (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not work well with criticism sections, as it is hard to make them even resemble neutrality. See WP:CSECTION. As for a huge number of direct quotes, that density makes it basically a copy of other articles, which shouldn't happen. If you can write a concise summary of whatever issues the Arab League has been criticised on, these can be included in their rightful places in the article. CMD (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am making even a shorter summary, but it has to be stated, to balance this unfair "all good, all saint, untouchable" Arab League. Thank youAmazighistan (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your text is very badly written, sourced to cherry-picked sources, non-neutral, and demonstrates a purpose other than balanced encyclopedia writing. The rules in WP:NPOV apply to you, it is not a defense to invite someone else to fix your lack of objectivity. Zerotalk 10:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is neutral to say that there are critics. I didn't utter a 100% statement / I did say what CRITICS say, not what the facts are. Before you start a war of edits, please provide a valid argument. If you have a POV --to counter it -- and you can back it up with sources, be my guest, provided, it should not be as you said 'badly written.'Amazighistan (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any special problem with this edit. It attribute criticism. What exactly the problem with the sources?--Shrike (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Moreover as criticism is widely discussed is WP:RS.If the article doesn't include any criticism section it would be WP:UNDUE--Shrike (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSECTION. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I read it.Could you point what exactly wrong with proposed edit?--Shrike (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't see any problems with the edit, such as its blatant lack of neutrality?. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Lack of criticism is blatant lack of neutrality.--Shrike (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No it would only be lack of neutrality if there is praise present. The lack of both praise and criticism is neutral (though not necessarily desirable). Zerotalk 06:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The content of the WP:CSECTION does not strictly prohibit criticism sections so I am at loss as to why people are acting as if it does. If we are to remove the criticism section, which we should, it would be best to integrate the content within it to other areas of the article. The deletion of the whole section as we have it now maintains article neutrality at the price of violating WP:CENSOR. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


Reintegrated criticisms into parts of the article as per recommendations by WP:CSECTION. Since the criticism section doesn't exist there is no policy violation and no case for removal. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A table on demographics has been removed.[edit]

A lot of info was removed with this edit. The figures did not appear to have any citations, therefore I'm reluctant to revert the edit. So I'm bringing it to your attention for review. If you reinstate the table then please do attach a citation to back up the figures within it. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Israel and the Golan Heights[edit]

There's no need to embellish the description of the Golan Heights in Syria with the word occupied. Israel no longer runs a simply military occupation there. They have been annexed post-occupation, and now have a civilian population. There's no information gained from adding the word occupied, and no reason it has to be added. CMD (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is taken for granted and especially in geopolitics. Anyways, every time in your "un-edit" you create a different justification, and here is another POV you claim. Golan Heights were occupied by Israeli Army and United Nation has not claimed what you claim. I'm asking to add "occupied" along to administrated, otherwise, you are promoting your own POV.

Golan Heights is still recognized as occupied territory, please Google Golan Heights media coverage by Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Western media which still highly associate "Golan Heights" with "occupied" territory.

Moreover, I don't have to debate much, please do your research and you don't have to go to far. Check Wikipedia's page

Now, if you know more than the United Nations or want to debate Ban Ki-Moon please let me know.

TK —Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My arguments haven't changed, although there is a limit to the edit summary box. You still haven't noted what information the reader gains from the word "occupied"? It reads redundantly to administered, which is broader. CMD (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
My argument is built on substantial information and has not changed. I told you every time you have different argument to one issue but you still can't beat United Nations and the rest of the world. The word "administrated" doesn't necessarily mean that it was occupied, it could be rented "region". I have provided enough evidence that Golan Heights is occupied and administrated by Israel and so do the Wikipedia's page updated accordingly.

TK —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "beat" anyone, just to figure out how the addition of occupied helps the reader. What information are you trying to pass along? Occupation implies a temporary position, and although this is the desire of the international community, it's clearly not what's happening on the ground. Would "unilaterally annexed" be a good replacement, implying that it is long term while also noting that it wasn't due to any sort of agreement with any other country? CMD (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
We are aiming for WP:RS on Wikipedia. One of which would be the United Nations. If they say the area is occupied, then it is, unless there is some equal WP:RS that says otherwise. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That argument is a red herring. There's nothing in the current text which isn't easily supported by sources. CMD (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
CMD, This is not a red herring argument, it's an open debate for a valid, neutral point of view. United Nations is not a just "any source". United Nations is a valid, plausible source that makes this argument adequate and allows to add a substantial piece of information. This piece of information was intentionally manipulated by intruder who wants to breach the moral practice at Wikipedia. TK 00:32, 02 December 2012 (UTC)

League-Arab Nations[edit]

There is an article called League-Arab Nations that urgently needs to be merged into this article as it is about the exact same organization! Charles Essie (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneGreyShark (dibra) 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Arab League Map[edit]

The AL map mentioned in this page isn't correct. The AL recognizes the kingdom of Morocco 1975/1979 borders i.e. since the recovering of the center and the south of the Western Sahara territory. The green color should go till the Mauritania border.--BirLahlou (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I make a change to the AL map. I simply put the official AL map from the AL website.--BirLahlou (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Arab League members colored by joining date.svg picture is a bit confusing. In fact, Morocco was colonized in the 70' till 1975 then Morocco recovered its saharan territories. I propose to delete this confusing map as it hurts the unity of the kingdom of Morocco which is not contested by the Arab League.--BirLahlou (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You can't just copy a map from a website. That is a WP:COPYVIO. I have nominated the image for deletion. TDL (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
What is your recommandation to rectify the wrong map in conformance with Wikipedia rules? --BirLahlou (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's important to indicate that Western Sahara is disputed somehow, but agree that the current map could be improved. What about colouring Western Sahara light green, something like File:LocationmoroccowithSO.png? Would that be acceptable to you? TDL (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


>> Arab League summit hit by new rifts >> Arab League summit under way amid divisions (Lihaas (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)).

Population of Palestine[edit]

The table has this at about 11 million, but that is too high; it is closer to the population of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories combined. The cited source is not found by Google (404 error). The related "State of Palestine" article has the population as 4.6 million according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.[1] No definition of 'Palestine' can include the population of Israel; this is advocating genocide. Little monkey3.14 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^
Agreed. Used better figure from Demographic history of Palestine. Pretty sure I put new footnote in wrong place. Hard to tell with these tables. Hard to see. Student7 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)