Talk:Arabs/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

on the use of "Arab Jews"

While I'm apprehensive about using my time attempting to reach consensus with page monitors who have a clear agenda, here goes:

The use of "Arab Jews" is utterly ahistorical and is either willfully disingenuous or inaccurate at best. Very few Jews have identified primarily as Arabs throughout history. Musta'arabim, the historical term for this population used by other Jews and by Musta'arabim themselves literally means "lives among Arabs". Were they Arabs, do you think it would make sense to denote them as living amidst Arabs?

The Jews that live in the Arab World in the modern era and identify as Arab Jews are free to do so, but theirs is not the majority opinion on the identity and history of Eastern Jews, nor is it supported by many (if any) historical writings. There is a separate Wikipedia page to denote that minority view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews

My last edit which was reverted reaches a compromise between two viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADJOSC (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Without regard to the rightness or wrongness of what you've written above (and I don't know enough to assert an opinion on the subject), I just wanted to point out that you have a clear agenda. So please focus on the facts and reasoning and avoid commenting on whether people have an agenda since, as you can see, it has nothing to do with the validity of one's conclusions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The existing agenda disregards the self identity of the vast majority of modern day descendants of purported "Arab Jews", most of whom would be outright hostile to such a characterization and hones in on a small group of people who identify as such, representing them as the majority opinion. While "a much larger population of Jews descended from Arab Jewish communities living in Israel and various Western countries, who may or may not consider themselves Arab today" refers to all such groups whether or not they would so characterize themselves, another more neutral word would be far more accurate. I proposed "Middle Eastern Jews". This is without mentioning scholarly opinion which would agree with my notion that any such identification was historically minimal. --ADJOSC (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, if only you'd managed to express all of that without sticking the irrelevant word "agenda" in there. Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There were Arab Jews since they were ethnically Arab and by genetics. I hardly edit the page, but Arab Jews is a real thing. I am for reisinstating this term. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There were not, Jews rarely if ever identified as Arab. Genetics show shared haplogroup descent with other Jews, although all Jews are somewhat related to Arabs. --ADJOSC (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The use of "Arab Jews" is utterly ahistorical and is either willfully disingenuous or inaccurate at best. Let's see what the scholars have to say:

To be sure, Jews who lived in Arab lands since (and, in certain cases, long before) the Arabs appeared on the scene, never lost sight of their distinctive identity as Jews. But they were Arab Jews. they spoke; wrote their various literary, philosophical and theological works; and sang their songs in Arabic. They had the manners and the appearance of their Muslim-Arab neighbors, and they acquired many of the mental habits, mores, literary forms and world views of Arabs. Moreover, when they referred to those neighbors, they called them not "Arabs" but "Ishmaelites" or "Muslims".

Jews as an integral part of Arab society, participated in the making of its culture. From the seventh century ce, under the rule of Islam, Jews (as well as Christians) became protégés of the new community as ahl al-Dhimma (People of the pact). Well acquainted with the emerging Arabic Muslim religious literature and deeply influenced by it, they gradually became thoroughly Arabized. The Judeo-Muslim symbiosis begun at the very birth of the new religion and the Qur'an provides solid testimony of the important role Jews played in the process. It would prove to be natural for Arab Jews to have a knowledge of the holy book of Islam and the Muslim source texts, and they would consequently play an active role in the shaping of medieval Arab-Muslim civilization as a link between Hellenistic Roman and modern civilization..... Jews often preferred writing Arabic rather than Hebrew, even when dealing with the most sacred matters of Judaism, which made their literature virtually unintelligible to Europeans.

M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Shall I quote the thousand Mizrahi and other scholars who would never use that term as they find it disparaging? If you will it, it will be done. For the meantime, suffice it to say that many groups are partially Arabized as Mizrahi Jews were but maintain a distinct ethnic identity which rejects the term "Arab" as a conflicting misnomer. Very few Arabized Assyrians would describe themselves as Arab, despite sharing all these traits.

"Moreover, when they referred to those neighbors, they called them not "Arabs" but "Ishmaelites" or "Muslims"" This is true. If you read traditional Jewish texts typically "Ishmaelites" is used, and it is very clearly being used to describe a foreign nation. Regardless of explicit such statements, "Ishmaelite" implies different descent -- another ethnic stock, as Jews considered themselves descendants of Isaac.

The use of the term in this article is simply inaccurate and not a neutral perspective, particularly when a more historical and more used word even today to describe this group - Musta'arabim - is available.

To sum up, Albert Memmi: "The term "Arab Jews" is obviously not a good one. I have adopted it for convenience. I simply wish to underline that as natives of those countries called Arab and indigenous to those lands well before the arrival of the Arabs, we shared with them, to a great extent, languages, traditions and cultures ... We would have liked to be Arab Jews. If we abandoned the idea, it is because over the centuries the Moslem Arabs systematically prevented its realization by their contempt and cruelty. It is now too late for us to become Arab Jews." --ADJOSC (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jews have different paternal Haplogroups which show different descent. But that is not the subject at hand. Arab Jews, the term is used by many scholars which according to WP:Mainstream fulfills the requirements to be added to the page.[1]. Also to be sure that all Arab Jews never once were Arab is incorrect since during times of the Himyarites many Arabs also converted to Judaism. All in all the word Arab Jew is used by many scholars which makes it mainstream. Cheers --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It is used by few scholars, and is by far not the most used term. Even on the very page you linked, page 1 of "Arab Jew", only 4 of 8 authors used that word, the rest making the distinction.

Shall I quote the thousand Mizrahi and other scholars who would never use that term as they find it disparaging? That's the funny thing about "that term", those who wish to erase it from history contribute a lot to its already well established notability.

Moreover, when they referred to those neighbors, they called them not "Arabs" but "Ishmaelites" or "Muslims". 1) Just so we're clear clear: Here you're quoting the scholar who says that they were Arab Jews, they spoke; wrote their various literary, philosophical and theological works; and sang their songs in Arabic. They had the manners and the appearance of their Muslim-Arab neighbors, and they acquired many of the mental habits, mores, literary forms and world views of Arabs.

2) What you're missing (when talking about "ethnic stock") is the fact that: a) Throughout history, the Arabs rarely referred to themselves as Arabs, but the fact that they were Arabs is indisputable. b) the Arabs are an ethnolinguistic group, meaning that you can be Arab and whatever else you can think of (white, black, Christian, Jew, Berber, etc). c) Arabized-Jews are, in every practical sense, Arabs.

To sum up, Albert Memmi ... Albert Memmi, the Jewish-Arab, said a lot of things, including: "We were Arabs by the food, the scents, the music, the jurisdiction, the daily life" and "the Arabs are not Arabs, but Persians, Turks and Berbers (what we are), converted to Islam, to Judaism, to Christianity". M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No one wishes to erase it, as I've said many times those who wish to identify as such can do so. However, using it as the primary term in this article to describe those people who do not identify by the term is inaccurate and, yes, disparaging. Can you provide some examples of it's purported established notoriety prior to to the 20th century?

1) Yes, I am quoting the scholar who says they were Arab Jews because I've no reason to corrupt facts espoused by someone I disagree with. Mizrahi Jews also happened to write various literary, philosophical and theological works in Hebrew as well as sing songs in said language. Judean Jews in the early 7th century also likely had similar manners and appearance to Arabs prior to the Rashidun conquest. It didn't make them Arabs. 2) a) hollow statement. b) the Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Two "ethnos" (that is, ethnicities) cannot coincide. There's a reason the Amazigh fought Arab invaders and continue to fight for recognition as Amazigh today. Amazigh are Arabized rather than Arabs because they maintain precisely that ethnic identifier, that distinction. c) Many Arabized peoples are "in a practical sense, Arabs" but that doesn't mean they identify as such. You are attempting to impose a colonialist identity on colonized peoples. Are the Singaporeans who wrote literary, philosophical and theological works as well as sung their songs in English - and dressed in Western clothing - in a practical sense, Brits?

Albert Memmi said he does not consider himself a Jewish-Arab. Referring to him as such in response to reading that exact quote is the derisory and childish. "Persians, Turks and Berbers..." None of these peoples, barring some Berbers, identify as Arab today. I wasn't quoting Memmi to show unbridled admiration for his writings as I haven't read them, but to summarize the fact of the matter with a good quote. --ADJOSC (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Figures for "Arabs" in Brazil are incorrect

I don't know from where people are getting the information that there are 6, 15 or even 20 million "Arabs in Brazil". These figures are not supported by official figures coming from the Brazilian censuses.

According to official figures from the Brazilian censuses, only 93,823 Syrians and Lebanese immigrated to Brazil, from 1884 to 1933. [2] The number of Arab (Syrians and Lebanese) immigrants in Brazil peaked in 1940, with only 45,793 people, and their number decreased to only 13,709 in 1990 [3] According to the 1940 Brazilian census, at that time only 107,074 Brazilians had been born to a Middle-Eastern father and native Arabs were only 46,105 and naturalized Brazilians, 5,447. Brazil had 41,169,321 inhabitants at the time of the census, so Arabs and their children were only 0.38% of Brazil's population in 1940. [4] Arab immigrants in Brazil have always been a very small community. Syrian and Lebanese immigration to Brazil peaked by 1950s, so there has been no recent Arab immigration to Brazil to justify any huge increase in their numbers in recent years [5]

According to the 2010 Brazilian census, there were only 12,336 Lebanese immigrants in Brazil; in 2000 they numbered 16,090 and in 1991, 17,187 - table 2 [6] Other Arab communities are so small that they are not even mentioned.

According to 2017 figures, Arab immigrants are not even listed among the 10 largest immigrant communites in Brazil (the 10th largest immigrant community in Brazil are Americans, with only 22,000 people; Arab citizens are not even listed) [7]

According to another 1999 survey by the sociologist, former president of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Simon Schwartzman, only 0.48% of the interviewed Brazilians claimed to have Arab ancestry, a percentage that, in a population of about 200 million of Brazilians, would represent around 960,000 people (much below the figures claimed in this article) [8]

As can be seen, there aren't 6, or 15 or 20 million "Arabs" living in Brazil. There are 12,336 Lebanese (2010 figures). Even if children or grandchildren of Arabs born in Brazil are counted, the number would be far from being of several millions, given that the Arab immigrant population in Brazil peaked in 1940, with only 45,793 people, which is a very small number to leave millions descendants (45,000 people leaving 6, 15 or even 20 million descendants is beyond human reproductive capacity).

The source used in this article claims that "According to estimates by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), countersigned by the League of Arab States, Brazil has the largest Arab colony outside their countries of origin.". This is not true. The IBGE, which is responsible for the Brazilian census, does not ask about ancestry or family origin[9]. The 2010 census found only 12,336 Lebanese in Brazil and even smaller numbers of other Arabs, which are not even listed. - table 2 [10]. The IBGE never claimed that are millions of Arabs in Brazil. This is fake.

Then, figures about how many Brazilians have Arab ancestry are based on nothing (they seem to be fake news spread everywhere by interest group - these sources do not even explain from where they are taking such figures - they must explain where those figures are coming from, because they are contradicted by the Brazilian censuses). And finally, people born in Brazil are not "Arabs". Having a Lebanese great-great-grandfather does not make any person "Arab". These people are Brazilian citizens by birth and culture, not Arabs - and they are not counted as "Arabs" by the Brazilian censuses. Xuxo (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before and from what I can tell, your argument is as unconvincing today as it was back then. You're free to challenge the cited secondary sources, but you need to seek a new consensus if you want your changes to stick. M.Bitton (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not the owner of this article and there was no "consensus" in the past. I brought official figures from the IBGE and nowhere they claim there are millions of Arabs and descendants in Brazil. The 2010 census found only 12,336 Lebanese in Brazil and that's it - other figures are obviously fake. I'm trying to stick with the truth - moreover, I don't need to convince you, all my contributions are based on reliable sources, but you removed them without a convincent explaination - It is you who needs to justify why you are removing sourced information. Xuxo (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources that you're desperate to remove disagree with you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

They don't disagree with me, they disagree with the official figures coming from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, which is the agency responsible for official collection of statistical information in Brazil. Any source that contradicts the official Brazilian agency is not reliable at all. Xuxo (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the scholars' job, and not the WP editors, to analyze what the IBGE says.

The Brazilian scholar Silvia Ferabolli mentions the IBGE' (the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics):

According to estimates by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), countersigned by the League of Arab States, Brazil has the largest Arab colony outside their countries of origin. There are estimated 15 million Arabs living in Brazil today, with some researchers suggesting numbers around 20 million.

Paul Amar attributes the 16 million to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

there are, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more than sixteen million Arabs and descendants of Arabs in Brazil, constituting the largest community of Arabs descent outside the Middle East.

M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The IBGE doesn't say anything about Arab ancestry. All the questions asked in the censuses can be seen here. There is no question regarding family origin or ancestry. There is one question about nationality (number 6 - "Nationality (V0620): only foreigners were considered, that is, people who were born outside the country and did not become naturalized, and people who were born in Brazil, but were registered in foreign representation and did not become Brazilians (IBGE, 2010)" The last census conducted by IBGE happened in 2010 and they did not find 15 or 20 million Arabs in Brazil, but only 12,000 Lebanese - table 2 [11]. People using IBGE as a source are probably confusing 12,000 with 12,000,000.

According to her resumee, Silvia Ferabolli does not work for the IBGE; she is not a spokeswoman of this agency. She is a scholar who has nothing to do with the IBGE. And of course we editors must analyze what the sources say. We cannot simply copy and past what a third part claims about someone's else work. If a source is claming that the IBGE said something, we need to go straight to IBGE to verify is this is true, and the IBGE does not ask about Arab ancestry. Ferabolli fails to explain from which IBGE study she is getting the figures.

The second source you posted is also a third part claiming that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said there are 16 million Arabs in Brazil. Once again, a third part claiming something about someone else. Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has nothing to do with the IBGE, then if the Ministry claims a figure, it is still in conflict with that the IBGE itself reports. This needs to be clear. Xuxo (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that we should ignore what the scholars say and listen to you instead. Anyway, I managed to find the archived urls of the sources mentioned in the previous discussion.

According to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affair (in 2017): the Brazilians with Lebanese ancestry at around 7 to 10 million, and those of Syrian origin at 4 million people. I haven't checked what it says about the other Arabs, but these figures which are also repeated in this source, and many others, seem to tally with those given by Paul Amar. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Article Vandalism

The article was vandalised by someone who changed some sources content (perhaps to push for a political agenda). I previously changed the opening sentence's claim that Arab is a meta-ethnic group, and backed this up by a reliable source (British Government census classification of ethnic groups). Someone changed it back to state Arab is a "Meta-ethnic Group", without engaging in the talk discussion I started, nor offering a source for their claim (leaving my source intact oddly).

While I have edited Wikipedia on and off for a long while, I am unsure of how to report such vandalism. I would be very appreciative if someone can tell me how to identify the culprit and report them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.36.216 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think it, is, report at WP:AIV.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC))

Many thanks mate, I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.36.216 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Figures for "Arabs" in Brazil are incorrect

I don't know from where people are getting the information that there are 6, 15 or even 20 million "Arabs in Brazil". These figures are not supported by official figures coming from the Brazilian censuses.

According to official figures from the Brazilian censuses, only 93,823 Syrians and Lebanese immigrated to Brazil, from 1884 to 1933. [12] The number of Arab (Syrians and Lebanese) immigrants in Brazil peaked in 1940, with only 45,793 people, and their number decreased to only 13,709 in 1990 [13] According to the 1940 Brazilian census, at that time only 107,074 Brazilians had been born to a Middle-Eastern father and native Arabs were only 46,105 and naturalized Brazilians, 5,447. Brazil had 41,169,321 inhabitants at the time of the census, so Arabs and their children were only 0.38% of Brazil's population in 1940. [14] Arab immigrants in Brazil have always been a very small community. Syrian and Lebanese immigration to Brazil peaked by 1950s, so there has been no recent Arab immigration to Brazil to justify any huge increase in their numbers in recent years [15]

According to the 2010 Brazilian census, there were only 12,336 Lebanese immigrants in Brazil; in 2000 they numbered 16,090 and in 1991, 17,187 - table 2 [16] Other Arab communities are so small that they are not even mentioned.

According to 2017 figures, Arab immigrants are not even listed among the 10 largest immigrant communites in Brazil (the 10th largest immigrant community in Brazil are Americans, with only 22,000 people; Arab citizens are not even listed) [17]

According to another 1999 survey by the sociologist, former president of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), Simon Schwartzman, only 0.48% of the interviewed Brazilians claimed to have Arab ancestry, a percentage that, in a population of about 200 million of Brazilians, would represent around 960,000 people (much below the figures claimed in this article) [18]

As can be seen, there aren't 6, or 15 or 20 million "Arabs" living in Brazil. There are 12,336 Lebanese (2010 figures). Even if children or grandchildren of Arabs born in Brazil are counted, the number would be far from being of several millions, given that the Arab immigrant population in Brazil peaked in 1940, with only 45,793 people, which is a very small number to leave millions descendants (45,000 people leaving 6, 15 or even 20 million descendants is beyond human reproductive capacity).

The source used in this article claims that "According to estimates by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), countersigned by the League of Arab States, Brazil has the largest Arab colony outside their countries of origin.". This is not true. The IBGE, which is responsible for the Brazilian census, does not ask about ancestry or family origin[19]. The 2010 census found only 12,336 Lebanese in Brazil and even smaller numbers of other Arabs, which are not even listed. - table 2 [20]. The IBGE never claimed that are millions of Arabs in Brazil. This is fake.

Then, figures about how many Brazilians have Arab ancestry are based on nothing (they seem to be fake news spread everywhere by interest group - these sources do not even explain from where they are taking such figures - they must explain where those figures are coming from, because they are contradicted by the Brazilian censuses). And finally, people born in Brazil are not "Arabs". Having a Lebanese great-great-grandfather does not make any person "Arab". These people are Brazilian citizens by birth and culture, not Arabs - and they are not counted as "Arabs" by the Brazilian censuses. Xuxo (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before and from what I can tell, your argument is as unconvincing today as it was back then. You're free to challenge the cited secondary sources, but you need to seek a new consensus if you want your changes to stick. M.Bitton (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not the owner of this article and there was no "consensus" in the past. I brought official figures from the IBGE and nowhere they claim there are millions of Arabs and descendants in Brazil. The 2010 census found only 12,336 Lebanese in Brazil and that's it - other figures are obviously fake. I'm trying to stick with the truth - moreover, I don't need to convince you, all my contributions are based on reliable sources, but you removed them without a convincent explaination - It is you who needs to justify why you are removing sourced information. Xuxo (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources that you're desperate to remove disagree with you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

They don't disagree with me, they disagree with the official figures coming from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, which is the agency responsible for official collection of statistical information in Brazil. Any source that contradicts the official Brazilian agency is not reliable at all. Xuxo (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the scholars' job, and not the WP editors, to analyze what the IBGE says.

The Brazilian scholar Silvia Ferabolli mentions the IBGE' (the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics):

According to estimates by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), countersigned by the League of Arab States, Brazil has the largest Arab colony outside their countries of origin. There are estimated 15 million Arabs living in Brazil today, with some researchers suggesting numbers around 20 million.

Paul Amar attributes the 16 million to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

there are, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more than sixteen million Arabs and descendants of Arabs in Brazil, constituting the largest community of Arabs descent outside the Middle East.

M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

The IBGE doesn't say anything about Arab ancestry. All the questions asked in the censuses can be seen here. There is no question regarding family origin or ancestry. There is one question about nationality (number 6 - "Nationality (V0620): only foreigners were considered, that is, people who were born outside the country and did not become naturalized, and people who were born in Brazil, but were registered in foreign representation and did not become Brazilians (IBGE, 2010)" The last census conducted by IBGE happened in 2010 and they did not find 15 or 20 million Arabs in Brazil, but only 12,000 Lebanese - table 2 [21]. People using IBGE as a source are probably confusing 12,000 with 12,000,000.

According to her resumee, Silvia Ferabolli does not work for the IBGE; she is not a spokeswoman of this agency. She is a scholar who has nothing to do with the IBGE. And of course we editors must analyze what the sources say. We cannot simply copy and past what a third part claims about someone's else work. If a source is claming that the IBGE said something, we need to go straight to IBGE to verify is this is true, and the IBGE does not ask about Arab ancestry. Ferabolli fails to explain from which IBGE study she is getting the figures.

The second source you posted is also a third part claiming that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said there are 16 million Arabs in Brazil. Once again, a third part claiming something about someone else. Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has nothing to do with the IBGE, then if the Ministry claims a figure, it is still in conflict with that the IBGE itself reports. This needs to be clear. Xuxo (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that we should ignore what the scholars say and listen to you instead. Anyway, I managed to find the archived urls of the sources mentioned in the previous discussion.

According to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affair (in 2017): the Brazilians with Lebanese ancestry at around 7 to 10 million, and those of Syrian origin at 4 million people. I haven't checked what it says about the other Arabs, but these figures which are also repeated in this source, and many others, seem to tally with those given by Paul Amar. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Article Vandalism

The article was vandalised by someone who changed some sources content (perhaps to push for a political agenda). I previously changed the opening sentence's claim that Arab is a meta-ethnic group, and backed this up by a reliable source (British Government census classification of ethnic groups). Someone changed it back to state Arab is a "Meta-ethnic Group", without engaging in the talk discussion I started, nor offering a source for their claim (leaving my source intact oddly).

While I have edited Wikipedia on and off for a long while, I am unsure of how to report such vandalism. I would be very appreciative if someone can tell me how to identify the culprit and report them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.36.216 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think it, is, report at WP:AIV.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC))

Many thanks mate, I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.36.216 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tribe of arabia pensula

The Arabian Peninsula today, after Al Saud’s conquest of the Hijaz, is Saudi Arabia. Previously, it only included Jordan and part of Iraq, so it must be deleted. This is a map of the Arab tribes before Islam. Jordan was called arabia petra, and then in the Byzantine and Sassanid era allied with the Ghassanids and the Lakhmins (Arab tribes in Syria, Jordan and Iraq), the geography today differs after the conquest of the Hijaz and the British colonialism. That is why the word "Arabian Peninsula" must be corrected. I also want to add this picture from within the article about Arab tribes map

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Arabia_600_AD.svg Samlaxcs (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Arabian Peninsula today, after Al Saud’s conquest of the Hijaz, is Saudi Arabia. No, it's not. The Arabian Peninsula is a geographic region that includes SA, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, parts of Iraq, and most of Jordan. It's not Saudi Arabia, and honestly, with all due respect, most of what you wrote doesn't make any sense at all.

Also, I'm not sure what the Saudi conquest of Hijaz, British colonialism, the Roman province of Arabia Petraea, the Lakhmids and Ghassanids all have to do with what you're trying to say? Can you be more clear please? As for your suggested edit, I assume perhaps you didn't read the paragraph in the introduction correctly and misunderstood it. It reads that despite the traditional definition of Arabs being the descendants of Arab tribes, the modern usage for the term refers to anyone whose native language is Arabic and identify as such, that's due to the 'Arab world' being a multi-ethnic region with many different and rich ethnicities within it like Egyptians, Amazigh, Africans among others. Who don't necessarily identify as Arab only. I hope that helped clear that for you, cheers — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 11:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am sorry if my words are not arranged or understood, but I mean at the beginning that the article mentions the name of "the Arabian Peninsula" and the Arabian Peninsula today is only Saudi Arabia, but in the past it was considered as well Jordan among the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the area known today as "levant" even after the establishment of Saudi Arabia was done Division of regions that Saudi Arabia is the Arabian Peninsula, while Jordan, Syria and other countries are called "levant." This is why I need to delete what is written because these areas are from the Arabian Peninsula, and they all belong to Arab tribes. Perhaps only North Africa. I know that not all of them are Arabs, so I will only write that the name was given to the sons of the tribes without the word "Arabian Peninsula" Samlaxcs (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Petraea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hejaz

Samlaxcs (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope you understood my point. I am sorry, I am not really good at explaining, but my intention is that geography changed after colonialism. Samlaxcs (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey there @Samlaxcs, geography doesn't change with colonialism, perhaps you meant geopolitical borders and definition then I agree. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is not the Arabian Peninsula. The Arabian Peninsula is a geographic region that span 10 countries, and yes the Levant/Arabia divide is arbitrary, and indeed, European imperialism did define the modern Levant to some extent. But again, I think you misread the article: The paragraph in question simply meant that Arabs are not bound to the traditional narrative that binds them to the tribes of Arabia (per the source). It simply means that not only tribal Arabs are Arabs by contemporary definition but also anyone who identify as such including people with dual ethnicities. The statement is not wrong but I think you simply misunderstood it. And you can't alter a statement that's sourced, however if you like you can add a counter point as long as it's WP:V but again I'm not sure what to counter since the paragraph does not dispute what you're trying to say here... I Hope that helped? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 08:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Samlaxcs:I'll try to put it another way: A peninsula is a peninsula (setting aside that it isn't straightforward to say where the peninsula is considered to start). It's exists and is defined with no reference to its population or geopolitical boundaries. (Case in point: the Antarctic Peninsula, which has neither people nor boundaries.) The peninsula under discussion is conventionally known as the Arabian Peninsula. The naming is not a comment on whether the entirety of it is or ever has been populated by Arabs, or whether all Arabs reside or ever have resided within it. That it's a peninsula doesn't change according to movements of peoples or changes to geopolitical boundaries. People's membership in a group doesn't depend on whether they reside on that peninsula.

The countries that today line its coast, from Kuwait to Yemen, in addition to Saudi Arabia, are all on the Arabian Peninsula. Its northern extent is arbitrary. If one defines it as a line from the northern extent of the Persian Gulf to the northern extent of the Gulf of Arabia, then, based on today's boundaries, it doesn't even include northernmost Saudi Arabia, while it does include southern portions of Iraq and Jordan. If one replaces "northern extent of the Persian Gulf" with "Kuwait Bay", then part of Kuwait is excluded.

If one defines the northern border as the shortest line connecting the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, then even more land and countries would be included. Again, none of this would have any relationship to the peninsula's name. Largoplazo (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I know, this is why I want to delete it and replace it with the word "Arab tribes" without the word "Arab Peninsula" since it is not considered that it includes what is known today as the Sinai Island or Jordan and does not include many of the areas where Arab tribes existed before islam Samlaxcs (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Samlaxcs - I think I understand what you're trying to say, however, today, people understand that the Arabian Peninsula is a geographic region that includes countries other than Saudi Arabia, like Yemen and Jordan. This is what Contemporary Nomad was trying to say. Here is the Wikipedia Article that talks about the Arabian Peninsula.

Contemporary Nomad - Your definition of Arab meaning anyone who speaks Arabic and lives in the Arab world was once used by Pan-Arabists, just as historically South Americans were referred to as Spanish. In both cases, I believe such a definition is archaic and inaccurate today. If Arab speaking people in Egypt, Lebanon, or anywhere else do no both identify as Arab and can trace their ancestry to the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula with a reasonable degree of certainty, then they should not be considered as Arabs. This standard is applied to all other ethnicities - you are not considered English/French/Chinese unless you identify as such and can trace your lineage to the originators of that name. That said, I do agree with everything else you said.

"especially Semitic peoples"

The article shouldn't refer to related ethnic groups as "Semitic peoples" (in the infobox) given that term is — as its own linked article immediately states — obsolete terminology. -- 217.225.246.179 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with you. The terminology was based on Racial Pseudo-Science that lumped all Semitic-speaking people as one "Race". Today the concept of Races has been superseded by that of ethnicity, based on self-identification. I will remove the part regarding Semitic people.

Lol

First of all I don’t who made that that map figure but it’s totally wrong. There are no Arabs in Afghanistan or India and they are not related to Europeans. Arabs are related to north-east Africans. Please change it! 99.247.39.72 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Southern Europe

User:Grandpallama, I don't think you should have restored the mention of Southern Europe in the list of places that follow "mainly inhabiting the Arab world in". The fact that the places listed in the text you restored include the ancient territory of Al-Andalus underscores the problem: The sentence is about what would today be called "the Arab world", places that today Arabs are "mainly inhabiting". Places to which the Arab world expended in the past but to which it doesn't extend today are out of place in the sentence. Largoplazo (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Largoplazo, I think your point is fair, but I think it highlights a general concern that the overall sentence may need rewording/reworking. It's true that southern Europe is not considered part of the Arab world; however, that sentence has two subjects (an ethnic group and nation mainly inhabiting the Arab world in...), and it is true that large Arab minorities remain in Iberia and those islands as a result of this history. The more I look at the structure of the sentence, the more I think too much is trying to be said in that single, introductory sentence; the entirety of it is problematic, because "the Arabs" are not "a nation" (for clarification, I understand it fits a particular definition of "nation" as an example of ethnonationalism, but it is not "a nation" in the common usage of the term). Please feel free to adjust it or wordsmith it as appropriate--I have no objections. Grandpallama (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Largoplazo and Grandpallama: If the word "nation" (which was added 3 days ago) is causing an issue, then it should be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe it's the mention of the Arab world, constraining mention of regions only to those which are considered a part of that unit? It just feels like a reworking of that sentence into two different sentences is what is needed. Even without "nation," it still seems odd to state that Arabs are only found in the Arab world. Maybe an initial sentence that lays out that the Arabs are a distinct ethnic group found throughout x regions, and then a follow-up sentence that encapsulates the notion of the Arab world? Grandpallama (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't say "Arabs are only found in the Arab world" (we have a list of countries where they represent a sizeable minority). M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it doesn't literally say that; it says "mainly inhabiting". But there are sizable minorities in Spain, in Malta, in Sicily, as a result of that historical diaspora, even though those nations are not considered part of the Arab world. As I said, I think it's the use of "Arab world" in that sentence, instead of just saying which regions Arabs mainly inhabit. I would propose it's better to say they are an ethnic group mainly inhabiting x, and then stick a semicolon after that and say "those nations which are members of the Arab League are frequently referred to as the Arab world". Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Or, conversely, leave the structure with the "Arab world" phrasing the way it is, remove the European countries, and then stick a semicolon in and add "countries with significant Arab populations outside of the Arab world include x." My overarching point is that the removal of relevant countries from the list, solely because of the arbitrary restriction created by the use of "Arab world" that we have put in the clause, means that we are leaving out countries/regions which probably should be mentioned. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to contribute my grain of sand in the matter.

Spain doesn't have a large Moroccan, North African or Arab community for historical reasons, that is not really the reason, but the geographical proximity and the greater job opportunities. Italy, Germany, Belgium, the UK and many other Western European countries also have large Arab communities, with France being the largest. So really the reason is not historical, but rather geographical proximity and motivated by the search for prosperity in it.

That said, I think the Lead is quite confusing, because it quite suggests that Southern Europe is part of the Arab World when it is not. I also don't see well remove the word "Arab World", it is clearly essential for the lead of the article "Arabs".

I think its good a mention of "significant Arab minorities" in these Western European countries, but the Arab World is clearly different from Southern Europe, I think it is obvious anyway. BaylanSP (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Since we are linking to two other articles, why don't we simplify the first sentence? I suggest something along the lines of:

The Arabs ... are the largest ethnic group in the Arab world. The Arab diaspora is established around the world in significant numbers, in ...

or

The Arabs ... are an ethnic group primarily located in the Arab world. They are also established around the world in significant numbers, in ...

M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, as long as we're just fixing the confusion(s) of that opening sentence. I don't think any detail should be removed, just better organized/presented (which I may not have expressed clearly). To address what BaylanSP said, there are historical reasons why the Arab communities in Spain and Southern Europe are different from the populations in Central and Western Europe, and significant impacts they have had on those Southern European nations' culture and language, which is why they merit mention in a way that, say, France doesn't. Grandpallama (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The first proposal of M.Bitton seems good to me, quite solid and realistic, it isn't confusing like the actual.

Finally, to address what said Grandpallama, it is not necessary in my opinion, there are already in Lead mentions of the Arab historical conquests. Southern Europe historically has many diverse influences, not only from Arab civilizations, and having an Arab influence doesn't bind it in any way to the Arab World. Anyway, I feel that this is Off-topic, for my part I have nothing more to contribute. A cordial greeting to all.

BaylanSP (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the point of having such a convoluted lead? Furthermore, it is mentioned that in Iberia, Malta and Sicily there are significant minorities when in fact there are significant Arab minorities throughout Southern Europe, in other regions of Europe and the world, and many cases are larger Arab minorities.

It honestly makes absolutely no sense this Lead:

"[...] mainly inhabiting the Arab world in Western Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and the Western Indian Ocean islands (including the Comoros); significant minorities are also found in Southern Europe (Sicily, Malta, and the Iberian Peninsula). The Arab diaspora is established around the world in significant numbers, in the Americas, Western Europe, Indonesia, Turkey, India and Iran"

BaylanSP (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained, there are historical explanations for the Arab populations/minorities in Iberia, Malta, and Sicily that are not connected to any modern diaspora; there are sizable minorities in those countries for distinctly different reasons than there are minorities in France or any other European nation. You've been rewriting the ledes of multiple articles at this point, ignoring the body of the article or removing sources, and injecting your own opinion, and we're getting pretty close to an ANI report. Grandpallama (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That the Arab minority is in Spain, Sicily and Malta for historical reasons, unlike the rest of Europe, is your personal opinion. You are going to need sources that affirm a connection between the current Arab immigration in Spain, Sicily and Malta and the Arab invasions of the Middle Ages in these regions. BaylanSP (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not my personal opinion, but established fact, and it is already presented, explained, and sourced in the body of the article. Which is why it should be appropriately reflected in the lede. Grandpallama (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the body of the article doesn't state a link between the history of the Arab invasions and the current Arab immigration, Grandpallama.

BaylanSP (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, today's Arabs in Spain and Southern Europe are new immigrants, there is nothing to suggest that they lived there continuously since the time of Al-Andalus and the Emirate of Sicily (i.e. that an Arab minority survived the mass expulsions to this day). M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the body of the article doesn't state a link between the history of the Arab invasions and the current Arab immigration This is ridiculous. I made no such claim--quite the opposite, in fact.

M.Bitton, there's an important distinction that Muslims, not Arabs, were expelled from medieval Spain. A large Arab minority persisted throughout the medieval period until at least early modern times, known as moriscos, and probably until now; from our own article on moriscos: [A] journalistic investigation over the past years has uncovered existing communities in rural Spain (more specifically in the provinces of Murcia and Albacete) which seem to have maintained traces of their Islamic or Morisco identity, secretly practicing a debased form of Islam as late as the 20th century, as well as conserving Morisco customs and unusual Arabic vocabulary in their speech...Recent genetic studies of North African admixture among modern-day Spaniards have found high levels of North African (Berber) and Sub-Saharan African admixture among Spanish and Portuguese populations as compared to the rest of southern and western Europe, and such admixture does not follow a North-South gradient as one would initially expect, but more of an East-West one. I think it's perfectly debatable about the degree to which these descendants form a self-aware part of an Arab community (they probably don't), but the degree to which there is a significant ethnic and linguistic Arab legacy in Spain that traces back to medieval times is not. This is even without getting into Malta and Sicily. None of that precludes the reality that there have also been modern immigration patterns that have resulted in Arab minorities in those countries (as well as in others), but as I've said a few times, there are historical connections between Arabs and Spain (and Sicily and Malta) that merit calling them out separately from the other nations; most importantly, this article is not specifically about Arab communities, and the persistence of Arab people in Spain that dates back to the Middle Ages is scientifically proven. I'm not sure why BaylanSP is finding this so objectionable, but their attempts to remove similar sorts of references from the Spaniards and Spain articles are probably a clue. Grandpallama (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you think that Spaniards belong in any way to the Arab community or to the Arab World, I believe, without offending, that you have quite a lack of knowledge about Spain, its culture and people.

Of course Spain has medieval Arab-Berber influences, among many other different influences, but the Spanish culture and identity is quite far from belonging to or being somewhat linked to the Arab culture or Arab community. It doesn't deserve any singular mention distinguishing it from other parts of Southern Europe in this article. The fact that almost all your interventions here are personal opinions, speculations and original research also doesn't help.

I think we have all expressed our opinion on the subject, I have nothing more to add. I vote, as I said, the proposal to simplify the Lead. Greetings.

BaylanSP (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Spaniards belong in any way to the Arab community or to the Arab World I asserted neither of these things; again, quite the opposite. I don't know whether this is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I've written or persistent misunderstanding, but it's a straw man, either way. Grandpallama (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just came to the talk page to talk about this. There are not significant minorities of Arabs in Iberian Peninsula, Malta and Sicily. There are people descended from them from a millennium ago, that is undoubtedly true, but ethnicity does not have a One-drop rule like race in the United States does. The self-identifying Arab communities in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Brazil, Argentina, USA, Australia etc are at least equal to, and most often larger than, the ones in Iberia, Malta and Sicily. Italy does not have an ethnic census, but as its rates of naturalisation are fairly low, data on nationality is often accurate. In Sicily in 2019, 3.8% of people were foreign. Within that 3.8%, the two largest Arab populations were Tunisian (10.9%) and Morocco (7.9%). I estimate that doesn't even make up 1% of the Sicilian total. In Spain, Moroccans make less than 2% of the total population, then Europeans and South Americans predominate until Algerians make the country's 25th largest immigrant community. There's no more reason to highlight the Arab populations in those countries than there is to highlight the remaining White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in India, Uganda and Jamaica for having brought the English language and cricket to those countries. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to say I now count four voices in this discussion saying that Southern Europe is out of place in the sentence, versus one against. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it would be wise to obtain consensus for it to be put back in, if someone wants it to. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

So to be clear, even though you were aware there is a talkpage discussion, and even though the previous edit was the status quo since November 2020, you thought it would be perfectly appropriate to reinstate the disputed edit of an indeffed WP:NOTHERE editor (now known to be a sock of a banned anti-Arab, ethno-nationalist editor), on a false claim of consensus (the only consensus involved Largoplazo and M. Bitton specifically objecting--as did I--to the mischaracterization of what areas are part of the Arab world), citing your personal opinions about what constitutes ethnicity and your personal "estimate" about what percentage of the population people do/don't make up. And then thought you'd chide me, for good measure.

You claim there are not significant minorities of Arabs in Iberian Peninsula, Malta and Sicily despite this very article stating The modern Arab population of Spain numbers 1,800,000, and there have been Arabs in Spain since the early 8th century when the Umayyad conquest of Hispania created the state of Al-Andalus and Arabs have inhabited the southern Island of Sicily since the 9th century and today about 680,000-4,000,000 still inhabit the island to this day and are ethnic Sicilians or Tunisians. Malta isn't named in the article, though, so it should quite reasonably come out.

Your argument about India is largely a straw man, because this is not an article on Spain or on Southern Europe; it's an article about Arab communities in the world. Having said all that, I would very much like to hear the more defined thoughts of M.Bitton and/or Largoplazo so that we can establish a consensus (by which I would happily abide) without the POV-pushing of BaylanSP/JamesOredan. Grandpallama (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Broke my own M.Bitton ping. Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

That source was false, I checked it and the page was about Italy as a whole. There are 180,000 foreigners on Sicily, of which Moroccans start at 10%. The assumption that there are 4 million Arabs on Sicily is verging on the ridiculous, the island's population is 5 million. Unless 200 years of Arab colonisation on an island previously colonised by Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, and later by French, Aragonese and Spanish turns people into Arabs. And I never denied that "this very article" says that Arabs had colonised Spain, everyone knows that; I said that the minorities are not more significant than the communities in other countries. I didn't estimate the sizes of the modern communities, I used actual statistics; the only estimate was to convert those into percentages as I am not a human calculator. "What constitutes ethnicity" is what people call themselves, nobody apart from segregationists would believe that blood from hundreds of years ago defines that. The emirate of Sicily was ended before the First Crusade was called, and the deportations of its inhabitants to the Muslim settlement of Lucera began in the 1220s, around the time that Jerusalem returned to Arabs. But nobody would say that there is a "significant French community" in Palestine because of that history, nor would they try to draw some kind of continuity between those Crusaders and modern French migrants. You can call that another straw man, but it's analogous. And I don't care about what some banned user did because it's about the message not the messenger Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

However I'm aware that my opinion in this 1v1 doesn't matter, it's up to others to join in. And I can categorically say I was not the 2 September IP as I don't even live in Spain any more Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

With regard to this edit:

The source in question is about "Arabs in Europe". Saying that research has demonstrated that Arabs are devalued relative to "other socioethnic groups" does not mean that the grouping is often referred to as one of socioethnicity. This issue has been debated many times without reaching consensus, though "ethnic group" seem to be the least contested. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: your latest addition[22] is hardly an improvement since this is a single source about "Arabs in Europe" and "other socioethnic groups". M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue you raised was with regards to phrasing, which I have duly corrected. I frankly don't know how Wikipedia is operating without a working definition of socioethnicity, and why no one has inserted anything on this, since it is a routinely used academic term, but I will get around to remedying that in due course. This is merely a patch in deference to your note that there is no consensus for any term other than "ethnic group". All my addition does is make clear that "socioethnic" is an alternative phrasing that can and has been used in peer-reviewed literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as the added source is concerned, "socioethnic" is used in a specific context (to compare "Arabs in Europe" to "other socioethnic groups"). If you insist on using it, at least make sure the reader is aware of this fact. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That the paper refers to Arabs "in Europe" specifically is incidental - the comparison is one of Arabs to other socioethnic groups, clearly implying the paper's position that "Arabs" are also a socioethnic grouping. More words would waste space. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not incidental. You can't use a source about "Arabs in Europe" and then decide what it is about (making about Arabs in general). M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

RE: your addition: As you like, but it seems tautologous, because the comparison already implies the attribution. If readers were curious to see how and in what context this reference was made, the source was already there. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see how the text suggest that socioethnic group of "Arabs in Europe" is any different from the socioethnic group of Arabs at large. The context makes plain that it is the term "Arabs" that is a socioethnic group. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not about what the source suggests, it's about what it says. Context is very important when we paraphrase what the sources says, otherwise we might as well turn articles into lists of sources and let the readers go through the lot.

I personally don't understand why we need to add a definition that is specific to Arabs in Europe. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I would put it to you that it is you that is infering that the article is suggesting that the term "socioethnic grouping" only apply to "Arabs in Europe" and not "Arabs in general". This is a logic that suggests that an ethnic grouping within a region can become a "socioethnic group" as a subdivision of that ethnic group based purely upon its surroundings, and there is no phrasing in the text to support that. My interpretation is actually the more straightforward of the two. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

"Arabs in Europe" is a phrasing only used in the title: the text refers only to Arabs Iskandar323 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No. The source is about ""Arabs in Europe" (migrants originating from Arab countries) and their integration (in Europe). M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is, but it doesn't imply in any way that the socioethnic grouping of "Arabs" as it is defined in the text is different somehow from the group of "Arabs" at large. You are making the logical leap (unsupported by the article), that somehow, because the piece relates to Europe, its terminology does not apply more broadly. Now admittedly, if you would like to be pedantic, you can certainly assert that this is true, and I probably cannot disprove it, but your assertion is likewise not supported by the text itself, which makes no such claim to limit its terminology to its own parameters. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm simply stating what the source is about and what it says, no more, no less. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The sentence: "Research has demonstrated that Arabs are devalued relative to other socioethnic groups." does not specify itself to Arabs in Europe. I take this at face value. You are leaping beyond. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're going out of your way to hide what the source is about. Anyway, I think we both said what we had to say and maybe it's time to let others decide (including about whether the recent change is an improvement). M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going out of my way to hide anything: I'm making a very simply point about common word usage, but agreed, we should both probably leave off and let others weigh in at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bitton that the paper is specifically about Arabs in Europe in the context of other Socio-Economic groups. It in no way reflects Arabs as a whole, who, according to most contemporary and authoritative sources, simply an ethnic group. As such, I am deleting that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.102.18 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Panethnicity/Multi-Racial

The heading of the article contains the rather confusing terms "Panethnicity" and "Multiracial" in referring to the Arabs. To me this seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of the term "Ethnicity" which simply refers to a label a group of people self-identify as due to perceived shared lineage and culture. Every single ethnic group on Wikipedia (and indeed the wider world) originated from different people who come together under a common identity sometime in history. Look at the French People article for example, and their origins being as diverse as Scandinavian Norsemen and Italic Roman settlers. Yet the article still refers to them as an "Ethnic Group" rather than "Panethnicity" or the nonsensical term "Multiracial".

I propose we use the same standard as already used on other articles, and simple consider Arabs as an ethnic group of people who (A) self-identify as Arabs, and (B) who trace their ancestry to the Arabian Peninsula. Everyone else, regardless of language and nationality is not an Arab. This is similar to how Black and Asian British who only speak English are not classified as belonging to the English ethnic group.

Someone has changed the heading to state that Arabs are an Ethnolinguistic Group. However, all sources cited claim that Arabs are an ethnic group. The Arab-speaking people of the middle-east who do not trace their ancestry to the Arabian Peninsula were only considered Arabs in the short period of "Pan-Arabism" in the 1950-1970s. Prior to which, and after that very short period of the history of Arabs, no one would consider them as Arabs. I believe these constant edits that undermine the legitimacy of Arab ethnicity are nothing more than racism (ethnic denial). I encourage other editors who care about this page to please undo these disruptive edits, as I will do. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.102.18 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources supporting the proposed edits. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I have added the sources into the article, including the classifications by the British Government census. All other sources also claim Arabs as being simply an ethnic group - the previous claims of "Panethnicity"/"Etnolinguistic Group" go against the sources used. While I am not new to Wikipedia, can I please ask how I may report article vandalism in case the well-sourced statement is altered again? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.102.18 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Arab speakers and Arabized people versus Ethnic Arabs

We need to separate between all native Arabic speakers and Arabized populations or partially Arab mixed with other people and ethnic Arabs inhabiting the Gulf countries like Yemen, Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman. The Levantines Arab speakers of Iraq, Jordan, Palestinians, Lebanon or Syria are mixed with Arabs and many other conquerors just like Egyptians and The Maghreb who are more Amazigh; Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Sudanese are mostly black with few Arab blood just like Somalis and Zanzibaris Nlivataye (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

proposal for shortening the main section?

The main section (the section directly underneath the page title) of the article is, at least to me, too long to keep the interest of wikipedians like me. Therefore, I'd highly advise a revision process of the main section in order to increase user engagement and make the article better. I have a proposal to help this cause:

At the bottom of the main section, there is a paragraph that I think lacks purpose, lacks meaningful content and has a little bit of (positive to arab people) bias. The wikipedia words to watch page should have something to say about the paragraph. It reads: "Arabs have greatly influenced and contributed to diverse fields, notably the arts and architecture, language, philosophy, mythology, ethics, literature, politics, business, music, dance, cinema, medicine, science and technology in ancient and modern history."

If the text serves a clear purpose, let me know what the purpose is. If the text should be kept for any other reason, let me know the reason. If the text doesn't have a good reason to be kept, wait until there is community consensus for removal. Braggy (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

P.S.: All paragraphs inthe main section besides the first 2 should, according to me, either be moved below a header (header != title) or removed (I'm talking about the last one).

P.S.S.: Comment whether you agree or disagree, and if the consensus agrees with me, feel free to fulfillmy request. I don't want to screw up and get into trouble editing outside my comfort zone and area of expertise. Braggy (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Turkey population figure

Without responding to my query User talk:LambdofGod#March 2022, LambdofGod has restored the figure of 5 million Arabs in Turkey. I'm going to revert this edit pending discussion on how the cited source supports the figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Djibouti and maybe Comoros aren't labled as part of the Arab world on the map also status on Eretria

Djibouti and maybe Comoros aren't labeled as part of the Arab world on the map even though the Arab League and the Wikipedia page on the Arab world label both as Arab countries and I believe many there identify as such... please someone change it I don't know how to

Also: What is the situation on the Identity In Eretria? It's an observer state in the Arab League and Arabic is an official language there...I think "Arab" is an identity 2nd to one's ethnicity in that part of the world...not sure someone should look into that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green49112 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Membership in the Arab League does not define as country's population as being Arab... AnonMoos (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Turkey belongs to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization despite lying 3,000 km away from the North Atlantic. Australia participates in the Eurovision Song Contest but is by no means a European country. Largoplazo (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

In modern usage

I don't know what this meaning is based on :In modern usage, the term ... It seems that we have to generalize this to all peoples, as the French people were among the nobles in the era of Napoleon, and the modern usage is who speaks French. This contrasts with the narrower traditional definition, which refers to the descendants of the tribes of Arabia (What about the Syrian desert?, there were Arabs before the Arab conquests in the Middle East and North Africa? There is no one who is Arab unless he is an Arab from the ancestors, and the word term should not be confused: for example, there are Berbers, Kurds and other ethnicities that do not know themselves that they are Arabs. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't mean, come discuss it only with me on my talk page! The idea is to raise concerns about an article on the article's talk page. You raise reasonable points, but I believe that there will be a variety of views and that this should be discussed. Indeed, it may already have been discussed, as I know there have been discussions in the past of this nature at Talk:Arabic. Have you checked that page and its archives to see whether previous comments related to your concerns have been made? Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider: I forgot to ping you. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)There

@Largoplazo: Sorry about that, there is a difference between the inhabitants of the Arab world-Arab League and the Arabs. None of the ethnicities in the Arab League other than the Arabs are called an Arab except the Arabs themselves. There is no such thing as a person who speaks Arabic is an Arab. Every ethnicity in the Arab League is determined by the ethnicity of the ancestors. There are the Nuba, the Kurds, the Somalis, the Turkmen, the Copts, and other ethnicities who do not call themselves Arabs, even though they may be their own or second language. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider: what exactly are you suggesting? M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: If you look at all ethnic groups, you won't find a word for a term or in modern usage, in my opinion, I do not pay attention to this text because it is inaccurate to describe it... Also the concentrating on ethnic identity is another way of defining Arab identity, which can be subdivided in linguistic, cultural, social, historical, political, national or genealogical terms. In this approach, "being Arab" is based on one or several of the following criteria:

• Someone who can trace his or her ancestry to the Arab tribes, from the Arabian Desert, Syrian Desert and neighboring areas.
• belonging to Arab people, inherited from grandparents, or denoting an ancestor or ancestors.
• concept: a person who defines himself as "Arab"

And there are many criteria, not just language.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• The religion of Islam was developed in Arabia: I don't know what the development of religion has to do with an article talking about a people
• Classical Arabic serves as the language of Islamic literature: Also here we do not talk about Arabic language or islam
• 93 percent of Arabs are Muslims, they comprise only 20 percent of the global: Can be put in a inbox.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

First things first, please remember to indent your comments (I have done it for you this time, I hope you won't mind).

Regarding the "modern day" usage: I could be mistaken, but I believe that it has something to do with the fact that the definition of the word "Arab" kept changing throughout the centuries.

The modern day definition is rather complicated and numerous attempts at changing it have failed in the past. The language, as a vehicle of the Arab culture, is obviously very important, but it's not the only defining criteria (and that needs to be made clear). I suggest getting rid of "and speak Arabic as their native language".

The link between the majority of the Arabs, the Arabic language and Islam is not something that can be denied, though I agree with you that the last three sentences that you're mentioned could do with some adjustment. M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the modern and traditional definitions are really at odds. The objective or subjective state of perceiving oneself as an Arab (from Arab identity) has a lot to do with believing oneself to be among the descendants of the tribes of Arabia (from this page's narrower traditional definition). The Baggara Arabs, who are Black Africans, claim descent from Arabian tribes. They do speak Arabic, but it is their claim of descent that makes them Arabs. That, at least, is my understanding. Srnec (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I am Swiss of Lebanese origin, my religion is Christian. I do not speak Arabic because I was born in Switzerland, but I know myself that I am an Arab and belong to the Arab generations. What I know from my parents is that my grandfathers were Arabs and in the past were rebels against the Ottoman rule alongside the Muslim Arabs. That is why when we describe only that the Arab is the one who speaks Arabic. Here, the rest of the standards were denied. The diverse population of the Arab world should not be confused with the Arabs themselves: the definition of the Arab League should not be confused with the definition of the Arab, which includes countries because its official language is Arabic.For example, there are residents of Somalia and Djibouti who do not define themselves as Arabs at all, and even the Arabs themselves do not consider them Arabs. The point here is that we know who the Arab is and who are the rest of the peoples that live in the Arab world. Beja people, Berbers, Nubians, Kurds, Afar people, Somalis, Turkmens etc, all these peoples live in the Arab world, we can distinguish them from the Arabs.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Concentrating on ethnic identity is another way of defining Arab, which can be subdivided. "being Arab" is based on one or several of the following criteria: genealogy, ancestry, self-concept, culture, societal and linguistic.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: You cannot stand as a guard over the article, and no one has the right to modify it as soon as you do not agree with, I did not delete anything. Also, this discussion is five days ago, and I don't see you interacting with the discussion.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider: Is this how you thank me for trying to help you? I didn't interact because you can't even be bothered to follow simple instructions (such as indenting your comments) and you keep banging on about who you are instead of addressing what I suggested. In other words, you seem to be only interested in what you have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Actually I have already suggested, I said that there is no need for this text because it does not refer to all the criteria for Arab identity. Regarding the definition in Europe it is ambiguous because for example in the United Kingdom they are an ethnic group, as for religion and language, both are notes. It is better to distribute the text or remove it completely Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider: Thank you for confirming what I said. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Al Ameer son Is it possible for some help here because I don't understand this dude at all or rather what he wants exactly Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Responding to a comment that was left by "Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider" on my talk page. Your lack of understanding doesn't justify the above canvassing or the comment about me that you left on "Al Ameer son's" talk page. If you have anything to suggest with regard to the article, you express it properly and see who else agrees with you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit of a mess, but the opening definition of this article is definitely terrible. The modern term 'Arab' covers a broad ethnolinguistic group, and the reduction of it to ethnicity in the opening paragraph is simplistic in the extreme. The second paragraph adds further misunderstanding, suggesting Arabs must both carry an ethnic identity and speak Arabic. Pure BS. There are plenty of ethnic Arabs who don't even speak Arabic, and Arabic speakers who consider themselves Arab who have not a shred of Arab ancestry. Until this article begins to reflect some of these very obvious nuances, it will remain a great encyclopedic injustice. Lead's too long too. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TabulaRogeriana upside-down.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Arabs are the indigenous people of the Arabian penisnula

I’ve given the source. There’s a lot of uneducated, shallow people on Wikipedia isn’t there? 2A04:4A43:4D5F:D5B9:25E5:C84:840C:A7BF (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Lol; googling "arabs are the indigenous people arabian peninsula" and finding a source ...doesn't impress me much, Huldra (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Tanzania's Arabs

70,000 Arabs is such a quite underestimation and a common one since Tanzania doesn't collect data on religion or ethnicity but come to Dar es salaam, Zanzibar, Arusha, Moshi, Morogoro and you will never believe there are 70,000 Arabs or Indians for that matter but rather hundreds of thousands if not a million so or less Nlivataye (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

The statement: “93 percent of Arabs are Muslims,[77] comprising only 20 percent of the global Muslim population,[78] with Arab Christians comprising much of the remainder.” Appears to be formatted incorrectly:

The first percentage is of Arabs, the second percentage is of Muslims, the third statement refers back to Arabs while “the remainder” refers to the statement about Muslims.

I believe it could be worded this way:

93 percent of Arabs are Muslims (the remainder comprised mostly of Arab Christians), while Arab Muslims comprise only 20 percent of the global Muslim population. QMacDonald (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done 3mi1y (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on December 29, 2022

The parenthetical in the lead paragraph, "the remainder consisted mostly of Arab Christians," should instead read, "the remainder consists mostly of Arab Christians." The past tense is inappropriate in this case. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Demographics / Arab world

Jews are listed among "non-Arabic-speaking populations", like Berbers, Toubou, Nubians... Jews are not an ethnic group but a religious group. They should be listed among other religious groups. 2A01:E0A:AB7:FA80:F901:74FC:4CEA:E865 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The world's agnostic and atheist Jews-by-heritage strongly disagree with you. Largoplazo (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem

Treetoes023, you reverted my addition of a copyvio template to the article, on the grounds that I didn't explain it. The rationale should have been obvious from the template itself, which included links to the sources that appear to have been copied from, but here's the Copyvio Detector report in case there's any doubt. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Irreligious

Should irreligon be added to religions? 2A02:C7C:507D:0:41F5:466D:92ED:B669 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

My edit

Can someone explain why my edits are being reverted by ‘Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider’ for no apparent reason? My contribution was: “Before the spread of Islam, Arab referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula” and cited Britanicca, which is a reliable source. Soyouy553 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica is written by superhumans? There are editors (see the the contributors of EB) who are likely to have incomplete and accurate information, and they themselves searched in sources such as books and others, just as an editor on Wikipedia. You should learn that in Wikipedia, not everyone who brings a source can put it, especially if there is disagreement on the text, so it must be discussed. You reverted it four times despite the warnings, and this may incite you to be banned from editing in Wikipedia. Secondly, the way the text is placed is not appropriate at all and It should be placed in a suitable section. I have already explained that the Arabs were also present in the Syrian desert as well parts of the Levant and Mesopotamia. Finally, I will completely redraft the text and put it in an appropriate place. I hope next time you discuss the matter before putting such a sensitive matter. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Soyouy553: to save you from a potential block, I have reverted your edit. Please read the notice (you'll see it at the top of the article when you try to edit it) that says that you must have 500 edits before editing the article and not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

origin of arabs

it is known that Ismail is the father of arabs but he wasn't the first person to speak arabic, in fact the Jurhum tribe that immigrated to Mecca and met Ismail taught him their language, providing evidence that arabic didn't originate from the levant Abo Yemen✉ 03:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Native Arab Christian communities

@Derek-airtken: regarding this edit of yours:

which of the sources that you added mentions "native Arab Christian communities" in any of the countries that you listed? M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, apparently depending on the sources, most of the citizens who converts to Christianity are of Berber origin, so I omitted these countires. However, in Bahrain and Kuwait there are Christian citizens of Arab origins, their numbers are estimated at about a thousand citizen in Bahrain and between 300 and 400 citizens in Kuwait. Derek-airtken (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. if none of those mention "native Arab Christian communities", then, technically, what you're adding is WP:OR. Since this article is about Arabs, the word Arab has to be mentioned and not implied or guessed (the same goes for the word "native"). Omitting the three countries doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have added them in the first place. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Some source: Kuwait is the only GCC country besides Bahrain to have a local Christian population who hold citizenship. They number around 260 citizens in Kuwait while Bahrain has nearly 1,000., Christians comprise 10–14 percent of the population, with up to 1,000 Christian citizens originally from Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan who were present at the time of independence.. Derek-airtken (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What was meant here was local citizens , there was a mistake, I apologize for that. The sources are clear that there are Christian citizens in these countries (Christian Arab citizens in Bahrain and Kuwait).Derek-airtken (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Christian citizens doesn't mean either "Arab", "native" or "community". I suggest you read what I wrote and, please be careful when adding content to contentious subjects such as this one. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)