Talk:Arabs/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Arab Identity

Hello, Pinkbeast. First it was source not valid, alright I accepted that since it was about Arabs in East Africa and the other in Iberia and not in general, but now you are clearly pushing an agenda here, because this time it was a valid source, but you came up with another excuse. Do you have a problem? What is this 'second clause' you are mumbling about. I'm sure it's nonsense. Do you have any proof that is it necessary?

Stop using Wikipedia for propaganda, it's not a propaganda tool.

Greetings. CivieleTechnicus (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you added isn't in English.

"Arab identity is determined by multiple criteria's (sic) of which genealogical descent, meaning one who can trace his genealogy back to the one of the tribes of the Arabia (sic)." is a half-sentence. Genealogical descent is introduced as a subject, but no verb or object follows. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Arab jews

Infantom, could you please explain why you are removing "jewish" from the list of religions of the Arab people ? Also, your edit summary is quite irrelevant here since none of the religions cited in the infobox is sourced. Sources have to be cited (and, preferably, quoted) in the body of the aricle, not necessarily in the infobox. A source dealing with Arab jews : [1] and here is a quote from this source : "The first group consisted primarily of Arabic-speaking Jews from Syria and Iraq, several of whom took a prominent place in Arab nationalist, and anti-imperialist intellectual circles in the 1930s and 40s; the second he identifies as Yiddish-speaking Jews from Palestine, who exhibited marked Zionist sympathies.". Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikaviani, the quote you cited refers to "Arabic-speaking Jews", not "Arab Jews". There's a major difference. The rest of the source is also somewhat problematic as it contains opinions and self-identity of several individuals (Ellah Shohat, Yitzhaq Shami), and that's not enough to point out the general identity of Jews in the Arab World. Moreover, the document was published by the "Jerusalem Quarterly" (Institute for Palestine studies), i'm not sure it's a reliable source for that matter. Generally, Jews constitute a distinctive ethnic group and Judaism is their ethnic religion associated with them solely, you'll find many sources for that at the article Jews. I guess you could mention (in a relevant section) people of Jewish background that refer to themselves as Arabs, however it's unrelated to the infobox. --Infantom (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary "Ethnic religion can't be practiced out of its related ethnic group" is patent nonsense. Manifestly someone who is not ethnically a Jew can convert to Judaism and would then practice it; one might ask how on earth you would refer to their religion otherwise?. We have an entire well-sourced article, Conversion to Judaism, on the subject. This nonsense makes me a bit skeptical that the rest of your argument will hold up under examination, especially since "solely" in "Judaism is their ethnic religion associated with them solely" seems to be repeating the same nonsense. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you had bothered to check the sources in article Jews as i suggested, you would have known it's not "nonsense". One can assimilate into another ethnic group, and conversion to Judaism requires that from converts. Just an example, Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish identity and Ephesians. Cambridge University Press.: "This identification in the Jewish attitude between the ethnic group and religious identity is so close that the reception into this religion of members not belonging to its ethnic group has become impossible." Even the article you mentioned points this out: "Conversion to Judaism is the religious conversion of non-Jews to become members of the Jewish religion and Jewish ethnoreligious community". Infantom (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That cite is about the situation when Paul wrote Ephesians, ie just under two thousand years ago. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter since Jews have remained an ethnoreligious group. But here's a "modern" source[2] points out the interrelation between Judaism and one Jewish ethnicity. Infantom (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your first sentence is blatant assertion, not something you're actually citing. The cite you produce is no good; "religion is the basis of ethnicity", but it's not in dispute that ethnic Jews started out sharing the same religion, to say nothing of being a passing phrase in a document about Buddhism. I'm disinclined to engage in an endless repetition of this exercise where you produce a cite about the situation two millenia ago or that's otherwise unsatisfactory. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm mystified that you would think it plausible that, for example, African-Americans and Asian-Americans who convert to Judaism, or whose parents or grandparents converted to it, have thereby renounced their ethnic identification as Africa-American or Asian-American, calling themselves, instead, ethnic Jews. Largoplazo (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You involved racial definition. Anyway, the source given says nothing about ethnic Arabs who converted to Judaism and still calling themselves Arabs, but mention several Mizrahi Jewish individuals. Infantom (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Race is nothing more than a sociological overlay on top of ethnicity. If that doesn't clear it up, then pretend I had said Wolof-Americans and Han Chinese-Americans, OK? Largoplazo (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly i'm not convinced by your arguments, "jewish" is a religion, not a "race" or something. Also, Arab jews are Arab speaking jews and therefore, your removal of jewish religion from the list of religions is irrelevant. I'll revert your edit and restore "jewish" in the list, please do not remove it without a legit reason. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

" "jewish" is a religion, not a "race" or something"- By that you proved your ignorance regarding what is a Jew and Jewish identity. I tried to direct you to relevant sources (article Jews), but you simply ignored it, i'm not gonna copy paste all of them. Speaking Arabic doesn't make one an Arab, as much as speaking English doesn't make one an Englishman. And an agreement by another editor doesn't make your opinion more legitimate. Infantom (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Easy man, stay cool and avoid baseless accusations of "ignorance" toward other editors please. I may be wrong here, but this does not make me an ignorant for this topic. "Arabs" are an ethno-linguistic group and the "Jewish people" is an ethno-religious group. Even if early jews were a nation, this is far from being true today.---Wikaviani (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't intend to offend you, sorry if you took it that way. What i meant was that claiming that Jews are merely a religious group indicate a lack of knowledge on that topic. But you repeat the same mistake, this time for nation. Have you checked footnotes 11,12,13 at Jews? (Sorry i'm directing to another article, but i can't copy too many sources). Infantom (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Judaism", which is what has actually been put in the article, is a religion, and practicing Judaism makes one someone who practices Judaism. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

But then again, Judaism is associated with only one people (even mentioned at its own article). Infantom (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

According to me, Judaism is associated with Jews almost in the same way that Islam is associated with muslims or Hinduism with hindus.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems typical of this discussion in that you produce a straw man - the idea that Judaism is not associated with Jews - and argue with it. Obviously neither Wikaviani and I are saying that; they are closely associated. However, just because they are closely associated obviously does not preclude someone of a different ethnic background joining the faith. Hence if cites say that some Arabs practice Judaism it is perfectly sensible to put it in the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It may sound like a "straw man" only when you distort what i say. Judaism is not just "closely associated" with Jews but fused together with their ethnic identity; One cannot practice Judaism without being part of the ethnic group, whether by ancestry or assimilation (conversion). The association with the "People of Israel" is mandatory. That's all the point with the concept of "ethnoreligious group" (which is supported by 6 sources at Judaism and 7 at Jews). Your ignoring of the sources, and finding excuses not accept others (here's more [3], [4]), don't change that fact. No cite here says that "some Arabs practice Judaism", only one document by the "Institute for Palestine studies" says that some Jewish individuals refer to themselves as Arabs (disregarding the religion they practice btw). Given the lack of fundamental knowledge and the attempt to redefine the Jewish people here, a wp:rfc would be a good move. Infantom (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"One cannot practice Judaism without being part of the ethnic group, whether by ancestry or assimilation (conversion)" : If you recognize the fact that people can convert to judaism, this means that for example a Japanese (or an Arab ...) may be jewish. Also, the books you are providing are not stating that Arab jews do no exist, they just explain the history of judaism, or maybe i missed the point you wanted to illustrate with these works. Since it seems that you and us (Pinkbeast and i) cannot find a common ground here, Rfc sounds good to me. As far as i know and as someone living in western Europe, i know numerous people who are Arabs from Maghreb and jews (and Arabs from Maghreb and muslims), this is the first time I see someone tell me the kind of things you say about Jews. best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The additional sources speak about converting to the "Jewish ethnicity" through conversion to Judaism. "Ethnicity" isn't necessarily about "blood", and people can assimilate from one group to another. Anyway, in the body of the article we can be more pragmatic and, as i suggested in my first comment, mention Jews who refer to themselves as Arabs. But this group is so negligible and too insignificant to be mentioned in the infobox. Infantom (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Jews are an Ethnoreligious group, made up of different Ethnic-groups. Orthodox Jews consider individuals born of Jewish mothers to be Jewish. So you could be a Han Chinese married to a Dutch Jewish female and his offspring would be considered Jewish. So there are Arab Jews, Berber Jews, Persian Jews and so and so on. So it's a religious identity and not an ethnic group. -CivieleTechnicus (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"So it's a religious identity and not an ethnic group", like the others you redefine the Jewish people based on your personal opinion. Ethnoreligious group by definition is an ethnic group and no source was given about mixed ethnic Arab-Jews. These facts make your all argument irreverent. Please Read the sources and the arguments above, i'm not going the repeat myself. Infantom (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We have 3 users who are of the same opinion about the definition of "jews". Infantom, you may disagree with them but so far there is not a single other editor supporting your opinion about what being a jew means, case closed ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, case isn't "closed"? That's not how consensus works. Especially when no evidence was given to support your claims and the editors continue to demonstrate their lack of knowledge regarding Jewish identity and still refer them as religious group in contract to the given sources. I've published request for comment in the relevant talkpages. Infantom (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As you want, but your obstination in refusing to accept what is obvious is more and more like WP:LISTEN. Jews are an ethnoreligious group, not only an ethny. Also, your remark about the number of jews who refer to themselwes as Arabs is not supported by any of the sources given by you so far. As to the "lack of knowledge of the editors regarding Jewish identity", i'm quite baffled to see one editor saying that to four others... Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is just the same straw man again. People who practice Judaism are a religious group, and people can join that group because you can change religion; ethnic Jews are an ethnic group and people can't join that group because you can't change ethnicity. As it happens, membership of the two groups is closely correlated. It is unfortunate that you have gone to those talk pages and produced this straw man, rather than making a neutral request for comment.

If a significant number of Arabs are members of the religious group, then this page should reflect that. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, both Wikaviani and CivieleTechnicus (when there were only 3 participants in the discussion) have claimed that Jews are not an ethnic group. It is unfortunate that you didn't follow the comments and misinformed the rfc. Infantom (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is meaningless as long as it hasn't been settled what *ethnicity* means. You don't get to have it mean one thing for Jews, another for Arabs, another for Latvians, another for Tibetans, etc. In *my* understanding of the term, it involves one's genealogical heritage. It isn't something you change (like in the Kids in the Hall sketch in which Scott Thompson plays a teenager announcing to his parents that he's decided to be an Indian woman; or, for a real-life treatment, see Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who, years ago, started holding herself out as black). Largoplazo (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We already have an article Arab Jews, which defines: "Arab Jews is a term referring to Jews living in the Arab World". So if that is how the term will be used in this article, I see no problem with it. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The actual content dispute, last I checked, is the addition of "Judaism" to the infobox under religion. There is a sensible discussion to be had about what cites justify the idea that there are a significant number of Jewish-as-in-religion Arabs, but it seems to have got sidetracked. Indeed: Pinkbeast (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include Judaism in infobox. There are Arabs who are Jews and there are Muslims who are Arabs and there are Christians who are Arabs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

According to who?---- Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include Judaism in infobox. Arab Jews are Jews of Arab descent[5],[6], it's only cause of the state of Israel and current situation that their in a dillema and have to distance themselves from their descent and heritage. Most of them bear the typical Y-DNA Haplogroup J common among Arabs. The current Jews are an ethnoreligious group. - CivieleTechnicus (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This argument has some pretty bizarre implications. For example, genetics-- as anyone who reads the literature knows, Ashkenazi Jews from Poland also have high levels of haplogroup J, in fact even higher than many Sephardic groups -- so I suppose Ashkenazi Jews are Arabs according to this argument -- [Ashkenazim -- 41% Haplogroup J, versus Sefardim at 28%, guess the Ashkenazis are "more Arab" according to you?] (or how about certain peoples from Dagestan who have much higher levels of J than any Arab people?). Perhaps we should create Arab Jews from Poland :). But genetics doesn't make ethnic identity anyways, it's an anthropological definition based on mutually agreed upon sense of belonging, not your genes.

Furthermore what does "Arab descent" even mean? As we all know (from, drumroll, genetics) the modern day Arabic speakers have descent from many groups that mixed, not just nomadic tribes in Arabia, and there are stark differences between the genetic makeup of Arabs in Morocco, Lebanon, Yemen and Sudan.---- Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose inclusion There has not been anything close to sufficient support for such a controversial statement, as "Arab" is not a national identity but an ethnic and arguably macro-national (and we know it's even irredentist, don't we?). ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment It's very difficult for me to take "living in the Arab world makes you an Arab" as a definition that is in keeping with a neutral encyclopedia. Are we implying that Kurds, Circassians, Chechens, Armenians, Turkmen, Assyrians, Berbers, Roma, Nubians and all the other Sub-Saharan ethnic groups in Sudan, and so on -- plus loads of people from Europe, India, the Philippines and so on who live in the Gulf nowadays-- areArabs? That is utterly not our place as a neutral encyclopedia to decide and many members of those groups who do "live in the Arab world" absolutely do not identify as Arabs, so why are we imposing it on them? ---- Calthinus (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include we have sources dealing with this group.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Where? Sources actually talking about substantial numbers of Jews today identifying as Arabs seem to be nowhere to be seen -- let alone Kurds or even Filipinos. ---- Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One million is a substantial number (given in the sources of the next paragraph), as to your babble about Kurds and Filipinos, i just don't know what you're talking about ...---Wikaviani (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One million Jews who identify as Arab, where? If you're referring to hte figure in the infobox for Israel, that is not "Arab Jews" but actual Arabs, i.e. Israeli Arabs, a minority within Israel, who are Muslim and Christian. ---- Calthinus (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Include Judaism in infobox. Arabness and Jewishness are not mutually exclusive. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. In the modern era (as opposed to pre-Islam), Jews are usually seen as a separate ethnic-religious group from Arabs. There is a small minority that embraces the Jewish-Arab "concept" - however it is a distinctly small minority.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment An addition ought to just apply to the historical period. Arab converts to Judaism in in the Hejaz and Yemen are attested in both scholarly sources and Muslim Hadith and other Islamic traditions. Later most of the Arabic speaking world was under the Ottoman Empire for around 400 years and Jews living within that region where recognised as a separate ethno-religious community within the millet system. The development of Arab nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th century made barely any attempt to include Jews living in the Arab world as being part of an Arab ethnicity/nationality/nation. Ottoman collapse followed by colonialism and later independent Arab countries also made hardly any attempt to include Jews in an Arab identity framework and by 1948 Jews had departed for Israel. Mirazhi and Sefardi Jews in Israel have not considered themselves as Arabs as well in an independent Israel. Having Judaism for a few modern day Arab converts who live in Western countries does not apply for the modern period otherwise we might as well add other faiths as well like Buddhism and that would be POV/OR too.Resnjari (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Judaism to the infobox

I'd like to use this section just to discuss what cites justify the idea that there are a significant number of Arabs whose religion is Judaism. Wikaviani, I think you're first up; can you please indicate which cites support this idea? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Pinkbeast, actually the number of Arab jews is quite variable. I have some sources about that, but i need other contributors opinion about their reliabiliy : [7], [8], [9]. As far as i've seen, the number of Jews in the Arab world was in the millions after world war II whereas now, this number is only a few thousands. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost a million Arab Jews were exiled from their homes after 1948. In addition, the current state of Israel has around 1 million Arab Jews living in it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all the sources i've seen about this topic give roughly this figure.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Merely "living in Arab lands" does not make one an Arab. This is not the same as the (also controversial but not quite so much) presence of "Judaism" on pages for Germans or Poles-- or Iranians, because modern Arab identity is not a national identity but a supernational ethnic/nationalist-irredentist one. In order to properly assert that there are "few thousands" of Arab Jews, you need a WP:RS cite explicitly saying that these thousands of people identify as Arabs in an ethnic sense and/or macro-national sense. It doesn't look like you have that.---- Calthinus (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You're the same user who removed the "Jewish" information from the article, per your sole opinion, don't do this again as long as there is no consensus on this point. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I removed what was WP:OR. It was against wiki policy to have it. You can't restore it without a source.---- Calthinus (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but there is an active dscussion about this point on the talk page and clearly, you do not have any consensus for your edit, so just wait until the end of the discussion, thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Some sources : [10], [11].---Wikaviani (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but neither of these work for this. The latter source seems to be a tourism site. The first never mentions anything about "Arab Jews" actually describing themselves as ethnic "Arabs". ---- Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I quote the title of the first source : "Israel’s humiliating discrimination against Arab Jews"...---Wikaviani (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, "Arab Jew" does not reliably imply ethnic Arab identity, as it can also be used to refer to Jews speaking the Arabic language and/or living in areas with Arab majorities, neither of which explicitly states an Arab identity. Inferring that is WP:OR.---- Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope ! since there is nowhere such a thing in the source, this is your statement which is WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Lol, yes, as you say, there is nothing in the source calling them ethnic Arabs, which is the topic of this article for crying out loud (not "people who live in Arab lands" which can also include Filipinos, or "people who have spoken Arabic" which include of course Beitar ultras, Miri Regev and politicians from Shas who want reparations from Arab countries for expulsions, murders and property seizures involved in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries). If there is nothing, then how can we include it here and not have it be WP:OR? You seem to be running and hiding from this very obvious point...---- Calthinus (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You're joking, right ? the title of the article contains the words "Arab jews" and you came up here saying "Arab Jew does not reliably imply ethnic Arab identity" (but the opposite isn't in the article either, therefore your statement is OR). Do you really understand what you're writing ? sounds like WP:CIR to me ...---Wikaviani (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I stand by what I said, there are nuances here we should pay attention to in order to be a properly informative encyclopedia. Now, as for the WP:CIR commment, it does take some balls to insult another editor's intelligence on a high traffic talk page where mods just might happen to come across your comment, so I suppose I should salute you for that :). ---- Calthinus (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh ??? So you think that mentioning a wiki policy is insulting ? that's a good LOL moment dude, thanks for the good laugh !---Wikaviani (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Some people say the best way to learn is through experience. In this case, I wonder what would happen if you cited WP:CIR every time you got into an argument with someone when you didn't agree with their points...---- Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the point precisely, i do not cite WP:CIR every time i go into an argument with someone when i do not agree with their points, i cite WP:CIR when i meet some relevant case. Anyway, if you think this was an insult, just find an admin to step in and if you're right, i'll be blocked, but if you have some experience here on wikipedia, then you know very well that this will not happen. just because my remark was all but an insult.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If I wanted you to be banned right now, I would have templated your talk page and then tattled to the mods. Obviously, that isn't my goal.---- Calthinus (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, could you please explain me what would justify a ban on my talk page ? just curious.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"Arab Jews" is a rather small minority opinion for the 20th century groups. I will note however that pre-Islam there were Arab Jewish tribes who were ethnically Arab.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz imo this falls in the same domain as, say, listing paganism (not neo-paganism) for Germans or et cetera; it's notable only in a historical sense and typically isn't included in infoboxes which portray the present situation. Of course if there are still such tribes in existence that do have the modern Arab identity of course we can include it, although I haven't heard of this before. ---- Calthinus (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A small minority, ok but enough to be included in the article.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

To be precise my view is that a small minority views this small minority of Jews in the Arab world as Arab-Jews, whereas most treat them as a separate ethnic group - Jews, or Sephardic-Jews (which is wider than the Arab world).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please give your opinion above as to include or not "Jewish" in the infoobox. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion - not as a present day minority. I would however support placing this in "Historically", which is in this infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I can support this. ---- Calthinus (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Placing it in "Historically" would incorrectly imply that the Arab-Jews no longer exist. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling present day Jews from Arab countries "Arab-Jews" is a controversial position (both among Jews and Arabs, as well as anthropologically - these were distinct communities with their own language) - a clear minority position.Icewhiz (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed many would call the view fringe. In general I've noticed among people not actually familiar with Jewish culture let alone Israel that many of them think Jews from Arab countries have some sort of middle ground between Arab views and Jewish views. I suppose this view can be forgiven -- after all many Soviet Jews can retain fond feelings for Russia, and many Jews from Iran in Israel and in the US are strong supporters of Israeli-Iranian peace and reconciliation. But this is not true of "Arab Jews", who tend to be more right-wing and hardline than other Jews in Israel as well as in the West, and in Israel they are a large part of hte bedrock of rightwing parties like Likud (Bibi's party) and of course Shas (some of whom want "reparations" from Arab countries) which are less pro-peace than the historic left parties (Meretz, Labour…) which have been more associated with the "Yiddish" Ashkenazim from Central Europe. People who don't seem that familiar with Israel on Wikipedia talk about the struggle of Mizrahim against discrimination as if it is part of some broader Arab or Palestinian struggle, but while it is true that some Jews made contributions to Arab nationalism before hostilities broke out, after the very unfortunate events of hte 30s, 40s and 50s, the Jewish and Arab identities got an unbridgeable (sadly) gulf between them, and many of the figures involved in Mizrahi identity movements had strikingly dim views of reconciliation with actual Arabs. And while of course it is true that there are indeed pro-peace Mizrahim (plenty in fact), it would seem to ignore a lot of very obvious facts on the ground to try to portray all Mizrahis this way (one of many illustrations... here's Beitar, the good old soccer team that got taken over by ultra-righties who happen to be disproportionately Mizrahi and loooooove Trump [[12]]) ---- Calthinus (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why their views are pertinent here; what matters is whether they are ethnically Arabs and religiously Jewish. If a significant number of such people exist, it is correct to put "Judaism" in the infobox; if not, not. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There were undisputably Arab Jews before the 20th century, but during the 20th century, Arab nationalists and most Arab governments showed by their rhetoric and actions that they refused to consider Jews to be good Arabs (the only Arab country that has given Jews the consistent protection needed to sustain a real Jewish community -- not just a remnant of a few old people -- over the long term is Morocco), so that it would be rather grotesque to try to revive this outdated obsolete concept by means of Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, especially after episodes like the 1941 Farhoud massacre and the string of others in the same period. I would also note that many of these Jews who contributed to Arab nationalist movements were also Zionists-- back then you could be both, but obviously not today. @AnonMoos and Icewhiz: you two may be unaware but in the thread above there is an informal !voting on this issue going on.---- Calthinus (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If they didn't stop having children in the 20th century, then their descendants remain ethnically Arabs; they're probably also religiously Jewish. They probably don't _identify_ as Arab Jews anymore, but that's another question. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither history nor modern day ethnic definitions can depend on "what-if" statements like the one above. Also, I don't think it is the job of Wikipedia editors to determine that millions of people are "wrong" in how they identify based solely on those editors' knowledge of their geographic origin. Fyi Mizrahi Jews didn't even originally speak Arabic (with the exclusion of those actually in Arabia), they only adopted it centuries after Arab Muslim conquests -- their relationship to Arabic is exactly identical to that of English-speaking Irish people to English, and I'm not sure what that statement about their "actual ethnicity" is based on.-- Calthinus (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's the job of Wikipedia editors to determine what sources say about people's ethnicity, to which the question of how they identify is largely irrelevant. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

None of the given cites support the idea that there is a significant number of Arab Jews. Some of them are not even wp:rs such as blogs and a book review (of a non academic study). Most of them refer to Mizrahim before and during the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, who never been considered to be Arabs; for example in the book Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East, Jews are categorized as a distinctive group and no reference is given to the "one million Arab Jews". Infantom (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"Arab Jews" is an alternative term used by a small minority in regards to the Mizrahim (pre and post exodus, as well as the small communities remaining in some Arab states).Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Like Infantom, I am unable to find this statement of "1 million" Arab Jews existing. Neither of those communities are anywhere close to that size. ---- Calthinus (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit stuck here since the cites for inclusion are weak, but the arguments for exclusion are equally weak, seeming more to focus on how people identify than their actual ethnicity. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Jews were a separate Ethnoreligious group in Arab countries (as they were in Eastern Europe) - they spoke their own languages/dialects (Judaeo-Spanish, Judeo-Arabic languages), lived in their own areas, and did not intermarry with the Arabs (or rather, if they did, typically became Arab), and there was migration and contact with Jewish communities outside of the Arab world. They were a separate group for hundreds of years. Using Arab-Jewish would be akin to using Polish/Russian-Jewish as an ethnic group - which is not how this is usually classified (as a nationality - in modern post national awakening states - perhaps - but not as an ethnic category).Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a more coherent argument for exclusion, thank you, although I don't think there is any proposal to use "Arab-Jewish" or "Arab-Jews". Pinkbeast (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Polish jews or Russian jews also exist. During the last decades, more than a million Russian jews emigrated from Russia and settled in Israel, Avigdor Lieberman is one of them.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is actually irrelevant but even here there is controversy -- there are surely Polish Jews and Russian Jews (Polish and Russian being used in the national sense) but are there ethnic Poles and ethnic Russians with a Jewish faith? Well that's pretty complicated as historically in both Poland and Russia Jews were considered a separate ethnicity from Poles/Russians which also explicitly required Catholic/Orthodox practice (nowadays this requirement is relaxed a bit). Jews in boht countries also spoke historically Yiddish and lived in separate communities (shtetls) from the Slavs. On the other hand during the Soviet period there was heavy intermarriage and so there are indeed plenty of people of partial ethnic Russian descent who do identify as Russian and also practice Judaism -- how long their "Russian" identities will persist in Israel where different Jewish groups tend to dissolve in the "melting pot" is an unanswered question. ---- Calthinus (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, yes, they are ethnic Poles/Russians. The fact that their Russian identity persists or not is not the question here (but clearly, this part of their identity is still alive among Israeli citizens of Polish/Russian origin).---Wikaviani (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

For pretty much all of those that aren't the new ex-Soviet wave of Jews to Israel who often literally are ethnically Russian (i.e. of mixed Russian and Jewish descent), no they do not have an ethnic Polish or Russian identity, just a one in the terms of national-origin. One can even speak of Polish-Jews -- i.e. Poylaks -- as opposed to say Lithuanian Jews -- Litvaks -- or those from West Ukraine -- Galitzianers -- but none of these terms discusses a subgroup of Poles/Lithuanians/Ukrainians, but rather Jews who lived in the same area, in teh same sense that Lipka Tatars are not Poles. Actually even these Ashkenazic subdivisions do not match perfectly onto the surrounding Slavic/Baltic ethnic distinctions -- for example, large parts of NE Poland, Belarus and even Ukraine are "Litvak" territory. ---- Calthinus (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody can tell for sure how many Arab Jews there are, but the fact that they exist is unquestionable, and important if we want our readers to understand what it means to be an Arab (the primary topic). Here are some quotes that some of you may find helpful:

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

The taboo around the Arabness of Sephardi history and culture is clearly manifested in Israeli academic and media attacks on Sephardi intellectuals who refuse to define themselves simply as Israelis and who dare to assert their Arabness in the public sphere....... The strong cultural and historical links that Middle Eastern Jews have shared with the Arab Muslim world, stronger in many respects than those they shared with the European Jews, threatened the conception of a homegeneous nation akin to that on which European nationalist movements were based. As an integral part of the topography, language, culture, and history of the Middle East, Sephardim have also thretened the Euro-Israeli self-image, which sees itself as a prolongation of Europe, "in" the Middle East but not "of" it.... Arabness and Orientalness have been consistently stigmatized as evils to be uprooted, creating a situation where Arab Jews were urged to see Judaism and Zionism as synonyms and Jewishness and Arabness as antonyms. Thus Arab Jews were prodded to choose between anti-Zionist Arabness and pro-Zionist Jewishness for the first time in history.... Israel has taken upon itself to "cleanse" Arab Jews of their Arabness.

Numerous Jewish scholars – Ella Shohat, David Shasha, Amiel Alcalay, and many others – perfectly master the Arabic language (teaching in it) and affirm a dual identity, at once Jewish and Arab.... The Jewish community that lived for centuries in the Arab countries maintained, upon moving to Israel in the middle of the twentieth century, the whole of its linguistic heritage.... Despite years of brainwashing, official propaganda and campaingns of "de-Arabisation", the second generation of Mizrahi-Arab Jews seems to have rediscovered, over the last two decades or so, a fresh identity that is being increasingly designated under the cultural title of "Arabness".

References

M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well some people take the neutrality of sources that use terms like "brainwashing" more seriously than others. Here's what would be a much more grounded view:

These are false terms and false notions, according to Tunisia born expert on Maghrebien Jews, Professor Jacob Taieb, Sorbonne University, France. Tunisia born historian, Professor Paul Sebag, stated that “these terms were never used in Tunisia, and they do not do not correspond/coincident to the religious and socio-historical context/reality of the Jews in Tunisia/the Arab world.” Nowadays, one distinguishes between a Moslem Arab and a Christian Arab, and I think this caused some to invent, to facilitate matters, the terms: Arab Jew or Jewish Arab = Juif Arab or Arabe juif. The historical fact is, that the Arab component of the North African society was introduced during the conquest of the seventh century, after the establishment of North African Jewish communities.

In Arab countries, there are Jews among the Arabs, like in European and other countries, there are Jews among the French, Italian, Polish, German, American ... people. In North Africa, some Jews are arabophone, speaking a Judeo-Arabic language, and others are francophone, speaking French; and in some areas there are “arabized” Jews who dress quite like Arabs. The fact is that even when the Jewish community was culturally quite embedded in its Muslim Arab environment, Jews were always considered members of a socio-religious community minority, different and distinct from the Arab population, because of their Jewish cultural tradition, their common past, and the Judeo-arabic language - all of them separated them from the Arabs. And the Arabs saw the Jews, even the ones who spoke only Judeo-Arabic, as members of a socio-linguistic religious cultural community, different from theirs.

The Jews in Tunisia were able to maintain and reproduce their autonomous administrative, cultural and religious institutions, preserving intact their religious and communal identity. ... a cohesive, well-organized and structured Jewish community, who remained a separate entity from the Arabs and the French.”

Clearly reflecting the Tunisian reality of three distinct social identity groups— les Français, les Arabes, les Juifs— which are, at the same time, national and religious.

-- Calthinus (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

At least the first excerpt here seems a bit dodgy; manifestly if these Jews were there "long before" Arabs arrived on the scene, they are not Arabs. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. The whole "Arabness" of areas outside of the Arabian peninsula (and closely around it) is not really based on ethnicity (in the genetic sense) - but on a common language/religion/culture. During the Arab conquest, North Africa was conquered - and the people mostly (with some Berber languages holdouts) taking up Arabic language, Islam, and culture. The people of North Africa were long there before the Arab conquest, and for the most part the people remained under the Arab conquest - but their cultural identity and hence ethnic identity they describe themselves as changed (and they clearly describe themselves as Arab - and hence so do the sources and we). However, Jews retained a separate identity (those who did not convert to Islam).Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah of course they have a separate identity, just like christian Arabs who have a separate identity from the muslim arabs. Religion is a part of people's identity.---Wikaviani (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is ethnic identity not just religious. Even if those Jews were atheist they would still be considered as Jews and not Arabs. Infantom (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion, i'll cite a few other factors. Most of the Arabic speaking world was under the Ottoman Empire for around 400 years, Jews that lived in those areas and the wider Ottoman Empire were recognised as a distinct ethno-religious community within the millet system. Another thing not mentioned here is that during the development of Arab nationalism (which was quite late in the 19th century) hardly any attempt was made by its intellectuals to include Jews or to consider them as being part of an Arab nation/nationality/ethnicity. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the colonies and later independent countries that followed did not integrate Jews into a Arab ethnicity nor did Jews feel themselves to be Arab. That state of affairs continued until 1948 when most Jews left for Israel after its founding. Whatever small number there might have been of those Jews who may have aligned with a Arab identity (19th century-early 20th century), they are so insignificant that they are barely attested in scholarship, yet alone existing today. Adding Judaism to the infobox for the modern period makes no sense and is POV. A convert (by Arabs living in the West) here or there is insignificant otherwise we might as well add Buddhism and other faiths which in the end would be POV/OR too.Resnjari (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Icewhiz. I think where I've been in error is in thinking of "Arab" as a well-defined ethnicity when that's not as true as it might be; in the light of that much of the argument for inclusion seems less good, and I'm happy for it to be left out. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari, you said "Coming late to the discussion, i'll cite a few other factors" : yeah you came late to the discussion and removed the word "Jewish" from the article without any consensus for that : i draw your attention on the fact that burden of proof lies with the user who is adding or modifying the content and here, it was user Infantom who removed first "Jewish" from the article : [13], therefore, the burden of proof lies with you guys who support "oppose" and not the ones who support "include". Please note that i'm not going to revert you, but if you intend to make a constructive contribution to this thread in accordance with Wiki policies, then you need to self-revert. best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the removals by Resnjari and Infantom. The material was violating wiki policy -- it was flagrant OR. ---- Calthinus (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: It is precisely because Arabness is a cultural concept, not an ethnic one, that the Arab-Jews exist. It is obviously unique, and hard to define, but it wouldn't harm to think of it as being similar to Europeaness, but much stronger due to the shared language, sense of humour, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we mostly deal with WP:VERIFIABLE facts and concrete things. While we as individuals can talk about (true) shared cultural traits, there's really no way to measure this and truth be told nowadays even Ashkenazi Israelis can be observed to have a somewhat "Arabized" material culture and cuisine, pepper their speech with Arabic loanwords without even realizing it at times, and so on.---- Calthinus (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani:, yes i did come late to the discussion, so i read the whole thing. Your right in saying that the burden of proof lies with the editor adding or modifying content. So in this instance Infantom was right in removing Judaism from the infobox because it was a recent addition by @Scarsdale.vibe [14] on June 4, 2018 that was not there before in older stable versions of the article and its infobox. I don't see that editor having partaken in any of the discussions here or provided proof/reasons for their addition. Infantom followed WP:BRD and currently this matter is in the discussion end of the cycle. No adds until some resolution is achieved. Editors who are not in favour of having Judaism for the modern period have outlined their reasons and backed themselves with scholarship. They have also backed a compromise of having Judaism as a historic religion of Arabs (which is true especially for the late antiquity period) and accounted for in scholarship that meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Best.Resnjari (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, they could also exist if it was an ethnic concept - indeed, their existence would be much more easily measured, the error I think I made here.

However, in view of it being a cultural concept, it seems to me that the "leave it out" editors are producing solider looking cites, in general. I was confused at first because of this absurd argument above that religious conversion changes your ethnicity, but now we're past that, I think I have to come down on the side of leaving it out, at least unless a weight of cites is produced to swing it the other way. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: On Wikipedia we mostly deal with WP:VERIFIABLE facts and concrete things Before I start addressing the raised concerns, can you please direct me to the WP policy that says we mostly deal with verifiable facts and concrete things? M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What is the correct pronunciation of "Arabs" in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:A00:ADC4:F00F:7A8E:3F40:338F (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

IPA [ɛːrəbz]. Some decades ago, [eɪræbz] was sometimes used, but you can't really get away with that nowadays unless you're Ray Stevens... AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary (converting their representation to IPA) says the UK pronunciation has /æ/ and the US one has /ɛ/. The Merriam-Webster Unabridged, which is based on US English, shows both, with /æ/ first, though not marked as primary.

I'm from the US and I have /æ/ in "carob" and "Arab" but /ɛ/ in "cherub". The OED treats "carob" as it does "Arab"; the MW Unabridged treats "carob" as it does "Arab" except that the two pronunciations are listed in the opposite order. Both dictionaries show only /ɛ/ for "cherub".

I think the dictionaries are skipping over a difference in pronunciations that's illustrated by the three-way distinction among the pronunciations in the English of many (including mine) of "marry", "merry", and "Mary". My pronunciation of "Arab" (likewise "carob") has the vowel from "marry", /æ/ as in "pat". The other pronunciation of "Arab" that I can think of has the vowel that I have in "Mary", the vowel found in "pair". I could be wrong, but the idea that anyone pronounces "Arab" with the vowel that I have in "merry", the one that I would represent with /ɛ/ as in "pet", seems mistaken to me. This may be because the dictionaries are using the grapheme <e> to cover both /ɛ/ and /eɪ/ in front of "r". Well, not exactly, as the OED uses /ɛ/ and distinguishes, for UK pronunciation, between /ɛ:/ in "Mary" and /ɛ/ in "merry", while showing both words to have unlengthened /ɛ/ in US English, which is nonsense since "merry" has merged to "Mary" and not the reverse, as observed by me and as explained at English-language vowel changes before historic /r/#Mary–marry–merry merger. Largoplazo (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right -- I merge marry/merry/Mary in my personal speech, but I was assuming it was pronounced with the "Mary" vowel (because of the stress and spelling of the word, I expected a "long a"); however, Daniel Jones says that it's actually the "marry" vowel (a "short a"). So scratch [ɛːrəbz], and put in its place [æːrəbz]. Sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It may be that a common phonemic representation of the initial vowel in "Mary", and also in "Arab" for people who have the Mary-marry-merry merger is /ɛ:/ but, phonetically, it isn't a pure vowel, certainly not [ɛ:]. I don't know how best to represent it—maybe [ɛə] or [eə]? Largoplazo (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Historically, the English so-called "long a" vowel became [eɪ] in most contexts, but remained [ɛ:] (its general pronunciation at an earlier historical period) when before "r". It was pronounced [ɛ:] before "r" in the common ancestor of British "Received Pronunciation" and U.S. "General American" pronunciation. In many British dialects it has now become [ɛə], while in many American dialects it has been caught up in the Mary/merry/marry merger. There are some notes at Help:IPA/English, but I'm not sure how helpful they are if you're not already familiar with some linguistic concepts. AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lebanon not Arab debate

Should we add a section to discuss the special case of Lebanon? There are MANY reports that Lebanon is not Arab, but rather "where the East meets the West". I believe we should, and for the following reasons:

• Lebanon's "National Pact" (the centerpiece of Lebanese politics) says that Lebanon is a country with an Arab face, not Arab identity.
• Nowhere in the Lebanese Constitution does the word "Arab" appear (it appears in the Ta'if Accord, but not the Constitution).
• The CIA factbook says that Lebanese Christians do not refer to themselves as Arabs, but descendants of the Phoenicians (they are 41% of the pop.).
• Numerous political parties insist that Lebanon is not Arab (SSNP, Lebanese Forces, Guardians of the Cedars, Free Patriotic Movement, Kataeb Party). The only pro-Arab Christian party is the Marada Movement.
• There are numerous people that claim that the Lebanese language is in fact distinct from Arabic (Said Akl, a legendary poet in Lebanon, was a main proponent of this idea).
• Genetically, it is proven that Lebanese people are not Arabs, but actually over 90% Phoenician (sources below).

• https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/canaanite-bible-ancient-dna-lebanon-genetics-archaeology/?user.testname=none
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/all-lebanese-arabs-science-proves-phoenicians-bernard-ammoun
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-phoenicians-dna/in-lebanon-dna-may-yet-heal-rifts-idUSL0559096520070910
• https://medium.com/east-med-project-history-philology-and-genetics/something-nordic-supremacists-will-not-like-44d99e8a4188

Rik Spoutnik (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A very similar argument could be made for much of the Arab world outside of the greater Arabian Peninsula (Arabian Peninsula + bits of Iraq, Jordanian/Syrian desert, Sinai, etc.). Modern pan-Arab identity is to a large extent predicated on the common written language and politics from 19th-20th century. In short - I don't think a per-country exception is needed, but rather perhaps expansion of the wider topic. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Lebanese Constitution does the word "Arab" appear (it appears in the Ta'if Accord, but not the Constitution). The Taif Agreement was incorporated into the revised constitution which states that: "Lebanon is Arab in its identity and in its association. It is a founding and active member of the League of Arab States and abides by its pacts and covenants." M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Traditional belief

Arab tradition belief is that there are three types of Arabs 1-Arab Aribah(pure Arabs) who are the Qahtanites. 2-Arabized Arabs who are the Adnanites who links themselves to Ishmael (Although there are problems in their lineage) 3- extinct Arabs. this is all sourced in their articles. The paragraph states that traditional belief is that Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael which is not true as it is mentioned in the article of Qahtanite. Sources that I removed talks about Ishmael and mention that he gave birth to Adnanite Arabs but don't talk about the tradition belief. @Pinkbeast: has revert my edits can you please explain why? Thanks. SharabSalam (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This is very incoherent and it's difficult to understand what your objection is, but you need to produce actual cites to support your point of view. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: there are a lot of sources for this and you have deleted one btw. This source for example states that the traditional belief is that Qahtanite Arabs who have nothing to do with Ishmael are the Pure Arabs [15] and here is another one. I can provide many sources for this meanwhile the source you put does not mention the tradition belief ,[16].--SharabSalam (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

NB for other editors: there's another version of this going on at Qahtanite and I'd like more eyes (and more informed eyes than mine) on that. The main objection is that "there is no such thing as modern historiography" which, er. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: Wow so you are actually uninformed about the subject, you just click on my contributions and started reverting almost all of my edits without being informed about the subject? Are you trolling? Do you have any issue with me? Is it about Zahran tribe?

Here are my objections 1- where does the previous source mention that the tradition belief is that Arabs are from Ishmael? Ishmael married from the second Jurhum tribe which is a Qahtanite tribe the source says Ishmael married Aisha and Fatima (Arabic names) also the source (after downloading it) states that Ishmael learned Arabic from the second Jurhum tribe. 2-I provide clear sources that states clearly what is the traditional belief can you find any other sources that say otherwise? --SharabSalam (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is my contribution list [17] in case you want it to check it instead of checking the sources I have provided SharabSalam (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping General Ization, Doug Weller, and especially Wikaviani; SharabSalam _claims_ each of you "had no problems with the edits but with source publishers which I fixed later"; please can you review the current version and comment on it? I find SharabSalam too incoherent to make sense of. [[User:|Pinkbeast]] (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: why are you bothering asking them check by yourself [18],[19], [20] General Ization explained in my talk page that it was because of the publishers here[21] (although I have fixed them) you are the only one and you have said you arent even well informed about the subject which made me wonder why? is it personal? SharabSalam (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All those diffs show me is that they didn't like your previous version, which is not news. I'm waiting to find out what they think of your current version; yes, I'm quite sure that Wikaviani particularly is more knowledgeable about this subject than I am, and as such it is perfectly reasonable to seek their input before going further. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

All these reverts should have showed you that they only didnt like self-publishers which I had fixed in my later edit. these diffs should have proven that you are the only one who is having problem with the content other than sources. Do you hold any sources (like I do) that the tradionial belief is that Arabs are desendents of Ishmael? I can provide you tons and tons of sources in addionial to the sources I have already provided in the article. yet you dont have any argument about your edits (unlike the other editors who their argument was about sources) you are just trying to prevent me from making wikipedia a much rilable sourceSharabSalam (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I don't even understand why are we even arguing? You don't hold any valiable argument for example you don't say I deleted your edits because of this and this and this. SharabSalam (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, not least because you are so incoherent it is often difficult to know what you mean. I'm waiting to find out what other experienced editors whose judgement I trust think of your edits, because clearly when you claim you know what they think you have no way of knowing. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing it somehow. Can you quote from The Arabs and Arabia on the Eve of Islam on page 5 and/or Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, page 59, where it supports this sentence?

• "Tradition holds that pure Arabs descend from Qahtan, son of Hud while Arabized Arabs descend from Ishmael, the son of Abraham."
  

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI,

• Evolution of Humanity: The Path to Independence, Kamran Pirnahad, iUniverse.

iUniverse is a self-publisher and Kamran Pirnahad has no specialization in Islamic or Pre-Islamic history. Thus not a reliable source.

• The Middle of the Earth, Allen Austin. Xulon Press.

Xulon Press is a Christian self-publisher and Allen Austin appears to have no specialization concerning this field. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: The statement you try to include in the article by the mean of edit warring is not explicitly supported by the sources cited and is quite exceptional. As such, this kind of nationalistic claims like "pure Arabs are ..." sounds irrelevant in an encyclopedia and would need numerous highly qualified sources for inclusion. After taking a look at the sources, it appears that in source number 45, Peters says that what he calls "pure Arabs" were those who, from the beginning, were "speakers of pure Arabic", this is, for the least, very different from the sentence you included. In source number 46, there is no mention of any "pure Arab" and the source number 47 seems also quite irrelevant for such a claim. Your edit is therefore under WP:OR and i'm going to revert back to the last good version available. I strongly advise you to refrain from reverting back again and to drop the stick before being blocked. Best regards.

Pinkbeast, thanks for letting me know about this. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sharabsalam : Also, please desist from being aggressive toward other editors when you disagree with them. "Wow so you are actually uninformed about the subject, you just click on my contributions and started reverting almost all of my edits without being informed about the subject? Are you trolling? Do you have any issue with me?" is irrelevant since Wikipedia is not a battlefield and i would suggest you to strike it. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Coming in late, sorry. I hope this is settled now and that User:SharabSalam will be more careful with sources and comments on other editors. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit comes with the edit summary "Both are reliable sources especially the first one".

This is nonsense. The second source is one that supposes the Old Testament is literally true. The very page cited refers to the myth of the Tower of Babel as fact. It is clearly not at all reliable. Furthermore, it is a book about the September 11 attacks written by John F. MacArthur; it is not a book about history centuries ago, and it is not written by someone who is an authority on history.

The first source is better (to put it mildly), but it is still an encyclopaedia for children, which might be expected to oversimplify.

Right now we have; "The Arabian peninsula is the birthplace of Arab people,[46] as well other Arab groups that spread in the land and existed for millennia." This doesn't even make sense; who are these "other Arab groups" who are "as well" as "Arab people"?

Once we remove the second cite and the material cited to it, we have "The Arabian peninsula is the birthplace of Arab people". This is a slightly vague reiteration of the first sentence of the paragraph - "The first mention of Arabs is from the mid-ninth century BCE as a tribal people in eastern and southern Syria, and the north of the Arabian Peninsula", which is cited to a better source that one would not expect to oversimplify.

Hence as far as I can see this entire sentence should be removed forthwith. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no nonsense here. The summary makes a perfect sense (both of sources are reliable.) and the first paragraph does not contradict the source. If it does please give the reason why.. thanksSharabSalam (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting a source that supposes the Old Testament is literal truth is reliable? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right but a lot of sources here suggest that the old testament and Islamic tradition are literal truth you can remove the second sentence but not the first one because it's reliable and it does not contradict with any paragraph as you claimed.SharabSalam (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't claim anything of the sort. Please take a little more time to read what I wrote, and also the section of the article actually being discussed - there is only one sentence. What I said about the first part of the sentence is that it is cited to a children's encyclopaedia which may oversimplify and simply restates the first sentence of the paragraph in a vaguer fashion.

Please can other editors comment, especially if they can actually understand what I'm writing? Pinkbeast (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This whole stuff : "Tradition holds that Arabs descend from Ishmael, the son of Abraham. The Arabian peninsula is the birthplace of Arab people, as well other Arab groups that spread in the land and existed for millennia." is very poorly sourced. The first source, written by Lindsay Jones appears to be religious and non specialized. The second is Britannica for students, not the online Encyclopedia Britannica, unreliable. The last one is a book about september 11 attack, by John F. MacArthur, hard to believe how that source can reliably support "Arabs spead in the land and existed for millenia". Removed, unless reliable sources can be found to support it. Best reagrds.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Mauritania.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

IP edits

They primarily live in the Arab states in Western Asia, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and western Indian Ocean islands. There is an anonymous user who is deleting horn of Africa saying that they aren't Arabs. notice that the paragraph is sourced and it's not saying by any way that horn African countries are Arabs but that Arabs live there the same with western Indian Ocean islands. SharabSalam (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Genetic Origin Of The Arabs

According to DNA Tribes, the Arab population of (Saudi) Arabia, was originally the same as the Black population of Africa, and later mixed with Neolithic Early European Farmers.

"In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations." Source: DNA Tribes Apr 2 2014, "Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe". By the way the Western Hunter Gatherers of Europe (exclusively present from 47,000 BC - 6,000 BC) were all Black in phenotype, with blue eyes, and are the origin of the blue eye gene. The pale skin of the Yamnaya (Mound Builders - herders from Russia) didn't show up until very late, and wasn't even widspread until 4,000 years ago. Pale skin wasn't even widespread among the Early European Farmers (EFF). (Source: CARTA: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution – Johannes Krause: Ancient European Population History) Thanks to genetic mapping, we live in strange times. :) 83.84.100.133 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

2A02:1388:4084:E5B3:0:0:403C:DB8D (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The number the arabs in the world is 310.000.000

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on edit warring (ethnic group vs ethnolinguistic vs population)

Wikipedia policy if there's no consensus that can be reached, is quite clear and has been respected in other edit conflicts, quoting the following verbatim:

1) "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. "[22]

2) "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." [23]

3) "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." [24]

This is pretty straight forward. 2 years ago, a part of the article (describes Arab as ethnic group) wasn't causing any controversy, a bunch of users (one of them being banned) wanted to change it due to political and ethnic reasons (as they have stated in the discussion). A proposal was started to change the word to ethnolinguistic. A consensus was not reached. So the default "Arabs described as ethnic group" is what should be reverted to and not "Arabs are a population..." The side that hasn't been able to get consensus doesn't typically get the last say in enforcing an edit without starting a different discussion about a new proposal. Again, reverting it to default https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs&oldid=756988305 before Soupforone's vandalism (currently being banned indefinitely). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soupforone I would not be surprised if a related sock puppet account of that user is still continuing to edit this page.

In short, this revert is done to restore the default statement in the intro of the article prior to the conflict which led to a proposal which has gotten no consensus. This entire mess was started by a sockpuppet account (Soupforone was a sockpuppet of Middayexpress and many others) who has not followed proper Wikipedia guidelines and policy regarding this article.

CaliphoShah (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

2A02:587:6633:9A00:E5A0:E556:3271:73B6 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Marianna251TALK 21:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

El Britain

Because the number Arabs is 450.000.000 who included this number Egyptians who with page List of contemporary ethnic groups mention as ethnic group and so if removed the number Arabs - Egyptians => 450.000.000 - 104.000.000 = 346.000.000 ethnic Arabs Please thank you !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Britain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this editor is that they are doing original research and WP:SYNTH, also the fallacy that all Egyptians are not Arabs. that's absolutely not true. Egyptians are a nation. They are from many many different backgrounds, Arabs, Greeks, Italians, Africans etc. From my observation, most of Egyptians are Arabs and Turks. Thats because I find a lot of Arab tribes and Turkish surnames in their names. They are very mixed but they are more associated with the Arabs than with any other ethnicity.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)(note: this comment was moved from El Britain talk page)

I want also to note that the article Egyptians says that there are over 100 million Egyptians in the world and the source is about the citizens of Egypt it's the official census data about Egyptian citizens. There is no mention of their ethnicities, tribes, colour etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Origins and Early History

Found a source for the information needed in the Origins and Early History section on the divergence from Central Semitic language here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839953/. Don’t have time to make an account right now so I’ll leave it for someone who already has one.

--204.239.156.253 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Population

Arabs in the world is 315 million with base

ethnicity = Arabs | speakers = 315 million, all varieties | date = 2011–2016

| ref = — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabsworld2019 (talk • contribs)

References

This is not about the Arabic language. The number you provided is already in Arabic.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The number of over 400 million is completely inflated. First of all, not all Arab League citizens are Arab (there are millions of Kurds, Turkmen and hundreds of thousands of each Assyrians, Yezidis, Circassians, etc...); second Arab League population is not hitting 400 million; third, most of "Arab diaspora" is not Arab, but rather non-Arab and disputely Arab ethnicites like Maronites, Copts, Arabized Berbers, etc.GreyShark (dibra) 06:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Berbers

Berbers are an ethnic group and population of millions. Editors should stop adding the number of Berber populations to a page about Arabs, the number as stated by the sources belongs to the official documents of the Arab league about the total number of populations living in the Arab world. All other groups should be subtracted from that general number. Dassin Imazighen (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

430 m. Arabs?

That's the total population of the citizens of the Arab league. First of all, the number shouldn't include the Berber Population (around 50 m.), a totally different group of people than Arabs. And I am sure there are many other foreign groups that should be subtracted from that hilarious Arab number.

Only Arab nationalists are the ones who keep spreading fake stories about us everywhere saying that Berbers are Arabs or belong to Arab tribes in Yemen and stole their traditions, when in fact we are much older than Yemen and Anthropology proves so. So may be Yemenites are Berbers then.

Berbers have always fought against Arabization, having so many recognised organisations in Africa, Europe attracting so many Maghrebien people everyday.

Berbers are not an Arab ethnic group.

The Arab League official site only mentions the total number of populations living in the region of the Arab World and saying that these are the numbers of Arabs is false and misleading. Arabs are not 430 millions, that's the number of many populations living in a certain region. Dassin Imazighen (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Dassin Imazighen, provide a source that explicitly says the number of Arabs that you are proposing in order to alter the number. Although this is not a forum, but you are insulting my people with your waffle. Who told you that anthropology proves that you are older than Yemen. You are as old as the French colony. Real Berbers tribes(which you call "Arab nationalists") claim that they are from Himyar. People who are descended from Yusuf ibn Tashfin and Tariq ibn Ziad (though they don't know where was Himyar)[25] even Yusuf ibn Tashfin claimed Himyarite ancestry and was called the Himyarite lord yet the French/European propaganda tries to erase those facts. Luckily people still remember. Note that claiming Himyarite ancestry didnt benefit anyone. The Himyarite themselves were discriminated some of them claimed Hashimate/Adnani ancestry. "Canaan made noise when I drove them from lands of destruction to a life of wonder"--SharabSalam (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Israel (native)

Regarding the infobox list: I presume the argument is that, by virtue of Israeli independence, the local Arab population became part of the diaspora. But that assertion needs to be backed up by reliable sources — not be based on a synthesis from a primary source. As an aside, I am this close to applying the ARBPIA DS to the article, but will hold off, for now. El_C 18:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C In fact, I would like to put forward my opinion on this issue, the Arab population existed before the establishment of a state in 1948, so they are native of this state. Like the indigenous people of North America you can't say about them in the diaspora because the European settlers created a state on their land.Sarah Canbel (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The word native means, "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not" according to Google. The word Arab here is an ethnicity. You can be a native Arab in Iran if you were born in Iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I previously removed the word native as it is not clear whether the Arabs i.e in Indonesia, U.S. etc are native or not. So i don't think we need native in the infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe this edit Special:Diff/917100757 fixes the problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem was solved without delay, but as per WP:INFOBOXFLAG generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes.Sarah Canbel (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Canbel, flags are used in Egyptians, Syrians, Greeks, Assyrians, Muslims, Jews etc etc. I don't see why this article shouldn't have flags. I guess flags would be inappropriate in infobox person and its branches.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument of whether Arabs are native to Israel or are considered a diaspora can surely be taken up, however, the purpose of the infobox list in the context of this article is clearly to enumerate the total number of Arabs in their country of residence without regard for the classification of native or non-native. Should Israel, therefore, not be added to the infobox list? Uq (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't even understand how this is an argument! Put Israel on the info box! The article is about people with Arab heritage. Native or not! What is this nondiscussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericdxx (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure when it was removed. I added it. The Arabs are definitely natives in Israel. They were born there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 (population estimates)

Having taken into account the raised concerns about the population's estimates, I have checked the 2018 book by Margaret K. Nydell and adjusted the number accordingly. I have also removed the part that says The total number of Arabs are an estimated 450 million since it's attributed to an older book by the same author and added a couple of other lower estimates and sources. M.Bitton (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Identity

Amel Bent appears here as an Arab, but is there a source of her Arab identity? Algerian and Moroccan origins doesn't imply she is Arab, as there are multiple ethnicities there, with Berbers being nearly half of the population.GreyShark (dibra) 06:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Somalia, Sudan, and Dijbouti are not generally considered Arab countries. They are African countries with historical religious ties to the Arab world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulShariYahar (talk • contribs) 10:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Definite article "the"

The article sometimes refers to Arabs, other times to "the" Arabs. I think it should be consistent and use only Arabs. Here's a good argument for that by Tim Mackintosh-Smith:

‘Arab’ is a label that is very broad, very sticky (it has been around for almost 3,000 years), and yet very slippery. It has signified different things to different people at different times. The meaning has shape-shifted, expired and resurrected so often that it is misleading to talk about ‘the’ Arabs, and that is why this book does not. To do so would be to try to pin down Proteus. All one can say is that, for more of known history than not, the word has tended to mean tribal groups who live beyond the reach of settled society.

• Mackintosh-Smith, Tim (April 2019). Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p. XVI. ISBN 978-0-300-18028-2. LCCN 2018968579.

Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)