Talk:Arabs/Archive 11

Proposal
Of all the sources mentioned so far, including the 5    cited in the article, the one that directly supports the statement "the Arabs as an ethnic group" does so only when groups are selected based on ethno-linguistic classifications.

Another source that describes the Arabs as an ethnolinguistic group is by Karl Yambert.

Don't you think that, as well as being attributable to RS, "ethnolinguistic group" is a more succinct way to describe the Arabs ?

M.Bitton (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

M.Bitton, ethnolinguistic indeed seems more succinct and accurate. Soupforone (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ethnolinguistic it can include Brazilians but not Arabs who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences. Just like ethnic group criteria.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. There are shared genealogical traditions, so ethnic group is okay too I suppose. Soupforone (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The ethnic group question has been discussed to death with nothing more than exhaustion to show for it at the end. The reason is twofold, one: the lack of reliable sources supporting the statement, and two: the fact that ethnic group is open to interpretation, not just by the layperson but by scholars too.


 * The main idea behind this proposal was to break away from that circle by concentrating solely on what is directly supported by the RS. So far. we have two sources supporting "ethnolinguistic" and none whatsoever supporting "ethnic". M.Bitton (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ethnolinguistic" is a term I don't often see being used explicitly and it would exclude the self-identity factor as well as other unifying factors, be they shared genealogical traditions (even if these traditions were to be mostly myth), and cultural, religious and political ties. I understand there are objections to Arab ethnicity being raised here (even though there's a firestorm at nearly every page about the various peoples of the Middle East) but we shouldn't follow a double standard with Arabs as opposed to other peoples where language is a major unifying factor. As one of the sources (Mona Ennaji) listed above illustrates, there are two schools of scholarship when it comes to ethnicity: the first considers language to be the primary driver of ethnic identity and the other denies links between ethnicity and language. If we were to apply the latter here, it should be a part of a much larger discussion about what constitutes an ethnic group on Wikipedia, not decided here solely for the Arabs. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Describing them as an ethnolinguistic group doesn't have to exclude anything. We can easily describe them as "an ethnolinguistic group with a shared Islamic heritage.." (as per the second source above), add whatever the reliable sources consider to be a unifying factor among Arabs and still adhere to WP's content policies. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

M.Bitton, ethnic group is indeed intrinsic in the ethnolinguistic portmanteau, and thus so are the shared genealogical traditions. The other conflation, language (linguistic), seems to be the main uncertainty. Soupforone (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton Considering there are millions of indigenous Arabic-speaking Christians in the Arab World, adding such a statement as "a shared Islamic heritage", is not only inflammatory but also unforgivably asinine. George Al-Shami (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton, "an ethnolinguistic group with a shared Islamic heritage.." You made them an ethnoreligious group. In fact, there are millions of Arab Christians In addition there are Jews, and atheists, Arabs are multi-religious and non-religious. There are misunderstood to many people about the ethnic group, believe the gene should be 100%, but in this present world no longer are there, because religions made all peoples mixed with each other. However, there are a lot of people consider white, black and Arab they are race.


 * Definition of ethnic group:1234


 * Ethnic identity:


 * Ethnicity and ethnic groups – an explanation of these terms:


 * Ethnicity vs Race:23


 * Conclusion: Arabs are completely ethnic groups such as the French, Germans, Turks, Kurds etc. So we do not need to change it, even if this happened would come someone else says that Arabs are an ethnic group and not ethnolinguistic and bla bla bla...--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I obviously meant "Islamic cultural heritage" as I clearly referred to the previously quoted source. It was just an example to explain to Al Ameer son that describing the Arabs as an ethnolinguistic group doesn't have to exclude other unifying factors (whatever they may be).


 * @Marlo Jonesa: Your conclusion is based on nothing more than original research.


 * So far, we have:


 * Tertiary sources describing the Arabs as those whose language is Arabic, or members of the Semitic people of the Arabian Peninsula.
 * Secondary sources describing them as an ethnolinguistic group.
 * A secondary source stating that they are not a distinct ethnic group.
 * M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bit by bit I see that ethnolinguistic proposal is only an argument to replace ethnic group to ethnolinguistic, here we take standards of ethnic group just like Wikipedia and universal definition of ethnic group. When you're looking for a definition, you may jump these definitions:1 2. Than normal to find sources say that the Arabs are Arabic-speaking peoples because this is related to the Arab League, there are many people in the Arab world, such as the Kurds, Berbers, Assyrians, Somalis, Copts, etc who speak Arabic. If ethnic group criteria have changed in the Wikipedia, and include all ethnicities and then changed this to the Arabs. For example, Berbers, Kurds, Armenians, Turks, French or Germans if they became in Wikipedia "ethnolinguistic" so this will include Arabs but leaving all these and focus on the Arabs that is irrational and arbitrary.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're just repeating yourself without bringing a single reliable source to support your argument. How others are described is irrelevant to this article.
 * I ask you one more time not to remove the tag as it's meant to highlight the disputed "ethnic group" statement. M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what you're doing, what you did in this article is no good to pretend that the French people are the various individuals or groups of people associated with France (Unsourced). French people are an ethnic group and nation. Please Read ethnic group and nation. Obviously you are a new user on Wikipedia, I've added a lot of sources, see and if you want more, I'll bring as much as this number!.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * lol at the quality of your "sources". Some random made powerpoints and people with zero credentials. Just goes to show the sweat you must put to push your narrative. Like Bitton said, we should put the dubious part. GoulGoul1 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are two more reliable sources describing the Arabs as an ethnolinguistic group.

M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Al Ameer and Marlo Jonesa in that any push to change "ethnic group" to "ethnolinguistic" should be part of a wider Wikipedia discussion and not discussed and changed exclusively for the Arabs article. I understand the case M.Bitton is trying to make for "ethnolinguistic" (Unlike Germans and Italians, Arabic-speaking peoples are stretched over huge swaths of land over two continents, and without doing any academic research any layman could clearly see the diversity of physical/facial features from Morocco to Iraq, which along with other factors, lends itself to the idea of different races and ethnic sub-groups or groups), however I disagree with including "shared Islamic heritage" or "shared Islamic culture" in that this negates other influences (Byzantine/Christian heritage, especially in Syria) and further complicates the matter and lead; and I notice some cherry-picking for sources that include the "shared Islamic culture". I think the current sentence "Today, Arabs are mainly adherents of Islam, with sizable Christian minorities." is well-worded, NPOV/impartial, and encyclopedic. George Al-Shami (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support change to "ethno-linguistic" since that seems to be the description used by the preponderance of reliable sources discussing Arabs. I looked for sources talking of Arabs as an "ethnic group" and mostly came up only with specific sub-sets of Arabs (such as Israeli Arabs) or rather dubious and/or outdated sources. There is no requirement for consistency on this issue throughout Wikipedia; this article isn't impacted by whether or not Berbers, Kurds, French, Germans or whoever else may come to mind other than Arabs commonly are referred to as "ethnic groups" or "ethno-linguistic groups" in reliable sources. I seem to remember that there was a more general description of Arabs in the article earlier; might have to search the page history for that. Regarding "Islamic cultural heritage" I tend to agree with George Al-Shami. Huon (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The term that was used on this article for quite a time was "Pan ethnicity", until someone changed it without any good source referring to the term "ethnic". (Most likely this Hailes/Marlo guy)GoulGoul1 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * George, the article didn't use "ethnic" as the original term, it was "pan ethnicity" which was in use until there was an unjustified change with zero credible source to refer to the use of the term "ethnic". And just to answer Marlo, his equivalence with the Italians or the Germans to refer to "Arabs" as an ethnic group is a bad one. The different Germanic or Italic groups have more natural affinity with each other than the MENA region. I mean, I'm surprised I have to state the obvious here. A better equivalence would be to say that the different Semitic populations (For example, the Levantine based ones) form an ethnic group. A better analogy with the Arabs is the post Roman conquest situation.GoulGoul1 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know the article used "pan-ethnicity", I've been making edits on this article for more than 2 years; and I agreed with the former "pan-ethnicity"; and I don't mind "ethno-linguisitc" either, so long that it doesn't become a justification to add "Islamic cultural heritage" in describing all Arabic-speaking peoples in the lead paragraph. I got the impression that M.Bitton's proposal was a front to introduce pan-Islamist ideology or propaganda to the article, which would make it biased and unencylopedic. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Tentative support of simply replacing "ethnic group" with "ethno-linguistic" and nothing else; I don't support the addition of "Islamic cultural heritage" or "Islamic religious heritage" to describe all indigenous Arabic-speaking peoples, for the obvious reasons. If the proposing editor insists on adding the aforementioned quotes, then perhaps it's better to return to "pan-ethnicity". George Al-Shami (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * An Ethnolinguistics group is not the same as an ethnic group not even close. Pan-ethnic group was added by some editor overly fixated on race. There is nothing controversial in describing Arabs as an ethnic group which is how they are generally described in academic literature. As the the following cites suggest.     Jonney2000 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, it's a very controversial claim. (I don't think I need to remind you I come from a country who had lots of unrest because of these types of questions) Using the term "ethnic" makes several assumptions about the different regions of the MENA and its peoples, ignoring that some people have different ways of defining themselves and who they are. We already have enough trouble trying to convince some people that their regions is influenced by Arabic culture and you want to tell them they're "ethnic" Arabs, also ? (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support change to "ethno-linguistic" for all the reasons stated above. As for 's baseless concerns, I believe they have already been adequately addressed. I'm not aware of anyone wanting, let alone insisting on adding the quotes to the article.
 * I'd like to take this opportunity to ask, and  whether they agree with the change. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I support the change.GoulGoul1 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - less value-laden "ethno-linguistic". Soupforone (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Language, shared space, self-identity, and other factors all render Arabs an ethnic group. As I stated previously and per some of the sample sources I quoted in earlier threads, it is not strange for Arabs to have additional, overlapping ethnic identities such as Egyptian, Levantine, Maghrebi, etc. I'm quite aware that every subregion has its own particularities and that an Arab in Tunisia and an Arab in Syria have differences in appearance, dialect, food, etc., but that doesn't eliminate a shared sense of identity. However, for the time being, I'm not totally against ethnolinguistic or even just "people", both of which are better than "panethnicity" (whatever that means), and I don't plan to spend much more time on the matter anytime soon, should a consensus favor the proposed term. That being said, just as "ethnolinguistic" is supposed to ease the concerns of some native Arabic speakers who may not ethnically identify as Arabs, mixed views on Arab identity should also be mentioned, as many, if not most, native Arabic speakers indeed self-identify as Arabs, while others do not. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per much of Al Ameer arguments.--Jobas (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Al Ameer son, ethnic group unrelated to physical appearance or even genes, is a group of people who share language, culture, self-definition and customs but an ethno-linguistic is any person speaks Arabic is an Arab. Neutral to both sides be described Arabs, are a "people", "group of people" or "a member of a Semitic people"--Wmdly (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * So does that make Europeans a single ethnic group ? Most Europeans I know identify as Europeans (With whatever other identity they have), does that make them into a single ethnicity ? You yourself said it, the MENA is a very diverse region in several ways, with different histories and peoples. Just asking, seriously. And what do you consider to be unclear in the term "pan ethnicity"? The way I understand it, it refers to different populations who are more or less related. (Or in other words, several ethnic groups) By the way, it's funny how you suddenly want to present alternative views on what constitutes arabism when I was the first one to propose it, somehow when things don't enter in your narative you want to show some "diversity" ?  Why didn't you bother answering me when I made this suggestion ?GoulGoul1 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparing Europeans and Arabs is apples and oranges. In Switzerland and the Netherlands, people don't ethnically identify as "European", they identify as Dutch, Flemish, Italian, German, Moroccan, Turkish, etc. Just as people in Iraq ethnically identify as Arab, Turkmen, Kurdish, Assyrian, etc. I prefer "ethnic group" as the more apt term for Arabs and believe "ethnolinguistic" to be unnecessarily splitting hairs, since language itself is the driver of ethnicity, at least according to one of the two major views of what constitutes ethnicity. This is not my "narrative". The standard, at least of the recent past, was that Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian were nationalities while Arab, Assyrian, Circassian, Turkmen, were ethnicities. If all those other groups are ethnicities based on their native language, self-identity, etc, then what does that make the Arabs, who speak Arabic as their only mother tongue and identify as Arabs? I'm more than willing to discuss and find solutions for the question proposed, but I'm not interested in your side questions. In your view this is a discussion about Arabism, Syrianism, Maghrebism, etc. when it is not. Most of the little time you've been around here has been spent on this and other talk pages pushing your view and asking others personal questions about their own political views. Together with snarky comments like "your ideas are based on mud", "your friend [Gamal Abdel] Nasser", "funny how you suddenly want to present alternative views" and your general confrontational manner make it clear to me that you're not an editor, but a troll. This is not the place for soapboxing. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not apples and oranges. If I talked about a specific people among the MENA region and tried to compare them to the whole of Europeans, then the equivalence would fail. I specifically compared a vast region which is known as the “Middle East and North African” (In case you weren’t aware, two continents) to the European continent, both of these tend to be inhabited by several peoples with highly different cultures. You can’t expect me to take the idea that a Moroccan, a Saudi, Sudanese and a Lebanese share the same culture. They may share a heritage that is in part Islamic and in part Arabist, but the cultures are pretty divergent. The area didn’t begin to exist in the 7 th century, it was just a layer among the other ones that preceded it. The same can be said for Europeans in regards of Christianity. (And especially the Latin/catholic one) And the vast majority of people from the MENA don’t identify as “Arabs” first, they identify with their nationality, the same way Europeans do. I never saw anybody who said he was “Arab” before saying he was Lebanese (Or other states in the area), especially when you consider that “Arab” as a term is ambiguous as to which part of the MENA it refers to. Again, I think you need to re read what I actually said. I didn’t say that “European” referred to an ethnic group, I said it referred to some shared heritage where people identify with, in addition to their nation state. A French man considers himself first French, but he also sees himself as part of the European framework. That’s the idea I was trying to get across. In regards of your Iraq example, several people in Iraq are actually of Arabian background, so I don’t see what’s surprising that they would identify as such. (Although you would need to specify which part of Iraq you’re referring to) If we were to accept your ethnicity claim (with obvious serious and credible sources, not pan Arab ones or whatever your friend Hailes was spamming not so long ago), it wouldn’t be neutral and gives a partial portrait of the area. We would have to specify the other forms of identification that people may identify with and that this idea of language=ethnicity isn’t nec. accepted by everyone in the region. And what standard are you referring to ? Can you honestly show me historical documents which show without doubt that people, before the nations were put in place, identified as Arabs ? I have the feeling that they didn’t bother with such questions because most people would have just concentred on their daily lives and their religious grouping more than anything else, at least, the Ottomans grouped people based on religion, no ? “If all those other groups are ethnicities based on their native language, self-identity, etc, then what does that make the Arabs, who speak Arabic as their only mother tongue and identify as Arabs?” False equivalence, the Circassians et all didn’t need identity merchants from the Levant to tell them who they were. The fact that this discussion is opposing two groups who are mainly from the MENA region is enough proof to show that this isn’t as simple as you’re trying to make it to be.
 * “In your view this is a discussion about Arabism, Syrianism, Maghrebism, etc. when it is not.”Yes, it is. Here’s a resume of why you’re wrong : A Maghrebi nationalist thinks of himself as distinct from other regions which speak a variant of Arabic, he emphasizes his North African appearance above all. His interests are North African first, he doesn’t believe he has anything to do with other peoples. A Syrianist thinks of Syria first, he thinks that he has own heritage and emphasizes his Syrian identity, the Arab one being irrelevant or he just doesn’t care about it in general. I know people from both groups and it’s pretty clear on what they consider themselves to be or not to be. Now, do you see why I have been emphasizing that we should present other views of identification and why trying to group every Arabic speaking person (Whatever the variant) as an ethnic Arab cannot and will not be considered good ?
 * “In your view this is a discussion about Arabism, Syrianism, Maghrebism, etc. when it is not.”Yes, it is. Here’s a resume of why you’re wrong : A Maghrebi nationalist thinks of himself as distinct from other regions which speak a variant of Arabic, he emphasizes his North African appearance above all. His interests are North African first, he doesn’t believe he has anything to do with other peoples. A Syrianist thinks of Syria first, he thinks that he has own heritage and emphasizes his Syrian identity, the Arab one being irrelevant or he just doesn’t care about it in general. I know people from both groups and it’s pretty clear on what they consider themselves to be or not to be. Now, do you see why I have been emphasizing that we should present other views of identification and why trying to group every Arabic speaking person (Whatever the variant) as an ethnic Arab cannot and will not be considered good ?


 * “Most of the little time you've been around here has been spent on this and other talk pages pushing your view and asking others personal questions about their own political views.”
 * Quite ironic. My views for this page were always clear : I don’t refuse a common heritage like how I explained it to be, but I refuse that this categorization of spoken variants of Arabic=ethnicity. My approach was always of neutrality and compromise, unlike yours where you’re trying to shove down every person’s throats your idea that they should all consider themselves X because you decided so. My questions for political stuff were always on other people’s personal pages, which to be honest, I’m not aware if I’m allowed to or not, but if it’s not, I will stop.
 * “Together with snarky comments like "your ideas are based on mud"”
 * They are. I had to go through your sources and verify your claims and several of them only partially passed the test. The author claims something about North African questions of identity in regards of the whole Berber/Arabist question and you somehow (I don’t know how) take this as a proof of pan Arab ethnicity when the author didn’t ever say this. My comment about Nasser was about you having his image on your profile (I assume you share sympathy with him, right ?
 * “but a troll.”
 * Talking about troll, where is this Hailes/Marlo/and all the other alternate accounts he’s been creating ? I heard he tried to cheat the voting system by transferring the people from Arabic wiki to here. If you actually have anything against me, you’re free to report them.GoulGoul1 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ethnolinguistic" is not meant to ease the concerns of any particular group. The only reason I suggested it is because, unlike "ethnic" and "pan-ethnicity", it complies with WP's content policies. M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with ethnolinguistic is it that on Wikipedia there is a POV that Arab identity is solely based on language. An argument that is always unsourced but pops up all over the place such as at Category:Arab. “The word Arab is most commonly used to refer to any person of the Middle East or North Africa whose mother tongue is the Arabic language.”Jonney2000 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On what else would you put it ? The earliest nationalist movements relied heavily on language and this explains why we're today using MSA and not the spoken variants. There was specific local movements that went against Arab nationalist movements that wanted to standardize these local variants as a way to definitely cut off any sort of link. This explains why language is such a hot topic that can always blow up. Anyway, here's Britannica's take on it : "Arab, Arabic singular masculine ʿArabī, singular feminine ʿArabiyyah, plural ʿArab, one whose native language is Arabic." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arab


 * If you go on the CIA "The World Factbook", for the Algerian page, "Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1%
 * note: although almost all Algerians are Berber in origin (not Arab), only a minority identify themselves as Berber, about 15% of the total population; these people live mostly in the mountainous region of Kabylie east of Algiers; the Berbers are also Muslim but identify with their Berber rather than Arab cultural heritage; Berbers have long agitated, sometimes violently, for autonomy; the government is unlikely to grant autonomy but has offered to begin sponsoring teaching Berber language in schools."


 * So according to this website, it doesn't seem to distinguish between the North African varieties of spoken Arabic and their Amazigh counterparts. The essential difference between them are in language but both of them share an Islamic heritage, considering the big role that the Berbers played in North Africa and the general Arabic history one. (Batuta et all)


 * In other cases, the website usually specifies the very local fabric of the country and what are their exact relationship with the whole Arabism movement or in general, it just refers to the inhabitants by their nationality.


 * "Shared language is generally recognised as one of the defining characteristics of Arabs. The word "Arab" may be derived from a verb which means to "speak clearly" (i.e. be easily understood by other Arabs). However, many Arabs speak local dialects which are not always mutually intelligible."
 * http://al-bab.com/albab-orig/albab/arab/arabs.htm


 * Others, like Bernard Lewis, consider "Arab" as a social term when trying to define what exactly is an Arab in today's age.


 * The very Arab nationalists placed a heavy emphasis on language and said something of the sort : An Arab is someone who speaks Arabic and identifies with the Arab cause (I'm taking this from memory)


 * Nowhere did I ever read them mention ethnic, it was always a movement to counter imperalists powers when areas like the Levant were still stuck under occupation, so it reflects the reality of these people more than anything else in their very time. I could get you the exact quotes if you want.GoulGoul1 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Coming to this as a complete outsider (neither an Arab nor an Arabist nor ever having been closer to Arab lands than Istanbul), and having read through the entire discussion above, I'd like to make a few suggestions:

First, the terms "ethnic" and "ethnicity," as used in various academic traditions and disciplines do not have a common and agreed-on meaning — modern or not. I am an anthropologist, and just within my discipline there exist at least four markedly different approaches to these terms (one of them claiming that culture, history, language etc. are irrelevant to ethnic identity). In addition, the terms have in time acquired a vast and muddy halo of political meanings that make them hard to handle in the present context.

Conclusion: We cannot, for the purposes of this article, decide whether or not "Arab" is an ethnic identity without specifying what we mean by ethnic identity in the first place. That might make for some heavy (and not necessarily relevant) reading.

Secondly, what other alternatives are there? There is the old German diffusionist term "Kulturkreis," roughly "culture region," but it's not exactly in vogue these days. How about "region"? "A regional identity"? It's used about Europe, but mostly, I think, in EU-kinds of contexts — not quite what we want? The comparison with Europe is interesting, though. Of course it's a limited comparison: e.g. Europe has not, since the Middle Ages, had a common language (Latin, and even that was only shared by a Western European elite). Nevertheless, the two cases have a lot in common. So what do we call social phenomena such as "European" or "Arab"? Ethnicity really isn't the word. We're talking about meta-ethnicities, like but unlike the old, multi-national empires. There ought to be an agreed-on name for it, but I don't think there is.

But, thirdly, maybe the important thing here isn't exactly what term we use, but how we use it. If we assert, first, that Arabs are an "ethnolinguistic" group or a "culture region," or an "ethnicity," or, for that matter, a "group of people," and then go straight on to say what this does and does not mean, in terms of regional fragmentation and linguistic, religious, cultural, political etc. variation, I think it should be possible to accomodate most if not all of the divergent (but still often seemingly (to an outsider) legitimate) opinions above... Filursiax (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It has also a very much a ideological component to it. Several of the users (Myself included) come from the Middle East or North Africa and have very diverging views of how the future of the region should look like. So it's as much a battle of nationalism/ideologies(Call it whatever you want) I would be lying if I said I came here with a neutral view, I don't. I come from a minority Islamic community in the Levant and my views reflect of this particular personnal situation of mine and the community from which I come from as I experienced it. One thing is clear, "Ethnic", as it is being applied to such a wide variety of peoples from the MENA, (The speakers of Arabic variants) definitely doesn't pass the test. Something more akin to "share linguistic heritage", "shared cultural influence" (among the other layers that exist in the area) or anything else that might describe the region as it is without making assumptions about the inhabitants and how they chose to identify with would be a better outcome and a more realist one. If someone read this article, he would think that 400 millions Arabs' history is derived from the Arabian one, which is quite honestly, wrong and I don't think I need to explain why. GoulGoul1 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support change to "ethno-linguistic" for accuracy. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There are more than 400 million Arab people, how do you judge this delicate number? No right. The problem here is that those who are against the ethnic group are Berbers (M.Bitton, Soupforone and Altas), Kurds (2A1ZA), Armenians/Assyrians (GoulGoul1), Christians who believe that their origin is Greek or something else (George Al-Shami). The classification of the Arabs are a people or a population that is the best, impartial and suitable for all.--84.227.180.5 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop the ad hominem. There is nothing ethnically Kurdish about me anyway. And we in the civilized world, an emanation of which the Wikipedia is, work on the basis of sincere consideration of empiric facts, not along extremist POV narratives (e.g. "pan-Arab nationalist" narratives). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all I'm not Assyrian or Armenian, I'm Levantine Arab of muslim background. Second of all, you bring in a good point : How can we treat 400 millions of people as "ethnic" when this is clearly not the case ? No one is arguing against Arabism, we're arguing over what this definition of Arabism entails or doesn't entail. The saffest grounds which we can work on are linguistic ones. Anything beyond that is just conjectures and won't satisfy everyone (Like me) And this 2A1ZA guy is a YPG supporter living in Germany (Ethnic german most likely) not a Kurd.GoulGoul1 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Chinese are more than one billion but are classified as ethnic, all of the support that Arabs are an ethno-linguistic did not explain why and on what basis. Like I believe that the Arabs are an ethnic group because they sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like. But ethnolinguistic group is one of the types of group identity that defines membership of an ethnic group. Members are unified by a common language (and possibly script). The question is here, where is the rest of the Arab identity cultural, historical, identical, nationalist etc.. and customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society. Don't forget that culture is a strong factor among Arabs even stronger than language. Here I want to know every person who supports this proposal can you say what the ethnic group is defined by their views. Because the 95 percent of definitions say that the ethnic group "a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent." or An ‘ethnic group’ has been defined as a group that regards itself or is regarded by others as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics that will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community. Ethnicity is considered to be shared characteristics such as culture, language, religion, and traditions, which contribute to a person or group’s identity. Briefly ethnic group is linguistic-cultural. Like African Americans, they are an ethnic group, but by any standards, African language or African culture or African religion or, or.. Or Egyptians who are from different ethnicities, Arabs (Sa'idi, Bedouin, Arab-Berber, Lebanese, Syro-Lebanese) Ababda, Abazins, Ahamidat, Alhoarh, Beja, Berber, Bisharin, Circassians, Copts, El homaydat, Hedareb, Houara, Huteimi, Magyarab, Nubian, Roma (Gypsy), Turks, Kouloughlis etc).--84.227.13.20 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * “The Chinese are more than one billion but are classified as ethnic, all of the support that Arabs are an ethno-linguistic did not explain why and on what basis.”


 * I don’t care what the Chinese are or are not. And we already went through all of this already, go re read the whole thread. Here is Britannica’s definition of “Arab” : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arab


 * “Like I believe that the Arabs are an ethnic group because they sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.[6] But ethnolinguistic group is one of the types of group identity that defines membership of an ethnic group.”


 * The biggest common factors which unify the diverse Arabic speaking populations are the language. This is fact and this is what Arab nationalists have always said. Language is the identity of the Arabs. Go check what people like Al-Husri say, they think that what forms a national are based on linguistic factors (I myself disagree with this but that’s another topic)


 * And let’s go deeper into this : In what way are a Sudanese, a Moroccan, a Yemenite and a Lebanese culturally similar ? Each of these people have different cuisines, spoken languages (as opposed to the standard form) are different to the point where some are mutual un-intelligibility, have different traditional dresses, different history (At least, pre-Islamic), etc. You could say that they do share elements of Arabism which are common to these populations which for the most part is language and for some of them Sunni Muslim religion. Now that you bring up religion, am I not an Arab if I’m not a Sunni Muslim?


 * “The question is here, where is the rest of the Arab identity cultural, historical, identical, nationalist etc.. and customs, language, architecture, art, literature, music, dance, media, cuisine, dress, society.”


 * Historically speaking, the political unity that was in the MENA was not an Arab one but an Islamic one. The shared history among the region is Islamic and it was not only composed of Arabs either way in its foundations. Things like literature et all are derivatives of language so they pretty much fit in the ethno-linguistic category. If you’re going to enumerate buzzwords, give us examples : How is the Bedouin based society of Najd similar to the religious sectarian one of Lebanon ? How is the traditional dances of Yemen similar to the ones of one Dabke ? I don’t deny there are shared elements but I deny this idea of one homogenous block that Arab nationalists present when it has no basis whatsoever in reality if anyone is in any way remotely informed of the area.


 * “Don't forget that culture is a strong factor among Arabs even stronger than language”


 * Oh, is that so. Then why do virtually all Arab nationalists movements always have said that an Arab is someone who speaks some form of Arabic and identifies with the Arab cause ? Are you saying that they are liars and you know something thay they don’t ? Really, inform us here.


 * “Or Egyptians who are from different ethnicities, Arabs (Sa'idi, Bedouin, Arab-Berber, Lebanese, Syro-Lebanese) Ababda, Abazins, Ahamidat, Alhoarh, Beja, Berber, Bisharin, Circassians, Copts, El homaydat, Hedareb, Houara, Huteimi, Magyarab, Nubian, Roma (Gypsy), Turks, Kouloughlis etc)”


 * There are two defintions for Egyptians : One is the national based one and the other is the ethnic based one. A Bedouin in the Sinai is an Egyptian national but he is not an ethnic Egyptian Same goes for Berbers et all. Also, I think I need to remidn this, please re read the whole thread. We already went through the reasons why ethnic is not supported. I'm not in the mood to repreat verbatim something that has been already said several times now. If you have a new point which hasn't been discussed, you're free to say it but most of what you said has already been dealt with.GoulGoul1 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The change to ethnolinguistic group is nonsensical simply because, after all this discussion, the proposing side has failed to define the term academically the same way most of academia use it and to then explain why this term should be used when it is rarely if ever mentioned in other wiki pages about groups of people. And if academics use the term inconsistently, then it is better to assume the term has no solid meaning and ethnic group (the more commonly used term to refer to all groups of people who have language as part of their identity) should be used to refer to Arabs. CaliphoShah (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder that "ethnic" was not used on this article either, the term used was "pan ethnic" until a un explained changed to "ethnic" was made without dsicussing it with others. And where did we fail to provide anything ? Several links have been given which don't describe Arabs as an "Ethnic" group. Here's Britannica which describes "arab" as "Arabic speakers" : https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arab You yourself don't really provide any argument as to why "ethnic" should be used, you just say that we should "Assume" that "ethnic" should be used which isn't any better.GoulGoul1 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And there are several more links in the talk page referring to Arabs as an ethnic group. The fact that you referred to Britannica calling Arabs a people who speak Arabic instead of defining what an "ethnolingusitic group" is, shows that your side doesn't have a solid position when it comes to using the proposed term. You also have not addressed any points that I brought forward in my previous comment. Again, define the term academically the same way most of academia use it and then explain why this term should be used when it is rarely if ever mentioned in other wiki pages about groups of people. If academics themselves use the term inconsistently, than the term shouldn't be used either. Further ignoring of these very basic demands would show your proposing side to have no basis. I don't have to argue for a proposal of the term ethnic being used. The proposal section of the talk page is about using the term "ethnolinguistic". If you fail to show why "ethnolingusitic", a convoluted and inconsistent term, should be used, then your proposal fails. The burden of proof always rests on the side making the proposal. CaliphoShah (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * “And there are several more links in the talk page referring to Arabs as an ethnic group.”
 * Like ? Go on. That’s what we’re asking for over months. Several of these sources are of dubious quality and the ones which were acceptable always talked of “Ethnic” as a shared identity among the local regions between the non arab and arab populations we’re talking about in specific cases of the MENA. For example, one of the typical examples used in these sources was talking about identity politics in the Algerian/North African region and talked specifically about the North African case but the opposing side understood this as a general MENA case when it didn’t even remotely infer this. Just to be clear, this conversation has been going on for quite some time so it would be good to read the archives about it just to put you in context in case you didn’t already do this.
 * “The fact that you referred to Britannica calling Arabs a people who speak Arabic instead of defining what an "ethnolingusitic group" is, shows that your side doesn't have a solid position when it comes to using the proposed term.”
 * False. I’m not the one who proposed ethno linguistic, those are the other users. I can settle for something else that may seem acceptable to the opposing side if anything of quality is brought. What I’m arguing is against “ethnic”, I’m not the one who brought "ethno linguistic" in the first place. Again, like Britannica says it itself, an “arab” is anyone who speaks Arabic as his native language. It doesn’t make any more suggestion than this. If you speak Arabic as your first language, you’re an Arab. It doesn’t make the claim that Arabs are an “ethnic” group.
 * In regards of your academic part, “Arab” is barely itself a clear term. My whole point is this. Here’s another interesting article on the matter:  http://www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/Who_16629.html
 * In regards of your academic part, “Arab” is barely itself a clear term. My whole point is this. Here’s another interesting article on the matter:  http://www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/Who_16629.html


 * Again, just to be clear here : The original term that this article used was “pan ethnic” until an unexpected and unjustified change was made to “ethnic” and this is what started the whole conversation in the first place.GoulGoul1 (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * First, "ethnolingustic group" is a subset of "ethnic group". The other subsets being national, religious, racial and regional. Replying to my oppose comment in the talk when you're against any mention of "ethnic" and while taking the side of the "ethnolingusitic" argument (you did refer to that side as "we") indicates a severe contradiction. You have already stated that you have political agenda and bias in this debate. So one can assume there may be trolling: taking sides you don't even believe in. This section of the talk page is about a proposal to change ethnic group to "ethnolinguistic group". There are only two sides: those who want the change and those who don't. By saying you're not on any side and talking about "pan ethnic" being the original term shows you're trying to derail the discussion of proposal. You're right that Britannica doesn't make any more suggestion than claiming Arabs are people who speak Arabic as a native language. Hence why your referral to the link as evidence for the change to "ethnolinguistic group" is nonsensical. The definition and relevance of the term "ethnolingusitic group" are not self evident truths. The support's side refusal to define the term in the ways discussed before shows a big hole in the proposal. Again, the burden of proof is on the proposing side. Since you failed to show any good evidence and credible definitions, then your proposal is weak.


 * You can dance around the issue but it's not going to change the fact that defining what you are trying to propose is a must before any further discussion can be done about such proposal. And if you want to take a more consistent view regarding your position that ethnic shouldn't be used, then make a different proposal section. CaliphoShah (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)




 * First, "ethnolingustic group" is a subset of "ethnic group". The other subsets being national, religious, racial and regional. Replying to my oppose comment in the talk when you're against any mention of "ethnic" and while taking the side of the "ethnolingusitic" argument (you did refer to that side as "we") indicates a severe contradiction.


 * It’s not a contradiction. I oppose the change from “pan ethnic” to “ethnic” which was done without discussing it with others and which we have already gone through all the sources several of which never made the support to the change. The supporting side gave already an analysis of the issue and brought serious documentation about describing “arabs” as “ethno-linguistic” or if you prefer as people who speak Arabic. (Go look up what was brought by other users) Meanwhile, we’re still waiting a clear source which describes a Bedouin, a Yemenite, a Morocca, a Saudi, etc. as an ethnic group. One which doesn’t talk about identity politics in specific cases of the MENA but clearly refers to all these 400 million peoples as an “ethnic” group with a solid basis. There’s no point in turning around the pot here, you either show what your side has or hasn’t. Meanwhile, ethno-linguistic is fully supported. I can settle for something which clearly indicates that “Arabs” are an “ethnic group” because they’re “Arabic speakers” as their native language. (Putting aside the whole diglosia/linguistic situation in the area aside. Are Malthese Arabs by the way ? What about Jews? What about the considerable amount of Maronites who reject this? Etc.) I’m going to repeat it clearly so that it sticks : I OPPOSE the change to “ethnic” which was done without any basis, I can show support to whatever other positions the other side has as long as it describes correctly the region without making too many assumptions of how the peoples in the MENA deal with identity politics, which is far from being a settled issue.


 * “You have already stated that you have political agenda and bias in this debate.”
 * Yes. I’m not sure from what area you come from but in my case, identity politics were always a case a politics. I’m from the Levant for your own information and we had a civil war over this very issue. Identity politics are a political question. Nothing controversial about this here. You still find many people who dislike being identified as “Arab” even though the fit all the criteria of “ethnicity”.


 * “This section of the talk page is about a proposal to change ethnic group to "ethnolinguistic group"”
 * Don’t you read what I’m saying to you ? “Ethnic” itself has basis to be accepted. That’s what started the conversation in the first place. “Pan ethnic” was what was used for months on this article.
 * .”There are only two sides: those who want the change and those who don't. By saying you're not on any side and talking about "pan ethnic" being the original term shows you're trying to derail the discussion of proposal.”
 * I’m not derailing any discussion, I’m trying to find a middle ground which would settle the issue. This conversation is a continuation of what was started months ago.
 * I’m not entering any deeper in this, you’re just flavoring it with words when I already explained the issue at hand.
 * “You can dance around the issue but it's not going to change the fact that defining what you are trying to propose is a must before any further discussion can be done about such proposal. And if you want to take a more consistent view regarding your position that ethnic shouldn't be used, then make a different proposal section.”


 * Ethnic shouldn’t be used because nothing has been brought to support it in the first place. As simple as that. I don’t have to give any other reasons.


 * Here are other sources which play emphasis on the idea of language as the common factor in play : (And which Arab nationalists themselves have played an emphasis on)


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=INam9ClkQzUC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=rodriguez+2000:+175+arabs&source=bl&ots=bpKQfnOeMr&sig=CGCwls1FDMok2rdZkp2HDgHguQc&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdkd7QwKTUAhUg8YMKHcM0DncQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=rodriguez%202000%3A%20175%20arabs&f=false


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=F7BhBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&dq=the+high+cost+of+the+festivals+required+that+the+events+lure&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0_bKwxKTUAhWo6YMKHa1oA9AQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=the%20high%20cost%20of%20the%20festivals%20required%20that%20the%20events%20lure&f=false


 * http://al-bab.com/albab-orig/albab/arab/arabs.htm
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=8yBHo0I96a0C&pg=PA143&dq=this+revival+of+muslim+identity+is+apparent&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB1u-DxKTUAhWK7YMKHVRxD7EQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=this%20revival%20of%20muslim%20identity%20is%20apparent&f=falseGoulGoul1 (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You literally did say that you're on the proposing side by referring it as "we". You are either forgetting what you're saying, trolling or something else. No one can take your claims seriously when you're arguing for different sides. The proposing side has failed to define the term "ethnolinguistic group". It doesn't matter how many sources you bring up when there are no consistency among the sources, within academia and vis a vis the use of the term in the wiki page and others. Again, the burden of proof rests on the proposing side. That's how all arguments work. If one was to change the name "America" to "Unicorn land", one would have to show why the change should be done. It's not up to those who want the name America to remain the same to provide evidence, albeit they very well can. Your change, like someone proposing the name Unicorn, is appeal to fantasy to begin with. Ethnolingusitic group and the fixation of editors about it is a unique thing not seen before. This is probably the only instance where in a talk page people are obsessively trying to change an ethnic group solely to ethnolinguistic. So of course there will be those who will be very suspicious. The anthropology student in the talk page already raised good points against your side.


 * The claim that ethnic has no basis is also a contradiction. You stated that ethnolinguistic has good sources. And since ethnolinguistic group is a subset of ethnic grouping, you're saying that ethnic group has basis. What people here don't realize is that the claim ethnolingusitic group implies ethnic group. It's like how claiming to be a Virginian implies being American or how a Bengal tiger is part of the group tiger. X being subset of Y means all of X is in Y.


 * Last but not least, your political agenda is not welcomed in wikipedia. The brutality and tragedy of the Lebanese civil war does not matter. Facts are facts. Emotions don't play into the mix. If truth leads to another conflict, that is not the fault of facts. Take your political agenda out with you. It is good you have admitted again so that people now can have no doubt. CaliphoShah (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You’re just adding words without giving really anything in the first place. There’s no point in pushing this further anymore, other editors will have a look at the conversation and make their own best judgement. In regards of the political side of question, yes, like I already said, identity politics are heavily interlaced with ideology. (As can be said for Assyrians for example) I’m in a good position to judge this since, like I already said, nationalist movements have different ways of defining themselves and I experienced/meet several of them. Arab nationalists are one group among others. It has nothing to do with “emotions”, it has to do with post Ottoman state formations and people finding new ways of defining themselves. This article talks about Maronites as being Arabs but fails to mention that this is itself not a clear issue within these people. The same can be said of other groups. In case you didn’t notice, identity politics in the general MENA region are still alive and far from being resolved. (Arabo-berber vs Berber, etc.) But my arguing point on this article has been always based on scholarly sources, so it’s not like I invented anything in the first place. I already gave you several links which show my position on the issue. GoulGoul1 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your identity problems and the politics shouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. The fact that you can't let go of that ethnocentric political position when editing a wiki article is an issue. It's funny you're talking about "words that aren't giving anything real" because the term "ethnolingusitic group" is exactly just that. No one is denying that the term disputed is in scholarly sources. The issue is that the use of that term is inconsistent and people have failed to define the term and how is it any different from other terms. Furthermore, ethnolingustic, at the very least, is a subset of a larger set: ethnic group. So the whole fixation about that term should warrant a very solid definition, lots of consistency in sources and a good history of adaptation in Wikipedia. But it doesn't have any of that. But hey, you'll keep ignoring the very valid points brought forward since, like you admit, it's all personal to you. Having several links is meaningless if you can't make sense of them. Again, the fact that the proposing side fails to realize that ethnolinguistic group is a subset of ethnic group, i.e the two terms are not mutually exclusive, shows that it's irrelevant how many links you brought forward: it only matters if you can understand what's being said. CaliphoShah (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per -Plaxie (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Alhazen vs. giraffe?
Soupforone, your edit with the summery "restore al-jahiz kitab per talkpage" is quite odd considering the section above mainly discusses Arabia Petraea and the removal of the giraffe image, not swapping it with a more pertinent and informative image and description. Al-Jahiz's Book of Animals is a work of literature (see Arab culture template) and al-Jahiz himself is even described as a "prose writer and author of works of literature".

Let's say somehow it is fitting in the science subsection, I think we can agree that the image of Alhazen with the sourced description mentioning him as the "world's first true scientist" is far more prominent and informative. Tarook97 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can agree on that at all, one being an image by an actual Arab naturalist and the other a Polish illustrator's wild guess as to what someone might have looked like.


 * I also think it's unfortunate that you have removed a large chunk of cited content with your recent edits. It should be restored. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The image being a western depiction is not really a reason to remove it and its referenced description. If I remember correctly, you were quick to restore a German painter's wild guess in the Abbasid era section not too long ago. I think you're being both grumpy and biased. Tarook97 (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tarook97, Al-Jahiz was a polymath and his Kitab al-Hayawan is on wildlife and naturalist traditions . The discussion above also clearly pertains to both his kitab and the Arabia Petraea map. Soupforone (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, Alhazen too was a "polymath", except a quick glimpse at his page will show you that he was a scientist, the "world's first true scientist" actually, per the source you removed. Al-Jahiz, however, was a writer and "author of works of literature" and his Book of Animals (featuring the giraffe) is a work of literature, akin to the Book of Songs in the literature section.

Removing an image of arguably the greatest Arab scientist along with an informative and referenced description from the science subsection and replacing it with an image of a giraffe from a work of literature is frankly silly, IMO.

Seems like input from uninvolved editors is needed here. Tarook97 (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Al-Jahiz was a scientist as well. His kitab was an important scientific treatise on wildlife. Soupforone (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, Al-Jahiz seems to have been more prominent in literature than in science; I think perhaps his bio was better off in the literature section, especially since it is presently rather sparse by comparison. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. Soupforone (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox parameter
Infantom, an ip tried to append Jews to the infobox related parameter and to substitute therein Afroasiatic-speaking populations with certain Semitic-speaking populations. I've fixed it with the default parameter per our earlier discussion and per WP:NOCON on the ethnolinguistic/ethnic group matter. Soupforone (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you pinged me, but your edit seems fine. Infantom (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you first brought up that parameter. Soupforone (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your'e confusing me with someone else. I only removed Judaism from the infobox, as Jews living in the Arab World are not ethnically Arabs. Infantom (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the infobox related parameter I was referring to. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, don't be ignored before M.Bitton comes and puts the Talk:Arabs#Template_removal, the previous discussion has been unanimous on the ethnic group that you put it, which should return to the pre-M.Bitton version as per WP:NOCON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C680:DC0:BD42:40D1:4718:34E3 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no consensus on M.Bitton's ethnolinguistic/ethnic group suggestion. Per WP:NOCON, this means that the parameter should indicate other Afroasiatic-speaking peoples since that is what it indicated prior to the discussion . Soupforone (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Brazil
The 12 million figure ofr Brazil is just an speculation. The recourse conduced by IBGE found only 0.9% of white Brazilians claiming Arab ancestry, this would be less than 1 million people (200 million Brazilians). Xuxo (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They can have Arab ancestry without claiming it, and vice versa (the key word here is claim ). What's in the Infobox is the number of Brazilians estimated to have Arab ancestry (7 to 10 million for the Lebanese ancestry alone). M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources found different figures. Why did you remove the IBGE research, which is the official organization for demographics in Brazil, but kept other sources which do not even say how they have found 12 million descendants? The IBGE source needs to go back to the article. Xuxo (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because (as M. Bitton has explained clearly) there is a difference between having it and claiming it? Pinkbeast (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If people do not claim it, how can you know how many people have Arab ancestry? Less than 1 million Brazilians claimed Arab ancestry in the IBGE research, but you believe 12 million of them have that ancestry? Why would 90% of people hide such ancestry? Less than 150,000 Arabs immigrated to Brazil in the past one hundred years. 12 million descendants is an exageration (they do not even explain how they found such figure). Humans do not reproduce that much. Let's keep all the sources in the article. Xuxo (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be synthesis, essentially. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Less than 1 million Brazilians claimed Arab ancestry in the IBGE research. That's your misinterpretation of a primary source. All the IBGE did was publish the result of a survey undertaken in only 6 (out of 27) Brazilian states. It did not extrapolate the result to the entire Brazilian population, you did (your WP:OR will be removed). Had the question about the origin made it in the 2000 census, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but it didn't, and all we're left with are estimates.
 * The Brazilian scholar Silvia Ferabolli mentions the IBGE and 15 million Arabs:
 * Paul Amar attributes the 16 million to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
 * The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affair estimates the Brazilians with Lebanese ancestry at around 7 to 10 million, and those of Syrian origin at 4 million people. I haven't checked what it says about the other Arabs, but the figures so far seem to tally with those given by Paul Amar.
 * The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affair estimates the Brazilians with Lebanese ancestry at around 7 to 10 million, and those of Syrian origin at 4 million people. I haven't checked what it says about the other Arabs, but the figures so far seem to tally with those given by Paul Amar.
 * The Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affair estimates the Brazilians with Lebanese ancestry at around 7 to 10 million, and those of Syrian origin at 4 million people. I haven't checked what it says about the other Arabs, but the figures so far seem to tally with those given by Paul Amar.


 * M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your sources fail to explain how they found 12 million or 16 million or 20 million Arab-descendants in Brazil. They only cite the figures, without explaining the methods and calculations. Your sources come from Embassies and governments, which are not responsible for demographic analysis, as IBGE is. Governments often inflate numbers to boost international relations with foreign countries. These figures cannot be taken serious.


 * Only 140,000 Middle-Easterns migrated to Brazil from 1880 to 1969 It is impossible for 140,000 people produce 15 million descendants in one hundred years. This is basic Math. Only if they were rabbits, with each Arab couple having 300 kids. Even the Japanese came to Brazil in larger numbers.


 * I have another source, conducted by Simon Schwartzman, where only 0.48% of Brazilians reported their ancestry as "Arab" (quadro 6) This figure is similar to the 0.9% found in the other research of IBGE. I am from Brazil, we don't have all those Arabs here. Let's keep it real and cite all the sources. Xuxo (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, since there are no official figures, all we have to report are estimates (amongst which, we have 15 million attributed to the IBGE and 16 million attributed to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Governments often inflate numbers to boost international relations with foreign countries. That's just baseless speculation. I have no reason to believe that the Brazilian government is lying.

I have another source. That primary source tells us nothing about the topic. Your conclusion, based on your own interpretation of some data taken out of context, is inadmissible WP:OR.

I am from Brazil That doesn't add any value to your argument. Besides, and since it's important to you, Silvia Ferabolli is from Brazil too, and it's fair to assume, so is everyone who works for the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The difficulty here is that you are primarily producing sources for a different fact - what ancestry people claim, not what they have. People may not even be aware where all their great-great-grandparents were from, and even if they are, may not list every detail of their ancestry when asked (certainly the census here allows one only to pick one general category; I could only reflect Arab ancestry if the majority of my ancestors were Arabic, or pick some catch-all "mixed").
 * The figure of 140,000 you quote above seems to have three problems - that source also doesn't show working, it was obviously possible that Arabs emigrated to Brazil from places other than the Middle East, and your arithmetic omits to consider that Arabs might have children with non-Arabs (although even then there would be a curious discrepancy).
 * M. Bitton's sources appear good (and actually are describing the fact we are trying to establish) and it is notable that one of them has the IGBE agreeing with the conclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Somalia, Comoros, Mauritania
This article does not seem to mention that Somalia and Comoros are not ethnically Arab states. even though they are in the Arab League. Mauritania also has a large non-Arab African population, in addition to native Berber tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.61.218 (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, most inhabitants of the Arab League do not descend from the first Arabic speakers of the Arabian peninsula. It is groups like certain bedouins of the peninsula that do. Anyway, please see the finalized discussion above for the ethnolinguistic/ethnic group matter. Soupforone (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arabs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616060639/http://imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=574 to http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=574
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/journals/archive/am/00449202_ap030061.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ERA
IP 185.97.92.122 points out that this article has a mix of BCE/CE and BC/AD dates in it. They have changed uniformly to the latter, but I propose we use the former. There's a general unwritten rule on Wikipedia that when an article is closely related to a non-Christian people, we use BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. Of course there are many Christian Arabs, but most Arabs are Muslim. Our articles on Muhammad and Islam, for instance, both use CE dates. This article should too. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No complaint here, go ahead (as far as I'm concerned). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arab rulers
User Frasfras17/Viaros17 wants to add in the article that Arabs ruled much of the pre-islamic fertile crescent. Here is a link for the Wikipedia article and map of the fertile crescent, it’s quite easy to see that the fertile crescent was an area ruled by the Romans/Byzantines and the Parthians/Sasanians (more, they fought over 700 years while trying to control that area ...).

A quote from the Wikipedia article History of the Middle East :

« From the early 7th century BC and onwards, the Iranian Medes followed by Achaemenid Persia and other subsequent Iranian states empires dominated the region. In the 1st century BC, the expanding Roman Republic absorbed the whole Eastern Mediterranean, which included much of the Near East. The Eastern Roman Empire, today commonly known as the Byzantine Empire, ruling from the Balkans to the Euphrates, became increasingly defined by and dogmatic about Christianity, gradually creating religious rifts between the doctrines dictated by the establishment in Constantinople and believers in many parts of the Middle East. From the 3rd up to the course of the 7th century AD, the entire Middle East was dominated by the Byzantines and Sassanid Persia. From the 7th century, a new power was rising in the Middle East, that of Islam. The dominance of the Arabs came to a sudden end in the mid-11th century with the arrival of the Seljuq Turks. In the early 13th century, a new wave of invaders, the armies of the Mongol Empire, mainly Turkic, swept through the region. By the early 15th century, a new power had arisen in western Anatolia, the Ottoman emirs, linguistically Turkic and religiously Islamic, who in 1453 captured the Christian Byzantine capital of Constantinople and made themselves sultans. » Other opinions ?

There is also a minor issue with Tony Fadell, who is an Arab according to Viaros17, i confess that i don’t know that guy very well, so that if other contributors than me and Viaros17 think he is, it’s not a problem at all for me to add him as being an Arab, but the Wikipedia article says he’s American, there is only an unsourced category about American people of Lebanese descent ...

Any opinions ? —> Farawahar (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farawahar (talk • contribs) 12:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If you are uninformed about a certain topic, it's better not to comment. I've told you that the material in question are already sourced both in this article, and dozen times more in the respective articles of each. So why did not you bother to check them and spare me the trouble of re-iterating the same words again ?. You siad "Arabs were inhabitants of that area, not the rulers.", which is completely wrong and prove you know nothing about the topic. Much of the fertile crescent was indeed ruled by Arab dynasties even before Islam, albeit sometimes as vassals. Besides the Nabataeans who ruled the southern Levant, there were also the Royal family of Emesa, the Kingdom of Osroene, the kingdom of Characene and the Kingdom of Hatra.

Regarding the Royal family of Emesa, The Cambridge Ancient History says: "'Emesa in particular has the appearance of an Arab city. Its prosperity was certainly a recent event, and quite probably its foundation too. The base of the sedentary population was Aramaic, but the dynasty which governed the city until the Flavian period, and which continued to administer the sanctuary, was Arab.'" The same source regarding the Arab dynasty of Edessa: "The Arab principality of Edessa was one of the most ancient of those on the far side of the Euphrates, originating when an Arab dynasty took control of the Greek city of Edessa" Regardin Hatra britannica says:"In the 1st and 2nd centuries CE Hatra was ruled by a dynasty of Arabian princes whose written language was Aramaic, and it became known as Beit ʾElāhāʾ (“House of God”), a reference to the city’s numerous temples."

Finally the lebaese origin of Tony Fadell is well-known, even if the wikibidia article is not good enogh for you, you could have easly googled his name and saw for yourself. Viaros17 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

As i said above, the issue with Fadell is minor. As to the Arabs « ruling » the fertile crescent, i have no problem with saying something like « ruling the fertile crescent as client states of the Sasanians and the Byzantines. »—>Farawahar (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Farawahar Fair enough Viaros17 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Arab Jews
Why was the section on Arab Jews removed? This is a complicated topic, but deserves to be included. Jews have always been present in the Arab world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.61.218 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the only Arab government that has given Jews the more-or-less consistent protection needed for the long-term presence of a real community (not just a remnant of a few old people) ever since the 1950s is Morocco (though even there the current numbers are not too large). Just about every other Arab country has declared the incompatibility of Jewish and Arabic identities in practical terms by refusing protection or speeding expulsion.  It's a little late to try to reverse history now. AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. Its true that the Zionist-Arab conflict in Palestine reverberated across the Arab world, affecting the Arab Jews who were both Arab and Jewish but that did not mean Arab countries reject their right to be both. It was a reaction in the midst of war and it wasn't teh same in every country. Morocco and Lebanon never expelled or forced out their Jewish populations. It was the Lebanese civil War and the fact that most Jews lived in the area between Phalangist and PLO combat that saw the tiny Jewish community of 10,000 leave (although 200 or so remain) and Lebanese Jews often come back to visit. Also there are many groups and political forces (including, ironically enough, Hizbullah) who support the renovation of the old main Synagogue in Beirut which still stands, although the rest of the old Jewish neighborhoods are being threatened by developers affiliated with the pro-Western Hariri government seeking to renovate that entire part of Beirut to create shopping malls and high rises. Yemen Jews were airlifted a la Ethiopia decades later, with the connivance of the US, the Imam and Israel without any order of expulsion or persecution forcing Jews out. This is covered by israeli historians like Esther Meir Glitzenstein. Algeria the entire Jewish community was made French citizens as of 1870 and by the 1960s were so integrated to the Pied Noir community the vast majority left with the French in 1962. Egypt half the Jews were recent immigrants and part of the Mutamassirun communities that largely left in the wake of the 1952 revolution and the 1956 Suez invasion which saw unprovoked attack of aggression launched by Britain, France and Israel, leading to expulsion of British and French citizens (most of the Mutamassirun like the Greeks, Italians, Armenians and Jews held these citizenships) while the indigenous Karaite community came under intense pressure from Egypt-Israeli confrontations and underground operations like the Lavon Affair, the Suez war and the state of hostility culminating in the 1967 war. But Jews were never seen as alien by the ideological discourse of the Nasserist state, see Joel Beinin and Gilbert Achcar's work. Tunisia saw tensions but it still has a Jewish community that lives more or less well for all of the troubles imposed on it by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have turned down calls to emigrate. The only countries where Jews really were singled out and subjected to intense persecution and violence in the wake of the creation of Israel were Iraq, Syria and Libya. And even in these countries the Israelis were hardly innocent of just "protecting other Jews" as they knew there would be a backlash and were hoping to cynically reap the dividends of it to increase the Jewish population of the nascent state after the Jews for which it was founded were wiped out in the Holocaust. That does not erase the empirical reality that those Jewish communities (or most of them at any rate) spoke Arabic as their native language and followed an Arabic culture, with the usual regional variations and identified with it strongly. Many Iraqi Jews did try to maintain it upon arrival in Israel and many leftist Iraqi Jews joined forces with Palestinians remaining in Israel in leftist anti-Zionist parties like the Communist Party and the Black Panthers. So Arab Jewish idnetity is not something dictated by Arab states. It exists by virtue of those Jews who profess an Arabic language and cultural identity and identify with it. Some of these Jews still exist (in Morocco and Tunisia as well as Lebanon) and it is for them that Judaism should be included in the list of religions. 96.87.73.241 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Gastronomy?
Why is there a section called "gastronomy"? I've never seen any Wikipedia article use gastronomy to describe the section on a culture's cuisine. I'm gonna go ahead and change it to "Cuisine", but if there is a reason why it's called gastronomy, please do explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Roach (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just looked up what gastronomy meant, carry on. Dr Roach (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CivieleTechnicus (talk • contribs)

Geography of the Arab World
Arabs are people whose native language is Arabic. Any person who speaks Arabic as a native language is an Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.230.158 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

They primarily live in the Arab states in Western Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa and western Indian Ocean islands... But Mauritania in Western Africa?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:C680:DC0:B0EF:2C7B:7978:FAFB (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)