Talk:Arabs/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Arabs  (Redirected from Talk:Arab people/Archive 3)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Needs New Images

These images depict ancient, traditional and historical Arab people/life. This article needs images of modern Arabs in cultural events such as celebration of eid or a wedding. I recommend view the Romany people page for a good example. Additionally, this may be provocative, but how about a comparison chart of the different shades of arabs from iraq and morocco (fair) ==> mauritania and sudan (dark). This page has a kind of comparison Demography_of_Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soladee (talkcontribs) 10:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Skin colour is irrelevant, being an Arab is all about self-identification and language. (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The cursed infobox

Should be left alone like Fayssal left it.--Skatewalk 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As I suspect the other user is you it is pointless it is not going to change anything and no one is going to help you for reverting, edit the article as you wish because the group you are trying to form is useless. Other users who disagree will revert obviously. --Vonones 06:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not forming this team? I joined the Arab wiki project. I dont know what or who are these people, most of them joined yesterday anyways.--Skatewalk 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Instead of listing individual countries, couldn't we have a list of actual regions, like "the Middle East", "North Africa", "Europe", and so on? I doubt that'll offend anyone.Funkynusayri 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nusayri, to me it doesnt matter because people know the Arab world. We usually start by adding Brazil and Europe. However, thats how the long infobox finds its way back to the article. You saw it happen before right?--Skatewalk 11:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the figures do not have a verifiable source, they should not be included, as per Wikipedia rules. The population statistics in the infobox did not appear to have a source, so they count as original research. Unless a source can be found, these statistics should be omitted.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, so let's say the infobox is one of the things we'll keep for the Wiki Project, then we can gather several sources there, and finally create a rock solid infobox. The CIA site might be a good start, though it has its flaws (especially on Egypt and Lebanon) Funkynusayri 11:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
CIA statistics are laughable, especially on Egypt - since when has "Egyptian" been an ethnic group, and the number of black non-Arab people is more than under 1%! We should seek a more scholarly source.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly the same reason why I think it's flawed, so we might want to look at other encyclopedias as sources instead, at least when it comes to the controversial numbers. Funkynusayri 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased Pictures

dream about it alahwaz.non of egyptian beleives they are arab.leave iran land go to your arab brother —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to re-create the article, I would like add the point of putting pictures that portray each of the ethnic groups responsible for making our Father the Persians. In the present article, I think that there are too many pictures of Caucasion-looking Arabs. Am I wrong in saying that both Mongloids and Negroids are equally to thank? InternetHero 07:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right the people in the pictures don't look like arabs. I dont understand ur commment about Persians however most Persians have complexions like eastern/southern europeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ownedthird39 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ehm, who doesn't look like an Arab? How exactly does an Arab look? Funkynusayri 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This should be looked into, many pure Arabs are also Black. Shukran Wahaaab 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Arabs are not a race! And any racist discussion in the mideast is rather comical more than anything else. However, If you have photos feel free to add, simple as that! --Skatewalk 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Mongoloid Arabs? Where? And by the way, the pictures are only used because they're the best ones available. The thing about Wikipedia is that we can't just use any copyrighted picture, so I mostly upload pictures with expired copyrights, and so far most of such pictures I could find depicted Arabs from the Fertile Crescent and such. Funkynusayri 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just let him say whatever he wants. When we see his exotic mongol Arab photos. then we have a talk!--Skatewalk 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do in fact know that Arabian people are not a race. I am very learned in the field of genetics and the history of civilization. I do not know why I was removed from the list of people willing to help recreate the article. Is it because I am from Canada and am not Arabian?

With the advent of the Fertile Crescent being very near Asia, I would think that there is in fact Mongoloid DNA is most Arabs. I haven't studied this topic in respect to DNA analysis, but I do in fact beleive it is very plausible. In fact, I will look into it further. InternetHero 21:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are known for not being mongoliod. (Big eyes, high forheads and prominent Nose) is the common Arab features. How is that mongoliod. You know about genetics as much as I know about Dorsia. However, feel free to show us your photos of the exotic mongol Arabs and we will discuss that.--Skatewalk 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, on East Asian DNA in Arabs, yes, the Middle East is in Western Asia, but Central Asia is the "buffer zone" between the Middle East and "Mongoloid" East Asia, where you do find Caucasoid/Mongoloid mixtures (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, so on), but not in the Middle East. The genetic studies I have seen support this view. Anyhow, if they did have some slight East Asian admixture, how would this suddenly create bona fide Mongoloid Arabs? Here's a genetic map showing relatedness between populations: 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (To InternetHero)

Thanks, Funk. You guys seem to not be able to read my posts properly. I didn't state that I have done research in respect to our discussion, in fact, I stated the opposite. I realize this is a sensitive issue for all Arabs alike, but there's no need to use our "monkey-brains" and/or any emotional state when responding to my posts. Also, just for further reference, when replying on the talk pages the full colon is used to distinguish each of the replyers posts. The first is used for the fists replyer and so on and so forth. Anyway, I was just trying to help so I see no fault in my posts. I see you do not want any help, so I'll use my edits for something more tuned in to my liking. InternetHero 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I get it, this guy is your stalker from your genetic edits!--Skatewalk 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Who knows, they usually turn up in legions... So expect more! But the point about black Arabs is valid, we could maybe add a single picture of some Sudanese Arabs, but not too many, most Arabs aren't black after all. Funkynusayri 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Arabs are well known to be above this primitive color/race issues. Arabs come in every shade, I dont mind seing a Sudani in the article aslong as we dont end up having vandals sacking the page because we are using their African or Egyptian photo!, lets try to avoid issues that attract the vandals--Skatewalk 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, Hero, don't take it too seriously, I believe Wikipedia is too formal, so lame joking is often misunderstood. By the way, I'm still not sure about all the small tags used on the talk pages... Funkynusayri 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Improving the Arab article

  • The Arab article can not be changed overnight, we have to discuss every change.
  • This not the article to express your anti-Arab frustrations, we have other articles you can improve for that purpose. Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel articles.
  • This not an article to express your Arab pride. If you have nationalistic urges you should improve the Arabism article.--Skatewalk 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction Arab article

As I did read this article, it contains a lot of unusual information, propagandistic views and weasel words. I therefore would like to get a group with me who are able to rewrite this article in a best way to get best results. Anyone who want to join our team add your name below. Please note that after the team has gathered, we will place "under-progress" tag. Please add your country orgin along with the country you live in.

I wonder why any "team" needs to be created to edit this article and what is wrong with the system of discussing content on the talk page. I suggest working line by line through any disputed section in order to achieve consensus. Additionally, why should we include our country of origin? What relevance does this have to improving the article?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to list a country of origin either, but I think I understand what motivates the request. We wouldn't want the Arab article to be built by editors only from one country because it might provide a country-centric definition. It would be good to have the input of as many Arab editors from as many different Arab countries as possible. But we also need the input of non-Arab editors and I agree with Al-Ahwaz that we can solve this problem by going through the article line by line to work towards NPOV, which means including all significant POVs which I hope all editors will work to try and understand and accommodate.Tiamat 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For those who are curious about my own origins, I'm a Palestinian who lives in Nazareth where the dominant language is still Arabic, even if we now hold Israeli citizenship. Tiamat 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No team and no country of origin. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Anyone can edit and classification in terms of ethnicity, nationality is highly discouraged. The project would be there and ANYONE is encouraged to participate as it is the case in ALL wikipedia projects. If there would be any attempt to make of the project a propaganda tool be it for or against Arabs or X, i'd not hesitate to fight hard to stop it. In parallel, POV pushers w/ agendas from both sides have no place here and if you don't believe me you can check User:Mariam83 and User:Serenesoulnyc block logs before that. So no agendas WP:NPOV and no sockpuppeting WP:SOCK would be permitted. Enjoy. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
no problem in a private team its more organized than public. <<Smart_Viral 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>>
Which team are you talking about? I don't understand this issue of teams! Is this something new in wikipedia? You'll have Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab where ANYONE would join w/o telling us they are coming from Mars. That's personal info and this is Wikipedia. X is entitled to work enhance articles and everyone is a team themselves. I am saying it again, i'll be watching. That has never worked in Wikipedia and it will never work. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No "team" can save this article as long as certain editors insist on making the article conform to their own personal opinions, reflections, and analyses (i.e. WP:OR) of what the term "Arab" should mean as opposed to the real purpose of wikipedia, which is to tell us how the term is in fact applied in real life. As long as this is the case, all that can be foreseen are endless edit wars over unverified claims. Furthermore, the odd requirement that people write down their "country of origin" here is an ominous sign. -- Slacker 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Why don't we just take the rhetoric down a notch? What I see here is a lot of excitement about the proposed Arab WikiProject among editors who jumped the gun by trying to organize efforts here. We can organize collaborative efforts at the page if and when the project is approved. FayssalF is right when he says we cannot form exclusive teams to edit articles and that we should not make the listing of one's country origins a criteria for inclusion. It's not wrong to encourage other users to share such information, but it shouldn't be expected or required of anyone. People edit here anonymously and they often value their privacy. Anyway, I remain really excited about the new project and the enthusiasm people have exhibited and the recognition of the need for editing of this page which besides being poorly composed suffers from huge gaps and some NPOV issues. Why don't we take Al Awhaz's suggestion to begin by going through the article and identifying things that need improvement or correction or expansion or deletion or whatever? Cool? Tiamat 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • For the record, I'm only half Arab (Lebanese). Funkynusayri 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Finkynusayri even If you are a half Arab. You are still qualified to edit Arab related articles. I was a long time reader before I became a member and I have seen your edits. For Faysal. Please be more aware the single person operation by each user on this article or talk page may lead to the lack of neutrality. anti-Arabs have engaged to join in a article to make chaos and effect its neutrality. Is that wikipedia?. No it do not think so. I agree that a team is not something that are regular on wikipedia but in case of emergency its needed like now. Everyone who have interested on this may join, offcourse this team is not permanent. Thanks Irqirq 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
A Jew, an African, a Chinese, a German, a Russian, a Brazilian, an Iranian and anyone else is entitled to edit articles on the Arab world, providing they give a positive contribution that does not breach Wikipedia rules. I've been bullied for contributing to articles related to Iran because I am not Persian. I don't think it is good to generate the same air on Arab-related articles.
I think Irqirq was being genuine in his efforts to improve the article, but I fear that requiring the listing of nationalities to achieve "balance" is erroneous. Nationality is irrelevant. An Iraqi can be Arab, Kurd, Turkoman, etc, a male or a female, a liberal or a Baathi, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian or Jew. The same applies for all Arab countries. A mix of nationalities proves nothing when attempting to achieve NPOV.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Finkynusayri even If you are a half Arab. You are still qualified to edit Arab related articles. — So, since when did it become forbidden of non-Arabs to edit Arabic related articles, Mr. Jimbo Wales? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:02 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I dont mind Non Arabs joinning the team, Aslong as they join the Arab wiki projet. I rather discuss changes with hem then have lame edit wars!--Skatewalk 21:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Get the hell away from me. Don't ask me any questions, I do not wish to answer you or talk to you. You Troll!!. Irqirq 19:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)(to: EliasAlucard)


Could editors list the paragraphs they are in dispute with and the precise nature of the problems they have with them below. Then we can tackle the exact problems and achieve consensus.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 19:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ahwas, I don't think you have fully understood what I meant. The purpose of this Nationality is not to create a racism environment. It's to get users who works together on a team to know a more about each other. Jew, Iranian and you name it are more than welcome to add their name if they wish to help create a decent neutral Arab article with us. Irqirq 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that you did not intend to create any confrontation by requesting people list their nationalities and that your efforts were a genuine attempt to improve co-operation, but such an exercise could have negative consequences. I suggest we should start by examining each disputed paragraph and reach an agreement, perhaps taking a poll on various options. This would be a good way to involve those with a long-standing interest in improving this article and sideline the passing trolls. If this doesn't work, then there is a progressive set of measures to resolve an editorial dispute. But let's start from the beginning. Please list the paragraphs you think are problemmatic and state why. Then others can voice their opinions.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I started by fighting WP:OR yesterday. The famous unsourced table about populations. What is weird is that it became the subject of blind reverts. Reverting figures of something which is in both cases unsourced. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your wisdom, thats the best thing that ever happenned to the article. Also if Lanternix/Egyegy insist on the labelling the Arabs as invaders, Why does their Egyptian identity page denies the existance of the Arab Ashraaf!

  • They actually claim that Egypt is being dominated by 400,000 Bedouins who imposed their culture/language/religion on 80 Million Egyptians! (does that make sense! and will any Egyptian acept such humiliation?)
  • Its simple if they want to edit the Arab aricle they hae to fix the article first, because as of now they still claim that the Arabs are only 1-2% of the population. --Skatewalk 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the population table is one of the biggest problems. The thing is, someone will always point out that so and so aren't ethnic Arabs, for example. It's kind of a problem that the different definitions of Arab (cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic) do not necessarily overlap, and if we don't explain that, properly and with sources, we are inviting people to constantly mingle with the numbers. Funkynusayri 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • When you erase the population table. We dont have this problem(excuse to vandalize the Arab article).
  • I dont see a reason to mention Non Arabs, because this article dont apply to them at all? Other wise we will have a section for the Berber, Kurds, Gypsies, Assyrians, Arameans, Syriacs, Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, Iranians, Somalis, Ethiopians, Circissians, and Armenians leaving among the Arabs. (They should start an article on their own like everyone else does)--Skatewalk 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to have some mention of non-Arab minorities in what some people refer to as the Arab world. Indeed, a summary of the history of the Arabs, is one of interaction and coexistence with many different other peoples (due to the territories they inhabited forming a sort of crossroads between continents) and this process often enriched Arab culture and vice versa. Tiamat 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that should be in ethnic groups in the Arab world. I rather keep this article to what it relates to (Arabs).--Skatewalk 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Skate. Just a simple advice about handling issues in Wikipedia. First remember WP:BATTLE before mentioning anti-X. Instead of commenting more than enough about 400,000 bedouins you should have mentioned WP:CITE and WP:V and went on. There's no need to get impatient. Use policies and guidelines as your weapon and not delving w/o end in lame discussions which would sort out nothing. I hope all parties would understand that well. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Although many sources can be biased. I understand how that can make things easier. --Skatewalk 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, why don't we leave the discussions on the Egypt article to the Egypt talk page and concentrate here on this article. Don't you think this would be more efficient? --Maha Odeh 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did, Egyegy removed it and said Wikipedia is not a soap box...--Skatewalk

Removing Arab Nationalism

  • Is their any user interested in keeping this part? (if so Why?) Should this part be reffered to the Arab Nationalism article link instead of a section?

This is the first major change that needs to be done (it had a merger for a while now)? --Skatewalk 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The only relevance it has is in defining the Arab nation. In my opinion, paragraphs three, four and five in this section are not relevant, are unsourced and are POV.
After the end of the Ottoman Empire and the colonial period, the new Arab states looked to protect their fragile nations by focusing on their own history and culture to build up an enduring national identity. - this is an opinion and is unsourced.
As these nations developed, pan Arab media led to the Arabization of the Middle East - why the media? was there Arabicization? This is a biased POV.
that resulted in much assistance between states, often forced by empathy of their populations for other Arabs. For example, many Arab countries allied in the wars against Israel. - it may or may not be true, but solidarity between states was not just about empathy, and in fact there were (and still are) poor relations between some Arab states.
This empathy was an issue to new and weaker states, which needed to reduce the impact of external influence on their citizens in order to run their own countries. - but is this true? Was it true in Yemen?
For example Iraq functioned thanks to strong governance by the British (reducing third party Arab influence) and later the independent government from 1932 onwards, although the population has significant cultural and historical divides. - this sentence doesn't make sense.
This new nationalism had a practical application often in response to internal espionage by other Arab nations. - I thought the purpose of pan-Arabism, according to this article, was mutual solidarity. Instead, Arab nationalism is used against espionage by Arab states on other Arab states. Again, this makes no sense and if it did, it would probably be POV.
This culminated in a number of pivotal events that emphasized the priority of "nation" over the "Arab nation": the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel, Syria's backing of Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, and Jordan's removal of the PLO. - what has this got to do with Arab nationalism. Arab states are self-interested. So are European states. What is the issue here?
--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That section relates to Syria more than anything else. I dont see how its relevant to the general Arab article. Its more related to the modern PanArabism that started in Syria. It does relate to the Arab identity, but it needs a mention not a whole section.

  • Also mentions of the nations should be replaced by more focus on the people.
  • I want to hear from more people, before we remove that section. Someone might be seeing something we don't--Skatewalk 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's good to have a brief mention of Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism with links to the main articles where the topic is better covered in depth. Tiamat 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Tiamut, DO you want to mention it in (Who is an Arab section?).

  • I agree with whatever changes you make. Aslong as it reduces the Nationalistic feeling of the article. Its supposed to be a modertae Arab article, that will also reduce the constant vandalizing by Anti-Arabs. --Skatewalk 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, Wikipedia is not meant to be "moderate" anything. It is meant to give the range of viewpoints. If racists want to vandalise it, then we'll have to work to counter them. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is run means that we'll always have to defend this article. If it gets too bad, then it can be semi-protected to prevent sockpuppets and anonymous IPs from editing it.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahwaz I know what you mean, I am trying to be moderta eon this subject. Arab nationalism is a fact, but it would be better if it doesnt make a big part of this article, we dont have to hurt the feelings of the AntiArabs (even if you think its a cheap ride, but you still have to give them some space).--Skatewalk 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The Arab nationalism part should maybe be briefly mentioned in the history section, but I don't think it should have it's own "chapter" until the rest of the article is improved. And if so, I think a segment about Arab culture and so on has a much higher priority. Funkynusayri 11:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Nusayri, we mention it as the rise of the PanArabism....etc (1 line). We have to fend off the Anti Arab vandals by omitting the subjects they love to vandalize. --Skatewalk 14:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab Wiki Project

We have an Arab wiki project that is currently working on improving the article (Arab), it would be great if you can join us (you dont have to be Arab or Pan Arabist, aslong as you know about the subject we need you)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name By Alphabetic order in the link below)
  1. Ahwaz
  2. Arab League
  3. Aziz1005
  4. Basel15
  5. FaysaalF
  6. Funkynusayri
  7. Maha Odeh
  8. Slacker
  9. Skatewalk
  10. Tiamat

[Arab_Wiki_Project]--Skatewalk 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Project should not be a substitute for discussion on this page. All changes and disputes on this article should be conducted here, so that those not a member of this project can participate, including third parties (who can often give impartial advice).--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ofcourse!--Skatewalk 01:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I will add my name later. This project has not be formed yet even so, this is a long term suject including long term editing, I am talking about small non permanent group who are active in editing Arab articles. Why hesitate just add your names and lets try this I think this may work if you dont like to add your country then just add your name, It's not a big deal. May I list the benefits?
  1. . If the group has gathered we will please a tag wich say that we will edit this article until 23 hrs, this will give us time. We who have shown that activity in this article and are qualified
  2. . Prevent non known user who has an anti arab beliefs to just pop in and make chaos.
  3. . Learn to work together and accept others opionen, This is very Important.
  4. Listen to each other and cope with every aspect.

I beilive these are the IMPORTANT points to make a decent neutral article. Irqirq 05:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Irq,

If its short term. then discuss what you want to remove or add, in the discussion section and we go from there. I started a section on proposal to remove Arab nationalism section and replace it with a mention in the who is Arab section.--Skatewalk 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Before the project is created, we should reach consensus on what to actually call it. So again: "after all, it could be named both "Arabs" or "Arab", and maybe "Arab people/culture/civilization/ethnicity" so on." What do you guys think? Funkynusayri 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the discussions on this Wikiproject should be conducted here: [1]--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Logical, strange I didn't think of that myself. I'll repost it there. Funkynusayri 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the name Arab world, although I didn't choose it, but the name Arab world includes everyone who is interested in the Arab world. Its a good name, if you decide to create another project I will also join, but lets not neglect Fayssal efforts.--Skatewalk 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated section (PreSabaean=Ancient)

PreSabaean and Ancient history is the same! Why would someone insist on bringinng it back?

  • FunkyNusayri already mentioned it before in the archives. User: Editor-group reverted it, assuming it was part of the edit wars.
  • If there is anything extra you think will help improve the article, please mention. The section was rverted in the infobox edit wars (not necessary on purpose)
  • For expanding the ancient history you can go to Ancient Arabia and Ancient Near East--Skatewalk 07:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why I want Fayssal to join the team

Offcourse this is up to you if you would like to participate or not and i hope I am allowed to add why I wish we could need your help. If you still insist you will not join then I wish you could just keep an eye with us, below the a summery why I think your help is useful.

  • Fayssal is an Administrator and have fulfilled experience and has provided the need not only to Arab related articles but also to the whole Wikipedia and may help to any fights which occurs by any members of the team.
  • A respected user by Oriental/eastern and Arabs, as a fellow citizen of Morocco, may be another perspective from the people who are from middle east, and needed another view of the subject rather than a group which are closely tied by the same background.
  • Has made a lot of edits on the Arab people article and are more than qualified to trust on.

I hope indeed that you will help us, thanks. Irqirq 07:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting 1 - References and Sources

This is an attempt to point out the specific areas of concern. I will start with the sources for this article.


These are my concerns regarding the sources, listed in the sequence they are listed in the article:


I’m not sure this qualifies as a sources, it’s a forum.

2. Touma, Habib Hassan. The Music of the Arabs. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus P, 1996. ISBN 0-931340-88-8.

I don’t have a problem with the source itself, however, it talks about music while the article does not talk about music. I didn’t read the book so I don’t really know if it’s relevent.

3. Lipinski, Edward. Semitic Languages: Outlines of a Comparative Grammar, 2nd ed., Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta: Leuven 2001

4. Kees Versteegh, The Arabic Language, Edinburgh University Press (1997)

I’m not quite sure since the focus on language, but I will accept these two.

5. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, 1907, Online Edition, K. Night 2003: article Arabia

Two points, a. it’s outdated (1907) and b. it’s biased (very clearly) and it sources the bible, which is neither objective nor scholarly in anything but religion.


despite my personal opinion of the sources I would accept it, however, did anyone notice that the souce is only for Lebanon.

7. History of Arabic language, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Retrieved Feb.17, 2006

8. The Arabic language, National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education web page (2006) Retrieved Jun. 14, 2006.

I would accept both as I did for the other two related to language, but the citiation is not complete. Who is writer?

9. Ankerl, Guy. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva: INUPRESS, 2000. ISBN 2881550045.

10. Hooker, Richard. "Pre-Islamic Arabic Culture." WSU Web Site. 6 June 1999. Washington State University. 5 July 2006 <>.

Acceptable sources

11. Owen, Roger. "State Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East 3rd Ed" Page 57 ISBN 0-415-29714-1

12. Halliday, Fred. "Two Hours that Shook the World" P47 ISBN 0-86356-382-1

It’s not clear how they are relevent, I would apprieciate an explanation.

13. Journal of Semitic Studies Volume 52, Number 1

Which article, are we supposed to get that volume and “guess” which article is the relevent one? The Journal itself, however, is acceptable.

14. Abdulaziz Almsaodi, Himyari Studies

15. Amitav Ghosh, In an Antique Land.

16. Kamal Salibi, The Bible Came from Arabia

17. Aymn Almsaodi, The Historic Atlas of Iberia

All the above are incomplete; who is the publisher, which year is it – alternatively the ISBN would do. The last one, “The Historic Atlas of Iberia” is irrelevent.

My Notes: Out of 17 sources, only 2 are acceptable, some are not complete, some are irreleven and some unaccpetable.

References and notes

1. 1996, p.xviii

Acceptable in this case

2. From "Although modern day Egyptians are usually ….etc.

I don’t know if anyone noticed, but the site “” is a collection of POV articles by different journalists. This particular article is written by a Copt, who does not cite any credible (or bad for that matter) sources of his alligations. Did anyone actually investigage if his alligations are true or just hi POV? I would assume that any POV is not acceptable here including that of people that are not editing here. His article can not even be considered original research since it is not research at all. Please note that these articles both are directly linked to information mention as FACT in the article.

3. Abadeer: "We are proud of our Egyptian identity and do not accept to be Arabs. Elaph. April 12, 2007. 4. 5. :all the above are personal POVs. 6. from [1]" by NBC News Middle East military analyst, retired intelligence officer Lt Col Rick Francona

Blog, not authentic or credible. The statement is easy to prove, however, just seek the Arab League website.

7. Journal of Semitic Studies Volume 52, Number 1 8. AbdulAziz Almsaodi, Himyari Studies P.139 9. Arabic As a Minority Language By Jonathan Owens, pg. 184 10. Arabic As a Minority Language By Jonathan Owens, pg. 182

The sources are acceptable but as mentioned before, the citation is incomplete.

11. (1998) Christian Communities in the Middle East. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-829388-7. 12. 13.


My Notes: out of 13, 4 are acceptable.--Maha Odeh 08:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I was given hell by other users in another article because I didnt have an ISBN, so the same applies to those. I think you should start removing the /unverified/POV/weak references. I will remove the obvious ones and we wait and see if the other sources are even relevant?--Skatewalk 08:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Although it seems as if there are a lot of references, actually there aren't especially for such a subject. A lot of the sources are regarding language, many are one sided and, most importantly, not all the controvertial statements are cited.

Moreover, since many subjects are controversial, we need to provide more than one point of view. Maybe some subjects can be only briefly touched and another page created for details including the opposition. Example: the who is an Arab, up to my understanding, is more controversial than we like to admit. Another example, is Are Assyrians, Aramates and other ancient Semitic peoples Arabs, although many scholars believe they are not, a great many others believe they can be one way or the other.

OK, this is quite a lot of talk in the talk page so I'll stop for the time being. --Maha Odeh 08:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The (Who is Arab) section, should not be very complicated:

  • Any person who claims an Arab identity regardles of race or religion or a citizen of a country which may simply be a member of the Arab League and thus having Arabic as an official government language, even if not used by the majority of the population. However, some groups within the Arab world choose to identify with its pre-islamic native history .

Sometimes less is more and more is less, when you start mentioning groups by names and try to generalize it as Arab or Non-Arab you are wasting time!!--Skatewalk 08:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove the word "ethnicity" otherwise the statement is self-contradictory. You can't just "choose" to identify as an Arab "regardless of ethnicity". Arabness is an ethnicity, i.e. an inherited cultural identity. -- Slacker 11:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK Slacker = ), I think of Arab as a cultural term, but ethnic applies to most and in many cases the ethnic Arab circle overshadows the cultural one --Skatewalk 11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Describing the term "Arab" nowadays as ethnic term don't make an equally decision, since there are a wide viarity of Arabs from Black to another races. --Irqirq 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem here on WP is that many people misunderstand and misuse the term "ethnic". "Ethnic" does NOT mean genetics or bloodline, the proper terms for that would be "racial" or "genealogical". Click on the "ethnicity" article here on WP and you'll see what the word actually means, i.e. a group who share a common cultural heritage and identity, regardless of geneology or race. Therefore, "ethnic group" is the best term to describe the Arabs of today. Slacker 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Can people suggest reliable sources that provide a definition for "Arab"? Not all of them will be in agreement, but we can reflect what these sources say, rather than speculating.

The first one, I'd like people to look at is: The Arabic Language and National Identity, which offers many definitions

The first on page 64 is largely linguistic: "No one inherits Arabic from his father or mother. Arabic is a habit of the tongue. He who speaks Arabic is an Arab."

It is followed by the views of two jurists, one supporting this definition and the other stressing the importance of lineage. So on this page, we have the 1) linguistic definition, 2) lineage or genaological/tribal definition. We would also have a "national" or "citizenship" definition (this is where Arab nationalism, the linguistic definition and the Arab world combine together nicely. Anyway, I'm going to keep reading this source and recommend other to do the same, as well as to find others. The article seems to need more in the way of scholarship per the analyses provided by other Maha Odeh et al. Tiamat 12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been a few years since I last read it, but I remember it as a very good book, and I believe there are some definitions.

Maybe take a look at this one too, I also remember that one as being good: Funkynusayri 12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new source. I'll look into it. Can we begin agreeing on some of the scope here:

"Arab" has a linguistic definition: someone who speaks Arabic
This can be a unifying idea when discussing Modern Standard Arabic, the language used for writing, which is the same throughout the Arab world or it can be used to emphasize distinctiveness when speaking of vernacular dialects.
"Arab" has a definition based on shared history: the history of the Arab world, as defined by language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talkcontribs) 12:39, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
This can also be problematic, especially in the case of Egypt where Pharaohnic history generally outshines a shared Arab history, accounting for a strong duality in Egyptian identity.
"Arab" has a national definition: someone who is a citizen of an Arab country
But there are many citizens of Arab countries that do not identify as Arab and instead identify as part of a linguistic or ethnic minority.
"Arab" has a geneaological definition: someone who is a descendants of Arab tribes (which may or may not include Semitic ancestors)
"Arab" has a ethnic definition: someone who identifies as "Arab" for linguistic, national, geneaological or cultural reasons.
Self-identification remains a key determinant. If someone is a citizen of an Arab country, but identifies with another linguistic or ethnic group without identifying as Arab, this should be noted. But it should also be noted that if they self-identify as Arab, they would generally be accepted as such. Additionally, someone who is not a citizen of an Arab country (someone from the Arab diaspora or Palestinians in Israel for example) can still identify as Arab. Does anyone have anything to add to this? Sources backing this up are readily available. Tiamat 12:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[ This source, by Halim Barakat, discusses the dynamism of Arab identity, looking at some common features used to determine that identity, beginning with language and culture, and exploring the heterogeneity therein. It will also prove useful in discussing the situation of minorities who may not identify as Arab. Tiamat 12:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi guys. I am starting the project this afternoon. I'll be dealing w/ the framework. I hope the main pieces would be completed by tomorrow. I'll keep you updated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks !--Skatewalk 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is like 90% complete. I've already sent the welcoming template to people who have already signed at the Council. I'll be working on Project invitations later today. I'm just busy w/ some admin issues for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab Nationalism

Should it be removed from the article?

  • The article discusses the Arab identity. and the article should be more informative on who is Arab. IMO Arab Nationalism should be an article on its own?--Skatewalk 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There are going to be a team who will work on this article whole night with a placed tag so no one could edit until 23 hrs. You may add your wishing to our team to review. Thanks. Irqirq 09:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Join the Arab wiki project, thats the real team that will fix this article. If you dont join it, how can we take you seriously?
    • BTW you uploaded an Akkadian image on the Sumerian people article! (How can I take you seriously? again, which is very strong evidence of your non Mesopotamian origin! (related behavior reverts can easily lead to a sock puppet that paricipated in recent edit wars)
    • Any undiscussed changes will be considered VANDALISM and we will have behavior investigation into the so called "team" that doesnt want to join the Arab wiki project, yet the they want to change the Arab article!
    • Also explain why 3 of the 5 members just joined in the last 24hours!?--Skatewalk 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please Skatewalk calm down, and don't accuse anyone for sock puppet yet, and don't make any attacks or edit wars against each others. Lets think again, if you believe this is a team of Vandals, why to care?, I think also this article needs to re written. So if you oppose Irqirq opinion then join the group and dominate your edits. This is the best way to prevent edit war. I am joining not as a follower of Irqirq. The last thing we need is the edit wars, Skatewalk if you believe this is a foolish team then join to help it. I hope you guys would calm down. for those who joined today maybe they are a long time readers and saw the heated debate or what ever—Juju78 09:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Juju,

We created an Arab wiki project for this purpose, I tried inviting him to join the wiki project, but he shrugged me off and said I wasn't Arab! There is a wiki project, that everyone interested in fixing this article should join! (you dont have to be Arab to join the group, Berbers and Kurds joined the group also, so they can add what they want about their ethic groups)--Skatewalk 10:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I will remove this team and will join the Arab Wikiproject — Juju78 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to join as well. I will focus on Egypt's relation to Arabism, Arabs and pan-Arabism. --Lanternix 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also remember if you want us to mention in the Egyptians in the Arab article, we expect the Arabs to be mentioned in the Egyptian article. If you want to be allowed to change an article to a group you show hate towards (calling Arabs naked bedouins), then expect extra attention paid to whatever you edit. Fair enough?--Skatewalk 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If this is how you want to start the project then expect nothing but conflict. --Lanternix 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well Lanterix you have to change your ways.
      • Respect other users, you been rude to Nusayri, Al-Andalus and even me, although I was agreeing with you!
      • Fix the EGyptian identity page so it can balance the Arab page. (we dont want it to seem that someone is living on another planet!). If you want to address the Arabs as an invading minority I dont have a problem with that, but you can't also claim them as the Egyptian non Arabs in the same time!?--Skatewalk 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nusayri, I removed it, do you a have a suggestion where we should mention it? within the history? --Skatewalk 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see another edit warring has just started. Please use the talk page to discuss or the article would be locked for a long time by another admin at the wrong version of course. Only one side would be happy. This behaviour is inaceptable and should stop immediately. I'll tell you one thing. Why everybody is too impatient? What's going on? Why this mess won't stop or at least slow down. I am not trusting a few newly created accounts here from both sides so be aware and follow the policies and guidelines. I'd not repeat this everyday.

Egyegy, this is the verifiability policy regarding sources. It says, i quote, "sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

  • The 1st problem w/ is that the website though it looks serious got a big problem in terms of verifiability. It uses no single primary source. The articles at the site got authorship. It means it becomes a primary source. It means we cannot from where they got what they publish --> WP:V.

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. Source

  • The 2nd problem w/ is reliability. Please, an advice, it is always important to verify the "about us" page at every website. For those who got no such page than it is obvious that they are worthless. For those who got such a page, you'd go and read and see what's really about. In our case, got several prizes, mostly online ones and mostly Information Technology outlets such as PC magazine ME, MSN pick of the day, this which it offline even if you'd try to try its home page, another one is (please check it out), (donlet yourself be mislead by its "world culture" title because it is simply a business company who got a "GeoLeader Certification Program" which i got no idea what it is but this is what their brochure, etc... In brief my answer is WP:RS#Scholarship.

I haven't checked the other sources but please you and Skater check them and see which one doesn't violate policies. You know now the proper way to judge sources.

All the nonsense i said above to both parties is indeed noted at our policy books. The problem is that no one want to waste their time edit warring and disrupting talkpages and Wikipedia processes. Read policies guys. Whoever follows policies never get blocked. Simple as that. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Arab-Net, it is important to point out by whom it is actually written and maintained:

"ArabNet is owned by ArabNet Technology (ANT), part of the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, publisher of the leading newspapers and magazines in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia including Asharq Al-Awsat."[2]

Saying, therefore, that "the site '' is a collection of POV articles by different journalists" and "This particular article is written by a Copt," is highly presumptuous nonsense. Even if the article were written by a Copt, it does not justify dismissing it in such an offensive manner. Quite the contrary, an Egyptian writing about Egyptians is quite applicable. However, we now know that Arab-Net is written and maintained by a very notable Saudi Arabian think-tank -- that does not make it a primary source. The section in question at any rate is one of identity, which is a highly subjective area; in other words, it is not science. I see no justification for the deletion of this or the article about the Coptic community conference. I am also going to add another by an anthropologist from a book. — Zerida 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Following the time stamps of everone's signatures here, who talked about a Copt and who said POV? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think she's talking about this [3] Egyegy 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) is simply a free posting website that alows anybody to write their opinions (just like a blog). The article was written b a Copt. Now did we ask for citations? No. I also think the copts should be mentioned as non Arabs (doesn't need a reference cause its will known) add a weak reference doesn't do it service. (Copts will be mentioned in the article, so why are you insisting on adding a POV reference?) The article is about the Arabs, we will have the copts internal link people can read whatever they want about your people on it. I a personally not interested what you use to reference your (Copt) article aslong as you stop adding POV references in this article. That we want to improve--Skatewalk 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don;t understand why you keep saying the reference is POV??? Both quotes are primary sources! --Lanternix 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Do you know it or are you trying to have a blind eye? Add this one to your "must read" list → Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab Religions

Alawite Islam & Ibadi Islam is a part of Shia Islam, its not necessary to mention all these here which is the job of the main article Shia Islam. <<Smart_Viral 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Ibadhism is not part of Shia Islam; it's actually the antithesis of Shi'ism. There's also a weasel statement that should be looked at: "the Druze are usually treated as seperate". Really? By who? Slacker 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In Israeli they are treated different for politicla reasons, The Arabs consider them Muslim for political resons. Which one we should select? sense the article is Arab related!--Skatewalk 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the Arabs who consider them Muslims ... the Druze who live in Arab countries vehemently oppose any suggestion that they are non-Muslims, and denounce it as "takfir". In any case, it should be stated *who* views them as non-Muslims. We want a disciplined Wikipedia article here, and that means keeping personal observations, weasel words, anecdotal evidence, and unattributed claims to an absolute minimum. Slacker 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should go through "who" considers "whom" what in relation to religion. Leave that to the religion related articles. Here we can just count them "Sunni, Shia, Ibadhi, Druz, Christians, other." better still: "Muslim and Chritians". Leave the details to where the details belong. --Maha Odeh 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer we leave it Muslim and Christian --Skatewalk 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Syntax, grammatical and other serious issues

  • ...comprise what is the geographically larger and diverse [X] Muslim World...
    • There is adposition before "muslim world" which is missing.
  • ...This definition covers fewer self-identified Arabs than not, and was the definition used in...
    • "not" is odd. "was" should be after "definition".
  • ...such as many or most Egyptians, reject this definition on the basis of genealogy.
    • The problem is that the genealogy subsection is just above it. This sentence is found at the linguistic subsection!
  • ...It would exclude the entire Arab diaspora, but include not only those genealogically Arabs (Gulf Arabs and others, such as Bedouins, where they may exist) and those Arabized-Arab-identified (such as most Palestinians), but also include Arabized non-Arab-identified groups...
    • This is very hard to understand as a sentence. A good example of a structural semantics problem.
  • ...The relative importance of these three factors is estimated differently by different groups and [X] frequently disputed....
    • The verb "to be" is missing.

ETC, ETC, ETC... That was just part of a section and see how many errors were found in less than 20 lines. I remember the article was much more better. So please guys, instead of edit warring fix those simple things first. There is another easy way to do that. Try to find through page history better versions. I am therefore changing the assessment class to "Start" according to the quality scale. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghassanides were Arabic Speakers

First sign your name! Second what kind of statement is this!?

  • The Kahlani Sabaeans spoke South Arabic & are ethnic Arabs descended from Khalan of Qahtan, the same tribe that Adnan and all the other modern Arab tribes branched out from.
  • The Ghassanids are pure Arabs by ethnicity and language as Arab as the tribe of Shammar today.--Skatewalk 21:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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


I'd give this article a B class , i think it worth it for all these external references and cleaned-up statments. anyone got time to repeat the review ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 10:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Arabs

Can users please remeber this! If we start discussing every other group living within the (Arab world)then we will have a long article and we should mention everyone. However, this is article is about the Arabs, so if the group is not Arab I dont see why are we going into needless details about the subject?--Skatewalk 16:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


  • I don't have any sources, but it should be made clear that Arabs are not a race, and that any person of any race/ethnic group can be an Arab. Arab does not necessarily refer to an ethnic group when it refers to linguistic Arabs, and for example "black" and "Arab" aren't mutually exclusive. The different definitions of Arab can also be applied to different peoples independently of each other, so for example Maronites are only linguistic Arabs, Saudis are both ethnic, genealogically, linguistic, and culturally Arab, most Levantine (or from the Fertile Crescent for that matter) Arabs are not genealogically Arabs, so on, so in this way the term is very similar to the term "Hispanic". See these discussions for example:

It should be noted though (here, not in the article) that physical anthropologists did in fact use the term "Araboid" for a sub-race of Caucasoids, but this refers to a physical type named after Arabs because many Arabs belong to it, it does not mean that only Arabs can belong to it, or that you are an Arab if you are "Araboid". Funkynusayri 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree....I never liked the Arabid term! since most Arabs usually have varied racial features within the same family!

Name any race and you will find an Arab who resembles them.--Skatewalk 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahm, how bout nordics . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Arabs with blue eyes and blonde hair certainly exist. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a good source on Arabs as an ethnic group (not race):

2.5 - The Arabs. Our knowledge about the ancient Arabs has tremendously benefited from recent archaeological work, more so than our knowledge about any other ancient ethnical group. The wild, wide and still unfruitful search for the Empire of David and Solomon has come up with an unexpected result: The Arabs are now one of the best epigraphically attested ethnical groups of the early first millennium BC in the area (Eph'al, 1982). For the second half of the millennium the attestations are so plentiful that they enable us to estimate even the strength of particular tribes, such as the Qedarites (Tuell, 1991). And the furious search for a historical basis to the "foundation myth" promises to bring to light even more data about the ubiquitous "Other".

The first millenium BC "Arabs" have an objectively ascertained historical presence and they have, at least in the eyes of present-day Arabs, the potential for an "honorable ancestor's" status. But we still do not know who this "people" were, not even if they considered themselves a "people" and were thus considered by others. "In scholarly literature the concept "Arabs" (...) turns out to be rather hazy. (...) This modern haziness of national terms is (...) dangerous when dealing with ancient history" (Retso, 1991). The early first millennium BC "Arabs" might have been just one small occupational group of people, mostly camel beduins and their families, as implied by Ahiqar in his proverb "do not show an Arab the sea nor a Sidonian the desert; their occupations are different". Or they could be the inhabitants of a land (maat Aribi) governed by powerful queens and kings having far-flung commercial enterprises, as implied by some of the inscriptions from Assyria. Or they could be both or again something else, we still do not know. In any case the relations of these "Arabs" with their predecessors (chiefly with the Sutu/Setiu), their contemporaries and the various later days "Arabs" still need to be historically defined (Naccach, 1991).

2.6 - We could go on an on with the Akkadians, the Amorites, the Arameans, the Assyrians or the Cananeans etc. Ethnies are popular and, at least since Agatharchides of Cnidus' book "Asia and Europe", have been emphasized as explanatory factors in history (Fornara, 1983). But again and again we would see that ethnies do not exist outside of society as reified things in themselves, and that what is meant by an ethnic group is not coherently defined or named. Examples of the problems created by ignoring these warnings can, in addition to the ones mentioned above, be seen for instance in Palestinian archaeology (Coogan, 1987; Finkelstein, 1991), or in the studies of the early development of the alphabet (Garbini, 1990).

In conclusion, ethnies cannot be taken as givens or building blocks in our historical reconstruction. We cannot a priori name or define a particular people, or group of peoples, and say that we are studying their history when we study the history of "Syria and the Near-East". Ethnicity is a social phenomenon and it requires, at the social level at which it functions, a doubly subjective condition to be fulfilled: To be accepted as such, ethnicity has to be both self-ascribed by the human sub-group concerned (how the group sees itself), and ascribed to it by the other groups with which it is in contact (how other groups see it). Furthermore the concept of ethnicity is itself dependent on ethnical definitions. As "for a large number of social and psychological phenomena the concept that names the phenomenon is itself a constituent of the phenomenon" (Searle, 1984), and is not an independent variable upon which we could ground our analysis. The "ethnical" reading of this history can only be, should only be, the result of our analysis and synthesis of all the historical data at our disposal.

From The Empireof the Amorites RevisitedTiamat 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

References Cleanup

I can't make coherent sense of the above. Removal of the sources leaves the claims vulnerable to POV deletions for lack of sources -- that goes without saying. As I mentioned, I added another citation from a book written by an anthropolgist to buttress those that are already in the article and in Egypt#Identity. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and the sources meet the criteria set in the policy. — Zerida 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • OK This is the article you quote!

However, anthropologically, the majority of indigenous Egyptians trace their ancestry back to the Semetic tribe of Ham.

Now explain to me, How can I accept the opinion of this confused (unaware) writer!
He is claiming Egyptians are Semitic! that alone calls makes the article POV out of this world! is a Forum/like collective articles, Anybody can post any article they want on So please don't quote POV or blog/form websites.--Skatewalk 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding regarding how Arab-Net works is not accurate. However, I agree this claim is outdated 19th-century historics, but it reflects a common (often religious) belief in the Middle East that Egyptians are descendants of "Ham". I'm not sure what "Semitic tribe" this is in reference to. In any event, I am not myself against removal of Arab-Net very strongly as long as the other sources, including the one I just added, are not removed. — Zerida 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Read again the policies and guidelines. It is irrelevant to whom a media outlet belongs. What is important is What it Does and How it Does It. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of where "the majority" of "indigenous Egyptians" trace their ancestry to; there is a flaw in the claim. Ham, you see, is Sam's (Shem's) brother not his son; hence there is no such thing as the "semetic tribe of Ham" simply becouse they become "hemetic" not "semetic". Ancestry is one thing, language is another; the term "semetic" in languages is not literal. --Maha Odeh 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Zerida/egyegy, The point is we know who the Copts are, I didnt ask for a reference. And the reference you are adding only adds more confusion! If some one claims the Copts are Semites from Ham? (old testament). thats just pure POV so I am not sure whats the whole editting about? I will remove them tommorow and keep the text (that you tried to reference) you dont need a weak article to reference whats already known. You can get in depth about that in the Copts article, that will be internally linked for other users to read about the copts. However, keep in mind this is an Arab article and we can't go into details about every non Arab group in the Arab world.
  • The other reference you added is also POV material....
  • look at arab with disdain! first thats a false statement, because every Arab that enters Egypt (airports) gets the VIP treatment, atleast 2 Egyptians jump with smiley faces...

"Izyak ya Amir, Izayk ya basha...etc", Arabs are looked upon in Egypt. Second, the POV opinon is Anti-Arab used in Arab article! Do you understand what POV means? You cant talk for all Egyptians, because Chritians Copts themselves are refugees who got oppressed in Egypts by the Egyptian lets not start with that. We are trying to have a neutral article that respects everybody. Is that too much to ask for?--Skatewalk 05:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No one cares what you need or don't need. Wikipedia requires sources. End of story. You start deleting every source from the article about Egyptians and you will be treated like the common troll that you want to be. You will just ensure that this article stays in endless conflict. But since you're such an observant woman, here is a quote for you Skatewalk. It's by a very famous Egyptian writer. Enjoy:
Tawfik El-Hakim: "The Arabs feel everything but constancy. And how would they know constancy when they have no land, no past, and no cultivated sedentary civilization." "The Arab nation is one whose total existence is a dream about the pleasures of life and satiation." "There is not the shadow of a doubt in my heart that Egypt and the Arabs are diametrically opposed: Egypt is spirit, calm, permanence, constructiveness; the Arabs are material, haste, transience, superficiality."

Egyegy 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What relevance does this positively chauvinistic anti-Arab pseudo-Egyptian source have to do with the article we are trying to build on on Arabs? Why do you enjoy soapboxing here so much? Tiamut 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Pseudo-Egyptian"? He's only like one of the greatest and most popular Egyptian writers ever, but I'm sure you already know that. And it's relevant because of the way many people here are using this talk page as a garbage-disposal of blame and unsupported claims about Egyptians. Egyegy 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right. He's a real Egyptian. I shouldn't have used "pseudo" there and I apologize for that. But my point stands. This information has little bearing or relevance to this article. If the guy is not an expert on Arabs and doesn't even identify as Arab, then his opinion is really irrelevant here. In fact, I don't really understand your interest in this article. If you think Egyptians are not Arabs, you're entitled to your opinion. But there are some Egyptians who do consider themselves both Egyptian and Arab. Those Egyptians are a subject of interest to this article. Those who don't call themselves Arab are not. Considering the difficulty you are having with multiple editors here who are trying to point out Wiki policies to you about sourcing as well, I think you should stop trying to insert your POV here as though it were the dominant subject of this article. It's not. This is an article about Arabs, not people who some people think are Arab who don't like it that this is case and want to clutter up the Arab page with their protestations. Tiamut 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
How is that relevant to the article?
So just because Kuwait in Iraq are at worse conflict than Egypt and their nieghbors...we are going to use that as reference to say Kuwaitis are not Arabs!
Or because the Qahtanis town dwellers in Sham fought the Adnani Bedouins....we should use that as evidence that they are not Arabs?
Maybe if you have a reference (official stats or something related to this subject) then there will be a reason to have it on the article, simple as that.
You are adding unrelated material on how some EGyptians felt towards Saudi in the 1960s. Or How the Chritian Copts feel about their Arab muslim oppressors in Egypt. and misquoting it as a general rule. The less we mention Egypt the better (because we avoid the needless discussion).
"an observant woman" lol I will take that as Egyptian humor, I think I mentioned it before that I had an Egyptian/muslim XGF? anyways it doesnt matter...Their is nothing wrong with being a woman = ) --Skatewalk 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate Speech

whether Muslim or Coptic, identify only as Egyptians, that is, descendants of the ancient Egyptians. Sacred Language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of Culture and Politics in Egypt | publisher =Palgrave Macmillan | id =ISBN 0-312-23897-5 | pages=47 | quote=Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from 'Arabs' and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-'arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states who are on the whole looked upon with some disdain... (See Egypt#Identity for more information).

  • Can someone explain to me how is this relevant to the article? Why should the article be concerned what the African Americans, Egyptians, Gypsies or Israelis feel about the Arabs!? --Skatewalk 02:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pov deletions

I am amazed by the amount of ignorant comments to justify deleting the sources about Egyptians. The Arabist pov pushing is relentless, even when the source is an Arab_Net site from Saudi Arabia!!! I see the academic source was deleted too. Unbelievable!! If you don't understand something you read, find someone to help you understand it. If it bursts your bubble, well that might be a good thing. Knowledge is a dangerous thing, ain't it! Egyegy 06:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you read the thread above before starting accusing editors of POV? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ya I read where you came up with some stuff about it being a primary source so you can delete it. We already know that's not true, so we don't need to keep rehashing a false premise. That's why it's called a pov deletion. Egyegy 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was written by an undereducated person (least to say). He claimed the Egyptians both Hamitic and Semitic within one sentence! that alone is enough to delete it.

The other source that you list is pure irrelevant hate Speech!: ^ Haeri, Niloofar (2003). Sacred Language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of Culture and Politics in Egypt. Palgrave Macmillan, 47. ISBN 0-312-23897-5. Is the same book that is clearly biased and used in both references?! [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states who are on the whole looked upon with some disdain Why Should a POV source be used in an Arab article? the book claims that Egyptians hate Gulf Arabs, And? how is this relevant? Just because Kuwaitis had ill feelings towards Iraqis at a cetain period of time.... that doesnt make them Arabs?!--Skatewalk 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No the tribal warring is a characteristic of Arab societies, which is what's happening in Iraq now and between the Iraqis and the Kuwaitis before. This source says correctly that Egyptians are not Arabs because an academic is not an idiot to believe Arab nationalist propaganda that recently forced an artificial Arab identity on non-Arabs like Egyptians. Only those without a proper education and total ignorance of history would be so clueless. I don't feel like edit-warring with people here, so you can have your "Arab article" like you call it. The article relies on ancient religious and tribal books for its sources, we wouldn't want to start confusing it with facts. Egyegy 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the article and talk pages could use a break from the bigoted stereotyping and loosey goosey "scholarship" that seems centered around inserting an anti-Arab POV throughout. We might also benefit from a pause in the anti-Arab soapboxing. Tiamut 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Considering the vile and perverse anti-Egyptian racism spewed on this talk page on a regular basis, which is all over many Arab countries, especially the Gulf, it is relevant to examine it on an article about Arabs. And if the people here stop using this page as a garbage-disposal of their relentless anti-Egyptian bigotry, there wouldn't be a problem. Egyegy 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I am from the Gulf and I have no problem with Egyptians. I also consider them Arabs as they speak Arabic and have an Arabic culture. There is no "pure" race in this world. There are lots of black African tribes who proudly call themselves Arabs and I welcome them as part of the Arab nation. Some Egyptians might not want to call themselves Arabs and may make a case against this categorisation, but they are in a minority and I am not convinced their point of view is notable enough for this article.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You said "There are lots of black African tribes who proudly call themselves Arabs and I welcome them as part of the Arab nation" oh ya like the black African tribes of Darfur are "welcomed" as part of the "Arab nation". We already know how Arab nationalism works, there's no need for the painful reminder. Is it any wonder many of the most prominent and popular Egyptians have disassociated themselves from Arabism, from Naguib Mahfouz to Osama Anwar Okasha to Taha Hussein to Akkad and many more. At least so many Egyptians now are finally coming to their senses. Egyegy 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your statements are conducive to achieving consensus on this article. You may believe whatever you want about Arabs, but let's try to seek consensus and keep this unhelpful emotionalism out of the debate.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Because of Egyegy claims, I started asking Egyptians if they are Aab or not!....only the Christians chose to rather identify as Egyptian only. Keep in mind this was in Boston and NY in the USA. Egyptians mostly identify as Arabs. However, the Christian Copts will mostly identify as Egyptians only. I agree with Ahwaz, few weeks ago I didn't. However, the trolling made me do my own research and there is a clear agenda that egyegy is trying to push.
  • The majority of the Egyptians are happy with the name of their nation (the Arab republic of Egypt). If the Arabs were really a small minority as Egyegy claims....then why would the name remain! and the language! headquarters of the Arab league?--Skatewalk 07:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The non Arabs?

  • since the article is about Arabs. I dont see any reason for it exceeding 2 mentions? just like the Kurds and Berbers. and we have a link for Egyptian identity for thse who need to read more about te subject.--Skatewalk 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Egyptians are mentioned only like twice and the Berbers many more times. You also deleted a valid reference. Please upkeep the encyclopedia's neutrality, and refrain from the vitriol and attacks on Egyptians. Thank you. Hamada2 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • These nationalists are getting out of hand. "Attacks"? This article isn't about Egyptian identity, but Arabs. Berbers and Kurds are actual ethnicities with their own languages, unlike Egyptians, so they're unique cases and more notable as exceptions. Funkynusayri 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to bud in here, but it should be noted that a language (ie:Arabic) doesn't automatically make you an ethnicity (ie:an Arab). PLEASE bear this in mind: LANGUAGE is NOT to be confused with ETHNIC ORIGIN. ~ Troy 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Often speaking Arabic as a mother tongue makes someone an Arab. Arabic language is an essential part of Arab ethnicity. There are black Africans who call themselves Arabs on the basis that they are Arabic speakers, not because they were descended from Arabia. There are also some black Arabs in Saudi Arabia.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Troy, yes I understand, Copts (christians) are well known non Aab minority. Most the Egyptian muslims are either Arabized or EThnic Arabs (or atleast the Ashraaf claim so). The less we mention Egyptian the less we have to generalize. I mean Arabs in Egypt refered to the Christians as (Aqbat) for as good reason. they didnt call Persian Muslims Arabs, because they are different.--Skatewalk 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Troy, I bet every editor knows that here, but the problem is that it is irrelevant in relation to the majority of Muslim Egyptians who do in fact view themselves as Arabs, arabised or not. Funkynusayri 13:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

This is a subject that brings unrelated trolling (Afrocentrics) and (Eurocentrics) and its irrelevant to the article, thats why it should be simple as Chritian Egyptians. --Skatewalk 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. This is getting too annoying. --Maha Odeh 08:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be for specific what you are trying to say skatewalk? Nancy usa 09:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what's get annoying to me is the posting of irrelevant reasons about "Ancient Egypt" and "Afrocentrics/Europcentric" to delete something that was part of the article for a long time. Deleting referenced information from Wikipedia is considered vandalism, especially when you're deleting the correct information and replacing it with a poorly written sentence without a source. Saying it's exclusive to Christians is biased original research and contradicts the sources linked. What I think is also strange about all this is that the people complaining are not making any effort to improve the article itself, just obsessing about the one tiny mention of Egyptians that's always been part of the page. I guess I'll never understand that. Hamada2 09:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I see articles on Iraqis and Syrians also. Hamada2 09:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article about Iraqis is just a redirect, and the Syrian article is hogwash and should be redirected too. Funkynusayri 15:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's very rude to blank out the hard work of other people. I restored these two articles. Discuss with the people who worked hard on them, don't just destroy their work. The Iraqi people article especially is well-referenced. Hamada2 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(we are Arabs) I am sick of copts who say we are not Arabs.--Gamal Al-Ansary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamal Al-Ansary (talkcontribs) 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Coptic Christian. No one said anything about that. Please don't register new handles just to create trouble and disputes. Thank you. 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am NOT Arab. Copts are NOT Arabs. I just want to make that ansary guy even sicker. --Lanternix 06:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a place for annoying eachother. Gamal identifies as an Arab, that makes him one; you don't, that proves you are not. End of story. Please refrain from personal attacks. --Maha Odeh 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unclear statement

Estimates of the number of Arab Christians vary, and depend on the definition of "Arab", as with the number of all Arabs, especially Muslim Arabs.

This statement is wrong (linguistically not factually). I don't want to change it because I'm not 100% sure I understand what is meant by it. Maybe someone can clear it up a little. --Maha Odeh 07:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should not be there anyways, because the article is about Arabs not statistics on religion. We don't know the exact poulation of Lebanon. Are we going to add that on the article...ofcourse not, because its no relevant. Unnecessary statements that gives excuses for vandals..... needs to be removed--Skatewalk 20:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Qahtani and Adnani

Should these terms be used in the article as factual descriptions of peoples? After all, it's just legend. Funkynusayri 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

new pic

add this pic to the article


The picture was taken in 1925 of man from Shammar tribe with Asiatic Cheetah ( Fahd Sayyad or Fahd Alrabi)..bedouin use this animal for hunt.

The article is not about animal hunting. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
ok--Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)--Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi 15:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Amharic is also arab Language —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No, but it is a Semitic language. That's not enough though. Funkynusayri 13:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

here Photos of land Ancient Arabs Thamud /Saudi Arabia


ARABS, the name given to that branch of the Semitic race which from the earliest historic times inhabited the southwestern portion of the Arabian peninsula. The name, to-day the collective term for the overwhelming majority of the surviving Semitic peoples, was originally restricted to the nomad tribes who ranged the north of the peninsula east of Palestine and the Syro-Arabian desert. In this narrow sense "Arab" is used in the Assyrian inscriptions, in the Old Testament and in the Minaean inscriptions. Before the Christian era it had come to include all the inhabitants of the peninsula. This, it is suggested, may have been due to the fact that the "Arabs" 1 Lord Cromer in Egypt, No. I, 1905, p. 2.

were the chief people near the Greek and Roman colonies in Syria and Mesopotamia. Classical writers use the term both in its local and general sense. The Arabs to-day occupy, besides Arabia, a part of Mesopotamia, the western shores of the Red Sea, the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf and the north of Africa. The finest type of the race is found in south Arabia among the Ariba Arabs, among the mountaineers of Hadramut and Yemen and among the Bedouin tribes roaming over the interior of central and northern Arabia. The Arabs of the coasts and those of Mesopotamia are hybrids, showing Turkish, Negroid and Hamitic crossings. The people of Syria and Palestine are hybrids of Arab, Phoenician and Jewish descent. The theory that early Arab settlements were made on the east coast of Africa as far as Sofala south of the Zambezi, is without foundation; the earliest Arab settlement on the east coast of Africa that can be proved is Magadoxo (Mukdishu) in the 10th century, and the ruined cities of Mashonaland, once supposed to be the remains of Arab settlements, are now known to be of medieval African origin. On the East African coast-lands Arab influence is still considerable. Traces of the Arab type are met with in Asia Minor, the Caucasus, western Persia and India, while the influence of the Arab language and civilization is found in Europe (Malta and Spain), China and Central Asia.

The Arabs are at once the most ancient as they in many ways are the purest surviving type of the true Semite. Certainly. the inhabitants of Yemen are not, and in historic Ethnology times never were, pure Semites. Somali and other elements, generally described under the collective racial name of Hamitic, are clearly traceable; but the inland Arabs still present the nearest approach to the primitive Semitic type. The origin of the Arab race can only be a matter of conjecture. From the remotest historic times it has been divided into two branches, which from their geographical position it is simplest to call the North Arabians and the South Arabians. Arabic and Jewish tradition trace the descent of the latter from Joktan (Arabic Kahtan) son of Heber, of the former from Ishmael. The South Arabians - the older branch - were settled in the south-western part of the peninsula centuries before the uprise of the Ishmaelites. These latter include not only Ishmael's direct descendants through the twelve princes (Gen. xxv. 16), but the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites and other tribes. This ancient and undoubted division of the Arab race - roughly represented to-day by the universally adopted classification into Arabs proper and Bedouin Arabs (see Bedouins) - has caused much dispute among ethnologists. All authorities agree in declaring the race to be Semitic in the broadest ethnological signification of that term, but some thought they saw in this division of the race an indication of a dual origin. They asserted that the purer branch of the Arab family was represented by the sedentary Arabs who were of Hamitic (Biblical Cushite), i.e. African ancestry, and that the nomad Arabs were Arabs only by adoption, and were nearer akin to the true Semite as sons of Ishmael. Many arguments were adduced in support of this theory. (I) The unquestioned division in remote historic times of the Arab race, and the immemorial hostility between the two branches. (2) The concurrence of pre-Islamitic literature and records in representing the first settlement of the "pure" Arab as made in the extreme south-western part of the peninsula, near Aden. (3) The use of Himyar, "dusky" or "red" (suggesting African affinities), as the name sometimes for the ruling class, sometimes for the entire people. (4) The African affinities of the Himyaritic language. (5) The resemblance of the grammar of the Arabic now spoken by the "pure" Arabs, where it differs from that of the North, to the Abyssinian grammar. (6) The marked resemblance of the pre-Islamitic institutions of Yemen and its allied provinces - its monarchies, courts, armies and serfs - to the historical Africo-Egyptian type and even to modern Abyssinia. (7) The physique of the "pure" Arab, the shape and size of the head, the slenderness of the lower limbs, all suggesting an African rather than an Asiatic origin. (8) The habits of the people, viz. their sedentary rather than nomad occupations, their fondness for village life, for dancing, music and society, their cultivation of the soil, having more in common with African life than with that of the western Asiatic continent. (9) The extreme facility of marriage which exists in all classes of the southern Arabs with the African races, the fecundity of such unions and the slightness or even total absence of any caste feeling between the dusky "pure" Arab and the still darker African, pointing to a community of origin. And further arguments were found in the characteristics of the Bedouins, their pastoral and nomad tendencies; the peculiarities of their idiom allied to the Hebrew; their strong clan feeling, their continued resistance to anything like regal power or centralized organization.

Such, briefly, were the more important arguments; but latterly ethnologists are inclined to agree that there is little really to be said for the African ancestry theory and that the Arab race had its beginning in the deserts of south Arabia, that in short the true Arabs are aborigines.

Mahommedans call the centuries before the Prophet's birth waqt-el jahiliya, " the time of ignorance," but the fact is that the Arab world has in some respects never since reached so high a level as it had in those days which it suits Moslems to paint in dreary colours. Writing was a fine art and poetry flourished. Eloquence was an accomplishment all strove to acquire, and each year there were assemblies, lasting sometimes a month, which were devoted to contests of skill among the orators and poets, to listen to whose friendly rivalry tribesmen journeyed long distances. Last, that surest index of a people's civilization - the treatment of women - contrasted very favourably with their position under the Koran. Women had rights and were respected. The veil and the harem system were unknown before Mahomet. According to Noldeke the Nabataean inscriptions and coins show that women held a high social position in northern Arabia, owning large estates and trading independently. Polyandry and polygamy, it is true, were practised, but the right of divorce belonged to the woman as well as the man. Two kinds of marriage were celebrated. One was a purely personal contract, with no witnesses, the wife not leaving her home or passing under marital authority. The other was a formal marriage, the woman becoming subject to her husband by purchase or capture. Even captive women were not kept in slavery. Arabic wealth and culture had indeed thus early reached a stage which justified Professor Robertson Smith in writing, "In this period the name of Arab was associated to Western writers with ideas of effeminate indolence and peaceful opulence. .. the golden age of Yemen." But long before Mahomet's time this early Arab predominance was at an end, possibly due in great measure to the loss of the caravan trade through the increase of shipping. The abandonment of great cities and the ruin of many tribes contributed to the apparent nationalization of the Arab peoples. Though the traditional jealousy and hostility of the two branches, the Yemenites and Maadites or Ishmaelites, remained, the Arab world had attained by the levelling process of common misfortune the superficial unity it presents to-day. The nation thus formed, never a nation in the strict sense of the word, was distinctively and thoroughly Semitic in character and language, and has remained unchanged to the present day. The sporadic brilliancy of the ancient Arab kingdoms gave place to a social and political lethargy, the continuation of which for many centuries made the uprise of Saracenic empires seem a miracle to a world ignorant of the Arab past. The Arab race up to Mahomet's day had been in the main pagan. Monotheism, if it ever prevailed, early gave place to sun and star worship, or simple idolatry. Professor Robertson Smith suggests that totemism was the earliest form of Arabian idolatry, and that each tribe had its sacred animal. This he supports by the fact that some tribal names were derived from those of animals, and that animal-worship was not unknown in Arabia. What seems certain is that Arab religion was of a complex hybrid nature, not much to be wondered at when one remembers that Arabia was the asylum of many religious refugees, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians. In the later pre-Islamitic times spirits, or jinns, as they were called, of which each tribe or family had its own, were worshipped, and there was but a vague idea of a Supreme Being. Images of the jinns to the number of 360, one for each day of the lunar year, were collected in the temple at Mecca, the chief seat of their worship. That worship was of a sanguinary nature. Human sacrifice was fairly frequent. Under the guise of religion female infanticide was a common practice. At Mecca the great object of worship was a plain black stone, and to it pilgrimages were made from every part of Arabia. This stone was so sacred to the Arabs that even Mahomet dared not dispense with it, and it remains the central object of sanctity in the Ka'ba to-day. The temples of the Sabaeans and the Minaeans were built east of their cities, a fact suggesting sun-worship, yet this is not believed to have been the cult of the Minaeans. Common to both was the worship of Attar, the male Ashtoreth.

With the appearance of Mahomet the Arabs took anew a place in the world's history.

Physically the Arabs are one of the strongest and noblest races of the world. Baron de Larrey, surgeon-general to. Napoleon on his expedition to Egypt and Syria, writes: "Their physical structure is in all respects more perfect than that of Europeans; their organs of sense exquisitely acute, their size above the average of men in general, their figure robust and elegant, their colour brown; their intelligence proportionate to their physical perfection and without doubt superior, other things being equal, to that of other nations." The typical Arab face is of an oval form, leanfeatured; the eyes a brilliant black, deep-set under bushy eyebrows; nose aquiline,. forehead straight but not high. In body the Arab is muscular and long-limbed, but lean. Deformed individuals or dwarfs are rare among Arabs; nor, except leprosy, which is common, does any disease seem to be hereditary among them. They often suffer from ophthalmia, though not in the virulent Egyptian form. They are scrupulously clean in their persons, and take special care of their teeth, which are generally white and even. Simple and abstemious in their habits, they often reach an extreme yet healthy old age; nor is it common among them for the faculties of the mind to give way sooner than those of the body.

Thus, physically,' they yield to few races, if any, of mankind; mentally, they surpass most, and are only kept back in the march of progress by the remarkable defect of organizing power'and incapacity for combined action. Lax and imperfect as are their forms of government, it is with impatience that even these are borne; of the four caliphs who alone reigned - if reign theirs could be called - in Arabia proper, three died a violent death; and of the Wahhabi princes, the most genuine representatives in later times of pure Arab rule, almost all have met the same fate. The Arab face, which is not unkindly, but never smiling, expresses that dignity and gravity which are typical of the race. While the Arab is always polite, good-natured, manly and brave, he is also revengeful, cruel, untruthful and superstitious. Of the Arab nature Burckhardt (other authorities, e.g. Barth and Rohlfs, are far less complimentary) wrote: "The Arab displays his manly character when he defends his guest at the peril of his own life, and submits to the reverses of fortune, to disappointment and distress, with the most patient resignation. He is distinguished from a Turk by the virtures of pity and gratitude. The Turk is cruel, the Arab of a more kind temper; he pities and supports the wretched, and never forgets the generosity shown to him even by an enemy." The Arab will lie and cheat and swear false oaths, but once his word is pledged he may be trusted to the last. There are some oaths such as Wallah (by Allah) which mean nothing, but such an oath as the threefold one with wa, bi and to as particles of swearing the meanest thief will not break. In temper, or at least in the manifestation of it, the Arab is studiously calm; and he rarely so much as raises his voice in a dispute. But this outward tranquillity covers feelings alike keen and permanent; and the remembrance of a rash jest or injurious word, uttered years before, leads only too often to that blood-revenge which is a sacred duty everywhere in Arabia.

There exist, however, marked tribal or almost semi-national diversities of character among the Arabs. Thus, the inhabitants of Hejaz are noted for courtesy and blamed for fickleness; those of Nejd are distinguished by their stern tenacity and dignity of deportment; the nations of Yemen are gentle and pliant, but revengeful; those of Hasa and Oman cheerful and fond of sport, though at the same time turbulent and unsteady. Anything approaching to a game is rare in Nejd, and in the Hejaz religion and the yearly occurrence of the pilgrim ceremonies almost exclude all public diversions; but in Yemen the well-known game of the "jerid," or palm-stick, with dances and music is not rare. In Oman such amusements are still more frequent. Again in Yemen and Oman, coffee-houses, where people resort for conversation, and where public recitals, songs and other amusements are indulged in, stand open all day; while nothing of the sort is tolerated in Nejd. So too the ceremonies of circumcision or marriage are occasions of gaiety and pastime on the coast, but not in the central provinces.

An Arab town, or even village, except it be the merest hamlet, is invariably walled round; but seldom is a stronger material than dried earth used; the walls are occasionally flanked by towers of like construction. A dry ditch often surrounds the whole. The streets are irregular and seldom parallel. The Arab, indeed, lacks an eye for the straight. The Arab carpenter cannot form a right angle; an Arab servant cannot place a cloth square on a table. The Ka'ba at Mecca has none of its sides or angles equal. The houses are of one or two storeys, rarely of three, with flat mud roofs, little windows and no external ornament. If the town be large, the expansion of one or two streets becomes a marketplace, where are ranged a few shops of eatables, drugs, coffee, cottons or other goods. Many of these shops are kept by women. The chief mosque is always near the market-place; so is also the governor's residence, which, except in size and in being more or less fortified Arab fashion, does not differ from a private house. Drainage is unthought of; but the extreme dryness of the air obviates the inconvenience and disease that under other skies could not fail to ensue, and which in the damper climates of the coast make themselves seriously felt. But the streets are roughly swept every day, each householder taking care of the roadway that lies before his own door. Whitewash and colour are occasionally used in Yemen, Hejaz and Oman; elsewhere a light ochre tint, the colour of the sun-dried bricks, predominates, and gives an Arab town the appearance at a distance of a large dust-heap in the centre of the bright green ring of gardens. and palm-groves. Baked bricks are unknown in Arabia, and stone buildings are rare, especially in Nejd. Palm branches. and the like, woven in wattles, form the dwellings of the poorer classes in the southern districts. Many Arab towns possess. watch-towers, like huge round factory chimneys in appearance,. built of sun-dried bricks, and varying in height from so to zoo ft. or even more. Indeed, two of these constructions at the town of Birkat-el-Mauj, in Oman, are said to be each of 170 ft. in height, and that of Nezwah, in the same province, is reckoned at 140; but these are of stone.

The principal feature in the interior of an Arab house is the "kahwah" or coffee-room. It is a large apartment spread with mats, and sometimes furnished with carpets and a few cushions. At one end is a small furnace or fireplace for preparing coffee. In this room the men congregate; here guests are received, and even lodged; women rarely enter it, except at times when strangers are unlikely to be present. Some of these apartments are very spacious and supported by pillars; one wall is usually built transversely to the compass direction of the Ka'ba; it serves to facilitate the performance of prayer by those who may happen to be in the kahwah at the appointed times. The other rooms are ordinarily small.

The Arabs are proverbially hospitable. A stranger's arrival is often the occasion of an amicable dispute among the wealthier inhabitants as to who shall have the privilege of receiving him..

Arab cookery is of the simplest. Roughly-ground wheat cooked with butter; bread in thin cakes, prepared on a heated iron plate or against the walls of an open oven; a few vegetables, generally of the leguminous kinds; boiled mutton or camel's flesh, among the wealthy; dates and fruits - this is the menu of an ordinary meal. Rice is eaten by the rich and fish is common on the coasts. Tea, introduced only a few decades back, is now largely drunk. A food of which the Arabs are fond is locusts boiled in salt and water and then dried in the sun. They taste like stale shrimps, but there is a great sale for them. Spices are freely employed; butter much too largely for a European taste.

After eating, the hands are always washed, soap or the ashes of an alkaline plant being used. A covered censer with burning incense is then passed round, and each guest perfumes his hands, face, and sometimes his clothes; this censer serves also on first receptions and whenever special honour is intended. In Yemen and Oman scented water often does duty for it. Coffee, without milk or sugar, but flavoured with an aromatic seed brought from India, is served to all. This, too, is done on the occasion of a first welcome, when the cups often make two or three successive rounds; but, in fact, coffee is made and drunk at any time, as frequently as the desire for it may suggest itself; and each time fresh grains are sifted, roasted, pounded and boiled - a very laborious process, and one that requires in the better sort of establishments a special servant or slave for the work. Arabs generally make but one solid meal a day - that of supper, soon after sunset. Even then they do not eat much, gluttony being rare among them, and even daintiness esteemed disgraceful. Wine, like other fermented drinks, is prohibited by the Koran, and is, in fact, very rarely taken, though the inhabitants of the mountains of Oman are said to indulge in it. On the coast spirits of the worst quality are sometimes procured; opium and hashish are sparingly indulged in. On the other hand, wherever Wahhabiism has left freedom of action, tobaccosmoking prevails; short pipes of clay, long pipes with large open bowls, or most frequently the water-pipe or "narghileh," being used. The tobacco smoked is generally strong and is either brought from the neighbourhood of Bagdad or grown in the country itself. The strongest quality is that of Oman; the leaf is broad and coarse, and retains its green colour even when dried; a few whiffs have been known to produce absolute stupor. The aversion of the Wahhabis to tobacco is well known; they entitle it "mukhzi" or "the shameful," and its use is punished with blows, as the public use of wine would be elsewhere.

In dress much variety prevails. The loose cotton drawers girded at the waist, which in hot climates do duty for trousers, are not often worn, even by the upper classes, in Nejd Dress. or Yemama, where a kind of silk dressing-gown is thrown over the long shirt; frequently, too, a brown or black cloak distinguishes the wealthier citizen; his head-dress is a handkerchief fastened round the head by a band. But in Hejaz, Yemen and Oman, turbans are by no means uncommon; the ordinary colour is white; they are worn over one or more skullcaps. Trousers also form part of the dress in the two former of these districts; and a voluminous sash, in which a dagger or an inkstand is stuck, is wrapped round the waist. The poorer folk, however, and the villagers often content themselves with a broad piece of cloth round the loins, and another across the shoulders. In Oman trousers are rare, but over the shirt a long gown, of peculiar and somewhat close-fitting cut, dyed yellow, is often worn. The women in these provinces commonly put on loose drawers and some add veils to their head - dresses; they are over-fond of ornaments (gold and silver); their hair is generally arranged in a long plait hanging down behind. All men allow their beards and moustaches full growth, though this is usually scanty. Most Arabs shave their heads, and indeed all, strictly speaking, ought by Mahommedan custom to do so. An Arab seldom or never dyes his hair. Sandals are worn more often than shoes; none but the very poorest go barefoot.

Slavery is still, as of old times, a recognized institution through out Arabia; and an illicit traffic in blacks is carried on along the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. The slaves themselves were obtained chiefly from the east Slavery. African coast districts down as far as Zanzibar, but this source of supply was practically closed by the end of the 19th century. Slaves are usually employed in Arabia as herdsmen or as domestic servants, rarely in agricultural work; they also form a considerable portion of the bodyguards with which Eastern greatness loves to surround itself. Like their countrymen elsewhere, they readily embrace the religion of their masters and become zealous Mahommedans. Arab custom enfranchises a slave who has accepted Islam at the end of seven years of bondage, and when that period has arrived, the master, instead of exacting from his slave the price of freedom, generally, on giving him his liberty, adds the requisite means for supporting himself and a family in comfort. Further, on every important occasion, such as a birth, circumcision, a marriage or a death, one or more of the household slaves are sure of acquiring their freedom. Hence Arabia has a considerable free black population; and these again, by inter-marriage with the whites around, have filled the land with a mulatto breed of every shade, till, in the eastern and southern provinces especially, a white skin is almost an exception. In Arabia no prejudice exists against negro alliances; no social or political line separates the African from the Arab. A negro may become a sheik, a kadi, an amir, or whatever his industry and his talents may render him capable of being. This is particularly so in Nejd, Yemen and Hadramut; in the Hejaz and the north a faint line of demarcation may be observed between the races.

The Arabs are good soldiers but poor generals. Personal courage, wonderful endurance of privation, fixity of purpose, and a contempt of death are qualities common to almost every race, tribe and clan that compose the Mary qua/ilithies.

Arab nation. In skirmishing and harassing they have few equals, while at close quarters they have often shown themselves capable of maintaining, armed with swords and spears alone, a desperate struggle against guns and bayonets, neither giving nor receiving quarter. Nor are they wholly ignorant of tactics, their armies, when engaged in regular war, being divided into centre and wings, with skirmishers in front and a reserve behind, often screened at the outset of the engagement by the camels of the expedition. These animals, kneeling and ranged in long parallel rows, form a sort of entrenchment, from behind which the soldiers of the main body fire their matchlocks, while the front divisions, opening out, act on either flank of the enemy. This arrangement of troops may be traced in Arab records as far back as the 5th century, and was often exemplified during the Wahhabi wars.

Arab women are scarcely less distinguished for their bravery than the men. Records of armed heroines occur frequently in the chronicles or myths of the pre-Islamitic time; and in authentic history the Battle of the Camel, 656 A.D., where Aaaaaaaaa, the wife of aaaaaaaa, headed the charge, is only the first of a number of instances in which Arab amazons have taken, sword in hand, no inconsiderable share in the wars and victories of Islam. Even now it is the custom for an Arab force to be always accompanied by some courageous maiden, who, mounted on a blackened camel, leads the onslaught, singing verses of encouragement for her own, of insult for the opposing tribe. Round her litter the fiercest of the battle rages, and her capture or death is the signal of utter rout; it is hers also to head the triumph after the victory of her clan.

There is little education, in the European sense of the word, in Arabia. Among the Bedouins there are no schools, and few, even of the most elementary character, in the towns Education. or villages. Where they exist, little beyond the mechanical reading of the Koran, and the equally mechanical learning of it by rote, is taught. On the other hand, Arab malechildren, brought up from early years among the grown-up men of the house or tent, learn more from their own parents and at home than is common in other countries; reading and writing are in most instances thus acquired, or rather transmitted; besides such general principles of grammar and eloquence, often of poetry and history, as the elders themselves may be able to impart. To this family schooling too are due the good manners, politeness, and self-restraint that early distinguish Arab children. In the very few instances where a public school of a higher class exists, writing, grammar and rhetoric sum up its teachings. Law and theology, in the narrow sense that both these words have in the Islamitic system, are explained in afternoon lectures given in most mosques; and some verses of the Koran, with one of the accepted commentaries, that of Baidawi for example, form the basis of the instruction. Great attention is paid to accuracy of grammar and purity of diction throughout Arabia; yet something of a dialectic difference may be observed in the various districts. The purest Arabic, that which is as nearly as possible identical in the choice of words and in its inflections with the language of the Koran, is spoken in Nejd, and the best again of that in the province of Suder. Next in purity comes the Arabic of Shammar. Throughout the Hejaz in general, the language, though extremely elegant, is not equally correct; in el-Hasa, Bahrein and Oman it is decidedly influenced by the foreign element called Nabataean. In Yemen, as in other southern districts of the peninsula, Arabic merges insensibly into the Himyaritic or African dialect of Hadramut and Mahra. (See Semitic Languages.) Bibliography. - Lieutenant Wellsted, Travels in Arabia (Lond., 1838); "Narrative of a Journey to the Ruins of Nakeb el Hajar" (Jour. R. Geog. Soc. vii. 20); Carsten Niebuhr. Travels through Arabia (transl. into English by Robert Heron, 2 vols., Edin., 1792); John Lewis Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia (2 vols., Lond., 1829); Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabis, (2 vols., Lond., 1830; in German, Weimar, 1831); C. J. Cruttendcn, Journal of an Excursion to Sana'a, the Capital of Yemen (Bombay, 1838); A. Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens als Grundlage der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Semitismus (Berne, 1875); Sir Richard F. Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Meccah (Lond., 1855); W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (Cambridge); E. Reclus, Les Arabes (Brussels, 1898); Lady Anne Blunt, A Pilgrimage to Nejd (2 vols., Lond., 1881); C. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserta (2 vols., 1888); Rev. S. M. Zwemer, Aral'ia: the Cradle of Islam (1900); Albrecht Zehme, Arabien and die Araber, seit hundert Jahren (1875).

Aracaju, a city and seaport of Brazil, capital of the state of Sergipe, 170 m. N.N.E. of Bahia, on the river Cotinguiba, or Cotindiba, 6 m. from the coast. The municipality, of which it forms a part, had a population in 1890 of 16,336, about twothirds of whom lived in the city itself. Aracaju is a badly built town on the right bank of the river at the base of a ridge of low sand-hills and has the usual features of an unprogressive provincial capital. Good limestone is quarried in its vicinity, and the country tributary to this port produces large quantities of sugar. Cotton is also grown, and the back country sends down hides and skins for shipment. The anchorage is good, but a dangerous bar at the mouth of the river prevents the entrance of vessels drawing more than 12 ft. The port is visited, therefore, only by the smaller steamers of the coastwise lines. The river is navigable as far as the town of Maroim, about pp m. beyond Aracaju. The city was founded in 1855. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arab genes (J1 most likely, but also J2, J, E3b, G)


From the Bible, Torah and Qur’an, we learn that the Arabs are descendants of Shem, son of Noah. Some Arabs claim to trace their ancestry directly back to Noah.

Arab origin is divided into two major groups:

al-‘Āriba meaning, "Pure origin" and al-Musta’ribah meaning, "Arabised Arabs".

The Pure Arabs are considered to be descendants of Noah through his son Shem, through his sons Aram and Arphaxad, and are known as Qahtanite. The Qahtanite are considered to have originated from the South Arabians, according to Arab genealogies.

The term Arabised-Arabs can be used for three different groups:

1) For Arabs considered to be descendants of Abraham through Ishmael, through his son Adnan and known as Adanites.

2) For Arabs who spoke other Afro-Asiatic languages. As Arabic speakers they are regarded as Arabs in contemporary times.

3) For the "Mixed Arabs", between "Pure Arabs" and the Arabs from South Arabia.

The Wikipedia article on: Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) says:

Haplogroup J1 is notable since this haplogroup shows highest frequencies in the Middle East North Africa and Ethiopia [Thomas et al study 1999] J1 was spread by two temporally distinct migratory episodes, the most recent one probably associated with the diffusion of Arab people Haplogroup J1 is most frequent in Palestinian Arabs (38.4%) [Semino et al] and Arab Bedouins (62% and 82% in Negev desert Bedouins). Also in Arabic speaking countries like: Algeria (35%), Syria (30%), the southern Levant Iraq (33%), the Sinai Peninsula, and the Arabian Peninsula collapsing suddenly at the borders of Arabic countries with non Arabic countries (Turkey and Iran). It entered Ethiopia in the Neolithic with the Neolithic Revolution and spread of agriculture, where it is found mainly among Semitic speakers (e.g. Amhara 33.3%, but Oromo 3.8%). It spread later to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 30.1%), where it became something like a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period (Semino et al. 2004). Researchers believe that marker DYS388=17 (Y DNA tests for STR - Short Tandem Repeater) is linked with the later expansion of Arabian tribes in the southern Levant and northern Africa (Di Giacomo et al. 2004). Haplogroup J1 is found almost exclusively among modern populations of Southwest Asia, North Africa, and East Africa, essentially delineating the region popularly known as the Middle East and associated with speakers of Semitic languages .The distribution of J1 outside of the Middle East is associated [with] Arabs and Phoenecians through trade and conquest like Sicily south Italy, Spain, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Pakistan, and with Jews who have historical origins in the Middle East and speak (or historically spoke) a Semitic language, though typically Haplogroup J2 is more than twice as common among Jews. In Jewish populations overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al. 2004).

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. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Almost all the pictures are inaccurate and misleading like the picture of 'syrians' from a fake source and the inaccurately fanciful illustrations of ancients arabs [which are inaccurate] that are wearing royal clothes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlongfong23 (talkcontribs) 06:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • What is a "fake source"? And how are the illustrations "inaccurate"? (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The World's Columbian Exposition is not a fake source. I do agree with problematic nature of ancient Arabs being dressed in royal clothing as they are examples of Orientalist portrayals of Arab peoples by the West. However, they are used in the context of giving examples of stereotypical Arab clothing, not depicting what the majority of Arabs look like. The image of the Bedouin sitting down is just absurd though. --Strothra (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the clothing of those ancient Arabs is hardly made up, but based on some actual historical information. (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The exact number and caracteristics of arabs in contrast of persians and africans

By identity:we can give a number of 250-260 millions(not including berbers ,copts,south sudanese,christian and animist sudanese,kurds ,maronites,druz,gulf iranians)

By mother tongue:we can give a number of 280-290 millions(not includins kurds ,berbers,non arabic speaking sudanese and gulf iranians)

By race:being that arabs belong to the mediterranean subgroup of the caucasoid race (from pale to dark white skin and mostly black eyes and hairs with some fair eyed and haired arabs. as the mediterranean raced peoples can be blond but a blondism that is mediterranean somehow ie different from nordic blondism)

We can see that somalis ethiopians(both are not arabic speaking)and arabic speaking sudanese are a mixture of semits(for the first 2)and arabs (for arabic speaking sudanese)with african peoples.

If we look to persians for example they are belonging to irano-afghanoid sub group of caucaosid race which differs from mediterranean sub group by a much stronger pilosity and more darker skin tone.

Persians look darker than arabs :we can see for example how persians looks very darker than syria najd or maghreb arabs.

Hanzukik (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What's the point? The difference between Iraqi Arabs and Iranians are minimal, by the way. Arabs are not a race, neither are Iranians. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Facts distorted to serve an AntiArab agenda?


  • Before removing and replacing images for no reason, discuss it here first. The Syrian Bedouins are neither in "a museum" or "Armenians". Funkynusayri (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, please discuss major changes first, no need for an arbitrary "celebrity" infobox image unless we can all agree on it. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
One image from one particular country does not illustrate the whole ethnic group. The ‘celebrity’ infobox ‘as you called it’ is used in almost all ethnic group articles so why shouldn’t we have one here. I think all images I used were for notable Arab figures with no possible doubts about them being non-Arabs.--Aziz1005 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said on my talk page, I think it is pretty important that we reach a consensus on who that should be in the infobox, just putting people in there because we have images of them isn't the way to go. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Lets reach a consensus then. Whats wrong with adding images of Imam ali (who is an Arab) John of Damascus (Arab) King Ghazi (Hashemite Arab) Fairuz (The Arabs Ambassador)--Aziz1005 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, seems like a very random selection. Why King Ghazi of all people for example? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes Very random!!. He was a political figure with a good image size!!. Anyway if you want to replace King Ghazi with any other figure I do not mind as long as we reach a consensus. What about other figures?--Aziz1005 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, as for politicians, Nasser would be a more obvious choice, for example. On Fairuz, I think her inclusion will lead to edit wars, since she is half Maronite and half Assyrian. Sunnis might find it odd that Imam Ali has been picked, and so on. These things always lead to controversy. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As for Nasser Egyptian users might complain and ruin the whole proposed consensu. I know this from Previous experience. So can you pick any other modern figure instead? I picked Ali (Muslim) John (Christian) Fairuz (Female). What about them?.--Aziz1005 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, as I added, there might be problems with Ali and Fairuz too. People always have to bitch about these things, so better leave a neutral image in than see the infobox change every day... Funkynusayri (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You know more than me about these problems so why don't you suggest new images for Arab figures to add, and I know there should be alot to suggest. Or at least keep this image until some one else complain. Since you are just assuming that it is going to lead to edit wars--Aziz1005 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd suggest a neutral image, like the family image used before. Anyway, let's see if the celebrity one works out. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok,Do you mean you gonna revert your edit? --Aziz1005 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, that you can put the images in again, there were other changes made in the mean time that we don't want back. Funkynusayri (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I re-added the pics to the infobox. and this is what I am concerned with. Thanks--Aziz1005 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice. I bet we'll get problems with it, but let's see. As for the colour image of a man and a camel which was removed, it did seem to have dubious copyright information. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, WHY IS THERE A PICTURE OF JUST A BEDOUIN MAN AS THE MAIN PICTURE?? this will make people think all arabs are like that(as if its not already).bedouins are important in our countries but why dont we have pictures of important/famous peoples from different arabic countries like every other page talking about ethnic groups.(example british,italians,french,persians.) we arabs have contributed alot to this world. upload pictures of politicians,actors,scholars,scientists,ancient tribes etc. the arab world spans over 2 continents and is bigger than europe(excluding russia),the US,Canada. this page should be much bigger! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What HAPPENED to the picture of Family?? Let's keep both. and why is this Aziz guy messing with the page? He was blocked for running a sockpuppet pretending to be female. what a fucking idiot.

U [4] why don't you log in and see your constructive edits? what is the link between you and me being blocked. you vandalised my user page just one day after me gettin blocked. that female user is not me! they just accused me of having that account--Aziz1005 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you for adding the pictures..these are famous and important arabs, if you want, you can add 2 more pictures to make a total of 8, examples like ahmed shawqi, muhammad ibn mūsā al-Khwārizmī, ibn zuhr, hayfa wehbe, nancy ajram etc.. you can choose from or arab artists, kings, presidents etc..