Talk:Arab world

Israel (wording)

Changed the wording:

Though not recognized by Saudi Arabia and many other Arab states

to

Though not recognized as an Arab state.

I don't think we need to discuss the legitimacy of Israel's existence here. --Anatoli (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a discussion of Israel's legitimacy as such, it is a factual observation, your edit implies a degree of recognition that would be false in the cse of the Saudis and other non-recognizers. I am reverting. There is nothing wrong with a bland factual note as such. (collounsbury (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

This turns the linguistic (Arabic speaking countries) or demographic (countries/territories with Arab population) section into a political, hostile towards Israel statement. Despite Saudi non-recognition, Israel is a sovereign state, member of UN and recognised by the majority of countries, including some Arab countries. There is enough heat already. Mentioning that Israel is not a member of the Arab league and is not considered an Arab state would suffice. An article about the Arab world does not have to coincide with the opinions of some media of the Arab world, it should state unbiased facts, it should not be hostile towards any country. Please reply when you have a chance. This statement should change. Anatoli (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? It is a political fact that Saudi Arabia and several other states do not recognise Israel. Merely noting that is not indicating that Israel is not a state, only that these states do not recognise it. An unbaised fact. If the article indicated in some fashion the position is/was "correct" then you would have a point. But the wording in no way implies (to someone reasonably fluent in English) any such thing. Your desired phrasing is non-nonsensical, insofar as the fact noted is the non-recognition of Israel as such, although it has a significant Arab identifying population, NOT non-recognition as an Arab state. To repeat, there is nothing biased or prejudicial in the mere noting of an objective fact. (collounsbury (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Definition of "Arab" country

Why is the definition of arab world all the "Arab-speaking" countries ? It gives a false idea of countries like Somalia, Djibouti, Eirtrea, Chad, etc. because they are not ethnically Arabs. Let's just focus on the definition, how can language be the definition for something so ethnical ? Sure Saudi Arabia is an Arab country, but Chad... I think the "Arab World" should be redefined, and the map is misleading. (Vob08 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (CET))

Map

I plan on making a change to the map, wherein Algeria's native Tamazight (Berber) language should be recognized as a national language as it has been since 2002 (see Languages of Algeria). If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know. --Lanternix (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea per se, but the map shows only official languages, see national language. Izzedine (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I will change the wording from official to official or national on the map to reflect this. --Lanternix (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems ok, would any other languages become applicable to the map, with this change? Izzedine (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly French in Lebanon. From Article 11 of the Lebanese constitution (my own translation of the French): "Arabic is the official national language. A law shall determine the cases in which the French language is to be used." French is a conditionally language - that is, laws determine when it can be used in an official capacity. It's used mainly in schools, and acceptable for many government forms and applications. ← George ^[talk] 05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As Article 11 of Lebanon's Constitution states, "Arabic is the official national language. A law determines the cases in which the French language may be used", then French explicitly hasn't been given official or national language status and therefore isn't applicable to the map. Izzedine (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why "Algeria" in particular? Morocco has more Berber speakers than Algeria , overal 80% have Algerian Arabic as a native language . There are also linguistical minorities in Lebanon and Iraq , as well as Lybia and Egypt. I don't understand why you put only Algeria in blue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekarfi13 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

the population of native arabic speakers

The population of native Arabic speakers is more than 350 which puts Arabic in the second place after Chinese in terms of the number of native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.18.27 (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Native speakers of the English language? see parts of it on related wiki articles. --النول (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There are more native Spanish speakers as well. Oh, and let's not forget Hindi language. 89.129.47.43 (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

world war II

it say in article "after world war II". What did the Arab states do during world war II? Were they alias of the axis powers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.151.114 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In World War II, some Arab states fought for the Allies, others on the side of the Axis, and still others were neutral. As nearly all of the Arab states were controlled by European powers, they fought alongside that power. For example, Great Britain controlled the modern-day states of Egypt, Palestine, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Iraq, and parts of Somalia, so those semi-autonomous countries fought alongside Britain. Meanwhile, Libya, Eritrea, and most of Somalia were Italian colonies, so they fought for Italy. Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, and Djibouti were part of France, and thus, fought alongside the French. However, after the fall of France to Germany and the establishment of Vichy France, these Arab states switched sides and fought for the Axis. And later on, when North Africa and France were taken from the Axis, these states switched sides again, fighting for the Allies once more. However, Nationalist Spain remained neutral, so its colonies of Morocco and Western Sahara did likewise. The only truly independent Arab state during World War II was Saudi Arabia, which remained neutral. Hope this helps! My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over population

Can we discuss the population rather than continue to edit war over it? One of the last reverters mentioned that the Arab League had figures to support the higher number. It did check out so I left it. Any problems with that? Student7 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan no more in the Arab World starting July 9, 2011

The maps we have on this page will very soon be inaccurate starting July 9, 2011 when the South Sudan Republic is declared. South Sudan has practically no Arabic language (except for a negligible tiny tiny minority perhaps) and it is certainly not part of the Arab League. Both maps need to be revised starting July 9, 2011. The maps that need revision: File:Arabic speaking world.svg, File:Arab League members colored by joining date.svg, File:Dispersión lengua árabe.png (also needs to be angicized -- it is not acceptable in English Wikipedia as it stands now) File:Maghrib.PNG, File:Mashriq.PNG werldwayd (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you entirely. While South Sudan will not hold membership to the Arab League, this is not a pre-requisite to being considered a part of the Arab world (take, for example, Western Sahara). The current edit of the Arab world article defines the Arab world as "Arabic-speaking countries", and generally considers those countries that list Arabic as an official language. This explains the inclusion of Israel, Chad and Eritrea in the third paragraph of the States and territories section (I would argue that the list of states at the top of that section is arbitrary and incomplete). But that section also (and quite rightly) excludes Eritrea and Chad from membership of the Arab world per se. Similarly, Mali and Senegal, cited as "not members of the Arab League or the Arab world", list Hassaniya (an Arabic-cognate) as an official language and are mentioned accordingly in this section. In my opinion, South Sudan should fit in here. Notwithstanding its history (with Arabic as an official language and so constituting a member of the Arab world), the continued widespread use of Juba Arabic around Juba warrants South Sudan's mention in the States and territories section. One other comment -- the map File:Dispersión lengua árabe.png, while requiring Anglicization, does not need amending beyond the insertion of the new boundary-line between Sudan and South Sudan. This is an ethnographic map and South Sudan will continue to have an Arab population (see also this map from the Gulf/2000 Project at Columbia University. gergis (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't find anything wrong with including Arabs in lands where Arab is spoken by a significant minority. But this ought to be in a separate subsection IMO. Somalia, for example, lists Arab as an "official" language, but this seems to be more for Islamic (religious) purposes than because the people actually speak or use Arabic in their daily lives.

But a cognate Arabic language should be listed, as appropriate, with the other Arab countries. IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I propose that the States and territories section be further broken down (i.e., new sub-headings) to differentiate between states and territories where:

• Arabic is "widely spoken" (this could be defined as "being spoken by the majority or a substantial minority");
• Arabic is an official / national language but not widely spoken; and
• Arabic cognate languages are widely spoken.

The Arab world could then be strictly defined (for the purposes of this article) as states and territories falling into the first category, but the article would still cover the other categories (for completeness' sake). Absent any contention to the contrary, I will implement that change. gergis (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, also since all Arab League countries seem to fall in the first category (and few others do). So which category would South Sudan be in? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I had originally intended South Sudan to be included in the third category, on the basis that an Arabic cognate language (here, pidgin Juba Arabic) is widely spoken around Juba. However, it is becoming increasingly clear (following independence) that South Sudan should fall in the first category. South Sudan is eligible to apply for membership to the Arab League (see here) -- as you point out, Roentgenium111, the first category chiefly consists of Arab League member-states, so South Sudan's eligibility is an important consideration (although not a requirement for inclusion in the "Arab world", as I have previously discussed). More importantly, the Language section of the current edit of the South Sudan page states that colloquial Arabic is "widely spoken" -- this would satisfy the test for inclusion in the first category. gergis (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so clear to me from what you write: The article you linked specifically says that South Sudan is eligible for the Arab League because it was part of an Arab state previously, not because it is an Arab country itself. And the language claim in South_Sudan#Language seems to be unreferenced (and contradicts what werldwayd said above). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether (eligibility for) membership of the Arab League determines whether a country is part of the Arab world. It seems to be a general rule (see the debate in the following section) that being a member of the Arab League, regardless of whether Arabic is widely spoken or is an official / national language, is sufficient for a country to be deemed part of the Arab world. South Sudan is (I think) unique in being eligible for Arab League membership but not actually a member. If the general rule I set out above strictly requires a country to be an Arab League member (and not merely eligible for membership) in order to be deemed part of the Arab world, then South Sudan would fail the test; but considering this unusual state of affairs, it is surely worth considering in the article. gergis (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction there: it's not eligibility for the Arab League that determines whether or not a country is a member of the Arab world. It's that, as a rule, the Arab world is generally coextensive with the territories that are already in the League of Arab States (the AL considers Western Sahara to be Moroccan territory [1]). This is also how the Arab League itself defines the Arab world, or what it refers to as the "Arab Nation" (Ummah). South Sudan is not a part of the Arab League, so there's no question as to whether or not it is a part of the Arab world on that basis; it isn't. When Sudan was still unified, it was generally understood that it was the northern half that was "Arab" Sudan, whereas the southern half was "Nilotic" Sudan. In fact, this is what the Sudan Wiki article used to say in its intro before the referendum, I believe. Now that the two areas are no longer united as one country, the confusion has been cleared up. This is also why another user updated the Arab world map recently to remove South Sudan from the list of territories in the Arab world. Middayexpress (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute your re-iteration of the Arab League's definition of the Arab world (although I would stress that this is only one possible definition of the Arab world). However, for the purposes of this article, a strict approach in line with this "rule" would fail to consider the (I think) unique circumstances in which South Sudan finds itself: namely, that South Sudan could become an Arab League member-state and so be included in the Arab League's definition of the Arab world. Because of this, I think that it would be worth considering South Sudan in the context of this article, even if only to point out that (a) the territory of South Sudan used to be included in the Arab League's definition of the Arab world, (b) South Sudan is eligible for Arab League membership (and, if it became a member, would be included in the Arab League's definition of the Arab world), (c) it is however "Nilotic", rather than "Arab", and (d) (subject to referencing) Arabic is not widely spoken (although an Arabic pidgin, Juba Arabic, is). gergis (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One other point: I would point out that I did not suggest that eligibility for membership was the test for inclusion in the Arab League's definition of the Arab world -- indeed, I expressly stated that, on the basis of the "rule" that Arab League membership (i.e., not mere eligibility) was a prerequisite for inclusion in the Arab world, South Sudan would fail. But this is not the point -- the question is whether, for the purposes of this article, it is worth considering South Sudan's (I think) unique circumstance in the context of a possible broader definition of the Arab world (i.e., broader than the Arab League's definition). gergis (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As shown below, it is not merely my iteration that the Arab world is generally coextensive with the territories in the League of Arab States; it's the standard definition of the area. That said, I am not in principle opposed to the inclusion of South Sudan somewhere in this article. It just needs to be placed in the right section. As a non-Arab League state, one where Arabic is neither an official/national language nor widely spoken, the logical place to mention the territory it seems would be alongside areas such as Senegal, which have somewhat similar circumstances. Incidentally, although Arab League representatives have not opposed the idea of South Sudan joining the organization (the AL has a clause that if an Arab country splits in two, the splinter states have the right to join the League [2]), a member of the South Sudanese administration told the press recently that his nation would not be joining the League since the government believes that the territory does not meet the pre-conditions necessary for inclusion [3]. This should probably be mentioned as well. Middayexpress (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As you will have seen, I have updated the article to consider alternative definitions of the Arab world. As regards your statement that the Arab League definition is "standard", I would say that it was the "standard" political definition, but that alternative ethno-linguistic definitions are equally widely held (often in conjunction with the political definition). In any event, I think we need additional references to support this broad statement. In particular, rather than maps, I think that academic literature is required to give weight to this assertion. This is because maps reflect an inherent political bias, at the expense of other (e.g., ethno-linguistic) approaches. gergis (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I do not ipso facto have anything against mentioning that there are alternative definitions of the Arab world to the standard one cited above and below. However, your addition to the article the assertion that "in combination with, the Arab League definition discussed above, the Arab world may be defined as consisting of those states or territories in which the majority of the population is Arab and/or speaks Arabic, and may even include Arab or Arabic-speaking populations outside the traditional Arab world" is not entirely supported by the cited source (c.f. [4]). In fact, the source states that the Arab world is traditionally coextensive with the territories in the Arab League i.e. the standard definition of the Arab world: "No universally accepted definition of 'the Arab world' exists, but it is generally assumed to include the twenty-two countries belonging to the Arab League that have a combined population of about 280 million". It just adds that, for the purposes of the book, it extends that standard definition to include Arab-speaking populations in the diaspora or places where use of Arabic is at least considered to be critical to identity: "For the purposes of this introduction, this territorial definition is combined with a linguistic one (use of the Arabic language, or its recognition as critical to identity), and thereby extended into multiple diasporas, especially the Americas, Europe, Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Australia". I have adjusted the text and layout to reflect this. In future, per WP:BRD, please discuss any augmentations you wish to make to the standard definition of the Arab world, so that they may be evaluated in terms of seeing if they pass Wikipedia's fringe threshold and are proportional to their prominence in reliable sources per WP:WEIGHT. Middayexpress (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's my impression that Arabic is the preferred language for the Islamic religion. The Qur'an is more lyrical in Arabic. Is it possible that the "Arab World"/"Arab League" was intended to be some sort of religious precursor to resurrecting the Caliphate? At the core is the Arabic language. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Arabic is indeed the liturgical language of Islam. However, it must be remembered that not all self-identified 'Arabs' are Muslim (like many Lebanese Christians or Yemeni Jews, for example; though, admittedly, many Maronite Christians do not identify in this way at all, but instead consider themselves lineal descendants of the Phoenicians). The Arab League was conceived in the colonial period as a way of uniting and thus saving the so-called 'Arab Nation' from what was at the time perceived as an existential threat on the part of the Western colonial powers. I think the situation has been reversed somewhat nowadays. Many contemporary Occidental societies now, in turn, seem to feel under threat from what they perceive to be a neo-colonial Muslim expansion, the latter of which they believe is attempting to impose fundamentally different and alien customs and values on European communities. It's a tense period, to be sure. Middayexpress (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see below:

• I'm afraid that my assertion is precisely supported by the reference, as you yourself have shown. The definition used by Fishkopf for the purposes of his introduction is "an alternative to, or in combination with," (in your quotation you seem to have omitted the first few words of the sentence) the standard territorial definition. In other words, Fishkopf acknowledges the standard territorial definition and then uses an alternative definition for the purposes of his introduction.
• I note that you have quoted Fishkopf's "critical to identity" wording -- what does this mean? How is it provable?
• I disagree with your wording "and thus may include the Arab diaspora". Could we replace with "and may include populations of the Arab diaspora"? First, the Arab diaspora does not refer to particular states or territories (i.e., it encompasses populations within certain states and territories), and cannot therefore be included in the definition of the Arab world as a consequence ("thus") of the inclusion in that definition of "states or territories in which the majority of the population speaks Arabic". Secondly, the "Arab diaspora" is not a homogeneous entity -- it is more correct to say "populations of the Arab diaspora", rather than the entire Arab diaspora as a blanket term, since a community of twenty Arabs living in, say, Samoa, would not typically be considered part of the Arab world.
• Re layout -- The layout was structured to reflect the alternative bases for definitions of the Arab world (i.e., as subsections of the Definition section). In the first place, the standard territorial definition is considered (under the current heading "Arab League", although this could be more correctly changed to "Territory"). In the second place, the alternative linguistic basis is considered (under the heading "Language"). There is a substantial body of literature that supports an (ethno-)linguistic basis for the definition of the Arab world, although it is certainly less common than the standard territorial definition. However, it is certainly not fringe. A general point on language in the Arab world is made in the first paragraph of the Demographics section. The paragraph reflecting Fishkopf (inter alia) should be moved back to the beginning of the Language section, as an introduction to that section: "As an alternative to, or in combination with, this standard territorial definition [i.e., the preceding section], the Arab world may be defined" on various ethno-linguistic bases. I am happy for an additional sentence indicating that this is subsidiary to (insofar as it is less common than) the standard territorial definition to be inserted. This should address your concern about WP:WEIGHT. An entire section on Language is not in keeping with the brief addressing of the subject in the opening paragraph of the Demographics section. In any event, the Language section is clearly addressing various states', territories' and populations' possible inclusion in definitions of the Arab world. gergis (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that your assertion was not supported by the source. I said that it was not entirely supported by the Frishkopf source since the author clearly states that the Arab world is traditionally coextensive with the territories in the Arab League i.e. the standard definition of the Arab world: "No universally accepted definition of 'the Arab world' exists, but it is generally assumed to include the twenty-two countries belonging to the Arab League that have a combined population of about 280 million". Strictly for the purposes of the introduction of his book, the author just extends that standard definition to include Arab-speaking populations in the diaspora or places where use of Arabic is at least considered to be critical to identity: "For the purposes of this introduction, this territorial definition is combined with a linguistic one (use of the Arabic language, or its recognition as critical to identity), and thereby extended into multiple diasporas, especially the Americas, Europe, Southeast Asia, West Africa, and Australia". And this is what the page now does -- cites the standard definition of the Arab world in proportion to its prominence, with the ancillary language-based definition in an appropriately subordinate position in the Definition section.

The assertion in the article that "the Arab world may be defined as consisting of those states or territories in which the majority of the population speaks Arabic or regard it as critical to identity, and thus may also include the Arab diaspora" cannot be amended to "the Arab world may be defined as consisting of those states or territories in which the majority of the population speaks Arabic or regard it as critical to identity, and may include populations of the Arab diaspora" because, as can be seen in the quote above and its use of "and thereby extended into multiple diasporas", Frishkopf himself includes the various Arab diasporas in his language-based definition of the Arab world specifically based on the fact that they make "use of the Arabic language" and acknowledge "its recognition as critical to identity". The text, however, can be amended to "the Arab world may be defined as consisting of those states or territories in which the majority of the population speaks Arabic or regard it as critical to identity, and thus may also include populations of the Arab diaspora" since he does talk about multiple Arab diasporas.

Also, I have not omitted anything from the Frishkopf quote, as can clearly be seen here. That includes the author's additional assertion that "For the purposes of this introduction, this territorial definition is combined with a linguistic one", a linguistic definition which he defines as "use of the Arabic language, or its recognition as critical to identity" (that's why the "critical to identity" aspect was cited; it's part and parcel of Frishkopf's language-based ancillary definition of the Arab world).

The old layout was unsatisfactory because it literally put the language-based definition of the Arab world -- which your own Frishkopf source describes as ancillary, a fact which can also readily be seen in most standard maps of the Arab world (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) -- on equal footing with the standard territorial definition of the Arab world since it juxtaposed that linguistic definition right beside the the mainstream territorial one in the Definition section. This too is inconsistent with WP:WEIGHT, which clearly stipulates that viewpoints must be cited in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. So unless you can somehow prove that the language-based definition of the Arab world is at least as prominent in reliable sources (which will take some doing), it cannot be cited on par with the mainstream definition of the Arab world. The only conceivable workaround that is to include two additional section headings: the first titled "Standard territorial definition" (where the standard territorial definition of the Arab world is cited), and the second titled "Ancillary linguistic definition" under which the ancillary linguistic definition can be cited. But here too, WP:WEIGHT must still be respected in terms of not attempting to relegate certain League of Arab States members to the same level as territories which are not commonly associated with the Arab world (i.e. the layout in the Language section must be preserved). I have therefore adjusted the areas in question to accommodate your concerns. Middayexpress (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hooray. We seem to have reached agreement:

• I said that my assertion was "precisely" supported by the reference, that is "entirely", since I had hoped it was clear that, under my earlier layout, the Language definition was subsidiary / ancillary to the standard territorial definition. Evidently you disagreed, but we seem to have found common ground. Thank you for amending the layout as per my concerns.
• Agreed as regards "thus may include populations of the Arab diaspora".
• My query about the "critical to identity" wording is not a criticism of your edit (you have only accurately quoted Fishkopf) -- rather, I wonder whether this is in keeping with the definition of "Arab" that is generally used in the article (i.e., the Arab League definition). I presume that, perhaps inter alia, Fishkopf is referring to states and territories that have declared Arabic an official or national language, even though not widely spoken, since it is deemed "critical to their identity"; although perhaps he includes other groups too. I'm curious to learn what you think this phrase means. Notwithstanding that Fishkopf certainly uses the expression, might this be a fringe definition of "Arab" that would be better omitted from the article? Or is it common elsewhere in the literature?
• One further query: The opening sentence of the article states that: "The Arab world refers to Arabic-speaking countries [...]. It consists of 21 countries and territories [...]". I understand that, as standard, the Arab world is generally defined as including 21 countries and territories (i.e., the Arab League member-states), but it also may include other elements, not least the Arab citizens of Israel. In light of the changes to the Definition section, would it not be better to say "The Arab world may refer to Arabic-speaking states, territories and populations [...]. The standard definition of the Arab world consists of the 21 states and territories of the Arab League". gergis (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

On a separate point, and at risk of re-opening an old wound, surely the standard territorial definition is fundamentally flawed in the event that an AL member is expelled from the AL. If Libya were expelled from the AL, would Libya suddenly cease to be part of the Arab world? I understand that the territorial definition is the standard definition (so no dispute there), but isn't it rather a question of whether a state or territory is "Arab", as defined by the AL. If so, the Arab world would not be by default coextensive with the AL, although it may well be (and indeed is so currently). Shouldn't the first sentence of the Standard territorial definition section read: "[...] all countries that the Arab League deems "Arab" are generally considered part of the Arab world. At present, all such countries are members of the Arab League." This is then followed neatly by the AL's definition of "Arab" -- agree? gergis (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't fully agree. For one thing, Libya has not been expelled from the Arab League; it has just been temporarily suspended (reprimanded [18]) for political reasons as an incentive for it to get its act together, so-to-speak. So that hypothetical scenario does not apply in this case. It also does not apply because it's the territories themselves in the Arab League, not the Arab League itself (the latter of which was just formed to unite the pre-existing idea of an "Arab Nation"), that are generally coextensive with the Arab world. As your Frishkopf source explains: "No universally accepted definition of 'the Arab world' exists, but it is generally assumed to include the twenty-two countries belonging to the Arab League that have a combined population of about 280 million". That said, I have reviewed your other proposal and it seems more palatable. I interpret that Frishkopf reference to the recognition of Arabic as being "critical to identity" much as you have. As such, it could perhaps be considered fringe. I also don't have an issue with the redaction in the lede that: "The Arab world may refer to Arabic-speaking states, territories and populations [...]. The standard definition of the Arab world includes the 21 states and territories of the Arab League". I have therefore adjusted the text to reflect this. Middayexpress (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Layout

I have adjusted the layout in the language section to separate the members of the League of Arab States from other non-AL countries, as the former are all traditionally considered part of the Arab world whereas the latter typically aren't (c.f. [19]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessarily helpful. Membership to the Arab League (and please note that this is the translated form commonly used on Wikipedia, rather than League of Arab States) is arguably broader than the requirement for a country to be deemed part of the Arab world ([20]). As you may have read from the preceding Talk section, there is consensus that language should be the basis of inclusion within the scope of the definition of the Arab world. However, it is unclear whether this should be (a) "widely spoken" (which, I would suggest, should mean "spoken by the majority or a significant minority") or (b) "national / official language".

The earlier layout was, I would argue, more explanatory insofar as it differentiated equally between these three variables: (1) membership of the Arab League, (2) Arabic being widely spoken, and (3) Arabic as an official language. The current edit prioritises membership of the Arab League, and consigns variables (2) and (3) as less significant. I would advocate reverting to the earlier layout as a fairer appraisal of the different positions. gergis (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

One other point: I notice that you have amended "not widely spoken" to "less widely spoken". While I agree that "widely spoken" is inherently relativist (what is "widely"?), it is not particularly informative to distinguish between "widely" (or, implicitly, "more widely") and "less widely". For example, a country where 2% of the population speaks Arabic is a country where Arabic is "more widely" spoken than a country with 1% Arabic speakers. This is patently misleading. On the other hand, "widely" and "not widely" are more distinctive and would help the reader draw a meaningful conclusion. To use the same example, Arabic spoken by only 2% of the population could not reasonably be held to be "widely spoken", although 30% might, and 50% or above would almost certainly. I have reverted the text accordingly. gergis (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The map you linked to above is not consistent with the areas traditionally held to be the Arab world. As a rule, the Arab world is generally coextensive with the territories in the League of Arab States. This is also how the Arab League itself defines the Arab world, or what it refers to as the "Arab Nation" (Ummah). Given that, the current layout does not actually prioritize Arab League states alone, but rather the Arab world as a whole (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). As such, it's actually the earlier layout that was unsatisfactory because it relegated certain AL states to a similar status as countries like Chad, which are not, by contrast, acknowledged as being a part of the Arab world by most mainstream definitions. That said, I have added a reference for the statement that the Arab League states are generally acknowledged as being part of the Arab world. Middayexpress (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Size comparisons

This seems mainly vanity. What do areas mean? At least comparing Tunisia and Algeria with Alaska have meaning. There's nothing but empty uninhabitable space any of them! But it seems to make them all non-notable, rather than notable. So what that the Gobi desert is "bigger than" Death Valley? Not sure what that proves. Student7 (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

These made no sense and no one tried to defend them. Would need "English world" or "Aryan World" or some such abstraction. None seemed to relate to "Arab World" particularly. WP:RELY needed to select countries for comparing. Student7 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel Map

I have left this point on the discussion to the map on this page. Israel is highlighted in green along with the other arab states. Given that the map itself separates Israel from Gaza and the West Bank, it is more appropriate and correct to leave Israel blank, and only to highlight in green those territories. I do believe the author of the map doesn't have a talk page Colt .55 (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The map is intended to reflect the standard territorial definition of the Arab world, which comprises the states and territories of the Arab League. Israel is certainly not a part of the Arab world under that definition, and should not be coloured green on the map. The Palestinian National Authority is a full member of the Arab League -- its territories (the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) are therefore part of the Arab world under the standard territorial definition and should therefore remain coloured green (as you suggest). gergis (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good observation. Feel free to adjust the map accordingly. Middayexpress (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Malta

Maltese is an Arabic idiom, and unlike other Arabics uses the latin script. Standard Arabic is not used, unlike many other Arabic speaking countries. Malta is predominately Catholic. There is very little mention of Malta in the article, and no mention of Maltese language. It strikes me as a little odd. Perhaps a mention of why Malta, although speaking arabic and having some historic and cultural ties to the rest of the arab world, is not generally seen as part of the Arab world. I suspect that it is primarily on religious/cultural grounds, that is, it is hard to be a 'real' Arab unless you are also muslim. I might be wrong, but thats what I came looking for in this article: a good explanation of why certain countries are in and others are out. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the other reasons are that Maltese are genetically distinct from the Arab world, they plot in the gap between Europe and the near east, alongside Sicilians, south Italians and Ashkenazi Jews. Guy355 (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

False data

"The total GDP of all Arab countries in 1999 was US$531.2 billion. By contrast, the GDP of Spain that year was US$595.5 billion."

Apart from being propagandistic, the statement is simply untrue. According to the CIA data for 1999, Spain's GDP was US&645 billion while the total GDP of only five Arab countries - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia - amounted to US$670,2 billion.

Please conclude a discussion with four tildes when entering material, so we know who you are.

This can only be removed if Lewis was quoted incorrectly, which must be somehow demonstrated. If he was quoted correctly, then it must be left and material inserted that refutes this. We can assess whether material is generally reliable or not. This has been done for Lewis and he is reliable.

Removal of cited material in this case is WP:OR. That is, you, a non-expert, have added it up and found an expert wrong. Unfortunately, this process cannot be used in Wikipedia for the reasons cited. Needs reliable disproof at this point. Student7 (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kurds

What the fuck does "self-identified Kurds" mean? Changed it to further reflect the reality of who the Kurds are and their non-Semitic and definitely non-Arab, very much Kurdish identity. But out of interest, whose idea was it to suggest that to be a Kurd is merely a SELF-identification rather than a true identity? Is being an "Arab" a true fucking identity? Wikipedia pisses the fuck out of me sometimes, and I do apologise for my language, but there are some absolute cunts on here.

Total Area?

Please include the total area of the arab world in the article 198.36.40.1 (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

- Iran arab country? 85.76.164.84 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

update required

Please update, [34], and [35], cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.59.83.56 (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Total population

The following sentence is from the article: "The standard definition of the Arab world comprises the 22 states and territories of the Arab League (...), with a combined population of around 280 million people". This information is wrong. I would just point out that there's 280 Arabs living in the Arab League, but that's not the total population. In total, there live about 350 million people in the Arab League. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As there seem to be no interest for this article, I will remove this mis-calculated information and replace it with the right number. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The total population seems to be about 340 million [36]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

- Iran arab country? 85.76.164.84 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Arabic in Morocco, Algeria, Tunis and Libya

This artikel is absoultely misleading and wrote by Arab nationalist.

1. Arab world doesn’t exist, it’s a racist and fascist to call North Africans Arabs.

2. Arab/Arabic is a name for a NATION, and nation that lives and exist only in the Middle east according to all none facist and racist historians and scientist around the whole world.

3. Morocco or the Maghreb, which is ethnically and genetically Amazigh(Berber) according to all historians and scientist.

4. In the Maghreb we speak 4 different Tamazight(Berbers) languages and an Arabic_Berber language which we call Darija. NO ONE SPEAKS ARABIC.

5. Arabic as language is only used by the government and the press and is used in schools. This is and was NOT the choice of the nation but of Tyrannical dictators like Khaddafi and Hosni Mubarak etc etc. There is NO freedom of speech or organisation in North Africa. People can’t choose their leader like the westerners have done for the past 500 years. This article is absolutely a racist and fascist article against the North Africans who ever never ever asked to be called Arabs. 6.why don't know why you Amazigh hate the arab, i am algerian and i love you amazigh but when i read comments like that i feel very sad for the gap that between us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.100.125.58 (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This artikel is full of lies from arab nationalist .

No soul in North Africa has ever asked to be marked as an Arab or te be a member of the Arab world.

He's got a point about Berber languages. Clearly not and Arab "dialect" as I thought before I looked it up.

Also Morocco is majority Berber. Note, however, that the country is a member of the Arab_League#Demographics_of_Arab_League_countries.

I'd have to put down Libya in the Arab column, definitely Tunisia and Algeria. They all have had Berber majorities, but have intermixed and speak Arabic mainly.

So while there may be dissidents, as there are everywhere, I think the article is fine the way it is and according to WP:RS. Student7 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for map

So I personally don't know how to edit maps and even if I did I'd still need permission but 2 things. 1 shouldn't the West Bank and Gaza Strip be added on the map ? 2 is it possible to get the map in higher pixels ? Bleach143 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Somalia

In the 'Demographics' section, the article states: "Arab League countries are defined by an Arab majority; the Arabic language forms the unifying feature of the Arab world. Though different areas use local varieties of Arabic, all share in the use of the modern standardized language, derived from Classical Arabic (symptomatic of Arabic diglossia). This contrasts with the situation in the wider Islamic world, where in contiguous Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Arabic maintains its use in a similar script and retains its cultural prestige primarily as the language of religion and theological scholarship, but where Arabic is not spoken as a vernacular."

This contrast between Arab League countries and the wider Islamic world is extremely muddy--Somalia is exactly as Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are described here, and yet is a member state. Arabic is an official language for religious reasons and is used liturgically, but not spoken as a vernacular. Given that Somalia, for the most part, consists of neither ethnic Arabs nor Arabic speakers, many of the blanket statements about the League states are glaringly false in relation to Somalia. It seems that Somalia joined the league for political purposes more than anything.

I'm focusing on Somalia here as I know more of it than of the other nations, but I'm sure it's not the only nation where the blanket statements don't all ring true. I don't know what can be done and I suppose it would be madness to individually describe every member state on such a precise level, but I wonder if someone reading this article won't get the wrong impression about some of these nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.71.13 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed above (1, 2). Somalia is indeed not mostly inhabited by "ethnic Arabs", nor are most other nations in the Arab world (the ancient Egyptians, Berbers, Phoenicians, Himyarites, Sabaeans, etc. didn't speak Arabic either, though they too spoke languages from the Afro-Asiatic family). It is nonetheless a part of the Arab world since the standard territorial definition of the Arab world is the 22 territories in the League of Arab States. Middayexpress (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, but that wasn't my concern. What I said was the distinction above (i.e. that the Arab World contrasts with the wider Islamic world by use of Arabic as vernacular) is NOT true for some of the countries, including Somalia. You've misunderstood me, I'm not debating whether Somalia should be included in the Arab World, of course it should--it's in the Arab League after all, which is what we've accepted as the definition. What I'm saying is some of the blanket statements, like this one, about Arab League member states are not true. You're right that my concerns are in some ways similar to the ones in section 2--I could have posted under that section, my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.71.13 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're referring to there about Somalia's main reasons for joining the Arab League. Political expediency was indeed one primary motivation, as was the then popular Pan-Arab nationalism. Middayexpress (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101206212247/http://www.lawac.org/speech/2004-05/Halevy%202005.pdf to http://www.lawac.org/speech/2004-05/Halevy%202005.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721140130/http://www.infoprod.co.il/article/2/283 to http://www.infoprod.co.il/article/2/283

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Why two articles?

If "Arab world" is synonymous with "Arab League", as this article claims, why do we have two articles? Srnec (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

History

I think there should be a separate article for the history of the Arab world and the Arabic-speaking peoples. History of the Middle East doesn't count because it doesn't cover the Maghreb, neither does history of the Arab League because it only includes the history of the aforementioned organization. Charles Essie (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160103031332/http://www.sundayherald.com/31563 to http://www.sundayherald.com/31563

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

Quote from the article "Arab world, also known as the Arab nation (الأمة العربية al-ʾummah al-ʿarabīah), consists of the 22 Arabic-speaking countries of the Arab League.[1]" This makes it seem like Arab world and Arab league are essentially the same thing so why two different articles the article on Arab league details many of the same things in this article ie demographics, history, culture, etc etc.

This whole article reads like a disaster, like a mish-mash of different ideas and completely without any course of direction. There's really no point in editing or improving this article when we have a perfectly good article on Arab league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeton wu (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Arab League article is about a political organization founded in the 40s. This article is about an area and its people and history going back much further than that. Its similar to the difference between the article Europe and the article European Union. nableezy - 12:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Somalia is not Arab Country

Somali people are not ethnic Arabs, but they identify more with Arabs than Africans due to religious and trade ties with Arabs.Somalia Business Law Handbook: Strategic Information and Laws. International Business Publications, USA. Aug 1, 2013. p. 48. ISBN 1-4387-7104-5. 

In Somalia there are only 30,000 Arabs in the country. "People and Society Somalia -". CIA Factbook. 

Libanguled (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Somalis are instead of Hamitic ancestral origin (Lewis, I. M. (1999). A Pastoral Democracy: A Study of Pastoralism and Politics Among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa. James Currey Publishers. p. 11. ISBN 0852552807. ). That they aren't ethnically Arab is not particularly meaningful, though, since the Arab world is chiefly comprised of Arabized populations. This is why the CIA also indicates that "although almost all Algerians are Berber in origin (not Arab), only a minority identify themselves as Berber" [37]. That is, it is referring to the relative degree of Arabization rather than genealogical traditions or ancestry. Most Maghrebis and Egyptians are of related Hamitic ancestral stock, and many Near Easterners are descended from various local Semitic speaking populations rather than from the peninsular Arabs. All speak languages from the Afro-Asiatic (Hamitic-Semitic) family. Anyway, the table is on the population of the various Arab states, not on peninsular Arabs only. Soupforone (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arab world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/ArabNationalism.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sundayherald.com/31563
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140207131308/http://www.arabland.com:80/dir/ to http://www.arabland.com/dir

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)