Talk:Arabs

Template:Troll warning

The cursed infobox

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

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

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

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

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

If the figures do not have a verifiable source, they should not be included, as per Wikipedia rules. The population statistics in the infobox did not appear to have a source, so they count as original research. Unless a source can be found, these statistics should be omitted.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 11:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, so let's say the infobox is one of the things we'll keep for the Wiki Project, then we can gather several sources there, and finally create a rock solid infobox. The CIA site might be a good start, though it has its flaws (especially on Egypt and Lebanon) Funkynusayri 11:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CIA statistics are laughable, especially on Egypt - since when has "Egyptian" been an ethnic group, and the number of black non-Arab people is more than under 1%! We should seek a more scholarly source.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly the same reason why I think it's flawed, so we might want to look at other encyclopedias as sources instead, at least when it comes to the controversial numbers. Funkynusayri 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased Pictures

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

I agree. This should be looked into, many pure Arabs are also Black. Shukran Wahaaab 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Arabs are not a race! And any racist discussion in the mideast is rather comical more than anything else. However, If you have photos feel free to add, simple as that! --Skatewalk 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mongoloid Arabs? Where? And by the way, the pictures are only used because they're the best ones available. The thing about Wikipedia is that we can't just use any copyrighted picture, so I mostly upload pictures with expired copyrights, and so far most of such pictures I could find depicted Arabs from the Fertile Crescent and such. Funkynusayri 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just let him say whatever he wants. When we see his exotic mongol Arab photos. then we have a talk!--Skatewalk 22:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Arabs are known for not being mongoliod. (Big eyes, high forheads and prominent Nose) is the common Arab features. How is that mongoliod. You know about genetics as much as I know about Dorsia. However, feel free to show us your photos of the exotic mongol Arabs and we will discuss that.--Skatewalk 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, on East Asian DNA in Arabs, yes, the Middle East is in Western Asia, but Central Asia is the "buffer zone" between the Middle East and "Mongoloid" East Asia, where you do find Caucasoid/Mongoloid mixtures (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, so on), but not in the Middle East. The genetic studies I have seen support this view. Anyhow, if they did have some slight East Asian admixture, how would this suddenly create bona fide Mongoloid Arabs? Here's a genetic map showing relatedness between populations: http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5202/dnatreexl5.gifFunkynusayri 22:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (To InternetHero)

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

Ok I get it, this guy is your stalker from your genetic edits!--Skatewalk 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, they usually turn up in legions... So expect more! But the point about black Arabs is valid, we could maybe add a single picture of some Sudanese Arabs, but not too many, most Arabs aren't black after all. Funkynusayri 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arabs are well known to be above this primitive color/race issues. Arabs come in every shade, I dont mind seing a Sudani in the article aslong as we dont end up having vandals sacking the page because we are using their African or Egyptian photo!, lets try to avoid issues that attract the vandals--Skatewalk 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, Hero, don't take it too seriously, I believe Wikipedia is too formal, so lame joking is often misunderstood. By the way, I'm still not sure about all the small tags used on the talk pages... Funkynusayri 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Improving the Arab article

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

Reconstruction Arab article

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

• Irqirq
• Arab League
• Juju78
• Smart_Viral
• Lanternix
• Xeljan

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

I don't think it's necessary to list a country of origin either, but I think I understand what motivates the request. We wouldn't want the Arab article to be built by editors only from one country because it might provide a country-centric definition. It would be good to have the input of as many Arab editors from as many different Arab countries as possible. But we also need the input of non-Arab editors and I agree with Al-Ahwaz that we can solve this problem by going through the article line by line to work towards NPOV, which means including all significant POVs which I hope all editors will work to try and understand and accommodate.Tiamat 16:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For those who are curious about my own origins, I'm a Palestinian who lives in Nazareth where the dominant language is still Arabic, even if we now hold Israeli citizenship. Tiamat 16:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No team and no country of origin. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Anyone can edit and classification in terms of ethnicity, nationality is highly discouraged. The project would be there and ANYONE is encouraged to participate as it is the case in ALL wikipedia projects. If there would be any attempt to make of the project a propaganda tool be it for or against Arabs or X, i'd not hesitate to fight hard to stop it. In parallel, POV pushers w/ agendas from both sides have no place here and if you don't believe me you can check User:Mariam83 and User:Serenesoulnyc block logs before that. So no agendas WP:NPOV and no sockpuppeting WP:SOCK would be permitted. Enjoy. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

no problem in a private team its more organized than public. <<Smart_Viral 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Which team are you talking about? I don't understand this issue of teams! Is this something new in wikipedia? You'll have Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab where ANYONE would join w/o telling us they are coming from Mars. That's personal info and this is Wikipedia. X is entitled to work enhance articles and everyone is a team themselves. I am saying it again, i'll be watching. That has never worked in Wikipedia and it will never work. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• For the record, I'm only half Arab (Lebanese). Funkynusayri 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Finkynusayri even If you are a half Arab. You are still qualified to edit Arab related articles. I was a long time reader before I became a member and I have seen your edits. For Faysal. Please be more aware the single person operation by each user on this article or talk page may lead to the lack of neutrality. anti-Arabs have engaged to join in a article to make chaos and effect its neutrality. Is that wikipedia?. No it do not think so. I agree that a team is not something that are regular on wikipedia but in case of emergency its needed like now. Everyone who have interested on this may join, offcourse this team is not permanent. Thanks Irqirq 18:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A Jew, an African, a Chinese, a German, a Russian, a Brazilian, an Iranian and anyone else is entitled to edit articles on the Arab world, providing they give a positive contribution that does not breach Wikipedia rules. I've been bullied for contributing to articles related to Iran because I am not Persian. I don't think it is good to generate the same air on Arab-related articles.

I think Irqirq was being genuine in his efforts to improve the article, but I fear that requiring the listing of nationalities to achieve "balance" is erroneous. Nationality is irrelevant. An Iraqi can be Arab, Kurd, Turkoman, etc, a male or a female, a liberal or a Baathi, Shi'a, Sunni, Christian or Jew. The same applies for all Arab countries. A mix of nationalities proves nothing when attempting to achieve NPOV.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Finkynusayri even If you are a half Arab. You are still qualified to edit Arab related articles. — So, since when did it become forbidden of non-Arabs to edit Arabic related articles, Mr. Jimbo Wales? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:02 23 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Trouble-shooting

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

Hi Ahwas, I don't think you have fully understood what I meant. The purpose of this Nationality is not to create a racism environment. It's to get users who works together on a team to know a more about each other. Jew, Iranian and you name it are more than welcome to add their name if they wish to help create a decent neutral Arab article with us. Irqirq 20:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that you did not intend to create any confrontation by requesting people list their nationalities and that your efforts were a genuine attempt to improve co-operation, but such an exercise could have negative consequences. I suggest we should start by examining each disputed paragraph and reach an agreement, perhaps taking a poll on various options. This would be a good way to involve those with a long-standing interest in improving this article and sideline the passing trolls. If this doesn't work, then there is a progressive set of measures to resolve an editorial dispute. But let's start from the beginning. Please list the paragraphs you think are problemmatic and state why. Then others can voice their opinions.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 20:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I started by fighting WP:OR yesterday. The famous unsourced table about populations. What is weird is that it became the subject of blind reverts. Reverting figures of something which is in both cases unsourced. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• They actually claim that Egypt is being dominated by 400,000 Bedouins who imposed their culture/language/religion on 80 Million Egyptians! (does that make sense! and will any Egyptian acept such humiliation?)
• Its simple if they want to edit the Arab aricle they hae to fix the article first, because as of now they still claim that the Arabs are only 1-2% of the population. --Skatewalk 21:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the population table is one of the biggest problems. The thing is, someone will always point out that so and so aren't ethnic Arabs, for example. It's kind of a problem that the different definitions of Arab (cultural, ethnic, linguistic, geographic) do not necessarily overlap, and if we don't explain that, properly and with sources, we are inviting people to constantly mingle with the numbers. Funkynusayri 21:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• When you erase the population table. We dont have this problem(excuse to vandalize the Arab article).
• I dont see a reason to mention Non Arabs, because this article dont apply to them at all? Other wise we will have a section for the Berber, Kurds, Gypsies, Assyrians, Arameans, Syriacs, Indians, Pakistanis, Bengalis, Iranians, Somalis, Ethiopians, Circissians, and Armenians leaving among the Arabs. (They should start an article on their own like everyone else does)--Skatewalk 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to have some mention of non-Arab minorities in what some people refer to as the Arab world. Indeed, a summary of the history of the Arabs, is one of interaction and coexistence with many different other peoples (due to the territories they inhabited forming a sort of crossroads between continents) and this process often enriched Arab culture and vice versa. Tiamat 23:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Removing Arab Nationalism

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

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

The only relevance it has is in defining the Arab nation. In my opinion, paragraphs three, four and five in this section are not relevant, are unsourced and are POV.

After the end of the Ottoman Empire and the colonial period, the new Arab states looked to protect their fragile nations by focusing on their own history and culture to build up an enduring national identity. - this is an opinion and is unsourced.

As these nations developed, pan Arab media led to the Arabization of the Middle East - why the media? was there Arabicization? This is a biased POV.

that resulted in much assistance between states, often forced by empathy of their populations for other Arabs. For example, many Arab countries allied in the wars against Israel. - it may or may not be true, but solidarity between states was not just about empathy, and in fact there were (and still are) poor relations between some Arab states.

This empathy was an issue to new and weaker states, which needed to reduce the impact of external influence on their citizens in order to run their own countries. - but is this true? Was it true in Yemen?

For example Iraq functioned thanks to strong governance by the British (reducing third party Arab influence) and later the independent government from 1932 onwards, although the population has significant cultural and historical divides. - this sentence doesn't make sense.

This new nationalism had a practical application often in response to internal espionage by other Arab nations. - I thought the purpose of pan-Arabism, according to this article, was mutual solidarity. Instead, Arab nationalism is used against espionage by Arab states on other Arab states. Again, this makes no sense and if it did, it would probably be POV.

This culminated in a number of pivotal events that emphasized the priority of "nation" over the "Arab nation": the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel, Syria's backing of Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, and Jordan's removal of the PLO. - what has this got to do with Arab nationalism. Arab states are self-interested. So are European states. What is the issue here?

--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• Also mentions of the nations should be replaced by more focus on the people.
• I want to hear from more people, before we remove that section. Someone might be seeing something we don't--Skatewalk 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good to have a brief mention of Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism with links to the main articles where the topic is better covered in depth. Tiamat 23:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

• I agree with whatever changes you make. Aslong as it reduces the Nationalistic feeling of the article. Its supposed to be a modertae Arab article, that will also reduce the constant vandalizing by Anti-Arabs. --Skatewalk 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia is not meant to be "moderate" anything. It is meant to give the range of viewpoints. If racists want to vandalise it, then we'll have to work to counter them. Unfortunately, the way Wikipedia is run means that we'll always have to defend this article. If it gets too bad, then it can be semi-protected to prevent sockpuppets and anonymous IPs from editing it.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Arab Wiki Project

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

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name By Alphabetic order in the link below)

1. Ahwaz
2. Arab League
3. Aziz1005
4. Basel15
5. FaysaalF
6. Funkynusayri
7. Maha Odeh
8. Slacker
9. Skatewalk
10. Tiamat

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

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

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

I will add my name later. This project has not be formed yet even so, this is a long term suject including long term editing, I am talking about small non permanent group who are active in editing Arab articles. Why hesitate just add your names and lets try this I think this may work if you dont like to add your country then just add your name, It's not a big deal. May I list the benefits?

1. . If the group has gathered we will please a tag wich say that we will edit this article until 23 hrs, this will give us time. We who have shown that activity in this article and are qualified
2. . Prevent non known user who has an anti arab beliefs to just pop in and make chaos.
3. . Learn to work together and accept others opionen, This is very Important.
4. Listen to each other and cope with every aspect.

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

Hi Irq,

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

• Before the project is created, we should reach consensus on what to actually call it. So again: "after all, it could be named both "Arabs" or "Arab", and maybe "Arab people/culture/civilization/ethnicity" so on." What do you guys think? Funkynusayri 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the discussions on this Wikiproject should be conducted here: [1]--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Logical, strange I didn't think of that myself. I'll repost it there. Funkynusayri 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I like the name Arab world, although I didn't choose it, but the name Arab world includes everyone who is interested in the Arab world. Its a good name, if you decide to create another project I will also join, but lets not neglect Fayssal efforts.--Skatewalk 21:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated section (PreSabaean=Ancient)

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

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

Why I want Fayssal to join the team

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

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

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

Troubleshooting 1 - References and Sources

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

Sources

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

1. Harthi.org:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html#People

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

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

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

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

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

10. Hooker, Richard. "Pre-Islamic Arabic Culture." WSU Web Site. 6 June 1999. Washington State University. 5 July 2006 <http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/PRE.HTM>.

Acceptable sources

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

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

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

13. Journal of Semitic Studies Volume 52, Number 1

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

14. Abdulaziz Almsaodi, Himyari Studies

15. Amitav Ghosh, In an Antique Land.

16. Kamal Salibi, The Bible Came from Arabia

17. Aymn Almsaodi, The Historic Atlas of Iberia

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

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

References and notes

1. 1996, p.xviii

Acceptable in this case

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

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

3. Abadeer: "We are proud of our Egyptian identity and do not accept to be Arabs. Elaph. April 12, 2007. 4. http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20060210113623.htm 5. http://amalid.com/prominent_lebs/Gubran_Khalil_Gubran/AMU_to_Powell.htm :all the above are personal POVs. 6. from [1]" by NBC News Middle East military analyst, retired intelligence officer Lt Col Rick Francona

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

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

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

11. (1998) Christian Communities in the Middle East. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-829388-7. 12. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html#People 13. http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~ajds/mendes_refugees.htm

Acceptable.

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

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

General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Describing the term "Arab" nowadays as ethnic term don't make an equally decision, since there are a wide viarity of Arabs from Black to another races. --Irqirq 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here on WP is that many people misunderstand and misuse the term "ethnic". "Ethnic" does NOT mean genetics or bloodline, the proper terms for that would be "racial" or "genealogical". Click on the "ethnicity" article here on WP and you'll see what the word actually means, i.e. a group who share a common cultural heritage and identity, regardless of geneology or race. Therefore, "ethnic group" is the best term to describe the Arabs of today. Slacker 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• I think this book could be used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arab_Peoples

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

Maybe take a look at this one too, I also remember that one as being good: http://www.amazon.com/Arab-Nationalism-History-Nation-State/dp/0631217290 Funkynusayri 12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[http://arabworld.nitle.org/texts.php?module_id=6&reading_id=51&print=1 This source, by Halim Barakat, discusses the dynamism of Arab identity, looking at some common features used to determine that identity, beginning with language and culture, and exploring the heterogeneity therein. It will also prove useful in discussing the situation of minorities who may not identify as Arab. Tiamat 12:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Announcement

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

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

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

Arab Nationalism

Should it be removed from the article?

• The article discusses the Arab identity. and the article should be more informative on who is Arab. IMO Arab Nationalism should be an article on its own?--Skatewalk 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are going to be a team who will work on this article whole night with a placed tag so no one could edit until 23 hrs. You may add your wishing to our team to review. Thanks. Irqirq 09:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Join the Arab wiki project, thats the real team that will fix this article. If you dont join it, how can we take you seriously?
  • BTW you uploaded an Akkadian image on the Sumerian people article! (How can I take you seriously? again, which is very strong evidence of your non Mesopotamian origin! (related behavior reverts can easily lead to a sock puppet that paricipated in recent edit wars)
  • Any undiscussed changes will be considered VANDALISM and we will have behavior investigation into the so called "team" that doesnt want to join the Arab wiki project, yet the they want to change the Arab article!
  • Also explain why 3 of the 5 members just joined in the last 24hours!?--Skatewalk 09:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Skatewalk calm down, and don't accuse anyone for sock puppet yet, and don't make any attacks or edit wars against each others. Lets think again, if you believe this is a team of Vandals, why to care?, I think also this article needs to re written. So if you oppose Irqirq opinion then join the group and dominate your edits. This is the best way to prevent edit war. I am joining not as a follower of Irqirq. The last thing we need is the edit wars, Skatewalk if you believe this is a foolish team then join to help it. I hope you guys would calm down. for those who joined today maybe they are a long time readers and saw the heated debate or what ever—Juju78 09:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Juju,

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

I will remove this team and will join the Arab Wikiproject — Juju78 10:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to join as well. I will focus on Egypt's relation to Arabism, Arabs and pan-Arabism. --Lanternix 12:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

• The 2nd problem w/ arab.net is reliability. Please, an advice, it is always important to verify the "about us" page at every website. For those who got no such page than it is obvious that they are worthless. For those who got such a page, you'd go and read and see what's really about. In our case, arab.net got several prizes, mostly online ones and mostly Information Technology outlets such as PC magazine ME, MSN pick of the day, this http://www.magellan.mckinley.com/review.cgi?sid=64993 which it offline even if you'd try to try its home page, another one is http://www.pointcom.com/ (please check it out), www.worldculture.com/ (donlet yourself be mislead by its "world culture" title because it is simply a business company who got a "GeoLeader Certification Program" which i got no idea what it is but this is what their brochure http://www.worldculture.com/GeoLeadershipBrochure.pdf., etc... In brief my answer is WP:RS#Scholarship.

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

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

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

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

Saying, therefore, that "the site 'Arab.net' is a collection of POV articles by different journalists" and "This particular article is written by a Copt," is highly presumptuous nonsense. Even if the article were written by a Copt, it does not justify dismissing it in such an offensive manner. Quite the contrary, an Egyptian writing about Egyptians is quite applicable. However, we now know that Arab-Net is written and maintained by a very notable Saudi Arabian think-tank -- that does not make it a primary source. The section in question at any rate is one of identity, which is a highly subjective area; in other words, it is not science. I see no justification for the deletion of this or the article about the Coptic community conference. I am also going to add another by an anthropologist from a book. — Zerida 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Following the time stamps of everone's signatures here, who talked about a Copt and who said POV? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think she's talking about this [3] Egyegy 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Arab.net is simply a free posting website that alows anybody to write their opinions (just like a blog). The article was written b a Copt. Now did we ask for citations? No. I also think the copts should be mentioned as non Arabs (doesn't need a reference cause its will known) add a weak reference doesn't do it service. (Copts will be mentioned in the article, so why are you insisting on adding a POV reference?) The article is about the Arabs, we will have the copts internal link people can read whatever they want about your people on it. I a personally not interested what you use to reference your (Copt) article aslong as you stop adding POV references in this article. That we want to improve--Skatewalk 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don;t understand why you keep saying the reference is POV??? Both quotes are primary sources! --Lanternix 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Do you know it or are you trying to have a blind eye? Add this one to your "must read" list → Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab Religions

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

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

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

It's not the Arabs who consider them Muslims ... the Druze who live in Arab countries vehemently oppose any suggestion that they are non-Muslims, and denounce it as "takfir". In any case, it should be stated *who* views them as non-Muslims. We want a disciplined Wikipedia article here, and that means keeping personal observations, weasel words, anecdotal evidence, and unattributed claims to an absolute minimum. Slacker 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should go through "who" considers "whom" what in relation to religion. Leave that to the religion related articles. Here we can just count them "Sunni, Shia, Ibadhi, Druz, Christians, other." better still: "Muslim and Chritians". Leave the details to where the details belong. --Maha Odeh 07:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Syntax, grammatical and other serious issues

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

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

Ghassanides were Arabic Speakers

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

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

Civility

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

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

Rating

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

The article is about Arabs

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

Race

• I don't have any sources, but it should be made clear that Arabs are not a race, and that any person of any race/ethnic group can be an Arab. Arab does not necessarily refer to an ethnic group when it refers to linguistic Arabs, and for example "black" and "Arab" aren't mutually exclusive. The different definitions of Arab can also be applied to different peoples independently of each other, so for example Maronites are only linguistic Arabs, Saudis are both ethnic, genealogically, linguistic, and culturally Arab, most Levantine (or from the Fertile Crescent for that matter) Arabs are not genealogically Arabs, so on, so in this way the term is very similar to the term "Hispanic". See these discussions for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab/Archive_2#Arab_Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab/Archive_2#Who_is_an_Arab.3F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References Cleanup

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

• OK This is the article you quote!

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

Now explain to me, How can I accept the opinion of this confused (unaware) writer!

He is claiming Egyptians are Semitic! that alone calls makes the article POV out of this world!

Arab.net is a Forum/like collective articles, Anybody can post any article they want on Arab.net. So please don't quote POV or blog/form websites.--Skatewalk 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your understanding regarding how Arab-Net works is not accurate. However, I agree this claim is outdated 19th-century historics, but it reflects a common (often religious) belief in the Middle East that Egyptians are descendants of "Ham". I'm not sure what "Semitic tribe" this is in reference to. In any event, I am not myself against removal of Arab-Net very strongly as long as the other sources, including the one I just added, are not removed. — Zerida 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read again the policies and guidelines. It is irrelevant to whom a media outlet belongs. What is important is What it Does and How it Does It. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of where "the majority" of "indigenous Egyptians" trace their ancestry to; there is a flaw in the claim. Ham, you see, is Sam's (Shem's) brother not his son; hence there is no such thing as the "semetic tribe of Ham" simply becouse they become "hemetic" not "semetic". Ancestry is one thing, language is another; the term "semetic" in languages is not literal. --Maha Odeh 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Zerida/egyegy, The point is we know who the Copts are, I didnt ask for a reference. And the reference you are adding only adds more confusion! If some one claims the Copts are Semites from Ham? (old testament). thats just pure POV so I am not sure whats the whole editting about? I will remove them tommorow and keep the text (that you tried to reference) you dont need a weak article to reference whats already known. You can get in depth about that in the Copts article, that will be internally linked for other users to read about the copts. However, keep in mind this is an Arab article and we can't go into details about every non Arab group in the Arab world.
• The other reference you added is also POV material....
• look at arab with disdain! first thats a false statement, because every Arab that enters Egypt (airports) gets the VIP treatment, atleast 2 Egyptians jump with smiley faces...

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

• No one cares what you need or don't need. Wikipedia requires sources. End of story. You start deleting every source from the article about Egyptians and you will be treated like the common troll that you want to be. You will just ensure that this article stays in endless conflict. But since you're such an observant woman, here is a quote for you Skatewalk. It's by a very famous Egyptian writer. Enjoy:

Tawfik El-Hakim: "The Arabs feel everything but constancy. And how would they know constancy when they have no land, no past, and no cultivated sedentary civilization." "The Arab nation is one whose total existence is a dream about the pleasures of life and satiation." "There is not the shadow of a doubt in my heart that Egypt and the Arabs are diametrically opposed: Egypt is spirit, calm, permanence, constructiveness; the Arabs are material, haste, transience, superficiality."

Egyegy 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What relevance does this positively chauvinistic anti-Arab pseudo-Egyptian source have to do with the article we are trying to build on on Arabs? Why do you enjoy soapboxing here so much? Tiamut 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Pseudo-Egyptian"? He's only like one of the greatest and most popular Egyptian writers ever, but I'm sure you already know that. And it's relevant because of the way many people here are using this talk page as a garbage-disposal of blame and unsupported claims about Egyptians. Egyegy 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. He's a real Egyptian. I shouldn't have used "pseudo" there and I apologize for that. But my point stands. This information has little bearing or relevance to this article. If the guy is not an expert on Arabs and doesn't even identify as Arab, then his opinion is really irrelevant here. In fact, I don't really understand your interest in this article. If you think Egyptians are not Arabs, you're entitled to your opinion. But there are some Egyptians who do consider themselves both Egyptian and Arab. Those Egyptians are a subject of interest to this article. Those who don't call themselves Arab are not. Considering the difficulty you are having with multiple editors here who are trying to point out Wiki policies to you about sourcing as well, I think you should stop trying to insert your POV here as though it were the dominant subject of this article. It's not. This is an article about Arabs, not people who some people think are Arab who don't like it that this is case and want to clutter up the Arab page with their protestations. Tiamut 20:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the article?

So just because Kuwait in Iraq are at worse conflict than Egypt and their nieghbors...we are going to use that as reference to say Kuwaitis are not Arabs!

Or because the Qahtanis town dwellers in Sham fought the Adnani Bedouins....we should use that as evidence that they are not Arabs?

Maybe if you have a reference (official stats or something related to this subject) then there will be a reason to have it on the article, simple as that.

You are adding unrelated material on how some EGyptians felt towards Saudi in the 1960s. Or How the Chritian Copts feel about their Arab muslim oppressors in Egypt. and misquoting it as a general rule. The less we mention Egypt the better (because we avoid the needless discussion).

"an observant woman" lol I will take that as Egyptian humor, I think I mentioned it before that I had an Egyptian/muslim XGF? anyways it doesnt matter...Their is nothing wrong with being a woman = ) --Skatewalk 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate Speech

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

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

Pov deletions

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

Haven't you read the thread above before starting accusing editors of POV? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya I read where you came up with some stuff about it being a primary source so you can delete it. We already know that's not true, so we don't need to keep rehashing a false premise. That's why it's called a pov deletion. Egyegy 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

No the tribal warring is a characteristic of Arab societies, which is what's happening in Iraq now and between the Iraqis and the Kuwaitis before. This source says correctly that Egyptians are not Arabs because an academic is not an idiot to believe Arab nationalist propaganda that recently forced an artificial Arab identity on non-Arabs like Egyptians. Only those without a proper education and total ignorance of history would be so clueless. I don't feel like edit-warring with people here, so you can have your "Arab article" like you call it. The article relies on ancient religious and tribal books for its sources, we wouldn't want to start confusing it with facts. Egyegy 19:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the article and talk pages could use a break from the bigoted stereotyping and loosey goosey "scholarship" that seems centered around inserting an anti-Arab POV throughout. We might also benefit from a pause in the anti-Arab soapboxing. Tiamut 20:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the vile and perverse anti-Egyptian racism spewed on this talk page on a regular basis, which is all over many Arab countries, especially the Gulf, it is relevant to examine it on an article about Arabs. And if the people here stop using this page as a garbage-disposal of their relentless anti-Egyptian bigotry, there wouldn't be a problem. Egyegy 20:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am from the Gulf and I have no problem with Egyptians. I also consider them Arabs as they speak Arabic and have an Arabic culture. There is no "pure" race in this world. There are lots of black African tribes who proudly call themselves Arabs and I welcome them as part of the Arab nation. Some Egyptians might not want to call themselves Arabs and may make a case against this categorisation, but they are in a minority and I am not convinced their point of view is notable enough for this article.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 20:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You said "There are lots of black African tribes who proudly call themselves Arabs and I welcome them as part of the Arab nation" oh ya like the black African tribes of Darfur are "welcomed" as part of the "Arab nation". We already know how Arab nationalism works, there's no need for the painful reminder. Is it any wonder many of the most prominent and popular Egyptians have disassociated themselves from Arabism, from Naguib Mahfouz to Osama Anwar Okasha to Taha Hussein to Akkad and many more. At least so many Egyptians now are finally coming to their senses. Egyegy 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your statements are conducive to achieving consensus on this article. You may believe whatever you want about Arabs, but let's try to seek consensus and keep this unhelpful emotionalism out of the debate.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of Egyegy claims, I started asking Egyptians if they are Aab or not!....only the Christians chose to rather identify as Egyptian only. Keep in mind this was in Boston and NY in the USA. Egyptians mostly identify as Arabs. However, the Christian Copts will mostly identify as Egyptians only. I agree with Ahwaz, few weeks ago I didn't. However, the trolling made me do my own research and there is a clear agenda that egyegy is trying to push.

• The majority of the Egyptians are happy with the name of their nation (the Arab republic of Egypt). If the Arabs were really a small minority as Egyegy claims....then why would the name remain! and the language! headquarters of the Arab league?--Skatewalk 07:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The non Arabs?

• since the article is about Arabs. I dont see any reason for it exceeding 2 mentions? just like the Kurds and Berbers. and we have a link for Egyptian identity for thse who need to read more about te subject.--Skatewalk 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians are mentioned only like twice and the Berbers many more times. You also deleted a valid reference. Please upkeep the encyclopedia's neutrality, and refrain from the vitriol and attacks on Egyptians. Thank you. Hamada2 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• These nationalists are getting out of hand. "Attacks"? This article isn't about Egyptian identity, but Arabs. Berbers and Kurds are actual ethnicities with their own languages, unlike Egyptians, so they're unique cases and more notable as exceptions. Funkynusayri 00:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to bud in here, but it should be noted that a language (ie:Arabic) doesn't automatically make you an ethnicity (ie:an Arab). PLEASE bear this in mind: LANGUAGE is NOT to be confused with ETHNIC ORIGIN. ~ Troy 00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Often speaking Arabic as a mother tongue makes someone an Arab. Arabic language is an essential part of Arab ethnicity. There are black Africans who call themselves Arabs on the basis that they are Arabic speakers, not because they were descended from Arabia. There are also some black Arabs in Saudi Arabia.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 10:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Troy, yes I understand, Copts (christians) are well known non Aab minority. Most the Egyptian muslims are either Arabized or EThnic Arabs (or atleast the Ashraaf claim so). The less we mention Egyptian the less we have to generalize. I mean Arabs in Egypt refered to the Christians as (Aqbat) for as good reason. they didnt call Persian Muslims Arabs, because they are different.--Skatewalk 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

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