Talk:Arabs/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Fayruz is as Arab as Pushkin is Russian

First of all take a look at this wikipicture of famous Turks


None of these "Turks" is racially Turk(ie mongoloid raced)

None of these "Turks" is genetically Turk(having the Turk Haplotype O)

None of these "Turks" has imortant Turk ancestry

Very few of these "Turks" are ethnically Turk(ie having Turkish as mother tongue,in fact most

of these "Turks" have Persian or Otthoman as mother tongue)

As exemple:

-Akif Ersoy was an Albanian Otthoman with Albanian Father and Persian Bukharan mother(he has otthoman as mother tongue and not Turkish)

-Ataturk was Albanian from macedonia's Albanian origin

-Ilber ortayli is a Tatar from Russia's Tatar origin

-Fatih Sultan has a mixed Greek, Pakistani, Iraqi, Turk...ancestry and has Persianized Otthoman as mother tongue and not Turkish

I think you know actual Turkish and Otthoman are very distinct and different languages especially after Ataturk langauge "reform"

And this is righteous for the other "Turks" present in this picture


Humanbyrace (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • But they most likely identified as Turks, and that's the most important factor. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither Fatih Sultan Ahmed nor Yavuz Sultan Selim identified themeselves as Turk

The same is for Akif Ersoy who always identify himself as Otthoman or/and Muslim or/and Albanian

Yavuz Sultan Selim has a Greek mother

Also Sabiha Gokcen is ethnic Bosnian (or Armenian????)

and Hurrem Roxelana Sultan (the wife of Sultan Kanuni Suleyman)is ethnic Ukrainian.

Tevfik Fikret descends from a Greek family

In the Turkish page there are also pictures of Osman Hamdi who is ethnical Greek.

Nazim Hikmet who came from a polish family.

and Leyla Gencer who has a polish mother.

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then all the people who didn't identify as Turks shouldn't be in the Turk infobox. Rather be careful than just throw people into the picture. The current Arab picture is very balanced as it is I think. FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you asked Phillip the Arab,Fayruz and John Of Damascus are they idenitifiying themselves with Arab or not???!!!!

Also look at this wikilink

Number of "french" in the infobox did not even have French as mother tongue

The majority of them are francilized occitans,corsicans,catalans,bretons etc etc

Zidane has even an African Berber origin!!!!

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • What is your point then, and how does it relate to the article? FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all forgive mr for my bad English.

What I want to say is that there are not clear and categorical standards to classify human beings in ethnies.

whether by identity or mother tongue or haplotype

If you look at this map J-Y-DNA-Distribution.jpg

you will see that a great percentage of Turks,Persians,Israelians and Italians share the Arab semit haplotype J

Are they thus arab just because they have the Arab Semit Haplotype J?! of course no

Personnaly I have the Aryanid Haplotype R1b though I have Turkish as mother tongue...

So it's very complicated

Also Is Alfred The Great English though he didnt have English for mother tongue


So it's very complicated

But for Fayruz we know that she is a famous Arab singer and sings in Arabic and perhaps her mother tongue is Arabic

So she is in the same situation as Pushkin who Is Russian though he came from a family with German roots.

Humanbyrace (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Leaving out Fairuz was more due to balance than anything. It made room for a Druze female singer (Asmahan) and an ancient Christian man (John of Damascus), and May Ziade already represents Maronites/Lebanese. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

Why isn't France listed in the table? I'm sure there are more then a million arab (or at least a million arab) immigrants in France from Morocco and Algeria.--Krotx (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Slavery in South Africa.

Why isn't the slavery in Sudan for example, in the article? Arabs has enslaved Blacks there [citation needed], and they work as slavetraders[citation needed]. It's still there, and it's only arabs who has slaves[citation needed].. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikardi (talkcontribs) 11:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • How is slavery in Sudan relevant to Arabs as a group? And there are arguably slaves in Europe too, think of all the Eastern European women who are forced into prostitution. That would hardly be relevant in an article about Europeans as a group, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fairuz pic

Why is the picture of Fairuz being removed? She's certainly Arab, is she not notable enough? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • She is apparently half Anatolian Assyrian and half Maronite, so she might not be considered a "real" Arab by some, but she certainly is in the wider sense. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what "Christian descendents" in the recent edit summary is supposed to mean. Back in 600 A.D., many of the ancestors of many current Arabs of Egypt and the Levant were Aramaic-speaking or Coptic-speaking monophysite Christians -- but their present-day descendents are not usually considered to be less "Arab" because of this... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant by that, is both sides of her family have Orthodox and/or Maronite backgrounds meaning that they predate the Arab conquests. Since the 1940's and the rise of "Pan-Arabism" there has been considerable conflation in terms identity in the region where people who are not actually Arab become generalized and lumped into that category because 1) it provides a greater sense of ethnic unity and transcendence of religion and 2) outsiders don't know any better and believe that all brown people outside Israel are Arab. However, I can understand Funkynusaryri's comment since, in a way, these things are often determined more by popular concepts of ethnicity rather than actual definitions. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Arab Christians were Arab long before the Islamic conquest. They did not become "Arab" because of it. Besides which, being geneaologically Arab is just one way to be considered Arab. The linguistic/cultural definition is much more widely used and Arabs can be of many different "ethnic" backgrounds. Tiamuttalk 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not many Arabs are "real" Arabs but Arabized. But besides that, she meets two of the three definitions of being Arab (Linguistic and Political). And since when is Maronite an ethnic group? Its just a religious sect of Christianity. Nonetheless, I understand some people might get too picky. However, how come Gamal Abdel Nasser was removed too? He's the Ataturk of the Arabs. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you know anything about ancient Lebanese history? No one said that the Maronites were an ethnic group. However, Maronites are ethnically Syriac.- not Arab [1] [2]. Moreover, who came up with a ridiculous three-question litmus test of determining Arab ethnicity?? No one here is being "too picky." People have the right to wish to be specific and accurate when it comes to their identity. That's like calling an Indian person in the U.S. black because of their skin color. Regardless, it seems there is no clear determination over Fairuz here, so her image should be left out. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there is no one clear definition of Arab, but many. There is a genealogical definition, which only applies to people who can trace their ancestry back to tribes originating in the Arabian peninsula, which is very few of the people called Arabs today, then there are Arabised Arabs who consider themselves Arabs even though they might not have actual Arab ancestry, which is most Arabs in the world, and then there is the linguistic definition, which says that anyone who speaks Arabic as their native language is an Arab. Fairuz fits that last definition for sure, and we don't know if she actually rejects the Arab identity or not. Also, Maronites are just a sect, some do in fact have peninsular Arab ancestry (Ghassanid and similar), so being a Maronite doesn't necessarily tell anything about one's ancestry. Also, Maronites are only Syriac per liturgy, their language is Arabic. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I re-added Nasser by the way, there's no question that he considered himself an Arab, and that's one of the main criteria. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the pic (I know you didn't remove it in the first place). Also, I still believe Fairuz is an Arab and I'm pretty sure she thinks of herself as an Arab but unfortunately I do not have a source for it. So I guess for now I do not have a problem with it. Shukran for your help Funkynusayri! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem, I think we should maybe have one more image, for the sake of symmetry. What about Nancy Ajram or someone like that? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding Maronites will just cause problems and invite revert wars. There are million other arabs to choose from, lets not use the infobox picture as a tool to try to make a point. Chaldean (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fairuz's picture. Chaldean (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Awright, I agree, we should not use pictures that could cause controversy, but according to some, using anyone else than Gulf Arabs would be controversial, so I don't think we should be overly cautious. For example Nasser, he may be an Arabised Arab, but if he considers himself an Arab, there should be no problem. Same with Fairuz, if we had a source for it, which we don't, therefore she isn't in the article. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

i cant believe fayrouzes pictures has been removed! she is an arab wether she likes it or not, i got tired of people denying their arab heritage and talking about phonecia and all that, or being "HALF ARAB"! we have a great history you should be proud, i say you add fairouzes picture or gamal, they are legends! and i strongly recommend ibn al haytham, or as i mentioned earlier there are many great arabs or current famous artists! we need more than 5 pictures of arabs on this page please, look at the "irish people" page for example. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely of the school that only Gulf Arabs should be included but, in this case, do not object to Nasser's image being included. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely insane. Arabs are not defined only by their genetics (We are not a bunch of Nazis who believe in "pure race" ideologies). And if such a racial definition was used, it would exclude most of the Arab world (myself included). For everyone opposing the inclusion of Fairuz, please read this source and this one. It is clear that she is an icon of the Arab world and that her identity as an Arab is not in any way in question. One can be Lebanese and Arab, one can be Palestinian and Arab and one can even be Armenian and Arab. Fairuz is definitely a Lebanese Arab and there is no legitimate reason not to include her picture on this page; that is, unless if someone can find a source in which she denies being an Arab, since the ones I've provided indicate very clearly that she is. Tiamuttalk 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You've provided a source of how other people describe her, not of how she describes herself. By definition, her Greek Orthodox side is not Arab and here is a source that states, "Assyrians and Maronites are the ethnically homogeneous, distinct and indigenous Christian people of Mesopotamia and Lebanon and have a history, spanning seven thousand years, that predates the Arab conquest of the region...Assyrians and Maronites are ethnically descendant from a common, non-Arab root."[3] I would say that self-identification should be the tipping factor in the discussion. Regardless, the status will be controversial. There's little reason to include her when there are plenty of other, better, examples.--Ave Caesar (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Greek Orthodox Christians are not Greek. Please read Palestinian Christian for example. Or better yet, see the article on Archbishop Theodosios (Hanna) of Sebastia. Tiamuttalk 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to correct myself, she's Syriac Orthodox, not Greek Orthodox. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Usually people who are Arab do not go around affirming their Arab identity, particularly when it is a given. The sources I provided you with, particularly the second one which is a discussion of "Arab women" by the United Nations in which Fairuz is listed, indicate clearly that she is an Arab. The UN is very sensitive to identity issues and would not list a person as Arab without making sure that this was in fact the case. The source you provided doesn't even mention Fairuz. As I said, if you have a source in which Fairuz is quoted denying she is an Arab, please produce it. If you don't, the sources I provided indicate that she is Arab and her picture on this page is appropriate. Tiamuttalk 00:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While the sources I provided most definitely suffice, since you seem to be unconvinced, here are more:

Note that none of them say "Arabic singer" (which is what would be used if her ethnic identity as an Arab were in question). They all say "Arab singer" meaning she is an Arab and she sings. She belongs on the page, not only because she is an Arab, but because she is one of the greatest Arab cultural icons of our time. Tiamuttalk 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

People can decide for themselves if she is an Arab or not. Adding the picture will just cause problems. Whats wrong with adding other Arabs? Add Kathem Saher. Chaldean (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Chaldean. There are plenty of other more-suitable individuals. Causing such controversy is just disruptive only to make a WP:POINT.--Ave Caesar (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring what reliable sources say, and providing nothing in the way of sources that refute that information, is disruptive. If you have a source that says Fairuz does not identify as an Arab, please produce it. If you don't, we have five sources that say she is an Arab versus zero that says she is not. Fairuz is one of the greatest arab singers of all time and there is no legitimate reason why her picture should be removed from this page. Being obstructionist about it without bringing forward any evidence to support your position isn't the way WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to work. So unless you have a source where Fairuz denies being Arab, I expect that you will refrain from deleting her picture again. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:POINT - That was the Wikipedia rule I was thinking of but didn't know what it was called. Is one of the greatest arab singers of all time and there is no legitimate reason why her picture should be removed from this page. - The reason being is that it will just cause problems. How are you not seeing that? I won't remove the picture, but there will be constant removing of the picture from other people. Hmm I'm starting to think you have Mediterian-Arab world baism :D. Do you not like Kathem Al-Saher? Chaldean (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's that he doesn't like Kathem. Rather, I see this discussion as yet another example of how identities in the Middle East have been conflated as a result of Pan-Arabism into subjecting minority identities for the sake of an "Arab Unity" whatever that is.--Ave Caesar (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Chaldean. There are plenty of other more-suitable individuals. Causing such controversy is just disruptive only to make a WP:POINT. You have provided no sources as to how she self-identifies and I have provided you with sources that state her background (which we know to be Maronite and Orthodox) is certainly not Arab. Now, I do agree that there can be Arab Maronites, albeit rare, but you have provided no evidence that she is of such a lineage. Until such evidence exists, there is nothing but speculation resulting from what others believe she is. It's time to move on and select a different individual or leave it as it is. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS: ...stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. Now, Maronite is a religion, not an ethnic identity. Neither of you has provided a source that says that Fairuz identifies as a Maronite to the exclusion of her Arab identity. I am open to considering the issue further, but only based on a discussion rooted in the use of reliable and relevant sources. This source, [4] for example, says that Fairuz is of Palestinian origin. And the five sources above say she is Arab. So where is the source that says she is a Maronite and not an Arab? Provide it and we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, you are engaging in WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Tiamuttalk 02:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello? Read my much earlier reply to you above..."Assyrians and Maronites are the ethnically homogeneous, distinct and indigenous Christian people of Mesopotamia and Lebanon and have a history, spanning seven thousand years, that predates the Arab conquest of the region...Assyrians and Maronites are ethnically descendant from a common, non-Arab root."[5] We know that she is Maronite. Regarding whether or not she is of Palestinian origin, I don't believe that's what her current article states. You should try adding that one there and see how well it's received. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello? The article you linked to doesn't even mention Fairuz. You are engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN. Tiamuttalk 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chaldean's latest edit to the article. It is a much better choice and one that is not controversial. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, Maronite is a religion, not an ethnic identity. - this is not conclusive and a very contriversial topic. The notion of weather Maronites are Arabs or not should not effect other pages, such as this one. Chaldean (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So please stop using her alleged Maronite identity as a way of ignoring what the reliable sources have to say about her identity.
I am opening an RfC on this issue. Obstructing consensus by adhering to an eccentric viewpoint not based in the use of reliable sources is what is disruptive and simply not right. Tiamuttalk 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems a little disruptive when we have an acceptable version up, but fine with me - a waste of admin time over a picture. Let me know when it's opened though. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not disruptive to seek the feedback of other editors. Please stop making false accusations. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do, Pot. (Note that was meant purely out of humor and not meant to be uncivil..I can't resist an opportunity for a nicely applicable metaphor). --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait how is Kazem more "Arab" than Fairuz? And why didn't anyone ask for a source where he "affirms" his Arab identity? -- Slacker (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Does Kathem come from an ethno-religious group whose background is controversial? I didn't notice it from the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
(for the record, Kathem Saher is an Arab Sunni Muslim.) Now, let us not ignore that her other half is indeed Syriac Orthodox from Tur Abdin - the cradle of one of Assyrian's sub-culture. Chaldean (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sources please. Discussions based on your unsourced opinions are not helpful here. Also, please read this. It explains that Arabic music predates Islam by about one millenium and also mentions that those Arab female singers from over 2000 years ago probably looked like Fairuz. Tiamuttalk 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It states in Fairuz's page her father was Syriac Orthdox from Tur Abdin, Turkey. Chaldean (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So what? Nizar Qabbani's family was originally Turkish from Anatolia, does that mean he's not Arab? It's really simple: cite a source. Just drawing a conclusion from where her father's family comes from on whether or not she's Arab is OR. Why does nobody care about OR whenver the term "Arab" is involved? -- Slacker (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Link to page please. Even if true, her father's identity doesn't mean that she is not Arab. Also, this article in National Geographic says: The Lebanese vocalist Fairuz (or Fairouz), known as "Lebanon's ambassador to the stars," is one of the all-time great Arab vocalists. Born to a working-class Maronite Christian family in 1934 or 1935 and a resident of Beirut, her real name was Nouhad Haddad; her stage name means "turquoise" in Arabic. In other words, she's Arab, Lebanese and Maronite - none of these identities is mutually exclusive. Tiamuttalk 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If Fairuz is not going to be added (just for now that is), I say we add a musical artist more significant to the Arabs, such as Umm Kalthum or Sabah Fakhri. Umm Kalthum is an Egyptian Arab and assuming from her songs and strong support for Nasser, she was an Arab nationalist. Sabah Fakri was from Aleppo, Syria. Although I do think Fairuz is the best choice for a picture since we have a picture of an Egyptian Arab already (also Nasser and Umm Kalthum came from same generation) and all of the pictures are of men. I knew she was undoubtedly Arab and I thank Tiamut for finding all of those sources backing this fact. As I said above, we shouldn't be too picky. Perhaps many maybe even most Maronites (I'm not sure really) consider themselves solely "Lebanese" or "Phoenician" but that does not generalize the entire population. Assyrians have their own language and culture while Maronites speak Arabic and Arabs by culture. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fairuz's background is no more controversial than Kazem's, really. The only reason some people are making an issue out of this is because he's Muslim and she's Christian. There are tons of sources that refer to her as an Arab; she even has a CD out where she's called an "Arab Ambassador" (I'm sure she would object to this if she had a problem with being called Arab on her own CD). Nobody has yet provided a source that shows otherwise -- hell, nobody's even provided a source that there's any controversy on whether or not she's Arab -- yet we are supposed to submit to your OR on what constitutes an Arab and what groups are "controversially Arab" and what groups are less so. This has gone on here on WP for a long time. If you guys object to having an article on Arabs as an ethnic group (as opposed to a race), then just nominate the article for deletion already or recreate it so that it speaks of Arabs as some ancient tribe and just list the prevalence of their genetic marker and be done with it. But if you're going to allow an article to be written about modern Arabs, as the term is used in the world today, with no OR, then Fairuz is as iconic an Arab as any. -- Slacker (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As a Palestinian Christian myself (Greek Orthodox - and "Greek" as used here is not an ethnicity, just like Roman Catholic doesn't mean a person is "Roman") who is very proud of my Arab identity, I find the attempts to disinclude Christian Arabs quite offensive actually. Particularly when tens of reliable sources (eight of which are cited above) indicate that Fairuz is indeed Arab. Tiamuttalk 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
After all of the sources that have been provided, this issue should have been resolved by now. Frankly, all of this talk about Faruz not being Arab is quite ridiculous. SHe self-identifies as Arab and her language, culture and national sympathies are Arab or with the Arabs. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree. Unfortunately, User:Chaldean and User:Ave Caesar removed the picture of Fairuz even after I provided five such sources. So as to avoid further edit-warring, I opened the RfC. If they are both willing to acknowledge what the sources actually say, or provide sources of their own, rather than persisting in OR soapboxing, we can save everyone else in the community a lot of time better spent probing actually controversial issues. If not, we'll just have to continue with the RfC process and hope that neutral, uninvolved editors will step in to set things right. Tiamuttalk 03:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of removing it when I have not. All your sourcs say she is an Arab Singer and an Arab vocalist - this can be defined as ArabIC langauge singer and Arabic language vocalist. Non of your sources state she is an ethnic Arab. Besides, you still haven't confronted her other half that is not even debateble (her Syriac father that is.) Chaldean (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you not advocate for the removal of the picture? Are you not the person who provided the alternative of a Sunni Muslim singer? Also, you are speculating as to the meaning of "Arab singer". As I said above, if they meant "Arabic singer", they would write "Arabic singer". As you know, Arab and Arabic mean two different things.
Also, could you please provide a source that says Fairuz's father is a Syriac Orthodox Christian? And can you please explain how, even if this were true, it would disqualify her from being Arab (preferably by providing a source that does that, rather than providing your own uncited opinion). Thanks. Tiamuttalk 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggested that it would cause problems, like the one we are having right now. And now for the second time, it is stated on Fairuz's page that her father was Syriac. How does that make her less Arabic? I dont know, the fact that she is now ethnically half non-Arabic, and her other half being contreversial. Why can't we use another picture. You seem to advocate a Christian be used, I don't understand why that is a must, specially since the group in subject is 99.9999 percent Muslim. Chaldean (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Arabs are not 99.9% Muslim. And Syriac Orthodox Christians is not necessarily a non-Arab ethnic identity. As I said, please provide sources that provide an explanation as to why we should ignore the many other sources here that state quite clearly that Fairuz is an Arab woman. Did you forget this one which is a book on Arab Women authored by the United Nations which has an entire section on Fairuz? Are you being purposefully obtuse? Tiamuttalk 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Syriac Orthodox Church has offically come out and said its people and followers are not ethnic Arabs (please take a look at one of its website.) Once again, your sources do not confront her contriversial ethnicity, but rather talk about her music. Chaldean (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me break it down for you so that you better understand what the problem is with what you are saying:
  • We have eight sources attesting to Fairuz's identity as an Arab. The sources do not use the word Arabic (disambiguation) but Arab as in a person who is Arab.
  • The Fairuz article does not cite any sources, so if that is the basis for your claim regarding her father's identity as a Syriac Orthodox Christian, you need to provide an actual source before you can make that claim as fact.
  • Even if Fairuz's father was a Syriac Orthodox Christian that does not necessarily mean:
    • he was not an Arab
    • that Fairuz is not an Arab
  • Despite asking you and Ave Caesar several times for sources that contest Fairuz's Arab identity, you have so far provided zero.
  • There is no controversy here because a controversy would require a reliable source either:
    • discussing the controversy over Fairuz's Arab identity
    • outlining that Fairuz is something other than Arab
  • Two editors claiming that Fairuz being listed here is controversial without providing sources that would indicate that this is in fact the case does not require other editors to take their claims at face value.
  • To give you an example, if two editors at the page on Earth were claiming that we could not provide a picture of the earth which represents it as a sphere because:
    • it looks flat
    • they believe it is indeed flat
  • that would not constitute a controversy.
  • Even if those editors provided a source that said that the earth was flat, that source has to weighed against the other sources which say the earth is round.
  • Do you understand now? Tiamuttalk 05:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion deosn't even belong here, but rather in Fairuz's page. I dont know why your are dragging this contriversial issue into another page. You continue to make false statements;
Even if Fairuz's father was a Syriac Orthodox Christian that does not necessarily mean: ** he was not an Arab ** that Fairuz is not an Arab - Wrong. The Syriac Orthodox Church is an ethnic based Church like the way the Armenian Orthodox Church is. Thus, a member of that church is considered to be a Syriac person (hense the name of the Church.) You brought up the Greek Church in the Middle East, and that is totally different issue. Its follower's main language is Arabic, where it is not so with Syriacs and Armenians.
Again non of your sources state she is an ethnic Arab, but rather an Arab vocalist which to me is defined as an vocalist of Arabic music. Non-Arabs in the Middle East do sing Arabic too you know. To state There is no controversy is an understatement. And if you don't see it, then I can't help you with that. Chaldean (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You are ignoring my request for sources. You still have not provided a source saying that Fairuz's father is a Syriac Orthodox Christian and even if you had such a source, you would still need another source saying that Fairuz identified as a Syriac Orthodox Christian and not as an Arab. She does have a mother too whose identity is just as important.
Further, you are ignoring the UN source on Arab women which lists Fairuz as a "Luminary" and devotes a whole section to discussing her accomplishments in the field of music. Why would the UN include Fairuz in such a book if she was not an Arab.
Third, you are ignoring that the definition of Arab is not confined to "ethnic" Arabs, whatever that means. Arab is a linguistic, cultural and/geneaological identity. Your narrow interpretation of its scope (as evidenced by your false statement that 99.9999% of Arabs are Muslims) is not borne out by what the reliable sources cited throughout the article say.
I will not continue discussing this issue with you until you provide sources to support what you are saying that are directly relevant to Fairuz and her identity. I went to great trouble to provide you with eight on her Arab identity. You have provided zero, nada, zilch. Until you do, this conversation is over. Tiamuttalk 06:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way Chaldean, while her father may have been Syriac, she is most definitely not. This article in the New York Times states: Describing herself as fervently Greek Orthodox, she also refused to perform in Lebanon since people were not free to travel between the factional cantons, and any group that controlled the territory where she sang might try to claim her. The article also refers to her as "the Arab world's most famous singer," and says that, "For Arabs at home and especially for the diaspora, no other vocalist evokes both the bygone rhythms of village life and the halcyon, prosperous years before wars traumatized their region, sending many into exile."
Further, the article says: "Fayrouz eliminated the nasal tones favored by most Arab singers," and, "While most Arab vocalists stick to endless laments about unrequited love, her songs range from snappy tunes to Christmas carols to odes to Jerusalem ..." Arab here obviously refers to her identity, since later on in the article it says: "For those unfamiliar with Arabic poetry and her reputation, her deadpan style is often a barrier to appreciating her music." If they meant she merely sang in Arabic, they would have used "Arabic singer." I believe this debate is over now, since your only reason for contesting her Arab identity was based on your belief that she is Syriac. Tiamuttalk 06:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have closed the RfC. User:Ave Caesar was arguing (without providing any sources) that Fairuz was Maronite and therefore not Arab. User:Chaldean was arguing that Fairuz was Syriac (again without providing sources) and therefore not Arab. We now have nine sources stating that Fairuz is Arab. The ninth source from the NYT established that Fairuz's religious orientation is in fact Greek Orthodox and neither Syriac nor Maronite. I trust that this "controversy" has now been laid to rest. Editors are asked not to revert the picture of Fairuz, unless they are able to find a source and present it here that says that she is not Arab. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, yet another example of how Arabs successfully conflate complicated ethno-religious minority groups to promote a political agenda thereby subjecting those groups to persecution. It's been institutionalized and made so covert that you can't stop it in the real world, why should one expect that it should be different on Wiki? I'm not going to revert simply because it's not worth wasting breath anymore over an image when a perfectly acceptable compromise existed and when no attempt to bring this topic up on the Fairuz article was made. Not only that, but it's been completely ignored that she was born into a Syriac Orthodox family and only converted to Greek Orthodoxy. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the end, it all comes down to self-identification, Ave Caesar seems to have misunderstood what it actually means to be an Arab, it's not about religion, genetics or ethnic origin, it's about language, culture and how you define yourself. Just like the "Turk" identity, pretty much all Anatolian Turks are Turkified Greeks, Armenians, Syriacs, Kurds, and so on. If Fairuz considers herself an Arab, then she is, she fits the criteria, and she doesn't seem to object to being labeled as such. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, this was one hell of a discussion. Ave Ceasar, sort of backing Funkynusayri's statement, we (editors and modern Arabs) did not make Fairuz an Arab, she self-identifies as one and if you were to break down the great majority of Arabs outside the Arabian Peninsula, you would find that they all descend from other ethnic groups (Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Syriacs, etc.) but in the course of their lineage they either intermarried with Arabs, adopted the Arabic language, the culture and just recently (a century or so ago) nationalism or at least a form of national solidarity. They not only accept being, or tolerate being Arab, they are proud of it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deinition stuff

We need some sources about the different definitions of Arabs, for Arabs this sentence: "An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎, ʿarabi) is a member of an ethnic group which identifies as such on the basis of genealogical, linguistic, or cultural grounds." is common sense, but it should be sourced anyway. A user replaced the above sentence with this: "An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎‎, ʿarabi) is a member of a Semitic people originally from the Arabian peninsula or adjacent lands who speaks Arabic. Arabs largely inhabit the Middle East and northern Africa.[1]" and though sourced, it's far too simplified. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be good enough for the lead. The article can go into the "complexities" in the body. -- Slacker (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, in any case, it isn't even sourced in the body yet. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Break redirect from Arabian page

I propose that the redirect that currently stands, from Arabian to the Arab page, be broken and a separate article be dedicated to Arabian and its meaning. Otherwise, it makes as much sense as having the Spaniards page redirecting to the Hispanic article. Al-Andalus (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a redirect to Arabia? -- Slacker (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, you don't have to be an ethnic Arab to be an Arabian, it's just a regional designation. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you mean you don't have to be an Arabian to be an ethnic Arab? 'Cause by default Arabians are Arabs but not all Arabs are Arabian.
The point is that there NEEDS to be an Arabian page discussing what the term means and who it includes, the history of them as a people, their origins, their modern demographic statistics, etc. (as you have with all other eg "Such-and-such peoples" pages). We can't have Spaniards pointing back to the Spain article if there is a need for Spaniards, especially if there were only the one Hispanic article to deal with both Spaniards and all other Hispanics. The need of an Arabian and Arab article is such a case. Al-Andalus (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, doesn't Arabian just refer to someone who lives/comes from the region of Arabia or something from Arabia? Just like European isn't an ethnic designation, just regional. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but then there is also a Europeans article too. The article could go into discussing Arabian ethnic groups and such other relevant information, to create a point of contrast to this Arab article. It is for the benefit of both sides. Al-Andalus (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Europeans page is just a disambiguation page, is that what you mean we should have? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. See also: Indians. You can put all that info into the Arabia article, Andalus. -- Slacker (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


The definition that Samantha put in is not wrong, but it's only one definition, and one definition does not preclude others. The lead is supposed to reflect the body of the article, where other usages of the term "Arab" are discussed. Sure, it needs work, but the other definitions are documented there (e.g. the Arab League's definition), and the lead should reflect that fact. Perhaps Samantha and other users believe that these other uses of the term are erroneous, but ethnicities and nationalities are subjective by nature, and so WP should not be in the business of imposing one definition as correct. We should focus on describing the term as it is actually used in the real world, not as we think it should be used (that is, if we're serious about proscribing OR). I think a serious reader would be entitled to know why there is such a thing as the Arab League, made up of mostly non-Arabian states, and why that organization is headquartered in Egypt, why Egypt and Syria are officially called "Arab republics," why most books and news organizations describe many non-Arabian countries as being majority-Arab, why the the most ardent Arab nationalist poet is of Anatolian descent, and other questions. This cursory definition does not answer that. So, while I believe the definition put in by Samantha belongs in the article, it should be placed in the body of the article alongside the others and not at their expense. -- Slacker (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep, as we have seen before, most non-Arabs don't seem to understand what Arab actually means, they view it like they view the dreadful American race definitions like white, black, Latino, so on, so unsourced statements that seem obvious to us are quickly put into question. Funkynusayri (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's because most people don't know it's good to have a source. So I just stuck in first one I could find to encourage more diligence :-) Carol Moore 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
  • Yep, and sources have now been provided. By the way, user Samantha's view that "Arab is primarily a racial-ethnic term, NOT a cultural linguistic one" is utterly wrong, and kind of confuses me. Arabs are not Americans, they don't care about the corrupted American race-system. Yes, Arabs can be defined by ancestry, but that is not the only definition at all, and most Arabs might not even have South Arabian ancestry. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Good work everyone! We have a lot of work left to do and much more ground to cover in raising awareness about the fact that Arab is not a racially defined identity. That's part of why I got so insistent about the inclusion of Fairuz's picture above. If we were to go by the narrowly conceived racial definition which is in fact rejected by most people who identify as arabs and most of the scholarship on the subject, I might not qualify as an Arab (though I might, since some Arab Christians were geneaologically Arab, but I don't know if my family came to Palestine with them or became Arabized with their arrival or with that of the Islamic empires later on). In any case, there is a ton of scholarly literature out there that we haven't made enough use of. I'll try to dig around for more that will help in better articulating the issues here. Those who have suggested sources they would like to see added, but who don't have the time or inclination to do it themselves, are encouraged to add links here, so that others who do want to, can save themselves searching time. Thanks to all. Tiamuttalk 17:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have something inconvenient to bring up here. A real life case. We seem to have an person (possibly one that some might categorize as an Arab) repeatedly denying that Egyptians are Arabs. Simplest thing would be a conclusive universally recognised source supporting the statement in this article "In the modern era, defining who is an Arab is done on the grounds of one or more of the following three criteria:" You do have one don't you? (attempt at dry humour). The alternative would be that there are multiple POVs on who is an Arab in the modern era. But this would of course have been presented in the article as per WP:NPOV. (Apologies for the attempts at humor) At any rate if this blows up into a storm ... SmithBlue (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also note that the WP:Manual of style says, "The term Arab (never to be confused with Muslim or Islamic) refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin." SmithBlue (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful sources

Early history:

Some early history, but focus on Islamic period onwards:


The intro sounds like an exercise in circumlocution

"An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on genealogical,[2][3] linguistic,[4][5] or cultural grounds.[6][7]"

If a reader comes to learn 'what is an arab' - this sentence really isn't strong enough of a lead sentence... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It should be fleshed out based on the sources cited, and should be fleshed out even further in the body. -- Slacker (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Encarta has a pretty succint definition. Maybe we should paraphrase that and cite to it. -- Slacker (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A question about the image

Why isnt Ibn al-Haytham included?? As far as i know he's on of the greatest inventors ever, and he shows that Arabs to contributed to technology. I thought that once an image is created, he's the first to be entered. And if you eant to involv relegion, as far as i know Muhammad is much more famous then Immam whatever. Go to Wikimedia Commons for his image. But again, the biggest mistake is not to enter Ibn al-Haytham. You do everything not to kill the stereotype arabs are tecgnologicaly primitive? C'mmon. Shpakovich (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding pictures of Muhammad to the lead. It's pointlessly inflammatory. The pictures are already hotly contested on the Muhammad page, and they certainly don't belong in the lead of any article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, you could maybe replace Imam Ali, so we don't appear biased in favour of Shia Islam or something like that. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Muhamed is the problem?? So why havent you told so?? How do you offer instead?
  • Take a look now. I don't think Nasser should be replaced. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with trying to make the lead images more inclusive. I do have a problem with a user making obvious WP:POINT edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a missunderstanding. I thought the reverts were on purpouse to not-show Arabs had a strong science. Shpakovich (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any doubts that you knew exactly what you were doing, given your IP location and previous edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
two questions. 1. Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, the father of modern surgery, should be here. Hundreds of Millions of humans are saves thanks to him. 2. Nasser is a "small" leader. Shure he affected the masses, but all of his life can be said in 4 words: "wanted to destroy Israel". The mission is to create an image that everybody moved by stereotypes will see: Hey, those gyus contributed alot. The stereotypes are false!!! If you want a military-political leader, i think that the best option is someone who controled an Empire, at it's peack, and who wasn't a dictator by character. Abd-ar-Rahman III. From one hand, controlled a huge empire and was mega-strong. From the other hand, the citizens of his state enjoyed full freedom. Shpakovich (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I already mentioned elsewhere that we should come up with a solid list here on the talk page, and then add it afterwards when we've made a compilation picture. I'll make a new section for that. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Funkynusayri, Ali is highly revered by Sunni Muslims. They just don't believe he was appointed by God. Therefore, I don't see how there would be a bias issue here. The issue may be that traditional Sunnis don't like visual representations of any revered figures, such as prophets and sahaba to begin with, but until someone raises the issue, there shouldn't be a problem. I'm more concerned about the quality of the article than the pictures, which are more of a distraction than anything. -- Slacker (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Having such images didn't concern me either, that's why I wanted to keep the image of a family in instead, I knew it would cause trouble with a celeb infobox. But I believe we can keep it stable if we reach a good compromise here on the talk page before changing the infobox. Should me maybe put the family in again once it's decided which people to use? That'll prevent edit wars. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In defense of Nasser, his life was not solely summed in four words"wanted to destroy Israel". He is the most prominent Arab nationalist leader to date and strived to unite the entire Arab World and succeeded in that for a number of years. He was the most popular Arab leader to date which I infer from his biography by a Palestinian Arab. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, Nasser should definitely be in, especially if we have eight spaces for people. Putting King Abdullah in seems like a joke. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity infobox

Which and how many people should we use? What images? Should be discussed here instead of having the infobox changed every other minute. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion:
No representetives for relegion, because: a. A christian will never feel good with a muslim here, and a muslim with a christian. b. This article is about an ethnic group, and thats what it should bring out.
This image is very stereotype braking. Liberal leader, scientists who changed the world, writers. It shows a beautiful progressive culture, which few know existed. The stereotype shows arab as relegious-militarists. It brakes it. Shpakovich (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, one problem with that list could be the almost complete lack of modern day people, it makes it seem as if Arabs have done nothing for the last few hundred years, that's why the old list was good because it had both modern and ancient persons included. Also, the copyright tag for al-Shaykh's photo seems dubious. I'd propose three ancient individuals and three modern ones as representatives. Maybe less is even better, as on the Jews page. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmm lets do 4 old and 2 modern? Because the first four played such a big role in Arab and World culture that i dont see anyone removed.
The last two i dont see a problem replacing with whoever you belive fits. The trick is to show people who are really unique, who really influenced alot. Shpakovich (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd say Fairuz (female) and Nasser (politician) as the two modern ones, but let's see what some of the other editors say. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think controversial figures, like Nasser, should be kept out. Abd-ar-Rahman III for example is not controversiol. From one side, a strong emperor. And from the other, a liberal. No men from any nation in the world would look with hate at him. While Nasser is controversial. Shpakovich (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
What about Nathalie Handal? She seems perfect to fit in. Shpakovich (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I never heard of her. From looking at her page I see she wrote an essay about Mahmoud Darwish, by the way, so what about him instead of Nasser? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmm possibel but the problem is he haven't done anything new. What i mean is that if well write a history of Arabic literature, he wont get more then a line. Nathalie brought alive the whole Arabic female poettry, and brought to it recognition in the west. Shpakovich (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the possibilities are endless really. But let's keep toying with it here before making drastic changes, maybe some more candidates should be suggested? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to offer Naguib Mahfouz, the question is if people will be fine with it. There is also Ahmed Zewail. Shpakovich (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to second the idea of three ancient and three modern personalities. I like the even split because there are a lack of female candidates with pictures for the ancient personalities. They should be varied by country of origin and profession. I'm stuck on Fairuz (Lebanese singer) being one of those represented, not just because of the long discussion, but because she's one of the most respected vocalists in the world and was an "Arab ambassador". I like the idea of Nathalie Handal (Palestinian poet) as well, since she represents another generation (younger) and diaspora Arab populations. Gamal Abdel-Nassar (Egyptian leader) is also a shoo-in for me as the symbol of pan-Arabism. For the ancients, Averroes (Andulsian Spain-Morocco writer) and Ibn al-Haytham (Iraqi scientist) are good. I'm trying to find an ancient female figure for the sixth slot. I thought of Zenobia, but I'm not sure about her Arab identity. (A female political leader would be a great way to round the category out though, no?) Any other suggestions? Tiamuttalk 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ibn al-Haytham, one of the greatest inventors ever, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, father of modern surgery. Millions of saved lived are on his account, Abd-ar-Rahman III, controlled a big Empire, at it's peak, his citizens enjoyed freedom, science and arts were thriving. The perfect leader i would say, Averroes - the Arabic Da-Vinci. Those are the most famous and contributing Arabs, i dont see how any could be removed. Fairuz has nothing special, just another singer. Maybe we make the image 8 people? Then many problems would be solved. We could have:
  • Ibn al-Haytham - One of the greatest inventors ever!!!
  • Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi - Father of modern surgery. Millions of saved lived are on his account.
  • Abd-ar-Rahman III - Controlled a big Empire, at it's peak, his citizens enjoyed freedom, science and arts were thriving. The perfect leader i would say.
  • Averroes - The Arabic Da-Vinci.
  • Nathalie Handal - An exellent writer, and a female is needed.
  • Fairuz - a majority decided.
  • someone else.
  • someone else.
That solved alot of troubles in other article discussions. Again, i already said that Nassar influenced the people, but he's controversial. Dont get me wrong but Hittler is still repsected by many Germans, but they havent entered him to their image. What i mean is the people in the image should be selected in a way any man from any nation could look at it and not feeling anger. Shpakovich (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
And i never supported it. I said then that in Israel itself after many soldiers were killed in the Yop Kippur war because the country didn't prepare her popularity have gone down to zero. And dodnt forget that for Arabs i suggested Abd-ar-Rahman III. Dont forget that Nassar also has no concensus about him in the Arabic world itself. For Jews i would enter Yossefp Trumpeldor because he's loved both in the left and both in the right. In the Arabic world Abd-ar-Rahman symbolizes the peak of the arabic Empire, thats why he's perfect. Even thought he fought against Christian Empires. Shpakovich (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand the discussion about Nasser. He's nothing like Hitler and I'm kind of offended by the comparison actually. In any case, I have nothing against having eight pictures, nor any problem with the list above. To that list, I would add either Zenobia or Mavia (queen) (if we can find a picture for her. I'm working on expanding her article now. very interesting stuff.) Open to hearing other suggestions for the last two as well, preferably someone from the Gulf or North Africa since they are a little underrepresented right now. Tiamuttalk 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

nasser is an egyptian not an arab. his picture should not be up there,see what he thinks of arabs [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Nasser considered himself an Arab, critisising other Arabs doesn't mean anything. I consider your reverts vandalism,and everyone else should too. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

it sounds like youre a staunch panarabist who worships nasser.i didn't mean to offend u but calling arabs "dirty" is not "critisising" its racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • He apparently called Saudis dirty, not Arabs in general, don't misquote your source. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) dont think thats racism?he calls other arabs names too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This is getting ridiculous. Critisising people from other Arab countries does not make you a non-Arab. Quit it. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

calling a whole people dirty,degenerate,stupid,backward is "critisising"?????????????sorry thats just plain idiocy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Again, he said that about Saudis, not Arabs in general, please don't disrupt the page anymore. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

jeez your a nasser worshipper what the hell is wrong with u????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. Funkynusayri (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the current suggested list, I would like to see at least one or maybe two modern males. All four males suggested are 1000 years old. Chaldean (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree with the king abdullah thanks u. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Should we say Nasser and Darwish as the remaining two? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe in the strongest terms that Nasser should be included. We're talking about a man who not only represented the largest Arab country but led or at least influenced all of the Arab World. He even had some successes such as his merger of Egypt and Syria and then almost with North Yemen and Iraq. He inspired several Arab heads of state (Gaddafi, Ben Bella, Abdel Karim Qassem, Al-Bakr, Al-Quwatli maybe) and prominent Arab thinkers and leaders like George Habash, Kamal Jumblaat and aligned himself with Arab nationalist fathers Michel Aflaq and Constantin Zureiq. He played a (or the) most important role in twentieth century Arab history as Saladin-like figure who strove and was the closest to uniting the Arabs, making the Arabs dependent on themselves and their resources, secularize Arab politics and yes, he led the Arabs against Israel. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah. So far this list seems good, but one of the ancient ones could maybe be replaced with a woman, like Tiamut proposed:

However, the copyright info for Nathalie Handal's picture seems extremely dubious. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just nominated it for deletion. Relata refero (disp.) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think al-Zahrawi or Averroes should be replaced. Reason being is there pictures are not so good and it would make the 3 of the 7 in the list Arabs from al-Andalus. Just as a suggestion, what do you think about including a Maghrebi Arab (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) and an Arabian (Saudi, Emirati, Yemeni, Omani) Arab in the list. Maybe we could replace one of the Andalusians and Handal or Darwish. Ali seems alright for Arabia but I can't think of Maghrebi off the top of my head. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image quality doesn't have to be an issue, I'll try to hunt down better images if a person is very important, I already found better images for some of the persons listed we could use. Then they should be cropped and compiled into a single image. Also, if anyone cn think of persons we don't have images of, but that would be significant, we could always try to search for images of them. And yeah, any of them could be replaced, if we find some good replacements from other regions of course. Their significance should be more important than their origin I think, but diversity could be good. Are there notable black Arabs (I don't think people would be too fond of having Sadat there though)? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that notability over region makes sense. As for the black Arabs, what about Muhammad Ahmad? Don't know much about him really. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, from looking at his article it would seem controversial to have a man who claimed to be the Mahdi in the infobox, but the rest about him seems good. Keep the suggestions coming, even if you don't know of a picture of the person, I'll try to track some down... I think it'll be easier to get a good compromise if there are many suggestions to choose from... Maybe Philip the Arab could be a candidate? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course! Didn't even think of him. I think he's perfect because not only is he highly notable but he is also an example of pre-Islamic Arabs. Btw, do Somalis count as Arabs? Again, I don't much about Black Arabs, most are revolutionaries or warrior leaders. Mohammed Abdullah Hassan is a warrior leader from Somalia. Uways al-Barawi is another Somali Arab. He was a scholar who "revived Islam in Eastern Africa" and I guess had great influence on Somalia and Zanzibar.
  • Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard to get a picture of Philip, the images on Syrian banknotes were published more than ten years ago, so they're in the public domain, so if we want a picture of him in higher resolution, we could maybe get someone in Syria to scan a banknote... As for Somalis, they're not Arabs per definition, as they're, well, Somalis, an ethnic group with their own language (many claim Arabic ancestry though, and speak Arabic). Funkynusayri (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
But philib the Arab was a leader of Rome, i cant see what role did he play, as a n Arab, in the Arabic world? But if you want, this is perfect i think:
As i already said, Nasser is to controversial. Naybe not for all, but for some he's in the same line with Hittler. Just read his biography! He always had a large opossition. Could the Arabs who wqere in opossition, and sat in jail for it be identified with this image? Could the political leaders of the opossition be identidied with it? Aren't they Arabs whoalso should feel pride looking at the image? Thats why i asked a few times to leave him, or any Arabic political leader, out. EXCEPT, Abd-ar-Rahman III, but he could give todays democrats a good lesson about human rights and freedom. He's not controversial. The image should be fine with everybody, not only Arabs. The guy above also said that he cursed Saudis, and Saudis are Arabs to. Not only that, they hold Mecca and Meddina. The selection should not bring mad Arabs from any country. It would also be nice to replace Mahmoud Darwish with Naguib Mahfouz. Darwish is famous yeah but he havent influenced anybody, he's "just another poet". Mahfouz brought alive the whole Arabic literature alive and relevant in the modern world. In the world in courses of modern Arabic literature he's the first being taught, and he's always reminded. Shpakovich (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I have never heard of Nasser's "racism" against other Arabs and frankly I dismiss that entire page as his biographies (by Arabs and Westerners) never mention such things (obviously they're not important enough for inclusion). Arabs loved him (unless they were Islamist-inclined like the Saudis or the Brotherhood). The Saudis and Nasser had conflicting ideologies with the former being pro-Western while Nasser was pro-Arab (not pro-USSR, he was loosely-aligned with them for counter-balance reasons but abhorred Communism). Plus all Arabs have their little remarks against other Arabs. I'm from a village called Majd al-Krum. The people there have a really good time making fun of people from Nahf which is a mile away. This doesn't mean anything and should not be a source of controversy. As for Darwish, I added his picture there but I'm not "attached" to it. Whatever the majority decides, I'll accept. Nasser is a must, plus I think he would gain a majority vote. --Al Ameer son (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
But thats the whole point, the image should be 100% nutral. Even for the Brotherhood and other freaks. He had an opposition, thats already a reason not to include him. Shpakovich (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Subscript text

Not a single modern Arab leader didn't have an opposition. The point is he intended and temporarily succeeded in uniting Arab countries, inspired Arab nationalist revolutions and inspired the revolutionaries, captured the minds of unity-seeking Arabs, led the Arabs in a united front against Israel and is a symbol of pan-Arabism. A brotherhood member would not be offended if Nasser was included in a list of prominent modern-day Arabs, its just fact that he was the most prominent. BTW I wouldn't call them freaks, I think thats more bias than including Nasser in picture gallery. --Al Ameer son (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats why i offered not entering modern Arabic leaders. Shpakovich (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a good idea. Any major leader is bound to have had opposition. Nasser is the dominant figure in Arab history for the past century, and an obvious candidate. Relata refero (disp.) 11:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, the trick is to create a photo that all arabs could like it. If he had an opposition then not all will feel good with him here. Thats why modern leaders should be left out. Shpakovich (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree if we were talking about a leader currently in power, but Nasser died decades ago. I don't see how his inclusion could be that offensive to anyone now and I agree with others that his iconic status in the world of modern (though not necessarily contemporary)Arab politics is notable.
Anyway, I'm still looking to see more women included, such as Zenobia (She is definitely Arab see here). Another figure I find interesting is John of Damascus. Tiamuttalk 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the children of the opossitioners he killed? His controversial. And i read a few academic articles that Zenobias mother was Egyptian, and her father Assyrian. Her being Arab is to controversial. John of Damascus is a rekegious leader. Relegion should be kept out. The article is about an ethnic group. He fits the article about Christian Arabs. Shpakovich (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Zenobia was an Arab queen, and ruled over an Arab population in Tadmur (check the Encyclopedia of Islam article on Tadmur, or Hoyland's "Arabia and the Arabs", for example, for academic references). She allegedly claimed descent from numerous ancient queens as part of her propaganda but that doesnt't change anything. It's only controversial among some SSNP types for political reasons. I fail to see how Nasser's pic would be offensive either. I don't share his politics but he is the most well-known Arab political leader in the 20th century. The box isn't meant to highlight "good" people, but only famous people, otherwise that would violate NPOV. Maybe we should scrap this silly gallery and try to write a decent article. -- Slacker (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, especially when it's starting to be vandalized. [7]. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree but, we need to quickly establish a consensus on who to include so we could photoshop the photos into one image to upload so everything is the same size and tidy and then we will never have to worry about images being removed or added without a vote. Yesterday I expanded the Levant and raq history of the Arabs and I think all of us really need to expand this article tremendously; its not even a B. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

oppose adding a photo of nassar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyam (talkcontribs) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are litery a choice of among 1,000, instead of users getting into a revert war on, just suggest something else for the love of God. Nassar isn't more of an Arab then others listed on the List of Arab people [[8]]. Just pick another person who isn't contriversial. Chaldean (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gyus, this is getting stupud. As you cann see, more people here opposed to entering Nasser, and Chaldean and Al Ameer Son made an important point: There should be a concensus. If you see many oppose to entering someone, give up!!! As someone with experiment in doing images (and i gust finished one for the chinese[9]), i already understand i'll have to do the job (unless someone else agrees to fill the license forms on the image page), and thats why i'm trying to get a concensus here. Nasser wont be in the image, he has a to big opposition here. No concensus. Lets deside who to enter instead. Here's my offer (Say now who you dont like and want to enter. Again, no Nasser!!!):

note:when offering someone else, make shure you give a link to a photo which is public domain. thats why we probably wont have more than 2-3 modern Arabs. the modern images are not public domain. Shpakovich (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Modern images can be in the public domain, or released under the GNU license, it's just a matter of finding them (Handal's image doesn't seem to have proper licensing). As for Nasser, I think we should simply have a vote. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep Nasser was the most important Arab leader in modern-day history. He influenced and rallied the entire Arab World to his side like no other Arab leader had since the Golden Age. He may be controversial to some, but his Arab identity is not controversial so it doesn't matter. Like someone above, we're not adding just the "good people". --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We are running in curcles. The image should not have politics, any. Theres a reason Russians havent entered state leaders. Same thing about Italians. Here i entered Rahman 3 because he lead an empire in a liberal way at it's peak. Theres a reason Germans havent entered Hittler. He influenced alot, and theres no doubt aboud adding him. So? Look, there are those who oppose ti him. Why be anxious on someone who is opposed to be entered? Again, there are dozens of figurs that can be entered instead of him. About the vote: The idea of images is finding a concensus, not deciding by vote. For example i opposed entering Fairuz, but i will enter her because theres a large concensus. It's not political or controversial. On Nasser theres an argument, that already drop's him. Shpakovich (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Check my suggestion out guys :-) I think it looks good. Lets take it as a base. Say who you want to remove, and who you want to enter instead of him. It's easier to work this way. Shpakovich (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I really think Nasser should replace Mahfouz. Until now I never even heard of him. Plus, voting is like having a consensus. Lets see what people (in particular WP Arab members) decide. Funkynusayri, Tiamut, Slacker and I have all agreed that Nasser should stay. Golda Meir certainly has more opposition than Nasser and she's been included in the Jew article, which is a good article. So, anyway lets just see what other people have to say. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm after finishing here going to fight for a new image for the Jews without golda. After many Israelis were killes at the Yon Kippur war becaus she havent prepaired, in israel itself many hate her. Shpakovich (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Handal could be replaced by Zenobia, her image has been listed for deletion as I predicted, the copyright tag seems improvised. Was Zenobia an Arab? As for Nasser, he is in no way comparable to Hitler (he could be compared to Golda Meir, who is in the Jew infobox) so I think we should have a vote. You're the only one opposing him in the infobox, apart from a few anon vandals. Anyhow, Mahfou cannot be used, as his image is copyrighted. Such images are not allowed in compilations here. Here's an example of an alternate image: [10] I'll toy with the image, I think they should be vertical rather than horizontal, for example. Funkynusayri (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please give me 10 minutes? I'll eat (havent ate today yet) and i will replace. But are you shure Zenobia is Arabic?? Shpakovich (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm currently making an image, no need to hurry. It is unclear if Ibn al-Haytham was Arab or Persian, so I don't think he should be used. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my proposal so far [11], better dimensions, and I think the spaces left should have at least one woman. Don't know if Zenobia would be right, if she isn't Arab for sure. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I entered Zenobia like a few asked. But no Nasser. Shpakovich (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not sure if she was an Arab, or that al-Haytham was, for that matter. Mahfuz can't be used, because his image is copyrighted, and there is overwhelming consensus for using Nasser. What we need now is proposals for who should fill the two spaces left here: [12] Funkynusayri (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
They were, she on here paternal line and he completely. Ok i'll enter nasser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shpakovich (talkcontribs) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Where did you get that info? There are sources for Haytham being either Persian or Arab, and no sources for Zenobia. The dimensions of the image are still off, the images have to be cropped badly as a result. All we need is two more persons on the image I posted above, if we can't verify that they are indeed Arabs. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Al-Haitham was an Arab from Basra [13]. Zenobia was also an Arab (See the EoI article on Tadmur. Also, her husband and son both had clear Arab names). But no matter; I think al-Kindi ("the philosopher of the Arabs") has an impeccable Arabian genealogy and shouldn't be controversial at all. I'm also partial to adding this guy. Re-adding Ali would be another good option (the reason given for his removal was not convincing at all). -- Slacker (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, there are sources for him being either Arab or Persian, so we can't take sides. It is also unclear whether Averroes was Arab or Berber. We could maybe replace him with al-Kindi. As for the al-Sauds, what the heck is so great about them? And they're quite controversial too, I thought you was against that. And Ali, well, religious representatives is kind of a bad idea. We would have to put an Arab Jew, Christian, so on at one point to avoid grumpy people. We should have more modern people, maybe Darwish in again. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
He was a Persian citizen but he's ethnicirt was Arab. He was even born in the Arabic area of Persia. Zenobia was Arab by the paternal line. P.S. I think Nasser was like Hittler, but a concensus decided. Check out the new version, i entered him. Shpakovich (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, i need help. Some guy bugs me about Nasser and Mahfouz "there not arabs but egyptian" on my talk page, and in my talk page history you'll see he cursed me and that was deleted. He every second nominates the image for speedy deletion. Tell him someting to shut up!!! Shpakovich (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • There are several other problems with the image that I have mentioned plenty of times already, but let's just wait until some of the other editors come around. As for the vandal, just ignore him, he'll get banned eventually. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You wont decide for Mahfouz or Nasser who they are, and they called themselves Arabs. Nasser founded the Pan-Arabism. Shpakovich (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

why don't you shut up? It's none of your business what Egyptians consider themselves or not. Naguib Mahfouz never called himself arab that's a load of garbage. Bayoumi (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • In any case, Mahfouz can't be used due to copyright problems. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I understood that i'm in a minority hating Nasser, so i laready replaced Mahfouz with Nasser. Shpakovich (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. The images still suffer due to the dimensions, several of the ancient people don't appear to be verifiable Arabs (al-haytham shold be replaced by al kindi in my opinion, and Averroes might have been a Berber), and we need more modern people and women. I'm for the four ancient/four modern people solution, we have too many Andalusians. I think we should wait until more editors are around. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Darwish is a good example of a modern Arab (I put him in the picture gallery before) but there could be other choices. What about Khalil Gibran, May Ziade, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal or Adel Emam? --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for Mahfouz. Nasser is about the only Egyptian you can include without getting harassed. For better or for worse, Ibn Saud achieved more than any other modern Arab leader -- by far -- and was king of most of Arabia. As for Ibn al-Haytham, the sources cited for him being Persian are a joke, but whatever. Let's get this over with: al-Kindi is about as uncontroversial as it gets. -- Slacker (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What a goal!!! Exelent idea. But who will we put him instead? Shpakovich (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two above messages, and will get around to it. Yet again, the dimensions are bad, Shpakovich, the images have to be cropped oddly as result, so I'll have to be changed to something like this[14]. If you dont do it, I will. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The dimentions seem fine to me. And i dont know how to change them. Change them if you like. Shpakovich (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, so lets bring some order. There are only to complains now: There are doubts about Zenobia's and Haytam being Arabs. Haytam i insist on keeping, because there are no doubts he was ethnicaly Arab. He was a Persian citizen, and that confused. Zenobia is arabic by the paternal line, but i dont mind replacing her with another female. I dont see anything special with her. The question is with who? Al Ameer son offered May Ziade. I support. Shpakovich (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Having 3 Christians among 8, is not the best choice IMO. 3 out of 8 (38%), when Arab Christians (even at its widest definition today) do not make up more then 3% (if not less) of the total Arab population. Its kind of misleading the representation of today's Arabs. It would be like having 3 muslims out of 8 Spanish people. Chaldean (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Khalil Gibran and Adel Emam (if we could get a free picture of him) are Druze or Muslim. Although, I don't really see any problem with having several Christians in the gallery, when the majority of them would be ancient anyhow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
We already had problems with egyptians, we would have the same problem here. Many Druz's dont see in themselves Arabs. Lets avoid controversies. Shpakovich 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, only Israeli Druzze don't consider themselves Palestinians but they do know they're Arabs. Plus I crossed the Druze part out because Gibran is Christian. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I havent even thought about it, but i also dont belive it's important. The image is about an ethnic group, not relegion. Relegion wasn't taken into consideration here. Pluse the Christian Arabs here are ancient Christian arabs, and they represent a time when Christianity was the biggest religion among Arabs, because for a certain period Muslims were the minority once. Shpakovich 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the point of religion place a big rule in Arab culture (perhaps bigger then any other ethnic group) and the Arab identity is closely tied to Islamic identity. We know the history of the Arabs, but the picture should try its best to depicite the group as closely to our times as possible. Adding a Druze would be constriversial, but I think we should replace at least one Christian with a Muslim. Chaldean (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone it would be Ziade, perhaps replaced with Faten Hamama or Suad Husni. This is only if Ziade has to go. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Two Egyptians wouldnt be the best either. Why isn't there a Saudi? Are there any Saudi women of significance with a Wiki picture? Chaldean (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, like Funkynusayri said, its not really about getting all of the regions included i.e. Arabian Peninsula, Levant, Maghreb, Iraq, its about how significant they are to the Arabs. I'm not aware of any Arabian women of significance and I really don't see how adding one more Egytian would be a problem. Nasser is the only Egyptian in the gallery and also remember that Egypt has the largest Arab population in the world. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it not about getting as many different regions as possible? That way you have a diversity image amongs Arabs. There should be at least one Arab from the peninsula. Egypt might have the largest Arab population, but that shouldn't submerge other regions. What about an Iranian Arab? Chaldean (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you find an important/famous Arab woman not from Egypt or Lebanon or is Christian? I haven't had much luck, since most of the notable ones come from either of those countries or are Christian. There's Warda but that would be two singers and there's no photo of her and there's plenty of Palestinians but most of the significant ones are Christian. BTW we should also see what other users think about not including additional Egyptians, Lebanese or Christians. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think adding Faten Hamama would be a good idea, she's a female Muslim, and then we'll have a representative from the movie industry as well, and no, I think we could have at least two Arabs of each nationality if necessary, we already have three Andalusians (one of them could maybe be replaced by al-Kindi or similar).

A cool thing could maybe be to have Omar Sharif in, if anyone can find an old picture of him from Egypt, which would most likely be in the public domain.

As for the photo dimensions, I'll change them once we know who's going to be in the picture. The reason I mention the dimensions a lot is that the current format doesn't fit with any of the images used, portraits (and human faces for that matter) are usually made with the vertical side longer than the horizontal side, so having it backwards here only makes the images hard to crop, and we get partial heads and postage stamp edges, which looks, well, tacky. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of including Omar Sharif, however someone brought up that we should include another woman. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If were going to replace Zaide, we gotta replace her with a woman. We need at least 2 women in the frame. Chaldean (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I say we add Faten Hamama. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I say Faten Hamama, for the reasons mentioned before. By the way, copyright laws in relation to photos in most Arabic countries are quite generous, images published in Arabic countries are in the public domain as early as 10 to 25 years after publication in some countries, so it shouldn't be too hard to find images. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha, yes I know; When I was working on the Yasser Arafat article, I was able to upload several old and new photos of him. Just so you know, Egypt is 25 years and Lebanon is 50 years. These two would most likely cover any photo of Hamama. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For Syria it's 10, and for Iraq it's 5, almost insane! Funkynusayri (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to erase from your heads that any of these egyptians are going to be in some Arabs picture box, because they will always always be deleted. It's not the problem of the Egyptians that they are accomplished with nobel prizes and you can't find Arabs who are. It's time for you to leave us the hell alone. Bayoumi (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Most Egyptians are Arabs. Most Arabs are Arabised. It's pretty simple. Anyhow, shouldn't we have one more modern person in, so there's a 50/50 balance between modern and old? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

yada yada yada Any Egyptians and you can kiss it goodbye. the Wikipedia works by editing and agreement by everybody. You won't get it for that ever. Bayoumi (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bayoumi, comments like this are not helpful. Instead please try to work with others. However, I think we shouldn't add a second Egyptian. If where going to add Hamama, then we need to replace Nassir with an Penisulan (Saudi/Omani/Yemini) Arab. Chaldean (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, we should rather replace one of the ancient Andalusians with some modern person, so we have four old and four modern persons. I don't think having two persons of the same nationality is any problem. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamama is NOT going into the article. Bayoumi (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you explai why? What makes Egyptians different from say, Syrians, when it comes to "Arabness"? Funkynusayri (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do Syrians have their own article? is there a lot of Syrians who don't consider themselves Arabs like the Egyptians? Aren't the Syrians Semitic? Do they have famous groups like "Egyptian NOT Arab" with thousands of thousands of people[15]? In the cia world factbook they have there ethnic grup as Syrians and not Arabs? Egyptians are not arabs that's the myth, but i don't think that's true for the syrians. Bayoumi (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Egyptians only have their own ethnic article because a few Copts and Egyptian nationalists control the page. As for the Facebook group, and real life in general, the Egyptians claiming not to be Arabs seem to be Copts (they have a legitimate reason not to do so) and expatriats (they live in the west where it might be unfavourable to be cosidered an Arab). There is no reason to believe that most Muslim Egyptians in Egypt do so, you'd have to get us some credible sources to prove otherwise.

As for the CIA, they have Lebanon listed as 90% Arab, in spite of many Maronites objecting to this, so well, I wouldn't count on it. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In your head mabye because you're a typical arab nationlist and deeply threatned by the egyptians. There are many people mentioned on the Egypt Identity article who are all Muslims. I am a Muslim. Bayoumi (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Calm down, or you'll get banned soon. The country is officially the Arab Republic. It has to be proven with valid sources that most Egyptians don't consider themselves as Arabs, not the other way around. As for Syrians, that they spoke a Semitic language before they got Arabised is really irrelevant. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The conversation thats going on now is insane. Since when are Egytians not Arabs. Egypt is the population and political leader of the Arabs or at least it was for a long while. Anyway, no time for this very pointless conversation. Hamama should go in since she's a notable Arab Muslim woman, who cares where she's from as long as she's Arab. Yes, perhaps an Andalusian should be replaced by say Ibn Khaldun or Geber? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually scratch Ibn Khaldun is also Andalusian. Geber on the other hand is an Arab from the Azd tribe, who was born in Iran. Very famous I believe. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, i got confused. Who do you want changes in the image? I simply see the discussion got disted so lets bring some order. Whats the problem with the current slelction? Geber is someone who it's sad we haven't enter, but we dont have place. Making a 10 people image is not such a good idea. It's possible, but it wont be esthetic. And what's the problem with Ziad? An exellent poetess.

Also, we couldn't create a 30 something image (a representative for every nation in the Arabic league).

Bayoumi!!! I completely support the independence of Copts (who are the real ethnic Egyptians, and not Arabs), and of the Assyrians Syria, so cursing me a few days ago was really out of place. But most of the residents of todays Egypt are Arabs or a mixture beetwen Arabs and Egyptians who consider themselves Arabs. I'm not getting with you into this conversation, and yes i agree this majority of Arabs was reached by a violent occupation. But that doesn't change the simple demographical fact that today a majority of the residents of Egypt are Arabs. You wont change it by revert-warring and braking concensus. Shpakovich (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why some users are insisting in using contriversial people in the infobox. You guys are trying to use it to make a WP:POINT or even worse giving false impression like Christians somehow make up a large portion of the total Arab population. Chaldean (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Listen, I don't have a problem if Ziad stays or if she has to be replaced by Hamama. Lets not make everything "controversial". If we have to replace an Andalusian, then lets do it with Geber. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Me or you have not decided to make it contriversial, there is clear opposition, thus making it contriversial. Chaldean (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Whose the opposition? Unestablished users and anon editors? Who should we replace Ziad with? It has to be a notable Arab Muslim woman and not a singer. Hamama fits this perfectly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Two Egyptian Arabs and not a single Penisulan Arab would just not be right. I really think we should start from scratch and start with naming the criteria, or the goal of trying to make it as close to the objective as possible.
  • 4 modern, 4 ancient
  • no more then one Christian
  • at least 2 women
  • at least one from every wide-geographical area (that is at least one from Africa, at least one Leviant, at least one Mesopotamia, at least one penisulan)

I could be missing other criteria. I know this can be hard, but I think if we work together, we can do it. Funky and you mentioned Arab ethnically is beyond pure ethnicity, but rather culturally and lingustically. Well then the image should reflect that. Chaldean (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about...
Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan is deeply admiered by the people of the Gulf for giving back to the people. Chaldean (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum? Whatever everyone feels is right. I'm fine with either. We should also think about a cultural figure (a poet, actor, writer). --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good one too. Chaldean (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think either of these minor political leaders deserves to be included, with all due respect. -- Slacker (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. Do you have any suggestions of a well-known modern Arab? --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, i think were inventing to harsh critereas. The idea of 4 modern and 4 ancient is not so good. We have 3 modern, that seems enough. We kickincg someone who brings honout to the nation out just because he's old?

Another point. Some people here got insulted people from their countries werent entered. Guys, you can't enter a representetive for every country in the Arabic league. Lets make it Easier. Representetives of North Africa, Arabia, and the northen to Arabia region. But we've got representetives for every of those areas. If we'll start listening to all of those who say: "And what about this country?!" we will get in water we simply couldn't get out of. I propose to stay out of the discussion who come's fron where.

Third and last, religion. I avoided this discussion as far as i could to make a point that this article is about an ethnic group therefore religion should be kept out, but i can see people keep mentioning it, so lets bring some order. The majority in the image are Muslims? Yes. There are Christian representetives? Yes. Lets keep out of the numbers. I havent thought of it when making this image, and you to dont bother yourself with it. Besides, once Christianity was the biggest relegion among Arabs, so it brings a little history.

Guys, the current image seems just fine. I personaly dont see from where comes the urge to change it. The discussion on the image shouldn't be eternal, you know. Currently it is as nutral and as representetive as can get. Re opening the selection question will bring dozens of proposes and non will be selected. Shpakovich (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also going to say let's just leave it the way it is. -- Slacker (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad i'm not the only one who thinks so!!! People here just should imagine what would happen if the discussion will re-open. Nothing good anyway. Shpakovich (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, lets just pick out of these. Lets keep it 4 modern, 4 ancient as was formerly agreed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Mayy Ziade and Mahmoud Darwish. -- Slacker (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Anybody else object? Just say who you object to and no one try to drift off. If you don't want one or either of the above, say who you would replace him/her with. For Ziade, there is Faten Hamama and Warda Al-Jazairia (if we get a picture of her). Instead of Darwish, there is Nizar Qabbani. Also lets vote either Averroes (who may be contested) or al-Zahrawi. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just thought i'd suggest Naseem Hamed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We might have an image of Omar Sharif, if the guy who uploaded it could give it a proper copyright tag: [16] Funkynusayri (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I know it's been a couple of months, but I just read through the whole picture debate. Regarding the latest debate about Fatin Hamama Vs May Ziada; can I suggest three women neither Egyptian nor Christian and going out of the entertainment industry (which I believe Fairoz could represent quite well):
  • Lubna Khalid Al Qasimi, she may not be known very much outside of the UAE but she is a good example of a woman wearing the traditional abaya and becoming a minister in conservative state such as the UAE.
  • Zaha Hadid, internationally famous Architect.
  • Ghada al-Samman, one of the most prominent contemporary Arab writers.
  • Saddeka Arebi, real contemporary scientist with a PhD and peer-reviewed scholarly work.
  • Bushra Elfadil, In addition to being a poet, she is also Sudanese, so we have a black Arab too.

These are just a few suggestions. --Maha Odeh (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • We don't appear to have free pictures of any of them though. What about Asmahan? Then we'll have both Syrians and Druze represented, as well as a second woman. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes broken during the making of this image

  • "...Arabs are terrorists who murder others..." - Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, the father of modern surgery, made inventions that saved dozens of millions.
  • "...Arabs are relegious fanatics..." - Averroes is a founding father of secular thought.
  • "...Arabs are primitive..." - Ibn al-Haytham.
  • "...Arab leaders are megalomaniacs..." - Abd-ar-Rahman III control the Arabic empire at his peak, yet he was liberal towards his people and never became megalomaniac.

The idea of the image is to represent a nation. The image we created represents Arabs in a good way! Unlike the stereotype, here we show how they contributed to the world.

I'm not an Arab, i'm Russian by father and Jewish by mother, and a supporter of Zionism. But i was always anoyyed when i heard stereotypes on Arabs, simply because i knew how false they were and how underated this narion is. Shpakovich (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whats your point?Tourskin (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the image brakes stereotypes and that is it's most important function. Shpakovich (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's inappropriate to try to prove some point with the image, stereotypes exist about all peoples, and it's overkill to have eight people, so I think we should cut it down to four. We could Have Fairuz and Nasser as modern ones, and then one Andalusian and Philipus/or Abd-ar-Rahman III, or two Andalusians, or no Andalusians, since their ethnicities are continuously questioned. What does everyone else think? FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Shpakovich, as he had foreshadowed on a talk page of a sockpuppet account, was not allowed here in the first place as he was a sockpuppet account of barred user M.V.E.i. (at the time the image in question was uploaded). David873 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

    • There was consensus on the image, but I'll upload a new one when we've discussed who should be in it again. I think the more dubious Andalusians should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There were many people who took part in creating the image, and the selection was achieved as a concensus after a long discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are Arab Jews too

Why did you NOT include Judaism as a religion beside Christianity and Islam ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It used to be there, don't know what happened. You can add it if you like. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it if i were you. The Jews from the Arabic states dont consider themselves as ethnic Arabs, so entering them here would be really controversial. Shpakovich (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The damage was done when the Arab nationalists of the 1950s and 1960s seemed to do their best to declare that the identities of "Arab" and "Jew" were incompatible, with results such as the anti-Jewish pogrom in Libya in 1967, when pretty much all the Jews were tossed out of Libya, even though few of them had any particular connection to Israel, and most of them were Libyan citizens without other citizenship (in fact, there had been Jews in Libya before there were any Arabs in Libya). When the population of Jews in Arab-ruled lands was reduced from over 800,000 to less than 10,000 in about 25 years (with over half the remainder now living in the single country of Morrocco), rhetoric about "Arab Jews" rings kind of hollow... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exacly!!! I know many Jews from Lybia and they told that the massacare was surprising and cruel. Infact, such massacars accured in all arabic states after 47'. Thats why in Israel most of the Jews from the Arabic states are politicaly right and they were the once who said the famous sentence: "Arabs can't be trusted. We know". People who lived in those states before the Arabs invaded there were expelled (for example, Egypt. Jews lived their since the time Egyptian controlled there, before the Arabs invaded. Sane thing in north Africa, the Carthagu kingdom). Shpakovich (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying is correct. Jews lived in prosperity and their people flourished during Muslim rule, many becoming philosophers, members of government, doctors and musicians. While the Crusaders massacred the Jews of Jerusalem, Saladin ordered they return. Also, Arabs and Jews both suffered during the Inquisition. Only until Zionism emerged and the new Jewish want for a state in Palestine did this Jew-Arab rift occur. Only after the Arabs lost wars to Israel, did this pan-Arab dislike of Jews occur. Jews from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, the Levant and even Egypt are Arabs by language and strikingly similar culture, as well as appearance. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The overall Islamic civilization of past eras certainly somewhat successfully accomodated Jews during several historical periods over a number of centuries. However the Arab nationalism of the 20th-century (you know, the movement inspired by Antonious, Aflaq etc.) conspicuously failed to find any real way of accomodating Jews -- and this article is about Arabs specifically, not about general Islamic civilization. Without attempting to simplistically cast blame on anybody (and while freely admitting that there were both "pull" and "push" factors in the Jewish exodus from Arab lands), it's still true that the overall main reason why most Jews left Arab countries was because they didn't have any confidence that they would be secure from mob attacks and arbitrary oppressive government action. Why did Jews have no confidence that that they would be secure from mob attacks and arbitrary oppressive government action? Because the majority of Arabs in those countries didn't consider Jews to be "real" Arabs, nor to be "real" fellow citizens of Arab states. The only leaders of any Arab state who have provided meaningful security guarantees to a real Jewish community (not just a pitiful remnant of a few old people) consistently over decades have been the Sultans of Morocco. So maybe Moroccans have a right to speak of "Arab Jews" in their country -- but in most other contexts, there are good reasons why many people are rather impatient with lofty abstract rhetoric about "Arab Jews". Such lofty abstract rhetoric ignores the fact that when the real crunch time came as to whether Arabs motivated by Arab nationalism would consider Jews to be fellow Arabs or not, most such Arabs motivated by Arab nationalism refused to consider Jews to be "real" Arabs. The consequences of the choices that were made 50 years ago can't be overturned merely by a little rhetoric at this late date... AnonMoos (talk) 06:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no way Jewish Wikipedians will allow any Jew to be one of the picture icon, so I don't know why where discussing this. Chaldean (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, they're talking about whether we should remove Judaism from the religions section of the infobox. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There are in fact some Jews that refer to themselves as "Arab Jews" today, whether they're enough to justify having Judaism in the infobox I don't know. Not a source, but interesting: [17]Funkynusayri (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If there are more Arabic-speaking Buddhists in Arab-ruled lands then there are Arabic-speaking Jews in Arab-ruled lands (not sure whether that's the case, but it's not unthinkable), then it might be time to remove "Judaism" from the religion listing in the infobox... AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Woah? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that...--Yolgnu (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Can you say with documented certainty that there are more Arabic-speaking Jews in Arab-ruled lands other than Morocco than there are Arabic-speaking Buddhists in Arab-ruled lands other than Morocco? It's by no means intuitively obvious to me that the Jewish number far exceeds the Buddhist number... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If Arabic isn't their first language, then they are irrelevant. And that's exactly the thing about these alleged Arab Jews, their first language is Arabic. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, their are almost no Arab Jews left. They are important as a historical ethnic group, though.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to remember that when Ladino-speaking Sephardim fled into the Arab world in 1492, they greatly outnumbered the local Arab Jewish populations, and assimilated many of them. Thus the traditional division of Jews between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, who never identified as Arabs. Of course some of the local Arab Jews resisted assimilation, but after their treatment in 1948 they stopped identifying as Arabs (those who stayed remained Arab Jews, but they only number ~7,000 - and a few prominent personalities descended from people who left also consider themselves Arab Jews, but there are very few). In fact, polls show that Israelis from Arab countries have a much more negative view of Arabs than Israeli Ashkenazim. So, since you have to identify as an Arab to be an Arab, and there are at the very most 10,000 Jews who do, and there are ~400,000,000 Arabs, I don't think they're significant enough to be listed in the infobox (the fact that there used to be quite a lot of Arab Jews is - rightly - discussed in the religions section at the bottom of the article). Anyway, it looks like we're all in agreement; we're not putting Judaism back into the box (aside from in the related ethnic groups section, which is not in dispute).--Yolgnu (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure the Ladino influence always operated as you portray it -- it's certainly not the case that all Jews descended from those who left Spain in 1492 always preferred Ladino over Arabic as their home language, and there were sizeable Jewish communities in some Arab lands (such as Yemen) which received almost no Spanish-Jewish influence or admixture at all... AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, before the question about who is a jew or not is discussed, please look at the definition of Arab in the article itself: An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on linguistic or cultural grounds. Since most Arab Jews doesn't consider themselves to be ethnic arabs it is irrelevant what kind of DNA they have. Fipplet (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

About the image in the infobox

The image has two serious problems.

  • Why is Gamal Abdel Nasser in the picture? Ethnic Egyptians are not Arabs and are sick and tired of being labelled as though they are. The serial marginalisation of ethnic Egyptians at both this talk page and the article itself must stop now.
  • The image was uploaded by a sockpuppet of M.V.E.i. who was blocked from editing at the time (the user has since been banned).

I invite all users to comment on the above points. In particular, strong arguments would need to be presented against the second point if the image is to stay. David873 (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Nasser was an Arab because he considered himself as one. Ever heard of Arab nationalism? It's pretty simple. You'd have to prove otherwise. As for who uploaded the image, it's irrelevant, since it was discussed on the talk page first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I thought that the image in the infobox is not a place for controversial ideas to be expressed nor implied. Yes, we all know that Nasser identified himself as an Arab; after all, he was a leader of the pan-Arab nationalism movement. Trouble is, he was from Egypt and most Egyptians back then and now do not see themselves as Arabs at all; many Egyptians take extreme offence at their being labelled Arabs. Indeed, no Egyptian Wikipedian in their right mind would allow a picture of Nasser to be used in an article such as Arab.
Also, how is the fact that a sockpuppet of a barred user uploaded the image in the first place not relevant? After all, a user that has been blocked from editing Wikipedia articles is, by definition, prohibited from editing Wikipedia articles for the duration of the block whether under the blocked account, another registered account or an IP account. David873 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Many of the people in the infobox are arguably not Arab. Fairuz is a Lebanese Christian, and most Lebanese Christians do not identify as Arabs. Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Abd-ar-Rahman III and Averroes were all arguably Spanish. And it's debated whether Ibn al-Haytham was Arab or Persian.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean we are going to have a long and heated debate about the question of Arab identity once more? It looks as though the article has been hijacked by nationalists. David873 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
David, you just said Nasser identified as Arab, and that's enough. That's what being Arab is all about, that's how ethnicity works, self-identification. I have no idea why Egyptians are always somehow supposed to be excluded from being Arab, when the same applies to them as to all other Arabised populations; they started speaking Arabic and identified as Arab afterwards (most, at least). It's that simple. Most current day Arab populations are Arabised. Yes, the original Arabs where from the Southern part of the Arabian peninsula, but all that is mentioned in the article, including the different definitions of Arab.
As for Fairuz, if she is known as an Arab, and identifies as one, well, then she is. The only Lebanese Christians who deny being Arab are Assyrians, for obvious reasons, and some Maronites, not all. It's up to anyone who don't believe Fairuz identifies as Arab to prove that she doesn't, not the other way around, same with everyone else listed here.
As for the Andalusians, I already said some of them should be replaced, but I don't get why they should be "Spanish" somehow. If they are to be excluded, it would be because they were Berbers or Iranians. See the discussion about images a few sections above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely. I raised my point to demonstrate that if we limit the criteria too much, nobody will be considered an Arab.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
So what do we do? Which Andalusians should go? FunkMonk (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Just tell me this, how on earth can anyone argue that Abd-ar-Rahman III was not an Arab when he was an Umayyad, i.e. from Quraish, how much more Arab can one be? I don't have a problem with replacing him I just don't understand why he would controversial. --Maha Odeh (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem to put him back in, I requested a new discussion of who should be in the image, and just put in a new image to get rid of that old one which looked bad and was conceived in an inappropriate manner. See FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There were many people creating the image, not just that sockpupet. The selection was also not his but one created in a long discussion as a concensus. Nasser was the head of the United Arab Republic, so here the Arab discussion on him ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

New image

I've made a new image for the infobox, but it isn't complete, it's missing the Andalusians, because I don't think they are "solid" Arabs. That could change, of course. I've put in John of Damascus and Harun al-Rashid as ancient figures instead. Two important figures of different religions. Last one should be a woman, so I've put in Al-Khansa. I've put in King Faisal I as one of the modern figures, he was cool, I have no idea why he wasn't proposed before. I considered Mahmoud Darwish, but his picture has questionable licensing, and isn't free. The rest are up for discussion too. We could maybe replace one of the modern females with Asmahan, since she was a Druze, and both the current women are Christians. For diversity's sake. Here's a version with Asmahan instead of Fairuz: [18] I recall that Fairuz sings in Syriac at mass in Lebanon, so who knows, she might not be appropriate here. Also, we already have Lebanese (as well as Palestinian) and Christians represented with Ziadeh, so a Syrian Druze would be nice.

Might be a problem that we don't have a regular Shia Muslim though. And again, removing Nasser would be beyond ridiculous, considering what the man stood for. (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. You cant just delete an image. Ibn al-Haytham and Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, two of the most contributing people in science history, you deleted them. You entered John of Damascus when it was clearly agreed to keep out relegion. You deleted Abd-ar-Rahman III who ruled an arabic Empire at it's peak. You deleted Averroes, one of the greatest thinkers ever. The previous image was reached after alot of discussion and a concensus it was hard to reach.With all respect to you meaning well, and it's obvious you are, lets keep the current concensus version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

  • It hasn't been deleted, just replaced, you can always revert back, but I wouldn't recommend it. The previous image was always problematic due to the uncertain ethnicities of the Andalusians (they were far overrepresented anyway), so I changed them, which should had been done eventually. Only Abd-ar-Rahman appears to have been "solid", rest could be either Arabs, Berbers or Persians, so better leave them out and put in some people that are Arabs for sure. We also needed an ancient woman. I assume you're the the user who was banned?
  • A new discussion should use the new image as a basis, since the old one can't be used anymore, due to the Nasser image having been deleted from Commons. So let's discuss who should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The old image should be because it's the base image. You can replace Nasser in the old image without problems. You removed the whole arabic contribution to sience, and you inserted John of Damascus when in the previous discussion it was agreed to keep relegion out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there should be four modern and four ancient persons included. Old image didn't take that into account, so it had to be changed. Second, the selection should be diverse, so four Andalusians is a very bad idea. Then there are the serious issues of the ethnicity of these Andalusians. Ibn al-Haytham was maybe a Persian, and Averroes may have been a Berber, making them bad choices, since we're not to choose whether they were Arabs in reality or not. I agree that we should have one Andalusian of undisputed Arab ancestry if one can be chosen, but that would be it. As for John of Damascus, there should preferably be one ancient Christian Arab, for the sake of diversity, and he being a saint is balanced by Harun al-Rashid being a Caliph. And last, but not least, the format of the old image was simply bad looking, with the images horizontally wide and vertically narrow, contrary to how portraits are usually cropped, so we get ugly stamp edges, too much empty space on the sides of each image, and too little air if any between the top and bottom edge of each image and the face of each person. Two of the images on the old version have also been deleted from Commons in the mean time. Therefore, we should not simply revert back to the old image under any circumstances, but find out how to improve the new one.
So what we should do now is find out which of the ancient people who should be replaced. There should be four modern Arabs, so none of them should be replaced by an ancient one, as was the case with the old image. One or two ancients should be women, meaning that al-Khansa should only be replaced by a woman. The current image is historically, religiously, and geographically diverse, which should be kept in mind when considering who to replace. I would prefer to have Abulcasis as the Andalusian, but we don't have a free picture of him anymore, but one could probably be found. Then we only have one Andalusian left, Abd-ar-Rahman III, but he would fill the same role as Harun al-Rashid, a Caliph, so the question is who of the two is "greater". FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I was asked my opinion by the IP and actually I approve of the new image and I don’t really care if John of Damascus is replaced by Abd ar−Rahman or Harun alRashid or kept. −−Al Ameer son (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I just replaced John of Damascus with al-Kindi, since he was more significant. I think Harun al-Rashid seems cooler than Abd ar−Rahman III, and the image we have of Rahman doesn't have any source info, so it'll probably be deleted anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No!!! You just removed one of the most (possibly the most) important Christian Arabs from the image! Reinstate him!! If you want to put in Al-Kindi, I'd suggest replacing Al-Khansa instead; she's the least important person in the image by far.--Yolgnu (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my concern was that Christians would be way overrepresented, since we already have Fairuz and May Ziadeh. Three out of eight Arab Christians here doesn't exactly correspond with reality. I was thinking of replacing the current image in the "Religions" section with the image of John of Damascus to kind of make up for it, though. As for replacing al-Khansaa, it's the same concern, that women would then be underrepresented. But of course, the combinations are infinite, many people could be replaced. Another combination from the top of my head could be Harun Rashid being replaced by John of Damascus, since we already have the "ruler" type represented in the infobox and a person affiliated with the Abbasid caliphate, and then Fairuz could be replaced by the Druze Asmahan or similar (not because she is more famous, but because it is unclear whether Fairuz considers herself an Arab or not, being a Maronite who sings in Aramaic and all that, and to have the Druze represented, who do identify as Arabs). FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Possible, religiously balanced alternative:
It has one ancient polytheistic emperor of generic "Syrian Arab" origin, one Christian polymath from Damascus who is also a saint, one Muslim polymath allegedly of Yemeni origin hailed as "the Arab philosopher", one ancient female poet who was a convert to Islam from paganism of Arabian origins, in the exact sense of the word, one modern Muslim king from what is Saudi Arabia today of great significance to modern history, one, not to say the, Muslim Arabist polictical leader from Egypt, one famous Druze actress and singer of Syrian/Lebanese origin who also played a historical role, and one significant Maronite feminist writer of Lebanese/Palestinian origin. That's pretty diverse, apart from all the women being short haired and there being two polymaths (which can't be a bad thing). What do people say? FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still unhappy about the inclusion of Al-Khaansa. Her article is tiny, and her image is very unflattering. There must be a more significant Arab Muslim female.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
But what do you think about the new image apart from her? If another Arab female can be found to substitute her it would be fine, but keep in mind that the significance of a person shouldn't be judged on the quality of their Wikipedia article! FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility would be an image of a pre-Islamic Arab, ie. one who never saw Mohammed. We've got to dispel the popular belief that Arabs only came into existence with the founding of Islam.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, Philip The Arab would already qualify for that. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! I guess I'm just not fully awake today. I'll comment on the new image tomorrow.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thoughts, anyone? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. There was also just a TV series about the life of Asmahan shown in the Arab world, which has probably made her even more popular among younger people. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The map about Arab population in the world

Arab population in Turkey is 870,000. Please fix this. And use some distinct colours for countries which have over 500,000 Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

About the "Map showing the Arab populations around the world"

I find it extremely biased and insulting. It is condescending towards Egyptians, non-Arab Lebanese and probably many other peoples. To put it simply, it labels the said peoples "Arab" as though there were no disputes regarding their respective ethnic identities.
By the way, Nasser clearly does not belong in the image in the infobox; the infobox is not a place for advancing political views. Many Egyptians are just sick and tired of having to put up with the irreversible and disgusting legacy that this pan-Arab nationalist leader has left. David873 (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Contact the user who created the map if you have isues with it. I preferred the language map myself, I don't know if the source for the new map is reliable. As for Nasser, again, saying he didn't identify as Arab is just silly. You'd have to come up with something better than just "he was Egyptian". Egyptian and Arab aren't mutually exclusive terms. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's what David's concern is. Rather, as other people have, he's expressing his concern over Nasser's controversial political views, which would make including him in the image a possible breach of NPOV.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If we removed Nasser, we could replace him with an Arab Jew - an important division of Arabs prior to the Second Exodus - but it'd be difficult to find a Jew who was indisputably Arab; Abu 'Afak and Huyayy ibn Akhtab certainly were, but their inclusion might raise objections.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you read David's other comments on this page, like here[19], you can see that his problem is simply that Nasser was Egyptian. As for an Arab Jew, it's a good idea, but if we get problems now for having an Egyptian (arguably only from a small minority of Christian Egyptian nationalists), who most people in the world would consider Arabs, imagine what we we would get for putting in a Jew. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the Jew issue, but if anyone finds a historical Arab Jew who had strong pro-Arab feelings, it'd be nice to include them. As to David, we'll see what he says when he gets back.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I still agree, but an Arab Jew (who would most likely be a historical character) should preferably not replace a modern figure like Nasser, the balance between historical and modern persons should remain. To make everyone happy, we should maybe extend the number of people in the infobox. It has been done before, see Ashkenazi Jews. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's also been down at Sephardi Jews, but I think it's a bit overkill.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hah, some of the images there even seem to have been stretched. Aesthetics should be a factor too. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
FunkMonk, are you sure about your claim that "most people in the world would consider [Egyptians] Arabs"? If you have not already done so, try reading Egyptians and see for yourself what Egyptians tend to think about their ethnic identity.
As for Arab Jews, if their "Arabness" is not disputed, then I cannot see why an image of such a person cannot be included. On the contrary, if there is even a slight dispute over this matter, then I am afraid that the answer is "no". David873 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Because many people would see including a picture of a Jew here as a somewhat disingenuous attempt to gloss over the conspicuous fact that the Arab nationalists of 50 years ago effectively declared through their actions that the status of Arab and Jew are incompatible. That was one big reason (not the only reason, of course), why the population of Jews in Arab ruled lands went from over 750,000 to less than 10,000 in 20 years... AnonMoos (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The Egyptians article is a collection of one-sided POV controlled by the immensely nationalistic, yet Wiki-savvy, Zerida. It is useless as a credible reference. Arab and Egyptian are not mutually exclusive terms, an Egyptian who considers him/herself an Arab, is an Arab, end of story. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The article's actually quite reliable, now that User: Zerida and her sock User: Egyegy have been indefinitely blocked.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
They have? Well, then I should maybe go and take a look at the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Argh, pretty annoying that my block log is scarred from blocks that were results of edit wars with tag-teaming sock-puppets. I should have the log cleared, mayne! FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am an Arab and I like the picture, it represents me

I don't know why there are many people dont like the picture, it represents the variety of Arabs, old and modern eras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, who are these many people, apart from a guy who got banned? FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Arab infobox.jpg

the image in the infobox .. they all don't look like Semitic people with exception of Al-Kindi, Faisal and Harun al-Rashid.--AhmadinVV (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • What the heck are you talking about? Semitic is a language group, you cannot "look Semitic". FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the semitic people are different from all other races and it is easy to know them, see this article [20].. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Eh, you're using a random forum-post by some anonymous poster as proof? There is variation in any given population, of course there can be said to be an "average" look, but that hardly excludes exceptions. Don't try to convince me that all people who speak a Semitic language are supposed to look identical if you want me to take you seriously. The average Semitic speaking Iraqi would look more like the average Indo-European speaking Iranian than like his fellow Semitic speaking Omani or Ethiopian. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5
  1. ^ Princeton Wordnet definition of Arab].