Talk:Arabs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

North Africans are Berbers[edit]

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

  • Most Arabs are arabised. Arabised Arabs are still Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Arabized Berbers consider themselves Arabs so they are Arabs. Ethnicity is a cultural link between people who share common cultural aspects. And not an anthropological affiliation as you say, and even if your definition is correct the majority of North Africans come from Arab tribes who migrated to this region throughout the Middle Ages.Teranosor (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

hey you spread your beberist properganda one more time and ill have you banned ok?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Confused Article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number of Berbers[edit]

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

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

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

Racist Pseudo-Science in Etymology Section.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox mosaic[edit]

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

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

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

Lol Zenobia was an arab dude She was an arab queen bring us evidence that she was a jew she was the queen of the nabeteans whom were aramic speaking people of Arab Genology She was of Arab orgin I want to see this that she was a jew show it to me??? otherwise Chill out bro @Pacificwarrior101ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Arabs and Iranians[edit]

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

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

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

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

Removal of Eugenics Section[edit]

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

Non-accurate informations[edit]

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

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

Requested move[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

Keep an Eye on the Infobox[edit]

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

Racial Pseudo-Science[edit]

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

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

Arabs are related to Israelis, exclusive[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Palestinians are NOT JEWS. I am sorry if i am replying to such an old post but this irks me. How do you know 50% Palestinians know they are of jewish descent? where did you even get this number from? Most Palestinians are a post migration to Palestine after many arabs from different countries migrated there and settled, the bedouins of Negev are NOT Jewish either, they score over 67% J1 on DNA tests so they are the purest Arabs in Israel and Palestine. Not to mention they have tradition of being placed there by the Assyrians who used bedouins as soldiers or mercenaries to spy on roman camps. There is no "Cohen marker" either this is just a zionist lie. Truth is Jews didn't come to the area known as "Israel" after WW2 when they were expelled from Europe and before that, the romans had expelled them of the lands which is why their diaspora is so widespread. Akmal94 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Egypt 90% Arab?[edit]

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

Israel & Eritrea[edit]

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

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

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

Arab identity[edit]

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

Arab League Arab population[edit]

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

Sri Lankan Muslims[edit]

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

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

Somali people[edit]

Somalis are not ethnic Arabs, but they identify more with Arabs than Africans due to religious and trade ties with Arabs.Somalia Business Law Handbook: Strategic Information and Laws. International Business Publications, USA. Aug 1, 2013. p. 48. ISBN 1-4387-7104-5. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture box not satisfactory[edit]

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

The Lihyanites - Banu Lihyan kingdom[edit]

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

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

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

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

Queen of Sheba[edit]

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

The main source from which everything else derives is the Bible (see I Kings chapter 10). As I mentioned before, if the queen of Sheba existed, she spoke a language which was Old South Arabian or "South Semitic" in the narrow sense, and not "Arabic" as this word is understood today... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Queen Sheba shouldn't be here - she probably predates the genesis of the Arab identity, first mentioned in 8th century BCE i belive.GreyShark (dibra) 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Different Arab-speaking people[edit]

In the introduction is an overly exhaustive list claiming to show different "Arab-speaking people". The list is based on recently modern nation-states, and links to their respecive demographics section - these are not different ethnic groups, even the linked demographic articles simply state that the majority of the people are Arabs. Also, we hardly need such a list to show evey Arab-speaking country - this is coveed well later on in the article. It seems to me an effort to push Post-Colonial Arab Nationalism. I have thus removed it until someone can provide evidence that each entry in the list is an ethnic group distinct from Arabs. SaSH172 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Edward Said[edit]

I think Edward Said should be included in the images. He was a literary genius. JDiala (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Arabian[edit]

The Arabian people originated in Arabian Peninsula (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar). Do not confuse Arabic-speakers and Arabian. The Haplogroup J1 is mainly present in the Middle East, and there is a minority in North Africa. --YZYZYZ (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Arabs, not Arabians or strictly people from the Arabian Peninsula. If you would like, you could remove the "Arabian" redirect to this article and start an article for Arabians: I would agree with that and support it. However most importantly, and you have yet to address this, the larger infobox that you are removing is reflective of the article itself, which includes the majority of the Arabic-speaking world with the Arabians, regardless of ancestry.
Here's another source, The Encyclopedia Britannica maintains "Arab, Arabic singular masculine ʿArabī, singular feminine ʿArabiyyah, plural ʿArab, one whose native language is Arabic. (See also Arabic language.) Before the spread of Islam and, with it, the Arabic language, Arab referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. In modern usage, it embraces any of the Arabic-speaking peoples living in the vast region from Mauritania, on the Atlantic coast of Africa, to southwestern Iran, including the entire Maghrib of North Africa, Egypt and Sudan, the Arabian Peninsula, and Syria and Iraq."
Here's the url http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/31348/ArabGeorge Al-Shami (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
See the lead and "Name" sections of the article for the context. "Arabs ... are a major panethnic group." [italics mine] "Originally, "Arabs" were synonymous with Arabians (inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula) .... Later uses of the word "Arab" could refer to any individual whose familial ancestry corresponds to the wider linguistic and panethnic definitions of Arabs." I agree with George Al-Shami about the merits of a separate article at Arabian people, which currently redirects to this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

How come Somalis are being labeled as Arab?[edit]

I knew there was a big argument about this, but I'm gonna shorten and sweeten the deal.

According to the CIA Factbook, which was the source given for Somalia's population of "10,000,000+ Arabs", there are only 30,000 Arabs living in Somalia. In addition, Somalis don't speak Arabic as a native language. Which, should probably be an indication. Now if Somalis all of a suddenly decided to abandon the Somali language, and adopt Arabic all as their native and national tongue, that's understandable why they could be considered Arab, just like the people of Sudan - who are ethnically native Africans but native speakers of Arabic. This also applies to the descendants of the Phoenicians, Berbers, Assyrians, Ancient Egyptians, Arameans, Maronites and Greek Melkites. Point being, the Somalis haven't abandoned their native language, and Arabic is only spoken by politicians, upper class and likely, religious leaders.

There is really no way to tell how much of the Somali population contains Arab ancestry, as in just that, ancestry and I think that should be noted on the list stating the Arab populations of AL states.

As for Arabized Berbers (Berbers who speak only Arabic but note their Berber descent), yes - they can be called Arabs too because they speak Maghrebi Arabic as a native language. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Not sure we should be completely tied to a narrow linguistic definition, but I basically agree -- the generality of Somalis are not Arab by any reasonable definition, other than Arab League membership (whatever that even means nowadays)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Somalis' association with the Arab world is centuries old. It did not begin just recently with Arab League membership. On the contrary, it is because of this longstanding relationship that Somalia and Djibouti are both members to begin with. Somalis have traditions of lineal descent from Arab patriarchs, no different than the other Arabized Afro-Asiatic populations in the Arab world (e.g. Abdirahman bin Isma'il al-Jabarti, Abadir Umar ar-Rida). Also, the most that the CIA factbook can do here is establish the populations of the various Arab states. It cannot quantify the actual number of Arabs per Arab state since of course most of the populations in these nations are actually Arabized, not lineal Arabs. This is why it indicates that the population of Egypt consists of 99% Egyptians [11], while also noting that "almost all Algerians are Berber in origin" [12]. Bottom line, the only difference is in the degree of Arabization; certainly not in degree of actual Arab ancestry. Middayexpress (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I understand and am fully aware of Somalia's centuries-long connections with the Arab World, prior and during the spread of Islam. But if that's going to be the focal reason for saying Somalis are Arab, then that would make Swahili people and Zanzibar Archipelago Arab too, because they have the exact same history that Somalia had with the Arab World, specifically Yemen. If would be like saying that Filipinos are ethnic Malays because of the Philippines' centuries-long connection with the Malay World prior to Spanish colonization. PacificWarrior101 (talk)PacificWarrior101
The Swahili culture is Bantu at its origin. As such, it has nothing to do with the Afro-Asiatic sultanates and kingdoms of the Horn. Please see Somali aristocratic and court titles and Ethiopian aristocratic and court titles. Middayexpress (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The main criterion for being considered an "Arab" is to speak Arabic as the first language. Somalis don't, so they are not Arabs by any definition. Many Iranian clerics claim Arab descent as well, but they are not considered Arabs either. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, many Somalis do speak Arabic; it is also an official language in both Somalia and Djibouti. Even if it hadn't been, speaking Arabic alone obviously isn't the main criterion, or many Chadians would be "Arab". The standard definition of the Arab world is instead territorial i.e. whether one hails from one of the Arab states. In short, it isn't neutral to single out any of the various Arabized populations within the Arab world. Most are not lineal descendants of the first Arab speakers (the original Arabs), though their respective genealogical traditions suggest otherwise. Middayexpress (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you skip "first language" in my comment? It doesn't matter if it is the second language. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Many Chadians speak Arabic as a first language, so the point remains valid. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
"The standard definition of the Arab world is instead territorial i.e. whether one hails from one of the Arab states." And an "Arab State" is ... what? The article you wikilinked doesn't help. It's just a table. Somalia's in the table ... because why?
Besides, it isn't helpful to attempt to base this discussion on a definition that is at odds with the one given in the article: "Today, the main unifying characteristic among Arabs is the Arabic language". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It is actually in line with the one given on the page: "Arab identity is based on one or more of genealogical, linguistic or cultural grounds". Please see the links above for the genealogical ties, and Arab world for the standard territorial definition. Middayexpress (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I had assumed this was already discussed. Anyways, the vast majority of Somalis and other Arabs view Somalis as Arabs.[13][14][15][16] Amongst the most notable quotes is this one: "In their own minds, Somalis were always aristocrats among savages: Arabs in a continent of inferior Blacks". Although highly insulting, it sums up the stance Somalis have regarding their identity. The same can be said about how Somalis view their cultural, part of the Arab World.[17] Somalis are also legally regarded as Arabs, for example Canada and the United Kingdom: [18] and [19]. AcidSnow (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the page, the traditional genealogical ties alone are sufficient. Middayexpress (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, I am just letting them know that even if it wasn't that Somalis do meet whatever the requirements are. Or at least according to the United Kingdom and Canada. AcidSnow (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Those stats are useless. They also count Berbers as "Arabs". FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yousef Chahine[edit]

Egyptian filmmaker Yousef Chahine identified with pan-Arabism and considered himself an Arab filmmaker, why don't we include his picture on the collage? There are no filmmakers on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.19.73 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is evenly divided between the different Arab nationalities. If you want to add another Egyptian you would have to replace them with one of the two that are already there.The two Egyptians already there, Umm Kalthoum and Gamel Abdul Nasser, are probably the most well-known and recognized Egyptians in the world; even though the filmmaker is well-known for his films. If you want to replace him with Umm Kalthoum, I would have no qualms about that.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ibn Haytham, al-Zahrawi, etc[edit]

We need to add back Ibn Haytham, who was a famous Arab scientist and optician. We have next to no one from the Islamic Golden Age of Science and Ibn Haytham was one of the most prominent Arabs involved with that. We should also add the "father of surgery" Al-Zahrawi, better known as Albucasis. He was Andalusian but originated from Arab tribal ancestry and is often identified as an Arab. Same with Ibn Rushd too. He's often identified as Arab, whatever his actual ancestry. He spoke Arabic, followed generally Arabic North African culture and wrote in Arabic. If Houari Boumedienne can be included, then so can Averroes/Ibn Rushd. Hurvashtahumvata888 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A montage?[edit]

It appears that sometimes images on the infobox are being changed without a consensus. I believe that a new montage is the best and only solution. What do you think? --115ash→(☏) 08:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What list do you propose? Remember, the last person was replaced, because their image file got deleted.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Here are some possible candidates for an ideal Arab montage. You may follow or discard this list as you please: poets like Al-Mutannabi, Al-Ma'arri, al-Jahiz, Abu Nuwas or Ibn Tufayl. Granted some of these people are mixed like al-Jahiz or Abu Nuwas but they were part Arab, lived in an Arab culture and wrote their works in Arabic. I mean a lot of the great Persian poets like Rumi, Ferdowsi, Attar and Jami were from Central Asia and probably descended from Persianized Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Bactrians rather than ethnic Persians yet they are still considered Persian on account of their linguistic and cultural attachments. But I'm sidetracked. Next, historians like al-Kindi, Ibn Khaldun and al-Mas'udi. Al-Masudi is a must actually, given the central role he plays in Arab historiography, indeed sometimes called the "Herodotus of the Arabs." Averroes the philosopher is someone we should consider putting on there as well. Granted this is something of a controversial choice given he was from Muslim Spain and that is often considered Maghrebi rather than "Arab." But he nevertheless spoke Arabic, followed an Arab culture (Maghrebi not Mashriqi) and worked within that space. I don't know really, something to consider. Put him in if you want or don't. Then there is sciences. Now as a Persian, I'm always willing to point to Ibn Khaldun and gloat about the many Persian contributions to the Islamic Golden Age but there were Arabs involved in this too and the montage should reflect them. Ibn Haytham is one of the most notable examples. His Book of Optics was a classic in its time and he was on here before. He must be added back. Al-Battani the astronomer and mathematician was a key figure and should be included as well. Ibn al-Shatir is another famous astronomer whose image we should try to find and add. He was noted for anticipating Copernicus in his models of planetary movements. The geographer al-Idrisi is another key figure we must add too. Then there are the great physicians of the Islamic Golden Age like al-Zahrawi, Ibn al-Nafis, Ibn al-Jazzar and Ibn Zuhr. Then we should add painting icons of famous political leaders like Rashidun Caliph Umar, Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid, Fatimid ruler al-Mustansir, as well as more recent leaders like Muhammad Ahmad (Mahdi), Faisal I of Iraq, his father Sharif Hussein, Omar Mukhtar of Libya and Ibn Saud of the peninsula. We should add major figures of the Nahda like Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, as well as writers like Muhammad Husayn Haykal, Ahmed Faris al-Shidyaq, and Khalil Gibran. We have Maryana Marrash so that's good. Same with Gibran. Butrus al-Bustani would be nice as he wrote the first modern Arabic encyclopedia. And then there are the major theorists of Arab nationalism like Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Sati' al-Husri, Salah al-din al-Bitar, Constantine Zureiq, etc. Arab communists like Khalid Bakdash would also work. Modern Arab writers like Naguib Mahfouz, Abdel Rahman Munif, Taha Hussein, Tayeb Salih or Mahmoud Darwish the poet should be included. Literary critics like Edward Said too. The famous singers like Umm Kulthum, Fairouz, Mohamed Abdel Wahab, Farid al-Atrash, Sabah, Asmahan and Nazem al-Ghazali. The filmmaker Yusuf Chahine. And then the big leaders of the modern era like Gamal Abdel Nasser, King Hussein of Jordan, Yasser Arafat, Ahmed Ben Bella and Muammar Gaddafi, as well as contemporary Arabs of high repute like Mohamed Bouazizi, Queen Rania of Jordan, Elias Khoury and singers like Haifa Wehbe and Diana Haddad. I am not saying include all of these or even most. But they should give a good sample of famous Arabs in a variety of fields. 173.15.19.73 (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I more or less agree with the list you provide above, it's filled with heavyweights from the Arab world, unlike the current list which has some unknown featherweights. The current consensus is on keeping two prominent Arabs from every Arab country, but as I mentioned a lot of them are far from being prominent in their country, let alone being prominent in the Arab world; for example one is an Olympian and two others are human rights lawyers. We have to wait and see what the other editors think and if they agree, the list should be whittled down to 30 and someone has to create the montage.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The new montage seems good except for Mohamed Bouazizi, who impacted the emotions of people but really didnt achieve anything himself. Haifa ! Im sure there are more respected artists that Her. and Lastly Qaddafi, he will bring a lot of edit wars. Other than this, all seems good.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hold on! I just wanted to creates one in order to stop vandalism. --115ash→(☏) 11:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead, create and post it here so we could see it and go over it to make sure no controversial people are in the montage. I concur with Attar-Aram syria, Qaddafi should not be in the montage. George Al-Shami (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Generally, Turkish are considered as Arabs. Can we include them?--115ash→(☏) 09:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Turks are not considered Arabs. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
How about this montage:
All of them are Arabs either ethnically or by identity. There's 30 pics (it shouldn't be much longer than that). Some countries like Egypt, Syria, Iraq have two or more people, while others like Bahrain or Oman have none. The way I selected pictures was by geographic region i.e. Levant, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Nile Valley, and Maghreb/Andalus/Libya and historical era i.e. pre-Islamic, early Caliphates, Mamluk era, Ottoman/Nahda era, Colonial/Nationalist era, Modern era. I also kept in mind keeping this fairly distributed between Muslims and Christians, and to a lesser extent men and women (not too many famous Arab women with pictures, perhaps May Ziade could replace Ameen Rihani, I don't know who's more important). There's also a lack of Shia (besides Musa al-Sadr, and Saleh al-Ali who was an Alawite). On the whole, however, I think this montage is suitable. Any thoughts?
First row, left to right: Antar Ibn Shadded, al-Khansaa, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Harun al-Rashid, al-Mutanabbi, John of Damascus
Second row: Al-Kindi, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Arabi, Daher al-Omar, Bashir Shihab II
Third row: Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi, Omar Mukhtar, Ameen Rihani, Saleh al-Ali
Fourth row: Sultan al-Atrash, Sati al-Husri, Faisal I of Iraq, Ibn Saud, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Omar Sharif
Fifth row: Umm Kulthum, Musa al-Sadr, Warda, Edward Said, Fayeq Abdul-Jaleel, Tawakkol Karman --Al Ameer (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


How have you dared to create an image Ali (R:) and label him in the third place? Shame on you. He must not be labelled here. Delete this mosaic. Podssueshelpy (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Other women: Queen Alia, Hanan Ashrawi? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Never mind Ashrawi, if Christians aren't included. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I should clarify, there's plenty of photos of modern-era Arab women, but not so many images of Arab women from earlier periods of history. I would have put Zenobia, but her identity is contestable. Maybe Maryana Marrash or May Ziade (Ottoman era). And, yes Arab Christians are of course included. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Maryana Marrash should definitely be added, because she is very notable and her inclusion would reflect a more accurate picture of the Arab world, which is very diverse; she is possibly the first Arab female newspaper writer and poet, and not only that her article is rated as a good article. I would replace Muhammad Abduh with her. Butrus al-Bustani is very notable, in that he wrote the first Arab dictionary and encyclopedia; I would replace Bashir Shihab II with him. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree @Al Ameer, where are Alhazen, Averroes and others? Why people before 7th century have been included? Why controversial and religious leaders like Ali have been included? This montage is absolutely redundant and unacceptable. --115ash→(☏) 08:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I can answer some of these questions, your list had about 40 people, that's too much. If you look at the other montages, they have 30 people (German, Italian people). What's wrong with adding Arabs before the 7th century? You're drawing a distinction between the Arabians (people from the Arab gulf) and the people who got Arabized, (through mating, language, and culture) after the Arab Muslim invasions in the 7th century? Ok, well I don't have strong views on this either way. Let's see what @Al Ameer and the others think about that. With respect to Ali, if he's controversial, then which Arab Shia would you replace him with? George Al-Shami (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@George Al-Shami: To George, I'll replace Bashir Shihab II with Butrus al-Bustani, but prefer to keep Muhammad Abduh because of his significance to the so-called Islamic revival movement. Instead, I'll replace Sultan al-Atrash with Maryana al-Marrash and maybe Warda with Asmahan (famous Syrian-Egyptian Druze singer). As I see it right now, the major group that is unrepresented in the montage is the Iraqi Shia Muslim. So any suggestions there would be nice.
@115ash:, what's the beef here? Averroes IS in the montage. I could replace al-Kindi with Alhazen since they specialized in similar fields, came from that early Islamic era and were both from Iraq. As George said, there's nothing wrong with pre-7th century figures. The Arabs preceded Islam so why shouldn't we include pre-Islamic Arab figures? As for Ali, if there was the same controversy over his image being used like Muhammad, I wouldn't have included him. However, that is not the case. He was a major Arab Muslim figure in the days of Muhammad and to most Muslims he was the 4th caliph and to Shia Muslims in particular, he was the first imam. I think you should familiarize yourself with this subject more (since you think Turks and Arabs are the same) before making judgement calls. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Come on! Don't talk about Ali. Arabs is a very large group, hence we don't need to add those before 7th century. In fact the Italian, German, French and others contain those after 1st millennium. I need to create a collage for this, but I haven't hot much time. --115ash→(☏) 08:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I forget to mention about Turks. Turkish ARE ARABS. But if you don't want, we don't have to include them. In many European countries, such as in the UK and Italy, they are recognised as Arabs.--115ash→(☏) 08:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The ignorance of some people in the UK and Italy, comparable to people who see Sikhs with turbans on their heads and "recognize" them as Muslims, isn't what determines these things. Turks are not Arabs. They are Turkic people, related to Turkmen, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Uyghurs, and so forth. Note where the article states that "A number of other peoples living in the Arab World are non-Arab, such as Berbers, Kurds, Turks, ...." —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I still consider Turkish as Arabs. Anyway, why were we talking about this? We should concentrate on the collage. --115ash→(☏) 13:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's like considering Bosnians or Persians or Indonesians or Maldivians to be Arabs. There is no reason to consider them Arabs. They're Turkic. Turkic peoples are traced back to land in Central and Eastern Asia 2,000 years ago, far from the Arabs who were in the Arabian Peninsula. Their languages aren't related to Arabic. They don't consider themselves Arabs. Why are we talking about it? Because you brought it up, in connection with the collage, which you suggested could include Turks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I have to intervene in this hilarity, I can't stand this anymore! 115ash→(☏), it appears that you're a seasoned editor with administrative rights and I can't believe your hilarious "Turks are Arabs" comment! Turks were NEVER Arabs. Turks never spoke Arabic, after they got Islamized by the Arabs they adopted the Arabic script for their Turkish language but that doesn't mean they spoke Arabic, and then guess what, Kemal Ataturk comes along in the 1920s and single-handedly replaces the Arabic script, that was used to write down the Turkish language, with the Roman script. Now the Turks employ the Roman alphabet/script to write down Turkish, does that mean the Turks are now Romans, no. The designation "Arab" is used on people who, at the minimum, speak Arabic, the Turks never spoke Arabic as their main language. Now, they might employ some Arabic words for God and religion, but they're not actually fluent in the language. For some Christians in the Arab world, they reject the aforementioned designation, even though it's their mother tongue. 115ash, the Turks are not indigenous to Anatolia and Western Anatolia, they moved to what was Greece, Syria, and Armenia, 800 years ago from what is today Turkmenistan. Your belief that Turks are Arabs, well guess what, that's your belief, it has nothing to do with the actual reality that is backed by scholarly work. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to find me a reliable scholarly source that actually states that "Turks are Arabs". I'm really surprised, that you knew about the famous Arabs during their Golden Age, but you're conflating Turks and Arabs. Where are you getting this absurdity from? If someone on the streets of the UK propagates something ignorant you don't pass it as fact; if more than one editor on Wikipedia is telling you that this belief is absurd, then you should hit the book stacks in the library and read about the Arabic language and the Arab people. Arabic is a Semitic language, indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. The Turkish language isn't part of the Semitic family tree. There's no relation at all between these two languages:) :). George Al-Shami (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
George Al-Shami, calm down! The main problem was the collage. I'd like to create one, but don't have enough time. --115ash→(☏) 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The montage by User:Al Ameer son is very appropriate. Arabs did predate Islam. So pre-Islamic real blood Arabs have the right to be included more than Arabised people. Arab as an ethnicity is older than the German and that's why they dont have pre-7th century German in their article. And anyway, those article are not a rule to be followed. You like to create a montage about Arabs when you consider Turks to be Arabs ! I dont think you are the perfect candidate for the job. As for Ali, he is not controversial, he is probably the only person both Sunni and Shia love.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, how about this one, which has taken into consideration User:George Al-Shami's suggestions. I replaced Bashir Shihab II with Butrus al-Bustani and Ameen Rihani with Maryana Marrash. I'm not too sure about Fayeq Abdul-Jaleel because I think there are many more notable modern-day Arabic poets out there. He is from the Gulf, however, which makes this montage more geographically diverse:
Second Draft

Agree Good job @Al Ameer, I approve, we can't keep fighting over this, we can't keep bickering over this, a lot of us talked about creating the montage, but @Al Ameer is the one that delivered with the goods! Well Done!. George Al-Shami (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree Looks amazing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, I'm going ahead and replacing the montage. I'm making one minor adjustment before doing so which is replacing Warda with another female, Algerian cultural figure, Ahlam Mosteghanemi. To anybody with objections about the inclusion or exclusion of certain figures, obviously more adjustments could be made to the montage in the future, after discussions here. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I provided the original list of sample figures above, not sure if you remember me George. This new montage works pretty well. I would only add that perhaps the last two aren't famous enough to be included. I think we should remove them and replace them with one famous Arab from today like a pop star or actor of some kind. Maybe someone like Diana Haddad? Or perhaps we should put a great filmmaker like Yusuf Chahine. There aren't any filmmakers on here. As for the other picture, it should be someone from modern Sudan. Sudan is underrepresented on this list. How about Tayeb Salih? He's one of the most famous writers from the Arab world and a giant of Sudanese literature in Arabic. Thoughts? Other than that, good job! 173.15.19.73 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Unfortunately the second draft of the montage has already been created and approved by 3 editors, where were you when we were discussing it? You could have made your suggestions to @Al Ameer, the editor who created the montage, @Al Ameer did his best to make sure the Arab world's different nationalities and religions were represented, and I think he did a good job considering how difficult this task is. I think I've already discussed Yusuf Chahine with you, yes he is a notable filmmaker, but we already have 3 Egyptians in the montage, (Gamal Abdul Nasser, Um Kalthoum, and Mahomman Abduh). The only unfortunate aspect of this montage, is that we don't have a lot of women in it, and that's because there aren't a lot of articles, with images, of notable Arab women. George Al-Shami (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I see. I'm sorry, but I've been really busy with stuff in the real world. I see your point about Egyptians and concede perhaps we have too many. That said, shouldn't we at least add Abu Nuwas? Replace one of the final images with Abu Nuwas, who was perhaps one of the top classical poets in the Arabic language. That's just an option though. I understand you guys have debated and approved this set of image and I apologize for not jumping in sooner. If it is not too late, though, please consider at least Abu Nuwas. An Arab montage without Abu Nuwas is like a montage of English people without Shakespeare. He may have been half Arab half Persian but he was still of the Arab cultural millieu and wrote his work in the Arabic language. 173.15.19.73 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Abu Nawas is a bit controversial because of the points that you made, notably that his mother might have been Persian and he was born in Ahvaz, which is modern-day Iran. If Abu Nawas is added this might start edit warring, and the creator of the above montage consciously avoided non-Arab people to prevent the issue from coming up in the future. Don't forget the other heavyweights, that are not products of mixed marriages, are included; moreover we can't include everyone. However, if you feel strongly about this, ask the other editors if they agree to this. George Al-Shami (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't want to push it but I would like to go ahead and ask the others about including Abu Nuwas? I don't think birthplace should be an issue. Iran was part of the Umayyad and Abbasid Empires. Ruled by Arabs and many Arabs settled in Iran, particularly Ahvaz which is today home to Iran's Arab population. They are no less Arab than Arabs in Arab countries. With regards to women, have you considered adding other major singers like Fairuz or Sabah? Asmahan? 173.15.19.73 (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll let others weigh in about Abu Nuwas, I have no feelings about including or excluding him, although it would be nice if we could find a better illustration of him. Personally, I'd like to keep the amount of singers to the minimum, but I actually agree about adding Asmahan in place of her distant relative Sultan Pasha al-Atrash in the portrait. I could do that immediately unless anyone objects. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Soutsemitic languages[edit]

the southsemtic languages are of african origin. the Sout Semitic article says so, i added a reference and if necessary i will add more references. Don't remove my edit (which has been done in good faith) without discussion and presenting references.

my ref : [1] Smywtbb (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did provide a reference to a debated subject which mean that your reference represent one of the points of views and not the actual fact. I edited the article to reflect the debate by keeping your edit but giving it its rightful weight as one of the hypothesizes.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bender, L (1997), "Upside Down Afrasian", Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 50, pp. 19-34

Top infobox[edit]

Hey the top infobox is really hard to actually read, and I suggest that a box like format (like in Iranian peoples) should be done. Balakrishnan Koran (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Population figures array awry[edit]

When clicking on the little black triangle to arrange the countries by descending population, I get a completely bollocksed order. While the first digit is correct, the algorithm seems to sometimes disregard order of magnitude. Thus, for example, the second country is one with only three-hundred-some Arab speakers, where-as this number of speakers should place it near the bottom. Kdammers (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What is meant by "pure" Arabs ?[edit]

Hi, I was just curious, when we say "pure" Arabs, what do we mean exactly ? GoulGoul1 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The accepted definition of "pure" Arabs appears in two places in this article. Search for "pure". General Ization Talk 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

a very disgusting stupidity[edit]

There is no panarabism. everybody is arab. everybody got some arab blood. i am Mixed, i am like 98% berber and 2% Arab. I chose my arab side. I identify myself as Arab. Friendly (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I a agree there is no such thing as Arabization or pan-Arabism Arabs and berbers have a mix of blood with one another either big or little does it really matter not really I am a Persian arab 85% arab and I say im Arab and proud :)ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda article[edit]

Why is this article full of lies (or errors)? A lot of person shown is the image ARE NOT arabs. A lot are tadjik, aghan, iranian, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:B55B:4F61:9CDE:CEFC (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is a big joke[edit]

So much propaganda of trying to force down our throat that half the middle east is "Arabized" despite tons of movement of nomads that happened in the middle east to the north like the Ghassanids and Lakhmids. This article is also very farce in trying to convince us that Arabs are not a proper ethnic group but rather a mumbo jumbo of different people which is totally false. Arabs have always been a clannish people adhering strong to their tribal values and preservation of blood like other nomadic and tribals people. I would love to contribute to make this article better, but i feel like my views would not be agreed upon by everyone. Akmal94 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Its your words not ours : strong tribal relations. But then you go to the Levant and most people have no tribs !! This isnt about views but reliable sources . You cant really say that a Sudanese and a Lebanese are the same ethnicity. Gassanids controlled modern Jordan and a small portion of Southern Syria and thats not enough to claim that they changed the demography specially that those places (Levant, Egypt....etc) were one of the most populated areas in history and Arabia cant provide enough population to replace the original ones without massacares (and we know that Arabs never made a real one).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No hes right Attar Arabs aren't just from the pennusla they were in ethopia and Somalia the rest lived in yemen oman and inside Saudi Arabia Arabs lived in Jordan and the Sinai pennusla theres evidence Arabs mated With black women the greeks say it for 5,000 years and the Lebenese btw originate from Bahrain Phoenicians came from the peninsula The greeks and Sumerians talk about it so do the Assyrian so get your facts right ok??ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pseudo history but Im pretty sure that the Sumerians didnt mention the Arabs since that word originally meant Nomads and the first mention was by the Assyrians some 1200 years after the extinction of Sumer. As for Phoenicia you might wanna check the article of Phoenicia. Sorry to break the news but nobody came from Arabia (it was the other way around). Just bring reliable scholarly works (and not some old account from the 18th century).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you may want to look at a map because the Ghassanid empire basically included all of Syria along with Lebanon which at the time was part of Greater Syria. Many Lebanese christians also carry surnames that descend from the Ghassanids like Ghassan, Khoury and Malouf to show their roots. The Levant was overrun by Bedouins from the south ever since the days of the Assyrian empire who mentioned Arabs as Bedouins, NOT calling them arabs because it meant nomad. People like the Syriacs and Arameans were always low in population which made them a closer knit group during migrations of different people. Even Herdotus mentioned the Phoencians having a possible Arabian ancestry coming in from Bahrain so that would undoubtly make them Arabs as well. My problem with the article is that it is not fair and is jumping to conclusions to paint all levantines and north africans as some kind of "arabized" people without proper proof. Akmal94 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your information are so old. Actually the proofs exist (just click on them). "Khoury" is the guy who look after the church, its normal to have that surname if you are a Christian in the Levant just like many Moslims have the surname "Khatib" (the guy who give ceremony in the mosque) . Your assumptions are false and unreferenced. Ghassanids were puppets (not an empire) of the Byzantines who disbanded them. I dont know what map you are talking about but the Byzantines will not just hand the Ghassanids the Syrian cities. I also urge you to leave Herodotus to rest and take a look at the newest academic views about the Phoenicians since there was no such a people and thats just a Greek name for Canaanites who inhabited the coast and there is no proof for migration (Read the National Geographic study about the Phoenicians). Syriacs are people who speak the Syriac accent of the Aramaic language and I have no idea where did you get those "info" that they were a minority. Assyrians mentioned an Arab with a thousand Camel who participated in Qarqar battle with an Aramean army of like 60000 and thats it. People are Arabized because they are genetically different and there is no way in hell that the Arabs were able to replace the North Africans and Levantines. You really should start presenting reliable sources from neutral Academics as this discussion is taking a forum character and Wikipedia isnt a forum.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to You Attar but it seems your using a Assyrian propergenda let me teach you something about history Sumerians came from Dilmun meaning there of arab orgin Assyrians like it or not are of arab orgin as well they come from the peninsula you can toss and turn the subject all you wwant The Aramic language was influenced by Arabic you can say whatever you like your comment was irrelevant sorry to break it to you the only reason Christens in Lebanon say there Phoenician cause they have an Identity crisis if lebenase Arabic was an Aramic form do tell why there aren't that much Aramic influence??? just a couple words???ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

you would also know that Assyrians today aren't the same Assyrians they are just Aramaic's who are wannabe assyrians I am of Akkadian origin and I find it offensive of your lack of knowledge when you speak of This so called Assyrian tongue known as Syriac — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabAmazigh12 (talkcontribs) 15:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

pseudo history and naivety at their best I guess the Germans are Russians since they came from the steppes of Russia (You need to take a look at some genetic and linguistic studies, no people migrated from Arabia. That just old stuff). Im not an Assyrian or a Syriac and Aram is my normal name and not a reference to Arameans. Lol the Sumerians were Arabs. Bring the Archaeologist who said so and stop using Wikipedia as a forum (and stop using my style in argument hahahaha).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

lol Genetic studies show j2 and j1 are found in those areas and linguistics there all related from the proto semitic stem I don't even think your from Syria probably just a fake you need to go back to school I studied archology and major in genetics the phoencians assyrians akkadians Arabs all come from a common ancestor lngiustically and genetically for example In Phonecican the word Lb in Arabic 'lb so you and your hahahahahaahah this is my style just sorry to tell you that and Sumerians themselves claim that They came from Dilmun its in the texts maybe you need to go and get a proper education no offense but the lack of history and geneology you know of is very sadArabAmazigh12 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Juris Zarins was a famous german professor he himself said that they migrated from Dilmun and came to Iraq before the flood happened and the Sumemrians said they had kinship to the people of dilmun which is modern day Bahrain maybe you need to come to the british muasem m8 come and talk to me m8 Yohnana who has a degree in archology who would agree with meArabAmazigh12 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You made me laugh you said that this is old stuff history proved people migrated from Arabia just like how berbers originally migrated from Syria 10,0000 years ago we can tell using carbon dating and other ways Arabians btw are Phonecicans Southern Arabians Arabs Assyrians and akkadins they are all children of the Arabian peninsula just like how North Indians and Kurds and Persians are related genetically and linguistically only difference is that the Indians over time married with the dravdiansArabAmazigh12 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

lawl bro evidence shows people go through language shifts look at the azerbajini they use to be Iranian speaking people now they are Turkic speaking people history shows us that the sumerians shifted there language to akkadian they mated with akkadians thus created a new hybrid semitic stockArabAmazigh12 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about ! this isnt the apricity so stop using it as a forum Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Attar, you sound biased and haven't provided sources yourself that Levantines are all Arabized. Do you not know how many people in Lebanon are either of Armenian, Kurdish or Greek decent? That is mostly the chrisitan bulk of Lebanese chrisitans in the country after Arab chrsitan. now would you say these people are arabized despite not seeing themselves as Arabs in the first place? As for the ghassanids expanding into Lebanon, take a look at this map please; http://photos.geni.com/p13/29/4d/7d/f4/53444839a259b0d3/mapzoom2_medium.jpg

It includes much of Lebanon like Mount Hermon. You also say the Byzantine empire were against Ghassanid's and other Arabs but this is not true, Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham, a Ghassanid King was allowed to form his own government and court under the blessings of the Byzantines who were against other bedouins in crossing into their territory. This is coming from the Royal house of Ghassan's website. http://www.royalhouseofghassan.org/history/ Also if you want to jump to genetics, then you must of heard of Pierre Zalloua and his genetic study done on Lebanese men back when it was sponsered by the national geographic? According to his reports, only 30% of people can actually trace their ancestry to the so called Phoneicans.

"The study, by an eminent Middle Eastern geneticist, found that a common genetic signature — identified as that of the Phoenicians — is present in up to 30% of males spread across Lebanon's disparate communities." http://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2013.46

So what exactly would that make the rest of the population? I'd leave that to you. Finally, its very possible for the bulk population of the Levant to be replaced by a new one, I mean Palestine was once Greek inhabbited for a while correct? that's where the name Philistne comes from to refer to sea raiding greeks. If Natives in North America got replaced, than it is very possible for Arabs to do the same to the Levant. Akmal94 (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem not to understand Wikipedia. PLEASE Read here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
So in short, that map and the so called royal house site worth nothing here. They are NOT an academic authority. Its just a random site and there is no legitimate rroyal house.. only people wishing they are part of that house. That map was a joke to say the least. Identical to modern political borders between syria and turkey WOW
I provided no sources cause they are already in the articles such as Lebanese people. But if anyone tried to insert pseudo history counting on random websites then be sure that the sources will be pasted immediately and the myths removed.
Native Americans were replaced by genoside and sickness and no such a thing happened in the Levant or Egypt and please read something about Palestine. It was never a land of Greeks. There is a difference between Greek rule and the land becoming Greek
Zalloua said 30% Phoenician but didnt say 70% Arab and its not up to YOU to figure it out.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the genetic makeup of the Arab world to comment here. Arab is a pan-ethnicity where language, culture, shared space and history are the major binding factors that constitute Arab identity. That's not to say there are many Arabs (minority, plurality or even majority) who are descended from Arabian tribes. However, Attar-Aram is correct in that this conversation is pointless unless editors could bring reliable sources to back their arguments. Attar-Aram has brought sources backing his argument, but Akmal and ArabAmazigh have not. See WP:Original research and WP:Reliable sources. If RS are not produced, this conversation should come to an end. Wikipedia is not a forum. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArabAmazigh12 is either a fraudster or completely incompetent, haven't figured out which. I've found it pointless to try to discuss things rationally with them, and have taken to simply reverting the mess they're making on WP. This discussion is probably a waste of your time too. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Hey Kwami let me tell you something I am not a fraud your the fraud Dyari let me tell you something ive made 2 Articles on here ive contributed to Wikipedia so don't test me ok thanksArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I love how you call me incompetent its to funny kwami you don't know nothing of me Im not here to be called names so watch yourself don't start problems Wikipedia's gudielines state so btw don't ever revert what I put on the Assyrian page again or I wil report you for false information try me just try me and as for Arabs being pan ethinic they are one culture just like the turks are today and the Hispanics etc no one is of one heritage so please stop bsing thanks!!!ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is full of shit[edit]

I don't know how such a wrong informations and such an ignorance can be on wikipedia ? too much of using arabization without having any idea about the history of Arabs ? Arabs were in levant from long time ago not only in the desert of Syria as you ignorantly written ? the commander of Byzantine army in Levant in the war against Muslims were an Arab and that shows that Arabs have been there long time ago and they were majority , despite the Nabataeans , Gassasina and many the other families that have been going to Levant .. and yeah by the language (Aramaic , Arabic and other semitic languages) it were almost the same , and the whole semitic people were almost speaking the same language , they spoke Aramaic , they spoke old arabic and then they turn to Arabic , Semitic were talking each other language and choosing the most developed language during the history , So , do some research about that

The gallery of personalities from the infobox[edit]

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A proposal[edit]

There's a lot of argument on the talk page about Arab vs Arabized, whatever. Right now "Arabs" is being used to mean "Arabic speaking people in MENA" more or less. We link to Arabians as being different from "Arabs", but Arabians redirects here. "Arabs" is not a purely artificial term at all, it has historical and genetic basis. In the sense it is used today it is very broad, particularly with regard to Berbers and Christian Arabs who identify as Aramean/Assyrian/etc. I also think the article "Arab identity" needs to be created. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your proposal for this article is, exactly. Eperoton (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Arabs[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arabs's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cruciani2004":

Reference named "Cruciani2007":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC[edit]

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. This has been set up to determine the appropriateness of sections such as the "genetics" section in this article. I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yemeni Arab[edit]

Seriously since when Southern Arabia was not Arab ? ppl need to get their facts straight , Herodotus and ancient historian referred to southern Arabia and saba civilization as Arabes , if that not enough then Yemeni kings inscriptions , referred to themselves MLKN ARBN ( king of Arab ) , what is the hard thing to understand ? How in hell they weren't Arab when ancient Greco-Roman historian referred to them as Arabes ( Arab ) . Wikipedia need to seriously stop mixing politics with history .

Both Hippolytus and Uranius mention three distinct peoples in Arabia during the first half of the third century: the "Saraceni", the "Taeni" and the "Arabes" , guess who were the Arabes  ? Nabataean , Hejaz , southern Arabia .


God Wikipedia is so much anti Arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assaf122 (talkcontribs) 03:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Somalia[edit]

Somalis are not ethnic Arabs, but they identify more with Arabs than Africans due to religious and trade ties with Arabs.Somalia Business Law Handbook: Strategic Information and Laws. International Business Publications, USA. Aug 1, 2013. p. 48. ISBN 1-4387-7104-5. 

In Somalia there are only 30,000 Arabs in the country. "People and Society Somalia -". CIA Factbook. 


Libanguled (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Somalis are instead of Hamitic ancestral origin (Lewis, I. M. (1999). A Pastoral Democracy: A Study of Pastoralism and Politics Among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa. James Currey Publishers. p. 11. ISBN 0852552807. ). That they aren't ethnically Arab is not particularly meaningful, though, since the Arab world is chiefly comprised of Arabized populations. Most Maghrebis and Egyptians are of related Hamitic stock, and many Near Easterners are descended from various local Semitic speaking populations rather than from the peninsular Arabs. All speak languages from the Afro-Asiatic (Hamitic-Semitic) family. Anyway, the table is on the population of the various Arab states, not on peninsular Arabs only. Soupforone (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Somalis are not Arabs. The reliable source of CIA Factbook says there are only 30,000 Arabs in Somalia. Somalis being Arab is a false claim with no reliable source backing it. If Somalis where Arabs then the reliable source of CIA Factbook would not say out of the 10 million people in Somalia there are only 30,000 Arabs in it.

Somalis are not ethnic Arabs.Somalia Business Law Handbook: Strategic Information and Laws. International Business Publications, USA. Aug 1, 2013. p. 48. ISBN 1-4387-7104-5.  It is meaningful to state the fact that Somalis are not Arabs. Why are you deleting this fact Soupforone ?

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The CIA also indicates that "although almost all Algerians are Berber in origin (not Arab), only a minority identify themselves as Berber" [20]. Thus, what it actually means by "Arab" here is "Arabized". More importantly, per the Charter of the Arab League, "the League of Arab States shall be composed of the: independent Arab States that have signed this Pact" [21]. Non-Arab states are only eligible for observer status. So yes, all of the League's 22 member states are Arab states. Soupforone (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Soupforone, Why are you deleting from the article the fact that the CIA Factbook says there are only 30,000 Arabs in Somalia? Let the readers decide which source to believe the CIA or the Arab Charter. It is important to present both views on the article page. Libanguled (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── With respect, that is a non-equivalence. The Charter of the Arab League officially establishes what is or is not an Arab state, and that includes all 22 member Arab League states. The CIA obviously does not and would not suggest otherwise. Also, most of the Arab world is actually Arabized, not just one or two constituent territories. Soupforone (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Libanguled. Even if the Arab League charter classifies all Somalis as Arabs, per WP:NPOV we have to reflect all significant viewpoints, and the CIA Factbook is a standard reference. Eperoton (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I already fixed it, and for all of the Arab states. Soupforone (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you Soupforone for including all significant viewpoints in the article page. Libanguled (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The CIA is well aware that the League of Arab States consists of Arab states. It did not and obviously would never suggest otherwise, so no need to thank me. It is a non-equivalence. Soupforone (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

The first sentence defines Arabs as a panethnicity based upon the use of a shared language. The source used is " Ghazi Omar Tadmouri (17 March 2011). "Genetic Disorders in Arabs" (PDF). Centre for Arab Genomic Studies. Retrieved 4 December 2013." In other words: One of the (at the current time in the world) more uniquely important identities to the current state of affairs of geopolitics and economics , claimed or ascribed to well over a billion people, listed in the first sentence on the most basic and general article on one of the highest traffic websites on earth uses a random, is a 3rd rate medical journal... one that explicitly publishes medical research related to the people who identify or identified by the label in question... and authored by a person who (by extension) performs medical research on/for those same people.... with vested interests/self involvement at every level (Authorship and publication)

To be perfectly honest I dont think that an Arab medical researcher whose article was published for an audience of other Arab medical researchers, intended for its impact in the Arab medical world, is qualified to define a highly important term like the meaning of the "Arab Identity" especially in the sense of the type of basic "common sense premise" that all scientific research papers present in their first few sentences of the abstract or introductory sections.

Just because someone holds an MD or PhD does not mean that they are qualified to talk about a subject that is the province of historians, political scientists, ethnic researchers, etc. Furthermore, its typically a bad idea to use the offhand, common sense, "taken for granted" assumptions of a member of a particular group as the basis for defining the fundamental bounds/characteristics of that group in a general and POV-free way.

TL;DR: get a freaking a textbook reference. Are you serious? COME ON! Present a few examples. This is the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE DAMN ARTICLE. You might as well have used TIME CUBE as a reference. 108.233.86.84 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems an ip fiddled with the phrase. I've pointed it instead to that on Arab world. Soupforone (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Arabs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic groups or not[edit]

@Aṭlas: Is "Arab" categorized by race, language, culture, dress, color skin or nationality? The second question is, when could someone consider him/her self as an Arab?

Arabs is an ethnic group. A group of people where the majority of them share the same language, traditions, history, and maybe the same set of religion structure if you may add that as well.

Middle east.123

North Africa.1

Berbers are an ethnic group yes but there's a big difference between Berber groups so that makes them a panethnicity.??--RabeaMalah (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: An ethnic group is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences. I don't know why you are objecting to this?.--RabeaMalah (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

RabeaMalah, if by ethnic group you mean the Gulf Bedouins, then they indeed constitute an ethnic group since they share a common ancestral origin (Berbers do as well for the same reason). However, it's more nuanced vis-a-vis other Arab world populations since they are instead of heterogeneous ancestral heritage, but are culturally and linguistically affiliated. This is why I think panethnicity is felicitous. Aṭlas, RabeaMalah makes a good point about how an ethnic group shares a common ancestry, culture and language. What parameter, then, do you think would work best? Soupforone (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Arabs are an assemblies of people of different ancestors origin and religious background and historical identities. So any one can become an arab simply by adopting arab culture, speaking arabic... RabeaMalah, you just Show me that you want only to impose your point of view as you did in the arabic wikipedia claiming that "Arabs are an ethnic group par excellence" and removing this reference (War of Visions: Conflict of Identities in the Sudan), and you want to apply this in the english wikipedia. I'm totally agree with soupforone's definition of panethnicity and ethnicity and I think it's appropriate to leave page as it is. --Aṭlas (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupforone:, if by ethnic group you mean the Gulf Bedouins, If those living in Arab countries are the zombie race, other Arab world populations.. they Berbers, Kurds, Turks, Iranians, Azeris, Yezidis, Circassians, Shabaks, Turcomans, Romani, Chechens, Kawliya, Mhallami, Samaritans, Why don't they tell themselves they are Arabs and they have a culture and language practice in the Arab world. Go and ask any habitat in the Arab world said to him, What is your race will answer you is Arab, Anyway the Arabs know this well, not you or any user defines the human race, finally you're on Wikipedia everyone does what he wants...
@Aṭlas:
  1. People of different ancestors origin and religious background and historical identities. (this is your opinion), sorry if you're a scientist in the area of race and humanity, this is something else.
  2. any one can become an arab simply by adopting arab culture, speaking arabic. ok ok i was born in Geneva, Switzerland, their first language is French, my culture is Swiss, my Nationality is Swiss but my father and mother from Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt and Morocco, so Am I the Swiss or Arab?.
  3. You just Show me that you want only to impose your point of view as you did in the arabic wikipedia, No I don't want this, before I do anything in Arabic Wikipedia has been a discussion on this.
@Aṭlas: @Soupforone: Definition of Ethnic group and the List of contemporary ethnic groups in Wikipedia is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences.
  • French people are an ethnic group in Wikipedia?? but the Maghrebis and Africans number about 10 million, and that other ethnic groups
  • Turkish people are a Turkic ethnic group in Wikipedia? but there ethnic groups include Albanians, Arabs, Assyrians, Azeris, Bosniaks, Circassians, Georgians, Lazs, Persians, Pomaks (Bulgarians), Yazidis and Roma.. The Kurds, a distinct ethnic group, are the largest non-Turkic ethnicity, around 18–25 percent of the population.--HailesG (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Panethnicity is a political neologism used to group together related ethnic groups. The term was coined in 1992 by Yen Espiritu to refer to the group of Asian Americans.

Also there is a very large explanation about Arab identity is unmatched in all ethnic groups in Wikipedia--HailesG (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please do not alter the panethnicity/ethnicity parameter without consensus. Anyway, as I and Aṭlas explained above, the claim that Arabs are a Semitic ethnic group native to the Arabian peninsula is only true for the local Bedouins and their urban congeners. Most other populations in the Arab world instead descend from other, (non-Arabic) Afro-Asiatic-speaking ancestral groups that adopted Arabic language and genealogies with the spread of Islam. This is why the Arabian ancestral component is still primarily concentrated in the Arabian peninsula among the Bedouin [22]. Ergo, Arabs are a panethnicity; a confederation of genealogically affiliated ethnic groups [23]. On the other hand, French, Turks, Persians, Albanians, Georgians, Kurds, Roma, etc. are each ethnic groups since their native constituents share recent ancestral heritage. Soupforone (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

seriously!! you look at the haplogroup. In each country, city, village, town and family are different races, there is not a specific race for all races at the end we are all human beings from Adam and Eve. I am an Arab from Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco. I know myself as an Arab from my grandfather and my father, an Arab is belong to the same culture, religion, language, background, nationalism etc. I will stay repeat the definition of Ethnic group is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences. So this definition applies perfectly to the Arabs. Arabs belonging to Y-ChromosomeHaplogroup J (Y-DNA) J1 J1 , Haplogroup J-M172 J2, Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) E1b1b.
I understand, but notice that it also indicates that ethnic groups, derived from the same historical founder population, often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. As such, the various populations of the Arab world are technically more of a confederation of different ethnic groups than a singular entity. Anyway, you do have a point with the haplogroups since both the J and E1b1b clades have been found in ancient and modern samples in the area. Soupforone (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually your answer is unconvincing and warranted, Arabs aren't panethnicity, the Americans are the only Panethnicity, because in the United States there are all ethnicities of the world. This applies to the Americans, Mexicans, Peruvians, Argentines, Dominicans and Spaniards. So I reject totally this term which is only present in the (Arabs article) in the English Wikipedia.
  • derived from the same historical founder population!: Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula and the Badiyat al Sham (Syrian desert)
  • Often continue to speak related languages!: Are the Arabs speak Indian? if you mean the dialects all languages of the world have dialects, in every city in the Arab world there is the dialect but we understand all the dialects.
  • Share a similar gene pool!: Arabs several groups such as the Berber groups and Kurds communities each group within them, and they do not understand each other. (I have friends Berbers from Morocco and Algeria, and Kurds from Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran — their culture, their language, and their backgrounds are different from each other even the forms are different from each).
  • haplogroups since both the J and E1b1b clades have been found in ancient and modern samples in the area!: all haplogroups have been found in ancient and modern samples, what's New?. Some of the Arab groups have genes non-Arab I agree, but Arab is the dominant, simply there are not ethnic group has a pure genes 100 %. See for example: Genetic history of Europe--HailesG (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, Berbers are linguistically, culturally and genetically closely related, so inapt example [24]. For the panethnicity, please see here [25]; Aṭlas is quite right. Also, note that not all territories in Western Asia are Arab states. Soupforone (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you accuse all Arab World are Arabized??? I want someone else to talk, you have ethnic tendencies against Arabs??. You bring me the sources of your butt, but I brought a lot of sources, but you ignore this. It is clear that this talk has become personal. You reject any source and ignore. You are convinced only in your thoughts according to the sources you bring.
I feel in the forum and not in Wikipedia, the most of your answers are not convincing, are just personal thoughts. I can bring you a million source prove my words but you will ignore all because you have a personal reason.
(I'm going to change panethnicity to ethnic groups with sources to prove this, if you stayed ignored my discussion and resources)--HailesG (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Most (not all) populations in the Arab world are indeed Arabized. The Tadmouri biocultural analysis above explains why this is [26]:

The term “Arabs” indicates a panethnicity of peoples of various ancestral origins, religious backgrounds, and historic identities. It is possible to define the geographical area inhabited by Arabs using one of the two following approaches:
(1) The linguistic approach is a relaxed definition and it includes all populations speaking the Arabic language and living in a vast area extending from south of Iran in the east to Morocco in the west including parts in the south-east of Asia Minor, East, and West Africa.
(2) The political definition of Arabs is more conservative as it only includes those populations residing in 23 Arab States, namely: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Yemen.

Ergo, that all North African territories are Arab League member states, whereas only some West Asian territories are, does not invitiate that the various populations in the Arab world constitute a panethnicity. For the rest, please see Aṭlas' explanation and the civility policy. Soupforone (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

All the world knows that the Arabs are an ethnic group, i can bring you a million source prove this, but I am convinced that you will not agree because you have a solid ideas.--HailesG (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Also see the Charter of the Arab League. Soupforone (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Arabs have settled all over the area that extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Gulf. If you believe there are genetically pure people in this whole area you are totally wrong, even the Arabs of the Gulf have mixed with other people throughout the Islamic Golden ages. Yet, Modern People in thos area do see themselves as Arabs despite their Mixed Origins, apart from some other peoples and Minorities that Also inhabit this area (Syriacs, Turkman, Berber, Armenians). No ones tells or determines who is who, as long as the Arabs themselves see that the people in this whole area are a single race or a single race with mixed background, then that's it--باسم (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That was actually not my assertion. What I indicated was that Arabs are a confederation of different ethnic groups (a panethnicity) with similar genealogical traditions rather than a single ethnic group with one foundational genetic heritage. You basically just acknowledged the same thing. Please also note that the populations of the Arab world are distinct from the Arabid race. Soupforone (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semitic people[edit]

Please take a look at the article on "Semitic people". It's an obsolete term. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Please look at the archives of Talk:Semitic people. That article is a circular reference and a poor one at that.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)