Jump to content

Talk:Arab Christians/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Can we keep the article for now?

75.90.18.177 (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC) It is utterly ridiculous that this article does not even consider the possibility that the Egyptian Copts may be considered to be in some way Arabs. The linguistic definition of Arabism would seem to be the most legitimate one, given the long history and wide extent of the language and culture.

Face it, what you mean by "ethnic Arabs" is a racial definition. To insist that "ethnic Arabs" are the only real Arabs is racist and just as political - and much more objectionable - than the linguistic or nationalist definition of the term. Why is the linguistic/national definition of "Arab" the only one that is not allowed here.You DO realize that there are political motivations behind the insistence that the term "Arab" carries racial and religious components, but not linguistic ones?


  • Once the article Egyptians is fixed and it defines who is Copt (minority mainly christian) and who is Arab (majority mainly muslim).
  • And I hope we try to be fair, regardless of how rude some Copts were. Facts should be stated--Skatewalk 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have only spoken about what my opinion is. However, we can still leave it the way it is AS LONG AS these statements aren't just politically motivated. The opinion of how people think of themselves is just as important. ~ Troy 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The opinion of how people think of themselves is just as important. — No, Ad populum fallacies is out of question. If you are let's say, an ethnic German, you don't become an Arab, because you suddenly change your opinion about your ethnicity (for whatever reason). It's about biological descent. To some extent, the language you speak, is a decisive factor in this process. But it of course, must be your native language. Not a language that was imposed on your ancestors. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:55 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
This is not an ad populum fallacy simply because the definition of "belonging to a group", in any way, depends largely on how one perceives himself. If it were, as you said, a biological descent then most Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders as well as a considerable percentage of South Americans are European and mostly British! Do you think, as an example, it would be correct to say that most of the English people are either French or Scandinavian since the "original" ethnicity there was Celtic?
If we wanted to go on we could argue that Europeans are actually not Europeans at all because they originally migrated there from Asia and ultimately from Africa!
Moreover, the definition of being “Arab” itself, the way Arabs view themselves and they way they accept “others” as ethnic Arabs is based largely on language. This concept is not new (as is the “official nationality document” definition), it’s actually very old or else the Adnanis would never have been accepted as Arabs.
So I’m afraid this should follow the a definition stated in the Arab article, one of which states:
Linguistic: someone whose first language, and by extension cultural expression, is Arabic, including any of its varieties.
Accordingly, if Tariq Aziz considers himself an Arab since he speaks Arabic as a one of his first languages (he spoke Arabic before he was seven, he continues to do so to date), he lives as an Arab and identifies as one then I, as an Arab, do not contest this. (I’m not claiming to know what Tariq identifies as, I’m just saying IF).
And if a Copt views himself as an Arab, the same would apply. This becomes especially viable in regions where people are so intermixed for such a long time and already have had similar features to start with that there really isn’t any proof of biological descent at all.
What you are trying to do here is to enforce scientific proof where there is none and deny people of their own identities because you do not agree with them. --Maha Odeh 05:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, most Americans and Australians etc. are Indo-Europeans of English, German and French descent. As for Arabs, speaking an Arabic language, does not make you an Arab. Tariq Aziz is an Assyrian. The problem with this article, is that it wants to — regardless of how inaccurate it is — to list all ethnic Christian groups in the Middle East as Arabs, regardless of their ethnic background, simply because they live in the Middle East, and Arabic is the lingua franca of the Middle East. This is pure Arabization and nothing else. Why should ethnic Armenians and Assyrians in Syria, be counted as "Christian Arabs" in this article, simply because they live in an Arabic speaking country? And if a Copt views himself as an Arab, the same would apply. — If a Japanese views himself as an Arab, does that also apply? Do you have any respect for ethnicity at all? Do you actually have any understanding at all of how ethnicities work? Do you even care about being factual? — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:56 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave "who is an American...etc." to Americans themselves. and IF a Japanese has lived long enough among Arabs, speaks Arabic since he was a child, lives like an Arab and identifies as an Arab then I do not have a problem with acknowledging him as an Arab. Yes, I do have an understanding of how ethnicities work, IF an Arab, with clear and documented Arab decent was born in, say France, identifies as a French, speaks French and lives like a Frenchman then I am not going to force him to be an Arab against his will. Accordingly, it is much less likely that I would enforce that upon a Copt or an Assyrian. I have not spoken to Tariq Aziz but I have spoken to his daughter Zainab whom I went to high school with and (at least at the time) she said she identifies as an Arab; unless she changed her mind at some point in time she is still an Arab to me.
As for caring about being factual. What is a fact to you? What I'm saying is that if they identify as Arabs and have lived long an Arabic life long enough then they are accepted as Arabs, if not then they are accepted as they identify. A person's identity has much less to do with genealogy or biology than personal feeling or else we would all either be one ethnicity (all go back to Adam) or we are all monkeys. The fact is, I do know (other than Zainab) many Assyrians from Iraq and Syria that identify as Arabs and can get very upset if someone looked them in the face and said "you are not Arab". Naturally my word will not be taken as an encyclopedic source, but it would definitely be unfair to claim that “all Assyrians are NOT Arabs”.
Don’t forget that many of the proponents of Arab Nationalism since the 19th century were “biologically” Assyrians, Maronites, Syriac …etc. Examples would be: Tariq Aziz, Amin al-Rihani, Constantin Zureiq, Michel Aflaq and others.
By the way, ethinicity is NOT ONLY biological, the definition says OR not AND. See Ethnic group for further details. --Maha Odeh 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have no understanding of the concept of race. No, Assyrians are not Arabs, and whatever you say, it cannot change the fact that we are not Arabs. Ethnicity and biological descent should not be based on personal feelings, but rather on what you actually are. Saying you are Arab when you're actually Copt and/or Assyrian, is like saying you're black when you actually are white. To me, this is quite obvious that you Arabs only want to impose your Arab identity on all Christians in the Middle East who aren't Arabs. It's something you should knock the hell off, because we aren't interested in being Arabs. Copts are Egyptians. They have their own language, culture, and history. Respect them by recognizing their own history as a unique people, completely distinct from Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:33 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you are confusing race and ethnicity. Assyrians and Arabs (together with Europeans, Iranians, Indians and others) are all one race. Moreover, both Assyrians and Arabs have the same lineage unless you want to deny Assyrians their Semitic ancestry. Regardless, this argument is leading nowhere and is not fruitful. It is mere stubbornness. I suggest taking a break for a few days and then coming back with more fruitful conversations.--Maha Odeh 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we are of the same Caucasoid race, but all Caucasoids are not of the same subrace. If you think that you as an Arab are of the same race as for instance, someone from Russia, then you still haven't understood this race issue. And yes, ethnicity goes hand in hand with it. Either way, Christians in the Middle East, are rarely Arabs. This may be difficult for you to understand, but you should at the very least respect their own history and non-Arabic culture. Perhaps it's you who needs a break. — EliasAlucard|Talk 10:49 13 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

As a muslim egyptian being partly turkoman, i cannot see why i am less Egyptian than my christian neighboors in Egypt, and i cannot see why i am more arab than them oly by my religion. If it was all about genealogy, then i am not able to proove that my ancestors is Arab rather than native Egyptians, still i identify myself as arab. In the same way, Egyptian copts are not all able to proove that they do not in fact descent from jews, greeks, armenians or other ethnic groups not native to Egypt. Perhaps, you think the case must be rested until we have a genom research for all christian egyptians as opposed to muslim ones? By the way, my family is originally from Aswan, so it is most likely that i am nubian on my fathers side. Hamid-Masri (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Language was imposed by Arab Christians before Islam

75.90.18.177 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC) *beep*! Why is Arabic always viewed as such an imposition by you guys?

Arabs aren't well liked. D'oh? the roof of this court is too high to be yours 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that was appropriate to say?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't intended as offensive, simply instructional. Obviously, beyond the trappings of culture and race, at a place where we are each human, you're well beloved :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ghassanids were the lords of Syria from the 3rd century AD until Islam, The Ghassanids and the Arab tribes allied to them (all from South Arabia Banu Judham, Hamadan and Banu Amilah all spoke Arabic). The muslims effect on Lebanon was minimal compared to Egypt and North Africa. The pre-Islamic population is still the majority in Lebanon. The Sunni Muslims and the Kaysi druze are the main post-Islamic Arab settlers and the long wars of the 19th century was still fought between the Pre_Islamic Arabs and Post-Islamic Arabs, regardless of religion! (well until the Druze changed the rules!). If you don't know about a subject, you shouldn't edit! --Skatewalk 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your history lesson. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:59 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

User:Skatewalk is no longer with us, maybe it's temporary, but how about jabal Amel. Lebanon is constructed of Mount Lebanon (Jabal Lubnan), Bekaa valley, Akkaa (North), and the now largely Shiite South (Jabal Amal). The illustrious Shiites of that region credit themselves of converting Iran to the Shia faithGodspeed John Glenn! Will 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian Arabs are ethnic Arabs

Elias, we talked on the email already, Levantine Christian Arabs are the founders of modern Arabism! Michel Aflec, Nawaf Hawatama, George Habash, Constantin Zureiq, Antun Maqdisi....etc We are Arabs, noble Arabs, Arab leaders. We were that way and it will always be the same. We will not convert to Islam or change our identity. Read about Jibla Ibn Al-Aiham before you even question how Arab we are! Read about the Ghassanids, Hamadanis, Banu Judham--Skatewalk 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is, you can't cite from Wikipedia articles because that's not WP:RS. I won't remove your refs if they are actual statistics. Cite from government statistics, here's an example. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:59 15 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please read my contribution on the christian families in Lebanon with Wikipedia by logging on "Lebanon". I agree with you that Arabism is primarily Christian in Lebanon. Christians in Lebanon all came from Arabia, whether from Yemen or from the Gulf or even from the heart in Nejd. But that does not mean they are new-comers, on the contrary, this means that Arabia in the far past was a land of one language, the first language of Sam. The proof is the huge record of names of townships and regions in the actual Lubnan. I propose the timing of these migrations as being the same as the rise of the Israelites in Arabia whatever their dating is, but in any case, these migrations have happened over a long period of time stretching from the mid-second millenium BC to the first few centuries AD. Please read my contribution about Byblos and about Ahiram with Wikipedia. On the other hand, it aches my heart to find the Christians of Lubnan the most fervent anti-arabs distancing themselves from Arabia and Arabs while they should be claiming their godly property of the language with rights and ownership. The westernization of their hearts will not do them any good because one of these days they will be the leaders of the Arab nation again if they turn their faces eastward. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in Syria

I have added a source to back up the claim according to 2000 estimations:

  • The source cites that 404034 of Christians of Syria are Armenians.
  • 228177 are Syriacs (سريان) (Orthodox and Catholic Syriacs).
  • 35280 Nestorians (Assyrians).
  • 17169 are Chaldeans.
  • The rest who are 842337 are Arabs (The vast majority of them are of Greek Orthodoxy then followed by Greek Catholicism and Protestantism).
  • The total population of Syrian Christians is 1526997 (around 1 million and 500 thousands). Thanks--Aziz1005 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for the source. One question though, being Greek Orthodox/Catholic, doesn't that mean they're actually Greeks who now speak Arabic? — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:52 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
      • Yea, but they consider themselves Arabs. Chaldean 06:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Does that even matter? If I move to Japan and consider myself Japanese, does that mean I'm Japanese all of a sudden? Come on, you know that's not possible. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:05 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
In fact, Ghassanides, Bani Kilab and many ethnic Arab tribes who inhibited Syria before the expansion of Islam followed Greek Orthodoxy; I think that was because they adopted Christianity during the Greco-Roman era. In modern days many Syrian and Lebanese families claim to be desendenats of the Ghassanids (Refer to Tarikh Al Usar Alsharqiyya and Dawani Alqotof fe tarikh Bani Almalouf,Issa Iskadar Malouf,تاريخ الأسر الشرقية , دواني القطوف في تاريخ بني المعلوف).
Believe or not, some Bedouin tribes in Jordan and Palestine are followers of Greek orthodoxy and Greek Catholicism. Michel Aflak him self was a follower of Greek Orthodoxy. This is a website of a Jordanian Orthodox Society that shows you clearly how the followers of Greek Orthodoxy in the Levant denied the Greek identity and prefer to be identified as Arab Orthodox instead, due to linguistic and genealogical reasons [1].
Chaldean can confirm what I said since he can read and understand Arabic :) --Aziz1005 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. If it's just Greek Orthodoxy in the sense that anyone can be Roman Catholic, well that's a different issue. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:37 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

B-Class

How can this be assessed a B-Class and be tagged with {{Cleanup}}? Are the issues taken care of? What is the deal?--BirgitteSB 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's trolling or something. This article is far from B class. To begin with, it lists non-Arab groups as Arab Christians. It lacks lots of references, and so on. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:18 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

Flagrant OR

This article was supposed to talk about the term "Arab Christian" as it is used in the real world. Instead, it has become a collaborative OR project aimed at presenting how a handful of persistent POV pushers think it should be used. Thus, we have the number of Arab Christians magically reduced to 1 million! This article shows Wikipedia at its worst, and it baffles me how anyone would think this article deserves a "B" rating in this sorry state. -- Slacker (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Magically reduced? You mean, as opposed to 30 million Arab Christians as it used to be when it use to suffer from POV pushers? Look, every Christian who lives in the Middle East, is not an Arab. This article has been trying to include Assyrians and Copts (Egyptians) just because they live in countries where Arabic is the lingua franca. Look, perhaps you don't know this, but the Middle East is not a racially homogeneous region. It has many different ethnicities. If you think speaking Arabic makes you an Arab, you seriously need a course in anthropology. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Christianity in the Middle East

Wouldn't it be a good idea to rename this article "Christianity in the Middle East", and then let it cover all the different sects of the wider Middle East, also including Copts, Syriacs, and other non-Arab Christians, so the article doesn't end up as confusing as it is? The problem now is that it focuses on "Arab Christians", but many Arab speaking Christians don't identify as Arabs, so this article suffers from this due to the resulting edits. Or maybe an entirely new article should be created? Anyone agree? Funkynusayri (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I just created the article "Religion in the Middle East, feel free to expand. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you have a good point. Christianity in the Middle East would make a good article. But if such an article is created, it should not be written from an Arab nationalist POV (as this article has suffered from). It should be a neutral article that reflects all Christian sects in the Middle East, without making a big deal of the ethnicity thing. And this article needs to be stripped down to include only Arab Christians (like for instance, the 5,000 in Iraq). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly, I think if an article like "Christianity in the Middle east" is created, it'll be much easier to keep out mentioning of non-Arab Christians from this here article for example, as it can simply be dumped there. Also, It would be very nice with a place where all the different Middle Eastern sects of Christianity could be orderly mentioned, as they're so numerous it can get confusing. It's amazing how many Christian sects there are in the Middle East, compared to how few Christians there are actually there all in all. Funkynusayri (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've created a tiny stub we can work from: Christianity in the Middle East. I'm not very familiar with the Arab Christian groups, so someone else will have to expand on that. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see how either of the new articles, however useful they may be in their own right, will solve the underlying problem here, which is: Does the term "Arab Christian" encompass all Arabic-speaking Christians, or only those who consider themselves to be ethnically Arabs? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
        • If you ask me, I think this article should deal with those who are Christians and of an Arab descent/race. I'm sure there are some racially Arab Christians too. Speaking an Arabic language and being a Christian is not enough. If that's the case then I would be an Arab Christian (I speak Lebanese). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
          • But then what criteria are used to decide who counts as being "of Arab descent/race" if not language? Are Lebanese Christians really ethnically distinct from Lebanese Muslims? Can you tell from looking at a Lebanese person whether they're of Christian or Muslim heritage? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Lebanese people are actually just Arabized. They are not Arabs. The Lebanese Muslims, it's arguable if they are of Arab descent (probably more so than the Christians), but many Lebanese Muslims were former Maronites. The Lebanese people are Suryoye (Syriacs). But since the Christians in Lebanon are trying to resist more Arabisation, they have now created this ridiculous Phoenician identity (see Phoenicianism). So no, generally speaking, Lebanese Christians are not Arabs. Genetically speaking, they are also distinct from the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula.[2][3] — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
              • Can you tell from looking at a Lebanese person whether they're of Christian or Muslim heritage? — That can be quite difficult, but I can definitely tell the difference between Lebanese people and real Arabs from the Arabian peninsula. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The distinction should rather be made between those who identify as ethnic Arabs, and those who do not, however, the majority of the ones who do identify as such do not necessarily have actual South Arabian ancestry. The Middle East is genetically divided into South, "real" ethnic Arabs, and North, "Arabised Arabs", with little to no actual Arabian ancestry. There are also quite pronounced physical differences between the two. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, so the point is not that Lebanese Christians aren't Arabs, but rather that Lebanese people aren't Arabs, regardless of their religion? The article Arab says that many but not all Arabized groups do consider themselves Arabs, though. For comparison, I also took a look at English people, where it says that even some people of Black African origin consider themselves English if they were born there and grew up there. (I, on the other hand, don't consider myself English at all even though probably about 70% of my ancestry is from England!) This is why questions of ethnicity irritate me so much, and I prefer to stick to languages. How about moving the page to Arabic-speaking Christians so that Copts, Maronites, etc. can be included here without necessarily implying that they're ethnically Arab? —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, so the point is not that Lebanese Christians aren't Arabs, but rather that Lebanese people aren't Arabs, regardless of their religion? — It's possible that the Lebanese Muslims, do have some more Arabic descent compared with the Christians in Lebanon (you know, leftovers from the Arabic conquest of Lebanon). But in general terms, no, Lebanese people are not Arabs. They used to speak Aramaic before the Muslim conquest. For comparison, I also took a look at English people, where it says that even some people of Black African origin consider themselves English if they were born there and grew up there. — You can only be English if you are of Germanic descent. Afro-Americans cannot be English, no matter what they feel about it. We have to differentiate between race and personal feelings. African Americans speak English, but it is not their native language (whatever it used to be, it's forgotten now). And the same logic goes for Copts (they are native Egyptians, most of them). This is all the result of imperialism, where the conquerors have somehow managed to impose their language on the conquered and to some extent also their ethnic identity. Let's just say it's a controversial topic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The thing is, pretty much all Arabing speaking Muslims also identify as Arabs, and also many Arabic speaking Christians do so, and those are thus the ones this article is about. The distinction is really based on self-identification, not any provable genetic links, look at the Lebanese demographics article for examples. Moving this page to Arabic speaking Christians might solve the problem with Copts and Maronites, but not the problem of for example Assyrians being adding to the article, so the Christianity in the Middle East is still a good option, as it could also include Armenians, Kurds, and whatever. Anyhow, I think it's a good idea to move this page to Arabic-speaking Christians, then it can be mentioned in the article that Arabic speakers do not necessarily identify as ethnic Arabs. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If we move this to Arabic speaking Christians, it cannot be an article about an Arabic ethnic group. Also, I think it's good that we focus on the Christianity in the Middle East article, because like you said, we can include Kurds as well. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean there are African Americans who identify as English; I mean there are people in England of Afro-Caribbean origin who identify as English. And I suspect there are lots of white-skinned people in England whose families have been there for centuries who would vehemently disagree with your statement that "you can only be English if you are of Germanic descent" -- such as the descendants of the French-speaking Normans, not to mention the descendants of the Celts who were there before the Anglo-Saxons. (But those three ethnicities are so thoroughly mixed in England nowadays there probably isn't anyone who isn't part-Anglo-Saxon, part-French, and part-Celtic at least.) I think Arabic-speaking Christians and Christianity in the Middle East should really be two separate articles: the former would include Arabic-speaking Christians outside the Middle East (the diaspora in the Americas and Australia, for example), and the latter would include Christians in the Middle East who are not Arabic-speaking and not Arabized (like Armenians and Georgians). The Maltese would still be a question though: should they be included among Arabic-speaking Christians? From a purely grammatical point of view, Maltese is basically a dialect of Arabic, but there are good sociolinguistic reasons to consider it a totally separate language (different writing system, no diglossia with Standard Arabic, large amounts of Italian loanwords, etc.). —Angr If you've written a quality article... 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It's true that English people (or Britons) are a mixture of Anglo-Saxon (i.e., Germanic), Celtic and some French (i.e., Latin) peoples. But as I see it, the Celts are mostly the Irish/Scots, and the English are mostly Anglo-Saxons. The Normans were also Germanic, so there's no real difference between Anglo-Saxons. But Afro-Americans are not English. They may have assimilated somewhat into the English culture, but that's a different issue. Anyway, that's off topic. About Maltese, from what I hear, they hate Arabs (mostly because of the Crusades/early Jihad). But it's arguable if they are Arabs. Their language seems to be anyway. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, what do you two think, should we restructure this article so it doesn't focus on ethnicity? Malta should at least be mentioned I think. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Should we request that this article be moved to Arabic-speaking Christians by an admin? Funkynusayri (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Awright, hehe... Funkynusayri (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we don't, unless we want to eliminate the inevitable and endless "who is an Arab" discussions the current name creates. Funkynusayri (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh okay. But an NPOV title like that would mean that we will have to write the article not from an ethnic point of view (i.e., Christians who speak Arabic). I think that could work out, since 'Arab Christians' really aren't that ethnically bound together anyway. I mean, how much in common does a Christian Arab from Syria have with a Christian Arab from Tunisia in terms of ethnicity, apart from the language? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is already a sort of "Who is an Arab article", called Etymology of the word Arab, I'm not sure how good it is though... And yeah, I don't think it makes much sense to talk of Christian Arabs from an ethnic view point, as the only ones everyone today can agree are true ethnic Arabs are the ones from Saudi Arabia and such, and they're hardly ever Christian. But there are of course historical South Arabian Christians which are already dealt with in this article I think. Funkynusayri (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

update

Since a new title has been given to this article, I think the figures must also be updated to reflect the actual figures of Arabic-speaking Christians--Aziz1005 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi christians such as Chaldeans who are mainly Arabic-speaking christians. Also Syrian christians (Syrian citizens) other than ethnic Arab christians in Syria, since the figure provided here which is around 800 thousands is only for ethnic Arab christians in Syria and that excludes (Syriac Orthodox,Assyrians,Chaldeans and Armenians)--Aziz1005 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But their primary language isn't Arabic (even though many understand Arabic). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Syriac Orthodox and Syriac catholics the majorty in both Syria and Iraq have Arabic as the vernacular language[4]. Chaldeans who are the majrity of Iraqi christians also speak Arabic as a mother tounge.I agree with you in the case of Assyrians, Armenians, and perhaps local people of certain towns and villages in Syria and Iraq where Aramaic is still used in daily life.
since a mother tounge is a language that you learn at home from your parents not school 'usually during childhood', then I think we must include these figures. remember we are talking here about speakers not ethnic Arabs--Aziz1005 (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
remember we are talking here about speakers not ethnic Arabs — Sure, you can add it into the article as long as you don't make it seem like Chaldeans, Syriacs and others are an Arabic ethnic group. By the way, there is Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should only mention Syriac and other groups if we know for sure whether they speak Arabic as their mother tongue or not, if we don't have sources and percentages, it could simply just be briefly mentioned that some Syriacs speak Arabic as their mother tongue, for whatever reason. This is Funkynusayri, by the way. 83.72.194.208 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to search for a reliable sources then update the article, please feel free to update it at any time :)--Aziz1005 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that far from all Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans speak Arabic. Especially those who live in Turkey, Iran etc. do not understand Arabic. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, only Assyrians/Syriacs/Chaldeans in Iraq and Syria are going to be mentioned who I think make at least 75% of the Chaldo-Assyrian community in the Middle East --Aziz1005 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


i think the term "arabic-speaking christians" shouldnt be used, its misleading, especially to ignorant foreigners, we should be called arab christians since we are 100% arab and did not convert or be oppressed for that matter,believed by many.and the translation in arabic following "arabic-speaking christians" means christian arabs..you should have the title changed to christian arabs, who agrees? malta should be removed,most are of british origin and speak maltese, which descended from arabic, its not arabic.this article should be about christian arabs..nobody really cares about any christian out there who "happens" to speak arabic!

  • Yes, because Maronites and Copts are often referred to as Arabs because they speak Arabic, so making this article a bit more inclusive answers a lot of questions for the average reader. Funkynusayri (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

look, i do not care about arabs out there who dont "admitt" being arab, even if your ancestors werent arab and you were "arabized", you are still currently an arab. i have italian ancestry, which dates back almost 2000 years ago, i do not go out telling people im italian!, im an arab whose also a christian. there is such thing as a christian arab!, we ARE NOT christians in the middle east who "HAPPEN" to speak arabic, we ARE arabs! and please can someone who still has his/her 5 senses agree with me about the whole malta thing, as i mentioned earlier??we do not need research over this, common sense can solve the problem, maltese are not arabs, their language descends from our language, thats all.

Iraqi Christians

The figure of 5000 in the article is complete rubbish. There are 800,000 Iraqi Christians...not all of us know how to speak Chaldean/Assyrian.....Arabic is our mother tongue and even most of those who speak Chaldean as their first language can speak Arabic as well. The Armenians in Iraq as well can all speak Arabic as well as Armenian.

No offence to whoever listed the source for that figure, but it seems like an unreliable website. It's main concern just seems to be Evangelicism in Iraq and how to spread it, and clearly hasn't spent much time researching their facts and figures.

Look at this extract from the website:

The Yezidi are a syncretistic offshoot of both Zoroastrianism and Islam. They speak Kurdish and are known as 'devil' worshippers. There are very few believers.

The Yazidis are not devil worshippers, they could have explained their true beliefs and explained that they do not worship the devil at all.

See, this website is misinformed.

Surely someone could have found a more reliable source.

--Babychimp16 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about ethnic Arabs (despite its title.) The 800,000 Iraqi Christians are not Arabs, even thou they know Arabic. Chaldean (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Assyrian. I speak Lebanese Arabic. I do not consider myself an Arab in any way, because I'm not Arab. I'm Assyrian. Followers of Syriac Christianity are not ethnically Arabs, even though it's popular to claim so amongst Arab nationalists. And Iraqi Christian does not mean Arab by default. Most Christians in Iraq, are indigenous Assyrians. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh and, it should be added to that, it's not about the language you are capable of speaking, it's about your race. There are lots of ethnic Swedes in America, for instance, who don't know Swedish; they are still Swedes by heritage (just a parallel). — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 09:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an Iraqi Christian and I do consider myself an Arab. That's not the point though. The title of this article is misleading. You want to call it Arabic-Speaking Christians and then you ignore all the Christians that can speak Arabic because they are not technically Arabs.

Either correct the figures, or change the title of the article. --Babychimp16 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What church do you belong to? Chaldean (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am Catholic --Babychimp16 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean Catholic or Syriac Catholic or what? Chaldean (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My mother is Syriac Catholic and my father is Chaldean Catholic. There are no Arabic churches where I live so my family go to a Roman Catholic church but sometimes we get Arab priests from London to come down to our area to hold an Arabic mass, one is Chaldean Catholic, one is Syriac Catholic, and the other is Orthodox. Personally, I am just a Catholic, and not even a very devoted one - I don't care much for denominations, I prefer to just call myself a Christian. -- Babychimp16 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is known to be inaccurate because of people like whoever created this page, half of the article is wrong!

Babychimp, both of those churches have declaired to be Syriac-based Churches and have rejected as being labeled Arab. You can consider yourself an Christian Arab, that is fine, but the fact of the matter is members of the Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, ACOE are all non-Arab based Churches. Chaldean (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the term "Syriac Orthodox" have to do with being Arab or not? Most of the Christian Arab tribes in pre-Islamic Syria like Taghlib and Ghassan were "Syriac Orthodox,", just like most "Roman Catholics" are not Roman, and many "Greek Orthodox" are not Greek. -- Slacker (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen a substantial amount of people within Syriac Orthodox (in the Middle East) to be other then Syriac-speakers throughout its Church history. Just because an Arab tribe or two in the past were part of the Church, doesn't define the Church itself. Besides, the Church has come out and declared its Church and members are not Arabs. The Roman Catholic Church is a universal Church, that is not the same with the Syriac Orthodox Church. It is an ethnic based church the way the Armenian Orthodox Church is. Chaldean (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Chaldean, the article is exactly not about ethnic Arab Christians, but about Arabic-speaking Christians. An article exclusively about ethnic Arab Christians would be impossible to make. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is about Arabic-Speaking Christians whom consider themselves Culturaly or (wrongly) ethnic Arab. Its not about anybody who speaks Arabic and happens to be a Christian. Thats like creating English speaking Muslims. Chaldean (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No, because it's hard to separate the different criteria for what "really" makes one an Arab, it all comes down to POV, and there is no way to find out what percentage of Arabic speaking Christians actually identify as Arabs or not, therefore the only way to handle this issue is by making the article about people who simply have Arabic as their first language. By some definitions, that alone makes them Arabs (I believe most people who are going to read this (Americans) would believe all people who speak Arabic are Arabs, even though it might sound stupid to us), but we luckily avoid that by explaining that these people do not necessarily identify as such. We get to explain on Wikipedia exactly what members of Arabic speaking Christian populations who do not identify as Christians, not the percentage of them, and that's the best we can do, as real stats will most likely never be published. An article about ethnic Arab Christians could be nothing but guesswork and OR. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Funkynusayri, The title of this article is misleading..Arabic speaking Christians means Christians who could speak Arabic regardless of wether they view themsevles as an ethnic Arab or not. Chaledean you need to listen to other people's views besides your own!!It is very hard (like funky said) to determine which Iraqi Christians regard themselves Arab based on their sect. Now chadlean ..this is what you are doing..you naively assume that every chaldean like yourself rejects the term Arab. That is hardly the case and could easily be proven wrong given the previous statements in this discussion by Iraqi chaldeans. Either you leave this article alone and stop trying to spread your narrow POV beliefs, or we should start another article properly titled Arab Christians that include ALL Christians of the Arab world. Who's in? Who wants to help with a new article...because this article seems to be hijacked by Chaldean and his views!George Al-Shami (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Stats

Check this, provided to me by Skatewalk, who was banned for some reason: [5] Funkynusayri (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1.7 Million (Excluding Arabic speaking Armenians) - why not exluding "Arabic speaking Syriacs/Assyrians"? I didn't get the memo that they are assumed Arabs? Chaldean (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Full of Nonsense

What kind of article is that?!

The title: "Arabic-speaking Christians" ?! and why don't you say "Arabic-speaking Muslims" as well?!

It is clear for me, without even knowing anything about the article's writer, that he's Lebanese. Christians in Syria and in most Arab countries don't debate their being Arabs, so what the ...?!

I just would like so much to know what kind of sience was used in the information box?! Lebanon was put on the top although it contains much smaller number of Christians than do the three following countries. Oh I see, he put Lebanon first THEN he changed his mind and decided to go by absolute numbers instead of percentage. What kind of brilliant new science is that?!!

Also, the number of Syrian Christians in the box is false and even contardicts the lousy article itself. Christians in Syria are about 2,000,000 not 843,000.

Finally, Christians in Lebanon are 45%??!! have you people been in a cave for the last 15 years?! I've never seen any recent estimation of them of more than 25%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.163 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • What about reading previous discussions instead of asking the same questions again? As for the numbers, 25% are for Maronites alone, they're not the only Christians in Lebanon. Funkynusayri (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

History NPOV

While I agree that Christian Arabs did have a significant controbution to Arab culture and civilisation, just like there Muslim and Jewish counterparts, due to the long peacefull co-existance etc... I would not go as far as saying, or suggesting as with this article, that most of the finest poetry etc... is produced by them, that's biase, and I believe that most is contributed bt the Muslim Arabs, who are the significant majority. I've slightly ammended that section, especially as it got no sourcing what-so-ever, to be more neutral and realistic. Thanks. Pink Princess (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians in general, and Copts in particular, are NOT Arabs

I am copying here my reply to George, previously posted on his talk page:

No Coptic authority would ever agree that Copts are Arabs. And the overwhleming majority of Copts will also deny this. I can provie you with references if you would like. --Lanternix (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
99% of Copts will NOT agree if you call them Arabs. In facts, like Bishop Thomas of Quesseya said in a lecture in the Hudson Institute: Copts will be insulted if you cal them Arabs. [6]. The remaining 1% will say they may be Arabs based on linguistic factors, but will again deny it based on anything else. Since no article in Wikipedia claims that Christians in Senegal for instance are "French Christians" (based on language), or that Christians in Austria are "German Christians" (again, based on language), it is unfair to claim that Copts are "Arab Christians" based on that same token. Copts simply have no place in this article. If you want to start a new article about "Arabic-speaking Christians", I will be happy to help a section there about Egypt. Thanks. --Lanternix (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I also forgot to mention that there are currently 4 million Copts living outside of Egypt (mainly in North America and Australia), most of whom do not speak Arabic, since Coptic churches in the diaspora drop the use of Arabic, and only maintain the use of Coptic in addition to the language of the host country. Since 4 millions is a pretty sizable shunk of the Coptic population, you cannot simply label Copts as Arabs, even on a lingustic basis (which, as I showed you before, is not correct anyway). Thanks. --Lanternix (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This article was called "Arabic-speaking Christians" until George changed it. I do not agree with the move. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you start having Wikipedia articles such as "Arabic-speaking Muslims", "Urdu-speaking Christians", and "French-speaking Mandaeans" etc, it may be appropriate to have an article about Arabic-speaking Christians. Honestly, I have never seen anybody else in the world - other than the pan Arabists - so obsessed with classifying people based on language. --Lanternix (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is, everyone else in the world does too. If you want to make clear to the world that Copts are not ethnic Arabs just because they speak Arabic, this is the article to do it. Read the previous discussions on this talk page for further details. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Everyone in the world does what exactly? Classify people based on religion or claim that everybody who speaks Arabic is an Arab? Does this make an Austrian a German? Does this make a Senegalese a French? Does this also make a Colombian a Spaniard?! This article is about Arab Christians. So find first who is an Arab, then if they are also Christians, then include them in the article. Copts are not even Arabs to begin with, and there are millions of Copts in the diaspora who do not speak Arabic. Even many Egyptian Muslims would take an offense at calling them Arabs (see writing by Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lotfi el-Sayed, Osama Anwar Okasha, Hassan Khalil, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah, Sayed el-Qemny etc etc). --Lanternix (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Laternmix give us an independent secular source that says 99% of Egpytian Copts reject the name Arab and then we'll remove the reference to Egypt, don't gives a source from the Coptic church, that's biased! Your 99% assertion is your own opinion backed up by your opinion, like FunkMonk told you, this article CLEARLY mentions that many Christians from the Arab world reject the term Arab, not only Egyptians but many Lebanese and Iraqi Christians. Your removal of Egypt is not based on neutral scholarship rather the opinion of yourself and the Coptic Church. Now when you gave us examples of Austrian Christian and not german christians you were giving us the exception. Think of Italians, French, Russian, Greeks, Poles, etc..I can go on and on with this list. and by the way people in Austria have no problem with being called German. Once again this is an inlcusionist article which clearly includes the views of the coptic church.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • To Lanternix, German-speaking Austrians are ethnic Germans, a Senegalese is a Francophone, and a Columbian is a "Latino/Hispanic". "Arab" can both refer to a member of an ethnicity and the speaker of a language, just like "Hispanic", and so on. Furthermore, Copts (and Maronites for that matter) simply don't use their own language anymore, so they can't claim to be comparable to for example Syriacs who use Aramaic as their first language. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good and valid point, I don't know why I didn't mention that...not only that...How do you know that Arab Christians from the Arabian peninsula did not mix or mate with Egyptians. Also Arab Christians from the Arabaian peninsula were immigrating to Syria and Egypt for hundreds of years before the 634 AD Arab Muslim invasion of Syria and Egypt! How can you be so sure that you are 100% coptic and not have nubian and african Christian DNA?George Al-Shami (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
To claim that the Coptic Church is a biased source is nothing but LAUGHABLE! The Coptic Church represents 95% of the Copts (since 95% of Copts are Coptic Orthodox, the remaining 5% being Catholics and Protestants). So you have sources that say 95% of all Copts are NOT Arabs.

But just to plaese you (I don't have to, I'm just being nice), here are SECULAR sources that say Copts are Egyptians NOT Arabs:

Now, clearly you haven't lived in either Switzerland or Austria if you say those people have no problem with being called Germans! And FunkMonk tells me that Austrians are Germans?!!! Please give me one scholarly source that says they are! They may be "Germanic" but certainly NOT "German", and so are the Latinos: Hispanics, NOT Spaniards. And Senegalese are indeed Francophones, and Copts are Arabophones. But just like the Senegalese are NOT French, the Copts are NOT Arabs. Very simple. And like I said, millions of Copts in the diaspora do not speak Arabic anyway, and yet still pray in church in Coptic. And Arab Christians from Arabia did not mix with Egyptians because no historical Coptic, Byzantine, Arab or any other source ever made such a claim, and we pretty much know the history of our country and th history of our nation. So this article has no place for Copts and Egyptians after all these proofs. Sure we may have African blood or Greek blood or whatever, there is no pure race on earth, but having African or Greek blood does not make you Arab, does it?! --Lanternix (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Laternmix none of the referneces you listed contend that 99% of copts reject the term Arab! NONE, you have not proved that all Copts reject the term "Arab". Since you have not proved this you cannot keep removing the reference to Egypt. You seem to continue to confuse ethnicity and politics. Many peoples of the world refer to themsevles by employing nationalisitc and political terms that have nothing to do with origins and ethnicity. For instance, Laternmix, what does it mean to be Canadian/American ? to be American does that mean you are from Anglo-Saxon origins, NO! right, and so in Egypt you have people , like other parts of the world, who identify and sympathize with political and cultural movements. And the assertion that millions of copts in the diaspora don't speak Arabic is not true and deceptive....all the first generation and second genreations copts I know, speak Arabic. I think the Copt page you created more than enough properly explains the ideological differences between Egyptian Christians. Once again this article is an inclusionist articles THAT INCLUDES all those Christians who identify themselves as Arabs and those who don't. This article includes the narrative of your church, whereas your own ideological opinionated narratrive would have people believe that there is no such thing as Egyptian Christians who call and pride themselves in being Arab. The article as is includes both narratives, you only want one narravtive..you can't do that here in Wikipedia. Cheers.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Lanternix, you're asking me to prove a negative with the German thing. But from an unreferenced Wikipedia article, it seems that it has "fallen out of fashion" to label German speaking Austrians as Germans after WW2, even though they were before, which is rather silly. Furthermore, it is irrelevant, since they are still German-speaking, just like Copts are Arabic-speaking. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

title change

All right people I have changed the title to include both narratives, as anyone can discern from the lenghty discussion, there are Arabic speakers in the Arab world who readily call themselves Arab and there are Arabic speakers who completely reject the term Arab. This is a very contentious issue, because there are some who stick with origins and some who argue politics and cultural movements factor in.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "Arabic" does not relate to people in English. The people are "Arabs," the language is "Arabic," and only horses and the peninsula are "Arabian." In other words, "Arabic Christian" is not only incorrect, but also renders the rest of the title redundant. Since there's so much dispute regarding what this article should cover and what it should not cover, maybe it should be split up into several, narrower articles.  Я Madler  גם זה יעבור R  17:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Madler is right about the word "Arabic" not relating to people, does anyone object to changing the title from "Arabic Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians" to "Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians.George Al-Shami (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the current version

  • 1. Eritreans are not Arabs and do not speak Arabic. Why are they included in the article?
  • 2. The totally POV statment Historically, a number of minority Christian sects that were persecuted as heretical under Byzantine rule (such as Miaphysites) actually began to enjoy more religious freedom under initial Arab Muslim occupation than they had under Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox Christian) rule is completely erroneous. I have tons of historical accounts and references that talk about the massacres, atrocities and oppression committed by the invading Arab armies against the native populations of the region - most of whom were the Christians that this article is talking about. I suggest this statment gets removed (since it has nothing to do with the point of the article anyway). Otherwise, I will have to begin a new section that discusses the aforementioned sources. --Lanternix (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. They should not be mentioned here.
  • 2. That bad treatment occurred under Arab rule does not mean that this treatment was worse than that of the Byzantine rule. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the claim that diaspora Copts do no speak Arabic seems dubious and needs a source. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try to find sources for the languages spoken by diaspora Copts, but I myself live outside Egypt and I know Egyptians in my country do not speak Arabic. As for that statment, how exactly can you compare the status of Christians under Byzantine rule vs. that under Arab rule? In my personal opinion, their status under Arab rule was much worse, based on historical accounts. What do people who support this claim base their opinion on? Not to mention that the only persecuted Christians under Byzantine rule were the Miaphysites, while Christians of all sects were persecuted under Arab rule. --Lanternix (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Typos and other problems

Could someone check the spelling of the article, saw a lot of typos (descant, oreintal etc) and because English is not my first language i would preffer another to do it.

Also i read something about "Crusader descent"... what does that mean? is "crusader" a population group? ofcourse not, or should it be "European descent"? since European populations have been settling (though not anymore now) to the Lebanon for over 2300 years: Greeks and other Balkan peoples during the Hellenic kingdoms, people from all over the Roman Empire during Roman and Byzantine rule, during Ottoman rule European Muslims held important roles throughout the Middle East (mercenaries,governors;Mehmed Ali or the Mamluks being the best examples) etc etc, so the Europeans that settled during the crusades (if there were any) would imo fit into this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.35.62.12 (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maltese people

Since this is about Arabic-Speaking Christians, I think we should limit it to people who speak dialects of Arabic, rather than separate languages somewhat based on Arabic like the Maltese language which is not considered an Arabic dialect. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but I think wikipedia consensus (which is the consensus of real linguists too, apparently) holds that the Maltese language has a place here, as a descendant of Siculo-Arabic. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I removed it to avoid confusing readers in believing that Maltese people are an Arabic-speaking Christian people. Another reason for removing it was to avoid any conflict, with major complaints coming from Maltese people, that might stem from its inclusion. But seeing that you, one of the more prominent Maltese editors, are okay with it then I guess I have no further reason to remove the passage. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The information was so heavily qualified I can see why you would think that it's not worth including. Honestly I don't think it needs to be there, but have no concerns over its presence either way. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_3&oldid=1037577557"