Talk:Arab world/Archive 1

the question of Arab identity

I have removed an opening paragraph about the Berbers of North Africa, quite a VAST region, as the source cited is in French, and deals primarily with the "berbers" of these regions and their history and experience and not with the region as a whole. That is, it is discussing the social experience of the Berbers, whose presence is quite distinct to natives, and not all occupants of the region yet theatrical, unsubstantiated presumptuous suppositions were written rather lightheartedly, which is deplorable! This sort of speculation is in no way in keeping with wiki's pillars, and hardly encyclopedic. Still yet, there are no verifiable sources cited in the FRENCH source on this English wikipedia. Further, it is an interpretation and as such, cannot be applied to a region as vast as the Western Arab world. I think the official numbers of Berbers in the different Arab countries in which they live suffices and these should serve as fact. There is no room on ENCYCLOPEDIC mediums to SPECULATE, and write in a threatrical fashion when no reliable source, and in the language pertinent :-) are cited. I hope this hijacking of Arab culture ceases. Mariam83 10:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some below writes: Egyptians, Palestinians, Iraqis..are probably all ethnically non-Arab.

How can you make such a sweeping statement? I am a native of one of these countries, and am familiar with the rest, and I assure you that in most traditionally Arab countries, that is, excluding the nonsensical additions of Mauritania and Sudan, the majority of the populations are Arab, with various minorities of non-Arabs, contrary to what is often cited, namely that the majority of Egyptians are non-Arab, the majority of Moroccans Berber, the majority of Iraqis Persian etc. Statments such as these are most curious given that the most commonly used term in these and other Arab countries, used for identification, is Arab. These Arabs know that their countries contain non-Arab populations, whom are often a people apart. There is no confusion or denial of origins, contrary to what some of the insubstantial evidence points out, which is why I have taken it upon myself to delete statements that are fantastical, insubstantiated, invalid, and antithetical to the empirical evidence. While not discounting the immense importance of these non-Arab influences and populations, even a cursory view of historical and contemporary literature, and various empirical mediums will reveal that the majority of the Arabs occupying these Arab lands, who consider themselves Arab in in fact Arab. This is an incontrovertible fact. Citing "original" sources whose findings are based on paltry numbers, with the two that I have surveyed using less than 100 subjects, and then proceeding to write sweeping statements, that rewrite an entire history, is not in keeping with wwikipedia's five pillars. Indeed, certainty of terms and sources is a desirable prerequisite for a factual and informed representation of the facts. Though wikipedia is not a scholarly source, and hence flawed, and to my mind, extremely flawed and even a disservice to mankind, we must strive for accuracy, objectivity, and shun all "origin" sources and material. We may not cite experiements or studies performed on the whim, new individual and privately financed studies do not suffice in writing history. The deliberate denial of the Arab identity of these people is symptomatic of anti-Arabism. Contributors who seek to deny or downplay the Arab aspect of, funnily, Arab countries, are satiating their wishful thinking and ignorance rather than benefitting the Arab world. Arabs must also be cautious of the growing "original" absurdist and eccentric movements that often seek to appropriate portions of the Arab world. Such unobjective behavior reflects absurdist ideas, personal views, not encyclopedic, historical facts. This in turn compromises the accuracy and neutrality of wikipedia, and most importantly, robs the Arab world of its heritage. Please keep the five pillars in mind as you contribute, and do not make sweeping statements for which you have absolutely no proof, and which defies reality.

Furhter, this article cites French sources. The source itself does not in anyway substantiate the conclusion therefrom derived.I have deleted the paragraph but some non-Arab, Christian, Western contributor has reverted that deletion. This is most curious given his obvious ignorance of the region.Mariam83 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Maghreb al Arabi is claiming to have only arabized berbers. I am an Algerian Arab and I have no relation to the berbers of Algeria. i realize and respect their existence, but to call us ALL arabized berbers is ridiculous. Standford University did a genetic study showing that North Africa has alot of Arab influence (alot more than the 200,000 being claimed in this page). Here is the link to the study and you can focus on genes E-M35, Hg J, and J-M267 (found in 70% of middle east people and 90% in north africa): http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf , 70 and 90 percent is quite a large number to say that they are not related and only arabized. 72.226.76.120 (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) reem

VfD Archived debate

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 28 to May 4 2004, consensus was to keep following amendments. Discussion:

One sentence, and that's disputed. RickK 03:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Yeah, one really "vauge" sentence. Put it out of its misery, speedily if possible. - Lucky 6.9 04:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arab - SimonP 14:25, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
• I vote for redirect that SimonP proposes. Alcarillo 19:34, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I redirected to Arab World. WhisperToMe 02:50, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Actually, the more appropriate term is "Arab world", not "Arab World." The lowercase form is the one usually used in news sources and scholarly journals. Therefore, some admin should move the text of the "Arab World" article to "Arab world", and then make "Arab World" a redirect to "Arab world". --Lowellian 03:55, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed w/ Lowellian, should move the content to "Arab world". Wile E. Heresiarch 13:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
• Have swapped the pages over, vote to keep as is. -- Graham  :) | Talk 14:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Western Sahara

Why is Western Sahara included in the list yet not coloured in on the map? Dlw22 14:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The map is of the Arab League. This page should perhaps have a different map; no one disputes the Western Sahara's Arabness. - Mustafaa 23:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Can someone with the appropriate software do a quick edit to this image? --JeremyBicha 22:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I will merge Arab states here in a couple of days as per suggestion if no one has any obvious objections. It's wholly redundant considering the info here. Marskell 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Does this article spend too much time on the geography of Africa? Not much on politics or economy. Marskell 08:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel

Can't Israel also be considered part of the Arab world? Arabic is one of the official languages. And almost half its population is originally from Arab regions, even if the other more vocal half isn't. On what basis are states considered part of the Arab world? --Yodakii 15:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting argument. I don't know if they exactly correspond, but virtually every state described here is a member of the Arab League which would be the main point of inclusion in Arab world. Giving some official preference to Islam is also more or less a universal amongst these states. Israel doesn't meet either criteria. Plus, in terms of lifestyle, family structures etc. Israel is much more westernized. One wouldn't describe it as culturally Arab. Palestine is, BTW, included here.

Contextualizing Israel inside a "global unit" is quite hard. There is a very nebulous idea, for instance, the Israel could actually join the European Union at some point.

Perhaps a line to the effect, "despite historical conflict with the Arab World, Israel actually shares some characteristics with it..." if you can find the spot. Marskell 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting issue you've raised. To include or not Israel you could look into the criteria of inclusion into the Arab world. If it's location or language, Israel meets the criteria, if it's lifestyle or the arab league, it wouldn't. Anyway, I'm not here to judge, and because of the fact that this issue is hard to resolve, please make some reaserches before including this idea.CG 17:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think lifestyle could be a criteria. Lifestyle horizonatally (across the region) and vertically (economic status) is too varied and similar with surrounding non-Arabic speaking people. And if inclusion in the Arab league is a criteria then why not merge with Arab league? --Yodakii 17:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I raise this issue especially to help clarify what "Arab world" means. I haven't found any clear definition what kind of states could be included. Could it be considered a region without definite borders and political divisions: a general region where Arabic-speaking people are predominant? Are there any references that define it? --Yodakii 17:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Somalia

Somalia, as the article correctly points out, is a member of the League of Arab States, but is not really an Arab country. However, it is coloured in on the map. Anyone feel like fixing this? Palmiro | Talk 14:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, leave it in there. By its membership in the AL I think it qualifies to be in the article, but there should be something on that in the article, if there is not already. Better be inclusive here than not. Maybe the best thing would be to have a map where the coloring could fade out of Arab areas, instead of slavishly following nation borders. Arre 14:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The map does seem rather confusing and confused about what it wants to show the reader/viewer. One Arab League member is not shown, while one non-member is colour-coded. A better way to illustrate the scope of the Arab "World" (its "sphere", as it were) would be to show the Arabian Peninsula in a darker shade, and the remanining Arab-speaking countries in an intermediate tone, while the three non-Arab states that are nonetheless full members of the League are shown in a paler colouring. Who can make good map illustrations? I can't as yet... --Big Adamsky 16:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a disambiguation/explication about their color coding under non-Arab peoples. I.e. that they are predominantly muslim, but contain less than 1% Arabs or Arab speakers, etc.

Yom 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kurds

I'm sorry, but can we not call the Kurds "a mountain people" What is that supposed to mean? The great majority of Kurds live in cities... SOME Kurds have traditionally lived in mounainous regions, but only because they were forced to retreat there because of conflict, or shepherds migrate there seasonally for their livestock. This does not mean they are some nomadic mountain people, as this suggests them to be. I'm sick of people calling them that. Hopefully this will be the last time people are so ignorant of the Kurds.

Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Albania, ...?

After reading this page I wonder why Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, Turkey and Albania are not considered part of the Arabic world. I understand they are not parties of the Arab Ligu, but aren't they "arabic"? What sets them apart? Possibly if an Iranian/Afgan/Pakistani/Turkish/Alban could answer that'd be the best.

The countries you just mentioned are not considered Arabic because Arabic is not spoken in those countries. Persian is spoken in Iran, Urdu in Pakistan, Albanian in Albania, Turkish in Turkey, etc. Arabic is commonly spoken in the "Arabic countries". The only thing in common with the countries you mentioned and the Arabic countries is Islam. And Islam isn't synonymous with Arab. --Thorri 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

And well put. Islam = Arab is probably the greatest Western misconception about both Muslims and Arabs... Marskell 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that this confusion constitutes "the greatest Western misconception" (or non-Western misconception, for that matter). Not all people ("Western" or otherwise) educate themselves; and not all people ("W".o.o.) have Arab people as their main personal or professional field of interest. Many religious Muslims across the globe do memorize multiple phrases in Old Arabic, and visit Arabia. There are Malagasy and Filipino Muslims who believe they are descended from Arabic or Shirazi traders and missionaries (which they may or may not be). //Big Adamsky 14:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was a touch melodramatic. About Iran it may well be the biggest misconception. Marskell 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Modern Boundaries" setion needs to be swapped with the "historical boundaries" section so it flows on t the sub sections

I trie do do this but my changes were reverted, admittedly I was slow but thats because my link is a bit bad at the moment

Borders of the Arab World needs merging into here

I had trouble performing this merge myself, so it would be appreciated if someone else could do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

population percents

changed the kurdish population in turkey to 20% to make it compatible with the article of Turkey itself.

RE: Color-coded map

What is the lighter shade of green on those two countries on the color-coded map meant to denote? And Why is Saudi Arabia shaded? thanks :) 203.214.111.235 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's southern Sudan (which is non-Arab) and northern Iraq (which is Kurdish). Saudi Arabia is not shaded. Perhaps you're thinking of Somalia? Somalia is included in the Arab league and has many cultural ties to the Arab world, but it's population does not speak Arabic as a first language, and could not be considered ethnically/racially Arab. To be honest, there's not much logic to the color-coding right now: southern Mauritania is also clearly non-Arab, and several Sahel states are at least partially Arab in the same fashion that Somalia is (or isn't, depending on your point of view). And then there's the Arab-dominated areas of Iran, Berber regions in North Africa, and the Kurdish parts of Syria, etc. I think it would be better to have one or more of the following options: 1. Arab league members or 2. all countries where a majority speaks Arabic as a first language, and/or it's the main official language, or 3. a color-coding that marks all areas dominated by Arabic-speaking people(s) with no regard to state borders. Of course, in cases 1 and 2 it should be noted that not all of the population of all the colored countries is or considers itself to be Arab. Arre 18:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this shading scheme really useful? E.G. Mauritania non-Arab? (collounsbury 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Northern Sudan

Should northern Sudan really be colored completely dark green? As far as I know, very little of the population is actually Arab (i.e. Rashaida). Most are ethnically (by this I mean genomically) either Nubian, Arab/African mix, or simply African, but a member of a tribe who simply resembles very superficially Arabs (as opposed to southern Sudanese). By this last group I mean the Beja and various other tribes like them who have been labeled "Arab," when in fact they are simply East African (see the Amhara, Oromo, Somali, and Tigray peoples for similar groups that are not labeled "Arab"). Much of Upper Egypt probably falls into this category, too, but I'll leave that for now.

Yom 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the majority of people in Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, Palestine aren't probably "ethnically" Arab, if you mean to say descended from people who migrated from the Arabian penninsula after the Hegira. But as some one who spent time in Khartoum I can tell you that the language everyone speaks is Arabic, and Arabic identity is very much a part of their identity. But then what in god's name is identity. Ahassan05 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

Actually, most of them probably are Arab, ask any native. The idea that they are not is a myth, based on paltry evidence and select studies (we're talking studies based on 20 sometimes 5 people) and applied to this vast region. Tiring, to have to refute utter nonsense. And Arabic is not just a language, common sense, which is why Sudanese are not really Arab, nor mauritanians.

yes, but they are black, not Arab. Identity is not only linguistic but racial, cultural, historical and social. Sudan is not Arab in that sense, nor is Mauritania. And as for the so called "greater" Arab world, that includes other sub-saharan countries, well, I think,this is what happens when one allows outsiders to impose labels and interpret identity. Mariam83 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the Beja along the Red Sea coast in Egypt (Ababda) and Sudan? They speak To bedawie (literally "bedouin language," since they are nomads), which is a separate branch of Afro-Asiatic unrelated to Arabic. Should those areas be listed light green? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some corrections

I've corrected some old information in the article. They were about population, economy, and Geography, and my source was the CIA World Factbook 2006 version, I used it to calculate population, area (excluding water), and the GDP PPP for all arab countries except Somalia, and the Comoros. AshrafSS 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the releaser of the full text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement from 'Stalin' to 'Lenin'; every reference I can find on it, including the Wikipedia page on the Agreement itself, says that it was Lenin that released it, and not Stalin. I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia's error correction process, so it's possible I've done something wrong. Ananymous, 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Should Darfur be light green on the map?

Darfur is non-arab and showing as arab is not NPOV IMHO Zazaban 01:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it should be changed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I really do think this needs to be addressed. Zazaban 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Morocco is not Arab and Western Sahara is 100% Moroccan and Amazigh!

Please be logical!

Morocco is not an Arab country neither is the so called "Western Sahara"! The "Western Sahara" is a fake case created by the Algeria's Boumedienne complot against Morocco. It happened all in the context of Cold War and Baathism-Arabism sphere. Now, both Cold War and Baathism-Arabism are parts of the past. Western Sahara is called by Moroccans: "Moroccan Southern Provinces". They are and will remain Moroccan and Amazigh in identity.

Somalia

Somalis are Arabs because the father of the Somalis was a Hashimite Arab. Abdullah Geelah 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

that's nonsense from Indonesia to some parts in East Africa and West africa (Hausa origin legend) muslim groups laid claim on being a descendant of Prophet muhammad peace be upon him as a way to be closer to the Prophet but genetics state other wise

Irir Samaale has a better chance of being the real father RoboRanks 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Publishing

"On the other hand, the number of books legally published yearly in the Arab world is smaller than that published in Greece alone."

Interesting fact, but it seems to have to do more with Greece than with the Arab world. BL 16:11, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Surely you can see that the author of this sentence is merely using Greece as an example of a small but (relatively) well-educated western country. The fact then has everything to do with the Arab world and almost nothing to do with Greece.Armandtanzarian 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomadess

What is a Nomadess? Does the writer mean Berbers? Berber is the standard English word for the Amazigh and affiliated peoples.Armandtanzarian 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Nomadess doesn't even have a wikipedia entry.

Map and Mauritania

well, now Mauritania, with a mainly Arab population, is claimed not to be on the map. I can't work out how to change the map, but this is wrong...--Drmaik 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes in Modern Borders section

Do we really need three offset quotes to describe the same thing in this section? If we do, can at least one of the quotes come from an Arab source rather than a 'western' one? --The Way 06:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the old map?

The one that showed South Sudan and Iraqi Kurdistan shaded a different color. Josh 03:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reinstate it, but have the one with light green all over it. If someone can change it back, that would be great. Drmaik 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yemen democracy

I have just changed a sentence slightly as it said that Lebanon was the only exception seeing that Yemen doesn't have an absolute monarch, an unelected president or only 1 party.

Comoros

The map leaves out the Comoros.

I deleted the part which describes al-hasa, Najran, al-baha, aseer as shia majority. this information is totally wrong, shia minority can be found in the eastern province in city of qatef and sehat. the other parts are sunni majority. the other cities other than najran are totally sunni majority.

Capitalization - "Arab World" rather than "Arab world"

Originally the page was titled "Arab World", however, some time ago it was moved to "Arab world" (with a minor "w").

This good faith move was incorrect. The term is the accepted name for an entire geo-political/geo-linguistic region, both in English and in Arabic. As such, both words should have capitalized first letters. This is the format for other geographical regions, such as "Middle East" and "Far East" for example, where we see the first letters of both words in capital form. This page should reflect that standard.

That many news agencies incorrectly print the name otherwise is not the deciding factor. The page should be accurate, and not mimic mistakes found elsewhere.

Louse 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a term, not a literal world, and the intro should reflect this. Mdiamante 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the page then be moved back to Arab World? I'm not sure what to do here.--85.5.167.247 10:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have allowed a period of almost 5 months to pass so that any objections to reverting the article name back to "Arab World" could be expressed and discussed. Since no objections have been raised, and since the only 2 comments have been supportive of reversion, I will make the aforementioned reversion on Tuesday September 18 2007, unless others feel more discussion is warranted. Louse 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag

I concur with the last editor about the tags. Most studies contradict the article's sweeping statements. Further, most genetic studies themselves attest to the region's diversity. To cite one study: The Saami of Scandinavia and the Berbers of Mediterranean North Africa were found to share an extremely young branch. [1] [2] Another finds the Arab subhalotype to be as high as 56%. [3]The point is that the region is immense. The study this article uses is based on subjects from the Western Sahara (not a North African country) and some parts of Southern Morocco, yet it applies the findings to the whole of North Africa, which is more than twice as large as Europe. Obviously, this is unacceptable as it is inaccurate and misleading. Simonjk 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need...?

...that BLP tag? A quick scan of that section showed alot of (Questionably questionable) numbers and statements, but I didn't see anyone's name or anything that would directly point at any one person. That is to say, no "biography" of any person, living or dead. 68.39.174.238 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also

Keep in mind that the {{hoax}} tag is an articel-wide tag: If you put it in any section in this articel, it tags the ENTIRE articel as a hoax! 68.39.174.238 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE read the following to rest your hearts and minds

along this talk page people have discussed who is an Arab and What country is part of this World and What isnt...

there are quite a few things that make an Arab Country "Arab"..

• First it needs to have native citizens with Arabic as a mother tongue... so that automatically excludes countries such as France, Spain and other EU members with high Arab Population

• Second it needs to have a majority religion that was formed in this area (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

• Third, which i find the most Important, is that the Lifestyle, Culture and traditions should be similar, for example the National Costume, a regular Jalabiya, the Way celebrations are held (Weddings), the way they drink the Tea, and how the tea is made, the Cuisine, Music, jokes, Says, legends, etc...

• Fourth is Self belonging, the people of the Arab COUntry should have a self belonging of their greater Arab World, today this issue is lacking, due to Increase influence from Westernization, making Arabs redefining themselves as Pharoes in Egypt and Phonecians in Lebanon, while they have NOTHING incommon other than living in the same lands...

Americans cant relate themselves to Natives rather then Europeans can they??

• Fifth, is that the Arab States need to be geographically linked, and not seperated by continents, or thousands of Kilometers.

• Sixth, is that the State should be accepted in the Arab League, if Israel was to apply for membership in the League, i doubt it would be agreed on, mostly due to Political issues..

and to add something for Yodakii, i find the Issue of Israel joining the Arab League pretty ammusing rather then a serious Issue like mentioned by others, its quite hard to imaging Israel an Ara Country, especially with its lifelong history of Massacers against Arabs in Jenin in West Bank, Qana in Lebanon, Deer el Balah in Gaza, Darb el Bakar in Egypt, and tens of others, and its unjustified imprisoning of over 8000 palestinian, while killing demolishing their houses, and kicking them outof their lands in 1948... all these crimes against Arabs are not easily forgotten... judging from Crusaders era history book, i doubt they will be forgotten ever..

ps: the previous definitions are stricly my point of view that i created living within the Arab World fo over 20 Years, in Egypt, Lebanon and other Arab Countries, while meeting Arabs from over 10 states, and finding they share my point of views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 August 2007

Map Change

i have changed the map into simply arab league members, to spare the disputes, untill we reach to a unified map that we ALL agree on, i think this map showing the league's members stay... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 August 2007

Personally, I have to agree with Drmaik (talk · contribs) that the older map (Image:Arab world.png) is a better choice. Not only does the older map show the correct topic at hand (ie, the "Arab world" rather than the Arab League political entity), but this map looks a lot better. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, how about this... ill be creating a semi-identical map to the older one (Image:Arab world.png) but with better colors, rather then this annoying green, and will stretch the differentiation into Somalia, Mauritania and Djibouti... but will be made on similar map to that of the Arab League, Arabic, and other Arab related topics.. what dya think people??? you can find that map in my Maps Gallery [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 00:06, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about map aesthetics, when comparing the two maps (Image:Arab world.png and Image:Arab world.PNG), I see pros and cons for both versions. I really like the simplicity of the base map used in the first version (the second map is way too busy with dots everywhere representing islands, lakes, mountains, etc.), however the second is quite nice in the way that it shows both majority and minority Arab areas. Also, no offense meant, but I really dislike the "Created by Arab Atlas" watermark on the second map. As to the particular shade of green used in the map, either version looks fine to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the aesthetics issue, I see other problems.

First, re Sudan. Arab League has coloured all of Dar Fur province / area of Sudan, Arab majority. The Zaghaoua, the Fur and other non-Arabic speakers historically majority in that region would no doubt take exception. Ergo an issue of fact.

Second, re the map in general and it reflecting Arab league boundaries, while speaking to the Arab world, but at the same time semi reflecting non-Arab populations within the Arab league boundaries. This strikes me as a bit incoherent, and unfortunately implying Arabic speaking populations are restricted to the Arab League states. There are relatively significant Arabic (native/mother tongue) speakers in neighbouring Chad and Mali, which are ignored (yet are more significant population wise as far as I understand.

Third, the phrasing on the map is rather ethnocentric. It might be better to colour as estimated "Arabic mother tongue majority" and "Non-Arabic Majority" - but one does need to correct the Sudan map (I would also note that I believe the South East area bordering Eritrea and Ethiopia is also non-Arabic mother tongue majority ethnic groups - the map is colouring the non-Muslim or rather the Muslim minority areas as the only non-Arab populations. A factual error. Additionally, as we reflect, if Siwans are to be reflected on the Egypt map, so too should the Nubians in the Aswan area, and the Nubians in northern Sudan.

Fourth, regarding the Maghreb, I believe the areas estimated for Arabic majority in Algerian Saharan are rather too extensive. I would like to know what the data sourcing there was, as my last understanding for Berberophones was their extent up in the Sahara was rather larger. We also have colouring of effectively uninhabited areas as default Arabic. Strikes me as problematic. (collounsbury 10:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Returning to this issue, as I see no substantive reply has been made, as in the case of the Arabic language page, I suggest removing Arab League's map as (i) it is clearly original research, (ii) it is not clear how he derived the colouration on the map, e.g. he shows areas of Sudan that are not to my knowledge majority Arabic Speaking (though they are majority Muslim - Dar Fur region in particular) as majority Arabic speaking (presuming here Arabic speaking means mother tongue, the standard used is not clear). The Maghreb areas are also, as I noted as discussable. (collounsbury (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Er ... which map? The current map, Image:Aworldmap.JPG was initially created by Skatewalk (talk · contribs). Image:Arab world.PNG is the map by Arab League (talk · contribs), but it was taken out of this article by Drmaik (talk · contribs) in August [5]. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The current map. The origins of both are the user Arab World, and the map is problematic for the reasons I cited supra (that is unclear definition of meaning of Arabic Majority and if meaning is Arabic Mother Tongue, some portions are clearly wrong, e.g. Dar Fur, which is not Arabic Mother Tongue Majority, but majority non-Arab mother tongue, similar issues re the Maghreb etc), as well as unclear sourcing. (collounsbury (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

Oops, my error on the authorship, regardless objections stand. (collounsbury (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

No objections from me. Commons does not appear to have any good alternatives ... do you plan to make a replacement? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a mapmaker, so no. However, the map is inaccurate and/or terribly unclear (depending on if "Arabic Majority" means can speak Arabic or Arabic Mother Tongue. If the former, deceptive, if the later, outright wrong for several large chunks). (collounsbury (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Western Sahara Dispute and General NPOV wording

Although there is likely to be no end to this, I have made an attempt at genuinely NPOV wording on the W. Sahara issue - as well as conforming usage on the Palestinian territories to non-favouring language. I am certain wording could be improved, but the present phrasing at least reduces both sides "special pleading" (collounsbury 11:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks Collounsbury. That is quite neutral.--A Jalil 12:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I think something to the effect that no-one (as far as I know) recognises Morocco's occupation as legitimte would also be good. Drmaik 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf naming issue

The correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf, and should not be referred to as the Arabian Gulf when using the English Language. The Persian Gulf is the preferred term in Unites States English, UK English and United Nations, as well as the Wikipedia naming policy. I do not disagree with a mention in the article Arab World which mentions that the term Arabian Gulf as a term used by certain Arab countries, but I believe that by putting Arab/Persian Gulf, it only confuses people. As there are two 'gulfs' around Arabia. The Red Sea (known as the Arabian Gulf in certain publications and the Persian Gulf. (JosephLondon 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree with JosephLondon (talk · contribs) completely! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I have changed the opening paragraph to refer to the Arabian Sea as the most eastward extent of the Arab World rather than the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf. The Arabian Sea is a different body of water to the Gulf, and those who seek clarification should consult the Arabian Sea article. Since the opening paragraph outlines the geography of the Arab World, it is more appropriate to mention the Arabian Sea than the Gulf because, as just stated, it is the most eastward body of water bordering the Arab World. I myself neglected this fact when I reworded the opening paragraph of the Arab World article back in the Spring of 2007.

JosephLondon included his comments above on my talk page and I will, therefore, include my response here:

Hey Joseph,

Thank you for your kind message and for your interest in the Persian Gulf vs. Arabian Gulf naming issue. I agree with you that this matter requires the conscientious attention of Wikipedia contributors to ensure the presence of full and accurate information in the various articles which include mention of this waterway.

With regard to your specific points:

• As you are aware, the extent to which any term referring to territory or body of water can be judged to be the "correct name" is dependent on a whole plethora of different, and sometimes conflicting factors. The "correct name" according to one government or organization might be deemed incorrect by another. What was once the "correct name" might now be anachronistic. The descriptive quality of a name in one language, or to one culture, might not be equally valid in another. For these reasons, to state that the "correct name for the waterway is the Persian Gulf" to the exclusion of all other names or variants is far too generalized and sweeping a statement, and does not reflect the inherent complexity or nuances of such issues.

• Any contention that Arabian Gulf is presently a valid, accepted, or even widely understood term for the Red Sea is clearly without merit. Whatever the extent of such former usage in an earlier stage in history, in the present day there are no circumstances in which any credible organization would use the term in that sense, lending credence to the above statement regarding anachronisms. Since one of the criteria you mention for correct terminology is the preferred English language and United Nations term, naturally you will accept that there is no genuine basis for using the term Arabian Gulf to refer to the Red Sea in the present day. Thus, any allegation that confusion might arise in this regard would obviously be disingenuous.

I feel confident in stating that you were acting solely in good faith in making reference to the Red Sea issue as I myself have encountered occasions when the same claim has been advanced. Without exception, the source of all such claims has been partisan propagandist literature seeking to further a somewhat extreme form of revisionism, as can be demonstrated by even the most cursory Google search on the subject. Without adequate materials at hand to refute such claims, I can totally appreciate why one might treat this material less cautiously at first.

Further to the above, with regard to the Arab World article itself, the primary reason I included the edit "Arabian/Persian Gulf" in the opening paragraph of the article was to immediately inform the reader of the naming issue as it is directly relevant to the Arab World article. For, in the Arab World, the term Arabian Gulf is used almost uniformly, and the very issue is one of immense sensitivity to many in the Gulf Arab states. As such, I felt that this was a wholly appropriate means of informing the reader of the two names used for the body of water, knowledge which if lacked might result in understandable confusion when encountering the different names for the first time. I had considered using "Persian Gulf (also known in the Arab World as the Arabian Gulf)", however, one might opine that such a qualification/explanation of the term is not suited to the opening paragraph of the article. Indeed, in the course of typing this message, another contributor has made the following edit "Persian Gulf (often referred to as the Arabian Gulf by Arabic speaking countries)", which similarly I feel is not suited to the opening paragraph.

Moreover, as other contributors have noted and reverted, the editing history of the Arab World article has witnessed attempts to insert the term "Persian" before every mention of the term "Gulf" (e.g. "Persian Gulf states" rather than just "Gulf states"), in what might be seen as an over-compensatory measure by the same revisionist propagandists mentioned above in response to the use of "Arabian Gulf" therein, or elsewhere. As you know, this is not the standard form; in academic, political, and vernacular usage, after the first mention of the Gulf (be it prefixed with "Persian" or "Arabian"), all subsequent mention is simply of "Gulf".

I of course recognize that "Persian Gulf" enjoys more general and longer established historical usage than "Arabian Gulf", and Wikipedia's editing guidelines direct that this fact should not be omitted or minimized. To do so would not only misinform and confuse the reader, which is the most important consideration, but would also be a gratuitous insult to Iranians and those of Iranian descent. While the sensitivities of individuals or groups should never dictate the content of articles, they are a valid consideration in the editing process. Furthermore, it is in the interests of all contributors than an acceptable, while still wholly accurate, form of words be used in all articles to avoid the severely negative consequences of edit warring.

It is for those same reasons of accuracy, sensitivity, and pragmatism (while remaining wholly accurate) that mention should be made of "Arabian Gulf" is such a manner that the reader will be provided with the relevant facts pertaining to the issue.

I hope this makes the my edits on this specific issue more illuminating to you. I would certainly welcome any further thoughts you have on this matter, as it is only through such amicable dialog that the shared goal of ever more accurate and informative Wikipedia articles can be realized.

Finally, your contribution gave me impetus to reconsider the opening paragraph of the Arab World article. As you will see from the article's editing history, I rewrote most of the opening paragraph back in the Spring of 2007 to give it approximately its current form. In doing so, I neglected the fact that the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf is not the most eastward extent of the Arab World. The most eastward extent is in fact the Gulf of Oman opening into the Arabian Sea. As such, the opening sentence would be more accurately worded as follows:

The Arab World (Arabic: العالم العربي; Transliteration: al-`alam al-`arabi) stretches from the Atlantic Ocean in the west to the Arabian Sea in the east, and from the Mediterranean Sea in the north to Central Africa and the Indian Ocean in the south. It consists of 23 countries with a combined population of some 325 million people spanning two continents.

Once more, I welcome your input on the ongoing editing process.

Warmest regards. Louse 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab World vs. Arab League

Well, these are different things. No one in English, other than some Arabs, would refer to Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros as part of the Arab world: they are neither ethnically or linguistically Arab (apart from minorities), while they are, indeed, members of the Arab League. However, my changes to this effect were reverted, so I'm bringing it here. Comments please! Drmaik 07:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

according to Arab League "is a regional organization of Arab States in the Middle East and North Africa", Arab States are the countries that are both Arabic in origin and Moslem-oriented, Also Arab States is a redirection to Arab World. Countries such as India invited as observer for Arab League - not as member because its not consider as an Arab State. Smart_Viral ^(talk) 09:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the Arab League which as a political entity is not the same as the "Arab World" as commonly understood. While Somalia has a small Arab minority (vanishingly small) and a long history of interaction with Yemen and Oman, it is not by any stretch of the imagination (except in some mythologies) Arab. (collounsbury 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

---

There are 2 primary criteria for determining a country or territory's inclusion within the Arab World as a geopolitical/geolinguistic region:

1) a majority of the population speaking Arabic as a first language, or identifying as Arab (largely a cultural/ethnic identification rather than a racial classification, e.g. most Egyptians identifying as Arab, but being primarily of indigenous Egyptian descent rather than Arabian descent)

2) membership of the Arab League

The example of Djibouti, Somalia, and Comoros aptly demonstrates that the 2 criteria are not necessarily mutually inclusive, with a majority of the population in these countries not speaking Arabic as a first language, or identifying as Arab, but with the countries nonetheless full members of the Arab League.

Conversely, Western Sahara is not a member of the Arab League, but a majority of its population both speaks Arabic as a first language and identifies as Arab.

The supposition that there is any bona fide dispute as to the above countries status as part of the Arab World is incorrect:

● Analysis of Arab media, literature, politics, cartography, etc, reveals that despite their largely non-Arabic speaking populations, Djibouti, Somalia, and Comoros, are all defined as being part of the Arab World by virtue of their membership of the Arab League, the status of Arabic as an official language, and their geopolitical orientation. This does alter the fact that a majority of their populations speak a language other than Arabic as their first language and do not identify as Arab on a cultural/ethnic level, but it does clarify how the state itself is identified.

But this is English wikipedia, so more weight should be given to its use in English media, while mention can be made to Arabic media. Drmaik 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be imprudent and inaccurate for contributors to disregard the above criteria and to arbitrarily determine the size or sphere of the Arab World to the extent of denying a country or territory membership of that region. Such an issue is one of self-definition/identification – that is to say how the countries concerned identify themselves.

See above, but also, what's the evidence that such countries do identify themselves this way. Drmaik 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

● Western Sahara's status as part of the Arab World is unaffected by the contested political/legal status of the territory, for, either as a sovereign state in the form of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), or as part of Morocco, the majority of the population still satisfies the first criteria mentioned above, a fact unaltered by its non-membership of the Arab League.

(It is to be recalled that Egypt was suspended from the Arab League from 1979 to 1987, but obviously remained part of the Arab World during this period)

The only instance in which a dispute over Western Sahara might be cited in this context is as to the number of countries within the Arab World. Currently, the introductory paragraph states 23 (all the Arab League member states plus Western Sahara). It should be noted that the sentence refers to "23 countries" not "23 states", as the issue of Western Saharan statehood remains contested between the SADR and the Moroccan Government. Under the Wikipedia guidelines, it is impermissible for the Arab World article to prejudice this issue, and as such, the article should apply the standard legal position which deems Western Sahara to be a non-self-governing territory; neither recognizing its statehood as SADR, or its occupation and annexation by Morocco. While I note that the edit history of some Moroccan contributors to Wikipedia suggest that they may view this as POV, such a belief would clearly be unwarranted. Under international law, the Moroccan occupation and annexation is viewed as illegal and illegitimate rather than "disputed", as in the case of the territories occupied by Israel from 1967 onwards.

I restate that this should not in anyway be viewed as POV, anti-Moroccan, or a challenge the Moroccan Government's official position, or for that matter anti-Sahrawi, or a challenge to the SADR's official position. In complying with the Wikipedia guidelines, contributors must not make edits which are determinative of a still contested political issue, or state as fact that which is inaccurate under international law. This not only provides the reader with accurate information, but in this instance, would prevent the escalation of the Sahrawi vs. Moroccan edit warring that has characterized the edit history of some other Wikipedia articles.

However, I can appreciate that some may choose to view the term "countries" as in itself determinative, and as such, I suggest the relevant sentence in the introductory paragraph be changed to -

"It consists of 23 countries and territories with a combined population of some 325 million people spanning two continents."

Such an edit, which includes the phrase "countries and territories" would redress the issue, without unfortunate resort to the previous edit of "around 20 countries", the intrinsic imprecision of which is undesirable and unnecessary.

Any further comment in the article with regard to Western Sahara may be germane, but it should be added in the relevant section, namely "States & Territories", and not in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louse (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 September 2007

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see why the Arab World and Arab League articles need to be so intertwined. The AL is a modern political entity that represents Arabs (and Muslims to a lesser degree judging by its non-Arab members and observers) ... why should this political organization have to match the ethnic/demographic designation known as the "Arab World"? --Kralizec! (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you're missing anything, the confusion between the political organisation and Arab World as a usage in English seems rather special. Membership in the Arab League hardly seems like a real criteria for the "Arab World" as general usage and meaning. In "Pan Arab" poligicla usage, well that's another matter. (collounsbury 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

My reading here is that there is more support for a disconnection between this article and Arab League. I've made more comments at Louse's talk page. Drmaik 08:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

my reverts re ethnicity

I'm about to revert Egyegy's changes to the article, but thought I would explain first. In the first paragraph, Egyegy's edit removes a lot of material about other parts of the Arab world, also introuducing a particular POV about Egyptians. The second paragraph is rather uninformative: Egypt made up Egyptians! And the 'often' is misleading, making it read is if this is a majority opinion. Drmaik 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on your changes! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also about to revert your revert. In the first paragraph, I restored it to its previous version which didn't include that information that you're referring to. If someone wants to add new information about Palestinians, Lebanese or whatever, do it independently since the addition that was made by Psamtik 1, who you ganged up against, was pointing a well known and documented fact about Egyptians. With the second paragraph, it's you who reads "majority" into "often", but often just means often. It is an undisputed fact that lots of Egyptians do not consider themselves Arab. The Egypt article has explained this with many sources, which is why I added a link to the main section. Denying this is against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Egyegy 17:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

well, your edits introduce some significant POV. Let's have a look

However, this definition is disputed by many people of non-Arab origins such as the Egyptians

implies the innacurate impression that Egyptians (as a people) dispute a linguistic basis for Arab identity. And you haven't addressed my point that saying that Egypt is made up of Egyptians is a vacuous statement. Nowhere have I suggested that there are not Egyptians who do not consider themselves Arab. Your claim that I am denying this is puzzling, and your use of phrases such as 'gang up on' is unhelpful. Please assume good faith. Drmaik 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to go chopping off the sentence to imply something not in it. The rest of the sentence says that many Egyptians don't consider themselves Arabs, the first part is just a general statement that many peoples of non-Arab origins dispute this definition. And it did seem like Psamtik was being ganged up against with reverts when all he did was adding a known fact which is explained in a lot of detail on the main article. That was neither assuming good faith or neutral. Egyegy 18:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

no, the quoted part maintains the same interpretation even with the subsequent clause. And you don't seem to understand the comment I made about WP:AGF. Drmaik 19:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like arguing over a minor part. I don't have a problem with deleting that part of the sentence because it doesn't change the meaning, which meets the Wikipedia policies on neutrality and verifiability. Egyegy 19:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

re Egyptian ethnicity

User:Psamtik1 keeps on adding unsourced (and also rather unlikely) figures for the ethnic composition of Egypt's population, displaying a particular POV. I have left a message on their talk page, mentioned POV and verifiability. Hope that's clear to all. Drmaik (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of his additions are correct, it's just that we don't have verifiable statistics to tell us how many Egyptians consider themselves Arab or not. But it's pretty well known that most don't, if you ask any Egyptian on the street who the Arabs are, he will tell you Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis etc. The real pov is the nonsense idea that Egyptians are Arab. This is nasser propaganda. Most people don't buy this stuff anymore. Egyegy (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If Psamtik1 does not cite his changes via a reliable, published source, then they look like original research to those of us who have not spent time in Egypt. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this appears to be in dispute again, perhaps we should discuss it rather than continue the current slow-motion revert war. As it stands, both of the disputed versions appear to be contradicted by Egyptians#Identity (which, unlike this article, is sourced), as that article appears to state that Egyptians ≠ Arabs. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources I have cited state that Egyptians consider themselves to be Arabs. They do not address whether or not Egyptians actually are Arabs, as the other editor has suggested. They just address how Egyptians view themselves. And anyone who is even passingly familiar with Egypt will agree that most Egyptians do indeed consider themselves to be Arabs. Middayexpress (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the one citation you provide appears to be directly contracted by the twelve cited sources in the Egypt article. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I provided two sources that explicitly state that Egyptians consider themselves Arab. This shouldn't come as a surprise for a country that calls itself the Arab Republic of Egypt; I can also easily provide more. Moreover, I don't see the twelve sources on the Egypt page which state that modern Egyptians don't consider themselves Arab. Aside from one very interesting quote from a non-fiction work by Niloofar Haeri, all I see is a few intellectuals and luminaries that object to being identified as such. Whatever the case, I've adjusted the statement in the article to refer specifically to a cultural rather than a more contentious racial Arab identity. Middayexpress (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear that in his efforts to improve the content of the article, Middayexpress is confusing two different issues. There is no real debate about whether the vast majority of Egyptians identify as Arab on a cultural basis, in the same way as Syrians, Palestinians, and so on. This was both the case prior to the Revolution of 1952 (as partially evidenced by Egypt being a founding member of the Arab League in 1945, and its involvement in the 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War) and remains so to this day. However, there is also no real debate about the racial origins of modern-day Egyptians. Whether Muslim or Christian, the vast majority of Egyptians trace their ancestry to the Ancient Egyptians rather than the peoples of the Arabian Peninsula. There are few Egyptians who will contest this. Louse (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that Egyptians were not and are not Arabs, Egyptians are Egyptians from 7500 years till now, but now we say that we are Arabs as we are talking Arabic, and 90% of Egytians are Muslims like Arabs majorities « PuTTY^SchOOL 19:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Arabs are people who speak Arabic natively or self identify as Arabs as at least some component of their ethnicity. As such, and as a practical matter, Egyptians are Arab. Yeah, they're descended from (like almost everyone who is Arab today) other folks. Big deal. (16:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collounsbury (talk • contribs)

I partially agree, but remember that Egyptians were before Arabs by thousands of years. Now we are Arabs but from 7500 years, are we? « PuTTY^SchOOL 18:18,

10 million Coptics live in Egypt that has to count for something.

No kidding! Egyptians existed thousands of years before even the first mention of "Arab" existed in the 9th century BC! By then, Egyptians had built pyramids and had had one of the world's most fascinating civilizations. To call them Arabs today because a bunch of Arabs invaded their country or because they speak Arabic is simply laughable. Nobody calls the Mexicans Spaniards, and nobody calls the Austrians Germans! And even until Nasser's coup d'etat in 1952, no Egyptian would consider himself/herself an Arab. Read what Taha Hussein, Abbas el-Akkad, Salama Moussa, Louis Awad, Ahmed Lutfy el-Sayed and many other Egyptian intellectuals of the first half of the 20th century said and wrote about that topic. That Arab identity was forced upon the Egyptian some 60 years ago. Egyptians are NOT Arabs. --Lanternix (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Somalia and Somalis in general

As a Somali Think of myself as a Somali, similar to how a Yemeni would think of himself as a Yemeni and Qatari and so on. But given the choice to indicate beyond nationalism I identify as Arab over anything else, why? well even if we negate the fact that my great-grandfather was of South Yemeni origin, my culture food and even musical tastes are Arab by nature. Most Somalis who belong to the main clans will say they are not Arab, The reason is because, Somalis are hostile and suspicious people even pure Somalis such as the Djiboutians would noy like to be called Somali but rather Djiboutians its a strange fact of being Somali, I am tanned and considered light in the Somalis sense with soft black hair and a long straight nose but still appear as the typical skinny long nosed and fine featured somalis. My wife on the other hand is so white with a long roman type nose she looks more turkish or khaleeji then 90% of Somalis. But call her Kuwaiti and she will flip out on you. Even the Arabs of Somalia who migrated several generations ago from Yemen or Oman will flip out, Somalis are proud people like our Egyptian brothers, but unlike them we have held on to our language stubbornly.

So as a Somali I'am proud of my heritage from the Land of Punt to the very strong Islamic principals of Somalis, even with the current turmoil of my nation in the past 20 years things will get better even more so once we unite and stop our own hypocracy of clanism and move forward a proud African-Arab peoples of the Somali peninsula, Similar to our Berber brothers and Egyptian kinfolk to the North. Somali, Arab and proud. Salam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.255.105 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Arab World is a political expression lacking the demographic realities

The Arab World is a political expression lacking the demographic realities & it's very disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.36.132.57 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Chad

Arabic is the main language of Chad, should it be mentioned? Zazaban (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I added Chad and Eritrea, which has Arabic as one of the 2 official languages. The map does not reflect it though, as they are not always considered Arab countries. --Anatoli (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Arab Settlement in Maghreb

The citation to Ibn Khaldoun seems rather strange, and by all accounts, Peninsular Arab tribal settlement in the Maghreb was actually quite small. collounsbury (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

The section "States and disputed territories" currently contains the following: "Palestine, as administered by the Palestinian Authority, is recognized as a state by over 100[5] countries" with a link to https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/palrec.html

I was very surprised by this assertion, so I followed the link. The linked document says "Countries That Recognize Palestinian Passports", which I think is different to recognising Palestine as a state. Especially since the USA appears on that list of countries, while the USA is also nominated by the main article as a country which does not recognise the state of Palestine. In addition the list of countries has only 43 entries, which is less than 100.

I suggest that at least the following words are deleted from the main article: recognized as a state by over 100[6] countries in addition to being

The citation does not support the assertion. Djk20 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Be bold! Make the correction yourself! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one else has made the correction - I am removing it myself. I don't have an account, but since it has been discussed here the reasoning is sound - I'm doing it.