Talk:Arab Christians/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Christians saying Allah before Muhammed

I do not think the book "Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad?: understanding the differences ..." by Timothy George is enough reason for saying Christians used the word Allah for God before Muhammed. George does not reference his claim, and his book has a clear agenda of reconciling Christians and Muslims. A pre-islamic source is needed for such a claim. If one is not found, the claim should be removed from this article.Letriste1977 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Allah simply means God. What other word would you suspect? "Cheeseball"? "Strawberry Cake"?Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Christians and Alawites also use the word "rab", don't know what the distinction is, or if Muslims ever use it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Egyptians do NOT self-identify as Arabs

When a sentence in the opening paragraph reads:

Large numbers of self-identified Arab Christians are found in the Southwest Asia, particularly in Egypt etc

then the least that can be said about this sentence is that it is misleading and erroneous! Firstly, Egypt is NOT located in Southwest Asia. Secondly, and more importantly, Egyptian Christians do NOT self-identify as Arabs (see here). If you want to add Egypt and Egyptians to this articles, it MUST be mentioned that they are only Arabic-speaking (and only in Arabic-speaking countries) and that they do NOT self-identify as Arabs. They has been discussed before and agreed upon. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 10:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain why you removed the numbers for Egypt from the infobox of an article that includes "Arabic speaking" in the title. And you do not speak for all Copts. You are correct that a number of Copts do not identify as Arab, but many do identify as Arab. You have consistently sought to push the view that no Copt is an Arab strictly on the basis that you do not consider yourself an Arab. That is not acceptable. nableezy - 11:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As you say, "they are only Arabic-speaking". Let us not bamboozle the lay reader by saying "although [Copts] speak Masri, they are not Arabs"; we should be transparent and say they speak Egyptian Arabic. Note how Wikipedia redirects the term Masri! NebY (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The language is called Masri. It's that simple. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 20:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First, in English the common language of Egypt is generally called Arabic or - as in the title of its article on this, the English language Wikipedia - Egyptian Arabic. Second, to say "although they speak Y-ish they are not X" is unnecessarily obscure to the lay reader when we can say "although they speak X-ish they are not X". Third, please consider that to pile evasion of saying Copts speak Arabic on the repetition that Cobts are not Arabs in so many places in this article lends the whole a tendentious air that can have an effect on the reader that is quite the reverse of your intention. NebY (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Copts do not self identify as Arabs

...and this fact must be mentioned in the initial introductory box. If you disagree, please post your reasoning here. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 14:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Then find sources that say all of them don't identify as Arabs. I bet you can't, but it's better than unsourced statements. In fact, many do identify as Arabs on whatever grounds. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article linked in the heading is filled with such sources. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tariq Aziz

Tariq Aziz is not an Arab, he is Assyrian, he needs to be taken off this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Odd mismatching

The author(s) of this article clearly acknowledge that the Copts of Egypt, despite speaking Arabic as their first language, do NOT consider themselves Arabs (in fact, many of them would get violent if one were to insist on sticking that false identity on them). This is not odd, as the Irish almost exclusively speak English, but are NOT Englishmen. AND of course the Assyrians, Chaldians, Syriacs are neither speakers of Arabic nor associate with Arabs. Despite this, these all are herded together in this article, entitled "Arab Christians", their numbers blatantly included amongst the other Arabs and so on, as if irrespective of all these facts, these people are "Arabs" anyway!! While there, why not also count the Greeks and Armenians as Arabs too? Does anyone know any more, what or who an "Arab" is, or has the term been bloated so much that it has lost its ethnic meaning?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.22.233 (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This Page Should Be Called "Christians In The Arab World"

I feel the title of this page is somewhat misleading, and open to misinterpretation and dispute. The term "Arab Christians" should only apply to those Christians who are ETHNIC ARABS and/or who consider themselves as such. It is pretty clear that Assyrians (Chaldo-Assyrians), Arameans/Syriacs, Armenians, Egyptian Copts and Lebanese Maronites as well as ethnic Kurds, Turcomans, Iranians, Turks and Berbers who adopted Christianity are Not Arabs! Some,like Egyptian Copts, Syrian Christians and Lebanese Maronites do speak Arabic, and some may regard themselves as Arab, but it seems that many,if not most do not. To avoid misunderstanding, controversy and dispute, perhaps the title of this page could be changed, and the article coult then go on to describe the different peoples and self designations?

Likewise "Arabic-speaking Christians" is also misleading. Assyrians (Chaldo-Assyrians), Armenians, some Arameans/Syriacs as well as Armenians and Berber, Kurdish, Turkish, Iranian and Turcoman Christians do not speak Arabic and thus should be excluded from the article completely on grounds of both ethnicity AND language.

The only nations where Christians seem to "almost" completely identify as Arabs seem to be Palestine, Jordan, Israel, Yemen and Oman, and even in these places not all are Arab or regard themselves as such.

Changing the article to "Christians In The Arab World" would allow the content to be broken down into sections both by nation,and/or by ethnic and cultural origin.

I wonder what people feel about this?

Agree. Although, maybe "Arab Lands" is better than "Arab World" (Either way, the term as used in this particular article should be clearly defined in the introduction). Since the term "Arab people" can't be clearly defined or agreed upon, neither can Christian Arabs. (see other's comments below)

How to title three topics in one article?

1. Arabic speaking Christians

2. Christians living in Arab lands

3. Arab Christian Diaspora

Also, how can the approx. 40-50 million in the info box be relevant if we don't know if it refers to Christians speaking Arabic OR living in Arab lands? Since the 40-50 seems to be a total including the DIASPORA it should be moved to the bottom and shown as a Total for numbers given in the list, otherwise readers may assume it means something else. 99.69.44.236 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the discussion at the end of this page Talk:Arab_Christians_and_Arabic-speaking_Christians#We_need_a_wikipedia_article_for_Christian_Arabs

There is an article for Christians in the Middle East and Christianity in Egypt, Christianity in Lebanon, Christianity in Iraq and so on. I don't feel another article of this kind would somehow contribute to wikipedia (by "Arab World" or "Arab lands" you mean "Christians in the Arab League countries"? Notice that "Christians in the Middle East" is a good summary of the region by itself, why also Arab World?). Certainly this page should be about the Middle Eastern ethnoeligious group Christian Arabs (or Arab Christians, which is the same), as it originally wasGreyshark09 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Armenians?

If Copts, Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Maronites are included in this article as Arabic-speaking Christians, why aren't Armenians? After all the Armenians are just as Arab as the aforementioned ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.108.188 (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Syriacs should be excluded along with Armenians, but the others only have Arabic as their first language. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Syriacs, Armenians and Assyrians/Chaldeans cannot be considered Arabs or native Arabic-speakers by any stretch of the imagination. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 16:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When I say Syriac, it includes all the silly off-shoots, Chaldean/Assyrian, whatever. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Um I am one of the "silly off shoots" and we certainly don't consider ourselves Arabs. Since more than 95% of christians in iraq and big chunk of Christians in Syria belong to "silly off-shoots" then they should be also excluded. Also not all Lebanese Christians identify themselves as Arabs.

Also numbers of "Arab" Christians in some countries (especially Brazil) are highly exaggerated. you might want to check the official censuses before endorsing those figures.

I am temporarily putting the bias template on until these disputes are solved. Rafy talk 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, I specifically said Syriac speakers should not be counted as Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, Clear Non-Arabs: Armenians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans; Unclear Identity: Coptic Egyptians; Arab-Identity Disputed by Some but many do identify as Arabs:: Maronites --Qvxz9173 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"When I say Syriac, it includes all the silly off-shoots"" - Actually, you will find that the term SYRIAC is itself a "silly offshoot" of the term ASSYRIAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Copts

It seems that you are trying to isolate the Copts from the region and the arabs as much as possible, even you dont want to put Egyptian Arabic because of the word "Arabic" how funny is that. However i agree that some copts dont consider themselves as arabs but i dont see the need of mentioning it in the population column since it was mentioned more than 3 times in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrian10 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree about the Masri vs. Egyptian Arabic piece, but I clearly disagree with the need to mention that Copts do not identify as Arabs in the population column. As you can see from Coptic identity, this is very much pertinent to the way Copts perceive themselves. As I mentioned on your talk page, other users agree with this point of view as well --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Iraq

I'm tired of say up, not all Christians in Iraq are Assyrians. There are Christian Arabs descended from Christian tribes of Arabia. There Assyrians and Arabs. Can not become an article of dispute and fighting. There are the two ethnicities and should have a respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.196.108 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lakmids Arabs who were Christians were in Mesopotamia before the rise of Islam, so many Iraqi Christians should be Arabs. There are definitely Arabs who are Christians in Iraq. In addition, many Arabs who are also Christians have moved from neighboring countries such as Jordan and Syria in the past. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but the vast majority of Christians in Iraq belong to four churches: Chaldean, Assyrian, Syriac Catholic and Syriac Orthodox, Then the Armenian churches. Only a small minority belong to "traditionally Arab" Churches. Most Arabs in Iraq and Syria converted to Islam, just like the ones in the Arab peninsula as far as I know. Rafy talk 13:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafy (talk • contribs)

The thing is, what church you belong to does not define your ethnicity. I belong to the Roman/Latin Church, but that does not make me Roman or Latin. There are Arabs who belong to the Greek Orthodox or Syriac Catholic Church, but that does not change their ethnicity to Greek or Syriac (which is a language--a dialect of Aramaic--not an ethnic group). There are definitely Arabs who are Christian, because I am one, and I know hundreds both inside my large family and outside. There are plenty of Arabs who are Christians in Syria, and probably in Iraq too, not all of them converted. (Also see here for a Syriac Catholic-Chaldean Catholic who considers themself Arab [1]) --Qvxz9173 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually what happened is that in Syriac Christianity (Maronites being an exclusion here), one's denomination has become synonymous with his ethnic identity. For example a Muslim cannot convert to Syriac Orthodoxy because he will simply never belong to the community, while on the other hand a Syriac Orthodox who converts to Islam (or any other non-Syriac denomination in that matter), will simply loose his previous ethnic identity as well. I have read somewhere that this has happened after Timur lane's massacres which nearly exterminated Syriac Christianity east of the Euphrates, people then became more introvert and developed this unique identity. Very similar to Jews I believe. Rafy talk 22:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafy (talk • contribs)

The fact is that most ARAB Christians in Iraq before the Arab Islamic conquest of the 7th Century AD converted to Islam after thier Arab brothers conquered the region. Befor the Islamic conquest Arabs were a minority in Iraq anyway. The vast majority of Christians in Iraq were actually native Aramaic speaking Mesopotamians/Assyrians, and they still are. There are not any Arab members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, Ancient Church of the East or Syriac Orthodox church in Iraq, Iran, Turkey or North East Syria. Notably, the Christian traditions in Iraq have always been in the eastern Aramaic/Syriac language, not Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly dispute the notion that members of the Chaldean Catholic Church regard themselves as Arabs. They are actually the same people as the Assyrians, descendants of the ancient Mesopotamians. Arab speaking does not = Arab ethnicity either, otherwise we would have to regard Jamaicans as Englishmen! Ethnic Arab Christians in Iraq are few and far between, and those that do exist tend to be converts in the south who were turned to Protestantism by American and European missionaries in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Arabs were a non native immigrant community in Mesopotamia before the Arab/Islamic conquest. After that conquest those Arabs who were Christian (and they were always a minority within the Christian population anyway) switched to the new Islamic faith of their brethren. Those Eastern Aramaic speaking native Mesopotamians were more resistant, and the Christian population is largely made up of these people today. It is noteworthy that members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church and Syriac Orthodox Church conduct sermons in theier native ARAMAIC/SYRIAC and NOT Arabic, most have Assyrian/Mesopotamian/Aramaic names, and the Iraqi Government designates them as Chaldo-Assyrians, recognising a distinct ethnicity, nor do members of these churches consider themselves as Arab, but as native Mesopotamians/Assyrians.

Majority christians of cities are ARAB CHRISTIANS!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.245.243 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear non-Arabs should not be covered in this article

This article is supposed to be about Arabs who are Christians. It should NOT include people of other ethnic groups who are clearly not Arab. The only reason it talks about "Arabic-speaking Christians" is because some wikipedians here dispute the Arab identity of certain populations and certain individuals. Therefore, individuals and ethnic groups that are clearly not Arab shouldn't even be mentioned in this article. Only those with disputed Arab identity should be included. Therefore, this article should not include CLEAR non-Arabs such as Armenians and Assyrians. In addition, this article FALSILY suggests that Arab Christians who are really Arabs by ethnicity aren't the majority. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the real problem is here, a category that generalizes all christians in what is now the Arab league as Arab Christians. It even includes European Christian in north Africa. I would sort it but it's just too messy there. Rafy talk 13:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

However we got here, the article's subject is now "Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians" and that does indeed quite explicitly include people of ethnic groups other than Arab. I really don't think we can impose a secret rule on the article by some agreement on the talk pages that non-Arabs should be excluded; not only would it be most confusing to the reader but it would set us up for yet more and even worse battles about who should and shouldn't be included.

Still, the question of what article we would like to have here and how it should be titled is a valid one; it would be so helpful to current and future editors, let alone readers, if we could find a generally acceptable scope and title. Could we approach it by putting the readers first? In other words, what do you think people lighting on this article are trying to find out about or interested in? Is it specifically the history and current situation of Christians who are Arabs, or speak Arabic (as first or as second language?), or who live in nominally Arab countries (and there's a problem of definition), or is it often something much more general? For this English-language Wkipedia, readers may arrive quite unaware of distinctions between Arab and non-Arab peoples in "that part of the world" and simply be interested in the situation of Christians "over there". If only there was a simple geographical term that clearly encompassed "there" I'd recommend we use that, but "Middle East" is problematic and "South-west Asia" excludes Egypt. "Christians in South-West Asia and Egypt" is clumsy but it might actually encompass the area the curious reader's thinking of. Can we do better? Or do we really have to delineate it by language and ethnicity? NebY (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One way we could narrow it down (and I actually thought this was the scope of the article already) would be to only include people who speak Arabic as their first language. This would exclude Christians who just happen to speak Arabic as a secondary language, such as Europeans who have learned it, or minorities like Syriacs who have their own primary languages. And yes, unlike what some here desperately want, Copts and other Egyptians would still be included, since they do not have any first language other than Arabic. And by the way, the reason why the scope of the article is so ambiguous is that there is no way we can know what percentage of for example Maronites or Copts identify as Arabs, therefore they have to be included as a whole since it is known that some do in fact identify as such, and they do fit several of the criteria of "what an Arab is", mainly that Arabic is their first language and that they live in the "Arab world". It can not be denied that they have adopted aspects of Arab culture as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the most controversial part is the infobox. Since there is no clear definition of who is an "Arab Christians" or an "Arab Speaking Christians", I suggest that the ambiguity reflect on the article as well. Rafy talk 21:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafy (talk • contribs)

Statistics in Infobox

I'm puzzled by the new statistics in the info box. Just to take the first example, the figure of 7,892,000 Christians in Egypt seems to be expressed with great precision and yet is much lower than that given here previously, elsewhere in the article.or in the article's references. Can anyone point to a basis for these figures? (I will now put this question on the editor's talkpage, inviting participation here). NebY (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a wikipedia article for Christian Arabs

What a mess this article has become. An article originally about Christian Arabs is slowly being transformed into an article about Middle East Christians of numerous ethnicities. What about Christian Arabs! There are NO wiki articles for Christian Arabs. There should be another wikipedia article specifically covering Christian Arabs, because I doubt that this article will reverse direction. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree, somehow this article turned from an article on "Arab Christians" to an article on "Christianity in the Middle East". Instead of bringing clear info, this article is adding to confusion between various ethnic groups in the Middle East, who happen to practice Christianity (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Copts etc). There are already articles on each ethnoreligeous group, and "Christian Arabs" deserve a full article of their own. And finally what is "Arabic speaking Christians"? Is there an article saying "England Christians and English speaking Christians" or "Spanish Christians and Spanish speaking Christians"? It doesn't make sense to group people by language, which is the most widespread language in the Middle East and North Africa (rediculously it would inlcude any Christian student who learned Arabic in US and Europe).

This article should be renamed and dedicated to Christian Arabs alone, not Christian Assyrians, Maronites, Copts and Christian Armenians who happen to speak Arabic.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in the current discussion higher up on this page Talk:Arab_Christians_and_Arabic-speaking_Christians#This_Page_Should_Be_Called_.22Christians_In_The_Arab_World.22 NebY (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that you can't really draw a line between who is Arab and who is not. The first question would be to define "Who's an Arab?" are we talking about a "ethnic" Arabs like Ghassanids and Lakhmids (Greek Orthodoxes and Greek Catholics mostly in Jordan), or the "Hellenised" and "Latinised" population who later adopted Arab culture early on (Greek Orthodoxes and Greek Catholics and Latin Catholics in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan). Or should we instead talk about "Arab Christians" as Arab governments view them (Including those mentioned in addition to Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Maronites... etc.).

In order to do this a clear consensus is needed.--Rafy talk 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not rely on political ideas, but on objective and academic views, as much as possible. Arab nationalists (Pan-arabists) tend to call everyone in the Middle East with an "Arab" prefix (like "Arab Assyrians" or "Arab Jews"), which is generally not accepted by the subjects themselves, and not supported by academic views. Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians/Chaldeans, Syriacs, Copts have a specific cultural and even genetic signatures, differing them from Arabs as a whole and Arab Christians, like Ghassanids and Lakhmids, as well. Arab Christians like Ghassanids (including Palestinian Christian Arabs), Lakhmids and similar Arab Christian tribes should be described in this article, not other ethnicities, who are called ideologically "Arab" by some Pan-Arabists - wikipedia is not a podium for politics (WP:NOT).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rename the page back to Arab Christians

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

---

This article turned from an article on "Arab Christians" to an article on "Christianity in the Middle East". Instead of bringing clear information on ethnic Arabs (or panethnic, which means arabidized) of Christian religion, this article is adding to confusion between various ethnic groups in the Middle East, who happen to practice Christianity and speak Arabic (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Arabs and others). There are already articles on each ethnoreligeous group like Assyrian Christians, Armenian diaspora in the Middle East and "Christian Arabs" deserve a full article of their own community. Certainly there is a problem to define Maronites and Copts, but "Arabic speaking Christians" title is just adding to confusion. There is no article saying "England Christians and English speaking Christians" or "Spanish Christians and Spanish speaking Christians". Hence it doesn't make sense to group people by language, which is the most widespread language in the Middle East and North Africa (rediculously it would inlcude any Christian student who learned Arabic in US and Europe). Please vote Support in favor of this move or Oppose if you are against (please provide a reason). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyshark09 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment A rename to Arab Christians would require moving most of the context of this article to the Christianity in the Middle East one. An infobox would also be useless since no approximate numbers can be predicted.--Rafy talk 00:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that most of this article overlaps "Christianity in the Middle East" is one of the reasons to give it a more specific page name and prevent confusion of the term "Middle Eastern Christian"/"Arabic speaking Christian" with Arab Christian (ethnic or panethnic Arab identity person who practices Christianity - i.e. Ghassanids, Lakhmids, Palestinian Christians and to some degree Maronites and Copts, certainly not Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Arameans).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• I thought the title "Arab Christians" was settled consensus during the last move request but I guess that was ignored. —  AjaxSmack  02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, the page name "Arab Christians" was a settled consensus and renamed so in 2009, but it was renamed to current title in 2010 (i'm not sure whether it was discussed prior to renaming).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. The current title is an abomination that allows for content creep outside what the scope of the article should be. Move the article back and sort out precisely who is an Arab Christian here on the talk page. —  AjaxSmack  02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Smart30 (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Suppport - the only reason this was changed was to appease a now banned user (who has repeatedly used sockpuppets) who would routinely remove any mention of any Egyptian from this article, claiming to speak for all Egyptian Christians when he or she said that Copts are not Arabs. As that is a plainly absurd thing to do, and something that should not have been allowed to force the name change back then, I support moving this back to a more sensible name. nableezy - 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would also stand against the inclusion of Copts or Maronites within the "Christian Arab" scope. A separate article should contain information of historic Christian Arabs such as the Lakhmids and Ghassanids and those in Bahrain, Yemen and Nijran regions as well as the embrace of Arab identity by some Christians of the Middle East during the last century.--Rafy talk 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rafy, first of all let's concentrate on the main issue - renaming to "Arab Christians", which would make this article more specific and clear. Later let's define exactly who are "Arab Christians". By removing "Arabic speaking Christians", we would at least stop the confusion between ethnic (or pan-ethnic) Arabs and Arabic speaking Greeks, Armenians and Assyro-Chaldeans who live in Arab countries. So, first thing first.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Arab Christians or Christian Arabs, doesn't matter to me which. About who is covered by that descriptor, it can be determined using reliable sources. There are some Maronites that do identify as Arab, just as there are some Copts who do too. We can talk about those people here, while also noting the views of other members of their communities who do not identify as Arab. The key is using reliable secondary sources and giving fair space to all significant viewpoints on the issue. Tiamut^talk 17:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Complete rewrite

The article now needs a complete rewrite. I would suggest first moving parts to Christianity in the Middle East and cleaning up this article to meet its current scope. Seriously the infobox looks ridiculous here.--Rafy talk 19:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, i think first of all lets get rid of any information on ethnic Greeks, Assyro-Chaldeans, Aramaeans/Syriacs, Armenians and other unrelated Christians, and merge it into "Christians in the Middle East". Later we should decide how we deal with Copts and Maronites, which are a complicated issue (perhaps we would make a subsection in article "Christian sects of Arab pan-ethnicity" or something like that to mention Copts and Maronites).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to these changes. Some of them ones suggested are fine, specifically the ones on removing ethnic Greeks and so on as suggested by Greyshark. But what Rafy has done is remove any group that he or she feels is not Arab, without considering that, at least, a sizable portion of the communities they have removed identify as Arabs and further sources identify those groups as Arab Christians. nableezy - 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be clear that those who belong to Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac and Armenian churched are traditionally considered to be a separate ethno-religious group, this is a well-known fact that is very well supported by major religious and political entities that represent those groups, and I don't think it needs further clarification. If a member of those churches identifies himself as an ethic Arab then this is his/her own individual decision that shouldn't effect the whole group's identity. Therefore those sections you reverted don't belong here.--Rafy talk 16:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, if sources identify a group as Arab then Wikipedia also considers them Arab. Arab identity is more than ethnicity or religion, and has been for a long time. If there is a dispute as to whether or not these groups are in fact Arabs that can be spelled out in the article. What is not ok is removing any group that you feel is not sufficiently Arab, despite what considerable portions of those groups self-identify as and what sources identify them as. nableezy - 16:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Um... Which sources are we talking about? Can you bring a respectable opinion (not a pan-Arabist opinion in some newspaper) that Assyrians/Syriacs and Armenians are Arabs? I promise to get you ten sources for each one you bring :)--Rafy talk 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

[2]: Most of the Greek Orthodox in the Arab world consider themselves Arab. It does say that Chaldeans and Maronites generally do not self-identify as Arabs. nableezy - 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

One common misconception is the attribution of Chaldean Christians to the Chaldean dynasty of neo-Babylonia. Also the given number of Chaldeans is ridiculously low and the leader of the church resides in Baghdad and not in Mosul. These two simple mistakes show that the book isn't really that reliable.--Rafy talk 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another ... Christians in the Middle East: Christian Arabs in the Middle East by Haseeb Shehadeh of the University of Helsinki, published in The Middle East-- unity and diversity: papers from the Second Nordic Conference on Middle Eastern Studies, Copenhagen 22-25. October 1992. It says, in part, "The term Christian Arab is pluralistic in its essence and compound in its meaning. Here it is employed in its wide sense, including all Arabic-speaking Christian communities in the Arab world, numbering more than ten million faithful. These Christians are the surviving heirs of Chalcedon or Chalcedonians (that is Melkites, Malkites or Melchites) and the Monophysites, such as the Copts, the Western Syrians and the Armenians and their offspring, the Latins and the Protestants. All Oriental Christians agree Jesus Christ has two natures, divine and human, but the interpretation of the relation between these two aspects gave rise to different sects." It goes on to list in detail many of the denominations being removed from this article in Rafy's edits.

This article needs to be rewritten from the bottom up ... on that we agree. But I think the best way to do this is to use reliable secondary sources, first and foremost, to define the subject under discussion. The one provided above is a good candidate for this. I'm sure there are others that reflect more narrow definitions or different POVs. Please do bring them forward. A good one for some information on the history of early Arab Christianity can be found here [3]. I suggest we start a section to discuss the opening paragraph and a definition grounded in reliable sources and another section for useful sources, grouping them by what they might be good for. Then we can start using them to write this article. Tiamut^talk 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The new article should meet its new scope which is "Christians who embrace the Arab identity" and exclude "Arab speaking Christians" that have been agreed upon before moving the page.--Rafy talk 18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that is an arbitrary definition of Arab Christian. An Arab Christian, on Wikipedia, is whoever reliable sources say is an Arab Christian. If reliable sources are split, for example some sources consider X group Arab and others do not, the article can say that. It should not however exclude a group based on the unsupported assertion that this group, as a whole, rejects the label. I am not trying to force the label Arab on anybody, and if sources overwhelmingly say that X group is not Arab then that group should not be included based on, as you called it, a pan-Arabist opinion in some newspaper. But if reliable sources do say that a Christian sect is "Arab" then that sect can be included in this article. nableezy - 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some google books sources about Chaldeans.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] I could also bring similar sources about Syriacs and Assyrians but I feel that I'm facing a voice that echoes the Baathist pan-Arabist propaganda of Iraq and Syria (All Christians of the middle east are Arabs, Syriac is an ancient Arabic dialect, pre-arab people such as Kaanaanites, Arameans and Phoenicians were actually Arabs, etc.).--Rafy talk 09:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting those. You've got a couple of duplicate links in there by the way and a couple that are not useful to this article. But there are a couple of very good sources there too. I will try to open a section listing some of your sources and mine and others posted on this page under different headings to help us set p a resource list for t page that we can use to write a definition and expand and improve the article. I agree with you that an important segment of the Christian groups you mention do not identify as Arab, even though they may be considered Arabs by other Arabs because some of them share in Arabic language and culture. But there are others who do feel as though they form part of the Arab world, and embrace an Arab identity. There is room for all these POVs in the article, as expressed in reliable secondary sources. Tiamut^talk 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide us with a single Chaldean/Syriac/Assyrian religious institute/political party/institution that claim that they represent those people and that they belong to the Arab nation?--Rafy talk 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I could, but I don't see how that's necessary. What I am proposing is simply to write this article using reliable secondary sources. Of course how Chaldeans self-identify is important and most of the literature I've seen indicates that a siignificant portion of the community, if not the majority, do not identify as "Arab". However, the literature also indicates that there are some Chaldeans who do identify as Arab on linguistic or cultural grounds, and that most Arabs believe that anyone who identifies as an Arab on such grounds is an Arab. Presenting all these viewpoints and the reactions to the different viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources is how this article should be built. Tiamut^talk 18:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should really and truly be entitled "CHRISTIANS OF THE MIDDLE EAST" That way, ALL ethnic groups can be mentioned equally, without this ridiculous dispute about Arab Vs Non Arab! Do people think this makes any sense???? Regarding Non Arabs...CLEARLY Assyrians (Chaldo-Assyrians as they are called by the Iraqi Government), Armenians, Greeks, self designated Arameans(because many reject the term "Syriac" because it derives originally from "Assyrian"), Syriacs and very many, if not MOST Egyptian Copts and Maronites (Phoenicians)do NOT regard themselves as Arab, and indeed are not Arabs. Nor in fact are those Kurds, Persians/Iranians, Turcomans, Shabaks or Turks who have converted.

Christians calling themselves unreservedly Arab tend to live mostly in Palestine, Israel, Jordan, the Gulf States, Algeria etc.....in Iraq, Iran and Turkey almost all are not Arab, in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt some do and are, some (probably most) are not and do not!.....Even in Jordan and Palestine there are now small scale attempts to revive western Aramaic and distance themselves from an Arab identity.

Re titling this article would be more helpful, it would allow ALL Christian peoples in the middle east to be represented, and more importantly, in the way they see themselves, not in the way people with a POV agenda would wish to see them.

I think this would be far fairer, and would reduce disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There already is an article Christianity in the Middle East in which "ALL ethnic groups can be mentioned equally". It could use some work, for example the mass of links make parts difficult to read. Would you like to take a look and see if you can do anything for it? NebY (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this could remain as an article on Arab Christians with all the information retained, IF at least the lede was rewritten. It needs to be clearly structured. For example, just in the first two sentences ( Arab Christians (Arabic: العرب المسيحيين Al-'Arab Al-Masihiyin) are ethnic Arabs of the Christian faith,[10] They are the remnants of ancient Arab Christian clans and Arabized Christians, such as Melchites and Rum Christians) you have "ethnic Arabs" conflated with "Arabized Christians". The word Rum is not linked to anything here, but is linked further down. Does an Arab translation of Arab Christians really add anything here? Later in the lead is a confusing description of the Melchites and Copts (not Rum), etc. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

40-50 MILLION?! WOW... just... WOW

Now, I am fascinated by ethnic, religious and cultural minorities. Christianity in the Middle East, where the religion was born, is one of my keen interests, and I'm always at pains to remind people that not all Middle Easterners are Muslims and not all Muslims are Middle Easterners....BUT..... 40-50 MILLION "Arab Christians"???! Whomever came up with that figure - pass the joint PULleez!

First of all, numbering the Coptics as "Arab Christians" is of course contested. And 6 million in SUDAN!!!??? The Arabized population of Sudan is Muslim, as is some of the non-Arabized nomads of Sudan. But the "Southern Sudanese" whom are Xtian, whom the Arabs deem "blacks", are certainly NOT Arabs - neither linguistically, culturally, genetically, or by any other criteria.

So there's 24 million reduced from the figure right there.

Then, there are not even 900,000 Christians in all of Iraq any more - let alone just Arab Iraq (outside Kurdistan), and let alone, Christians that are actually Arabs. The vast and overwhelming majority are Assyyrian or Chaldeans, who have their own language and ethnicity, followed by Armenians. Many of these people may speak Arabic (although very few as a first language), but they do not identify, nor are they officially counted as, Arabs.

I mean, I've read that pan-Arabism has been bad for minorities, but this is ridiculous!

I'm sure I could go through every nation listed here and find outrageous problems (e.g. 5,000 Arab Christians in... SOMALIA!!!!! WTF?! 1.2 MILLION Arab Christians in SAUDI???????? - someone put that in as a prank, right?!)) but i can't be bothered myself. Will someone do it for me? Thanks! OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Arab Christians in Saudi Arabia and Sudan indeed sounds rediculous. This article has many serious WP:OR and half truths.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I trimmed the infobox and moved it to the Christianity in the Middle East article but it looks like someone is having another opinion about this since he reverted my changes :/.--Rafy talk 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This article always contained OR and half truths because it has failed to reflect scholarship on this subject or to een define its subject properly. You both know the article was just renamed and will need time to come into line with its new title. Changes should be made using reliable sources discussing "arab christians" or "christian arabs" and not be based on our personal whims or fancies. Tiamut^talk 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason against moving the infobox and other info about middle eastern countries to the Christianity in the Middle East article. Those parts clearly discuss Christianity in general including Those who may self-identify as Arabs. The new article should not skew out of context. --Rafy talk 19:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can, the articles cover separate topics. That other article covers Christianity in the Middle East, not Christians in the Middle East. That article should cover the history of Christianity in the Middle East and briefly discuss the situation today. This article discusses the people. Sort of like the difference between Christianity and Christians, or Islam and Muslims. nableezy - 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Christians in the Middle East is the demographic subsection of Christianity in the Middle East, which may be expanded to an article of its own if big enough. The info on Christian groups - both historical and modern is integral to Christianity article (which of course should also include basic info on Arab Christians and link to this main article).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I fear that moving the infobox as it stands into Christianity in the Middle East would be simply transferring problems and highly dubious claims from one article to another. Worse, it would be even less appropriate to that article. The old scope of this article included Christians outside the Middle East so long as they were Arab or Arab-speaking and the infobox had grown accordingly. The numbers seem to include those living outside the Middle East, the personalities pictured and listed may too. The numbers given are dubious; they were largely inserted or adjusted by User:MitsosGreece without edit summaries and were unreferenced. User:MitsosGreece does not respond to any requests for references or explanation, from myself or others as far as I can tell. I have no confidence in those figures and it's clear that others have good reason to doubt them. NebY (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion - my proposal is that we should work in coordination, and start with issues which are well agreed. As i have previously suggested let's first of all move information about Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians incl. all Aramaic speaking non-arab Christians: Chaldeans, Syriacs/Aramaeans to Christianity in the Middle East. Sudanese Christians certainly also do not belong, and not even to "Christianity in the Middle East", but to Christianity in Africa. In this article let's concentrate on Lakhmid, Ghassanid and other Christian Arab tribes, and keep two separate sections on Copts and Maronites, where we present according to WP:NPOV both the inclusion of those in Arab panethnicity and opinions which state against it, claiming direct relation to Phoenicians and ancient Egyptians accordingly (perhaps later we could decide with more WP:RS the exact status of those groups). Please answer if you agree or not on this pathway.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, that was my idea. BTW Greek Orthodoxes and Catholics (AKA Melkites) are not necessarily ethnic Greeks, they were mainly Aramaic speaking people who have been heavily Hellenised before the advent of Islam. Some of them still speak western Aramaic and self-identify as Arameans while other consider themselves Arabs.--Rafy talk 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. I think, as I suggested above, we should use reliable secondary sources to first write a definition for who an Arab Christian is and then use sources to discuss the different groups discussed in the literature on this subject. I can't agree with removing any mention of Chaldeans when there are sources like this one (Citizenship and crisis: Arab Detroit after 9/11) which discuss the community when discussing Arabs, albeit while clarifying the ambivalence and sometimes outright rejection of Arab identity by its membership. The best thing to do in cases like that is outline the controversy, not ignore it. The source says for example that while it is true that many Iraqi Christians, including Chaldeans reject Arabness entirely, and might be considered historically and culturally distinct, there are "[...] many Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syriacs, and other Iraqi Christians (roughly 45 percent) who are willing to identify as Arab Americans," and that "half of all Chaldeans speak Arabic, that Chaldeans have come from and maintain active ties to a nation-state that has an Arab majority culture, and that many of Detroit's secular Arab American organizations, even those associated with or dominated by Muslims, have prominent Chaldean members." Yes, it is true that many prominent Chaldeans and many in the community reject being called Arabs and there are ample sources to support that position. But there are some who identify on linguistic and cultural and maybe even national grounds as Arab. We cannot ignore those POVs when they are expressed in reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some links showing how the Arab American institute, the sponsor of that book, is trying falsely to represent the Assyrians/Chaldeans especially in the Detroit region.[14][15] Clearly your source is far from neutral. You can take a look at what Chaldean religious and political leaders think of this.[16][17][18][19][20][21] I just hope for once that those Arab nationalists respect other ethnicities existence and stop forcing their own view on them. --Rafy talk 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware that there is a significant viewpoint among Chaldeans that rejects any association with Arabness at all. Clearly, there are some Chaldeans who disagree with that too (this source discusses some of them, for example, authors such as Dunya Mikhail, Weam Namou, and Sinan Antoon). I'm not trying to force any identity on anyone. I simply want to make sure this article complies with NPOV and includes all significant viewpoints on the subject and not just those preferred by its editors. Tiamut^talk 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So yor argument is "They made a contribution to Arab literature, thus they are Arabs", one could just as well argue that once you make a contribution to English literature then you become ethnically British.--Rafy talk 19:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the argument being made is not mine. Its the source's. Second of all, that's not what the source says. It describes these three authors, who are Chaldeans, as emphasizing an Arab identity in their literature. The source also has a lot of other material relevant to the issue of Chaldean identity which may help develop that article further and help us to contextualize the issues here. Tiamut^talk 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Person's ability to speak arabic doesn't make him an Arab. The question of identity is first of all ethno-cultural (ancestral Arabs), later panethnic (arabidized peoples like Copts and Maronites) and finally national (living across Arab world). The Assyro-Chaldean community is somewhere between panethnic and national relation to Arab society. Largely, however the community neither identifies etnically Arab, nor has defined Arab panethnicity (Assyrians still retain distinct culture, language and even genetics). It is also supported histrocally, with their pre-Islamic ethnohenesis. Sure, this is not an overall definition, as people like Tariq Aziz were highly active within Arab nationalistic Ba'ath party and found some identification with Arab panethnicity. Yet, lets be careful not to turn exceptions into a rule as WP:UNDUE suggests.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that simply speaking Arabic isn't enough to make you an Arab, even though there are people who believe that speaking Arabic and partaking in Arab culture is enough for someone to be considered Arab, should they so desire. As I have repeatedly suggested, instead of crafting our own definitions, we should be drawing on those proided by reliable sources. I notice you made many changes to the introduction using terms like "ethnic Arabs" and "panethnicity" without citing sources or defining what these mean. In essence, you have given predominance to a definition of Arab that privleges racial definitions, rather than linguistic/cultural ones. That is one viewpoint worthy of inclusion in this article, but it should not be how we frame the entire article, as that would not be POV.

Please, when adding definitions, cite sources that provide that definition. I will add others that cite other definitions. Then we can begin to write an NPOV article. Tiamut^talk 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus thousands of Kurds joined the Ba'ath party and even reached achieved sensitive functions in Iraq and Syria (see Taha Yassin Ramadan), would that also make them Arabs?--Rafy talk 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources indicate that they are Arab or self-identify as Arabs, then they are Arabs. If not, then not. Tiamut^talk 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Several sources i find relevant:
[22] "This is illustrated by considering two cases of refugee groups: Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Assyrians. The first belong to the mainstream population of the country, whereas the second are a Christian minority in Iraq."
[23] "A typical Assyrian young man's life provides insight into the development of the Khabur communities at the end of the 20th century. Sami Hitler Darmo, son of Hitler Darmo, worked as a barber in Tell Tamir at the Urnina Barbershop and lived in a mud-brick home in Tell Goran when I first met him in 1995. His grandfather, who fought with the Imperial Russian Army in World War One and felt betrayed by the newly Sovietized Russians, named his son who was born in the 1930s after "the Communists' greatest enemy." Sami's own son, an American citizen, holds the more raditional Assyrian name of Ashur. Sami's wife was a first generation Assyrian-American from Chicago. Darmo noted that Syriac is not taught in the government schools but in church schools and summer courses. All Assyrians speak Syriac although some younger men seemed to have trouble reading it easily. Bayard Dodge's recommendation in 1940 that the Assyrians should learn "some Arabic" has been fulfilled with a vengeance."
[24] "Without spending any further time on the subject, we should perhaps simply mention the information provided by Tatian who speaks of himself as “having been born in the land of the Assyrians.” According to Segal, Tatian’s town of birth was Adiabene, and in fact he returned there in 172 AD, Vööbus also comments: “P. E. Kahle proposed the view that Tatian returned to his home country of Assyria and settled there. This proposition doubtlessly fits in better with our present knowledge.” Tatian was not only born in the land of the Assyrians, but he also refers to himself as being an Assyrian. It is clear that he is referring to his ethnic group and not simply to his geographical birthplace."
"Apart from the written documentation which has come down to us, we should also bear in mind the deeply-rooted oral tradition of the Assyrian people, which preserved its specific identity even after its conversion to Christianity. There is indisputable evidence to prove this: for example, the close church-state links, and the characteristic Church-nation structure obtained. The traditional denominational Churches have clearly preserved their constituent parts in terms of being national. Their liturgical-cultural heritage confirms this characteristic, even though many authors who operate within rigid scholastic parameters do not agree with it. At a later point in this article we shall explain the terms which are erroneously used to refer to these peoples, terms such as “Nestorians,” “SyriacJacobites,” “Eastern/Western Syrians,” “Syrians,” and so forth. All of these factors, and others besides, have brought us to the present-day mistaken view of the question. Nevertheless, it must be said that most modern researchers hardly bother themselves with the task of penetrating in greater detail the historical reality of this people."Greyshark09 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Searches in Google Scholar for "Arab Assyrians" gives 1 result, search for "Assyrian Arabs" gives 3 results, search for "Assyrian people" gives 296 results, search for "Assyrians" gives 30,300 results. Seems to me very much conclusive in regard to Assyrian ethnic definition - Assyrian are overwhelmingly related as distinct ethnic group.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is part of our problem here that we keep trying to write a definitive and unambiguous article? In many cases, we cannot agree and our sources do not agree on which Christians are or aren't Arab. Statements in this article of what is erroneous and what is reality will remain causes of conflict amongst editors. Would it be better if as encyclopedists trying to help the reader understand, we were explicit in the text that there are diiferent views and significant disputes amongst sources? Would we even be misleading if we concealed that dispute and attempted to present one absolute truth, when we know full well how little agreement there is? NebY (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, article looks a lot better now guys. Maybe I should make this my new editing tactic - raise an issue on the Talk page, and ask others to resolve it! Re: NebY, actually, with regards to self-identity, there is actually very little disagreement for most of these issues. The only ones that might be slightly ambiguous are the Lebanese Christians and Coptic Christians. But with regards to Chaldo-Assyrians, Syrian Christians, and remaining North African and Near Eastern Christians, the sources are really quite clear. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Iraq Christians: Please brothers of Religion, we need change this discussion

I say about Iraq Christians and i repeat that i say in Chaldean Christians discussion

There's been a big mistake, not necessarily religion can trace their ethnicity. This is an error which unfortunately today is causing wars in the world and we see a repeat of that here unfortunately.There are followers of the Chaldean Church who are Assyrians(generally those who come from villages in the Nineveh plain where there were tribes Assyrian), the Chaldeans are the ethnic that the descendant of the Babylonian people who also live in their villages and go to the Chaldean Church. Just as there are Arabs who are Christians and attend the Chaldean Church, some of these cities generally Mosul was inhabited by tribes in its founding of the Kingdom of Araba who were Arab tribes who founded the city of Hatra under a Parthian empire and were in Mosul and Iraq before Islam, as Manathera, Taghlib, Tayy and others who certainly have christians descendants in the major cities of Iraq. We can also mention that some Armenians Chaldean church goers. In this same way the church you attend does not trace their ethnicity, just as there are Muslims who are not Arabs. Even the followers of the Eastern Church and the Assyrian Church, not all are ethnically Assyrian, there are Arabs, Armenians and other ethnic groups. we will be debating that our whole life? We the christians, we have pray to a better world. The reality is we are all Semites and one people by faith, or Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic and so are all of the Chaldean church and defend our belief that the world is peace and love. This type of discussion serves to divide rather than enhances our people. So let's save our strength to unite our people and do our best Iraq.

God Bless all Brothers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim1187 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several errors in your views:

1. Chaldeans are not named after the ancient Chaldeans of Neo-babylonia, that name was chosen for them by pope Julius III in order to distinguish those new Catholic converts. Check this article
2. Mosul was never part of Hatra it was rather part of Adiabene, an Aramean/Assyrian vassal of the Parthians, it had Jewish and later Christian roots. and By the way, Mosul trace it's root to the city of Nineveh and was not established by Arab tribes as you claim.
3. Traditionally all Syriac Christians (with the except of Maronites who started adopting Arabic language from the sixteenth century), were very distinct from other Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians. They have been effectively using only Syriac as a liturgical language until the 60s and 70s, and that required them to know that language in order to take part in the mass.
4. I really don't get you insistence on mentioning that city dwellers are Christian Arabs. If you are from Iraq then you should know that in Baghdad the Christian population of Dora (الدورة), Mechanic (الميكانيك) and Camp Sara (كامب سارة) is almost a homogeneous mix of Assyrians and Chaldeans. Zayyuna (زيونة) Has a substantial Syriac and Chaldean population but is known for it's staunch support of Zowaa, A nationalist Assyrian Party (Their headquarters has been moved from Dohuk to Zayyuna in 2003). Mosul had a small Greek Orthodox community in Sa'a (الساعة), however the majority of its Christian population was either Syriac Orthodox Or Chaldean and was scattered over the historical centre (They have been almost entirely driven out by our Muslim Arab brothers).--Rafy talk 23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rafy you really don't understand me, the religion don't trace our orgin ever. Have minorities, i say just that this minorities live in city. About Hatra, the population of ancient hatra go to Mosul after ende of kingdom and mixing to nineveh people and founded the Mosul City. I born in Mosul, my family was in mosul that we know since 1796 and our origin is in Mosul i think. Of course have aramaic/assyrians/chaldeans/syriac in city but this is more common after de assyrian genocide in 1915. The assyrian people before 1900 is not common in Mosul and you know this. They was live in villages around of cities. All christians churchs in middle east was speak a syriac/aramaic language in mass also in Syria,Lebanon and Palestine. The language in mass don't change our race. You have your opnion i respect, but you have understand that have arab christians (have also armenians) from Chaldean Church, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic. Other thing nobody is pure blood, you worry about race but this is not matter. If you like race, the genects studys show that Assyrian people have 41% of Haplogroup J1 (Haplogroup more common in Arabia and Yemen) Yemenites-72%. This is much more than Lebanese people with 18%, Jordanians dead sea-9%, Jordanians-40%, Egypt-5%. The Haplogroup J2 (more commom in fertile crescent natives) Assyrians 14,1%, Lebanese-29,7%, Jordanians-21%. http://www.thegeneticatlas.com/World_Y-DNA.htm .I don't care about this, for me the assyrians and arab are brothers. But you have understand that same form the assyrians not identify themselves as arabs, the arab christians not identify themselves as assyrians. And please don't come and say that no have arab christians because this is disrespect and you is don't owner of true. I like the assyrians, i respect but i want respect to arab christians also.

God Bless you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim1187 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you feel but the issue is not "how we feel" rather than what reliable sources say about this. Also the language you speak doesn't define you ethnicity someone else already mentioned that. So you can still have Arabic as a mother tongue and yet don't identify as Arab. In Nineveh plains they have a word for (ܐܪܒܝܐ Arabaya) which is only used to define a "Muslim Arab", those Christians are called (ܣܘܪܝܐ Suraya) regardless whether they speak Arabic or Syriac.

I agree with you that no one is of pure blood and that Genetics shouldn't be taken into consideration when defining someone's ethnicity.

I respect your opinion but I still think that you belong to a minority. I myself know many Arabic-speaking Maslawis and I think that the vast majority would rather identify with Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldeans than with Arabs, their religion definitely plays a big role in that. --Rafy talk 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Athurnay have no shame, they want to force the name Assyrian, which isn't even theirs, on Chaldeans. It is called the Chaldean Catholic Church because it is the church of Chaldeans, the same reason the Greek Orthodox Church is called the GREEK Orthodox Church. You guys are not even Assyrians, you are Atoraya, meaning people of mountains, which mountains? The ones in Iran, the Zagros Mountain ranges. The name Assyrian today is a label given by British evangelists. These evangelists used the name Assyrian to Atoraya to hype them up in order to form a militia and use them for a frontier in WWI. Make no mistake Assyrians of today are Atoraya, NOT Assyrian, they are of Persian/Armenian decent. Their language is Aramaic, but Aramaic was the greater language of Christians in the Middle East. Before Arabic spread in the Middle East Aramaic was being spoken. Their Aramaic is not even original, it has a lot of Farsi and Armenian words. Chaldeans are specifically found in Iraq, no where else. However, a large number of Assyrians are found in Armenia and Iran. What does that tell you? You Atoraya have no shame, you claim to be Christian, but you insist that you're Assyrians, even though the Assyrians were wiped out by the Chaldeans in The Bible. Most of these Assyrians on Wikipedia are being paid by Zowaa to change the pages of Wikipedia, but what they fail to realize is regardless if you try to change history through Wikipedia, history is history. No researcher uses Wikipedia as a source, they can try all they want, the truth is the truth, ASSYRIANS ARE NOT ASSYRIANS, THEY ARE ATORAYA, THE PEOPLE OF THE MOUNTAINS OF ZAGROS, THEY ARE MODERN DAY ARMENIAN/PERSIANS. The main reason why they want to make Chaldeans Assyrian is because of their own political agendas and the fact that the majority of the old villages of Ninveh are Chaldean owned. The reason they are Chaldean owned is because the Chaldeans defeated the Assyrians, therefore, they took their lands. Atoraya have some shame to what you're doing, what you're doing today is just as bad as what Muslims are doing. Last thing, Atoraya are not from Iraq, they simply immigrated in the early 1900's, most of them speak with a broken Arabic accent and have problems pronouncing Arabic words correctly, how are they suppose to be from Iraq when they can't speak proper Arabic? We reject their name and they still try to impose it, if someone rejected my beautiful name I would stop forcing it on him because it is sacred to me. ATORAYA HAVE NO SHAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alqoshnaya (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Google scholar results

As i have already mentioned there is some indication by google scholar for sources identification of who are Arab Christians and who are not. Sure, this is not unified, but we search for WP:COMMONNAME and WP:DUE, trying to give appropriate WP:WEIGHT. So here it goes:

Assyrians

search for "Arab Assyrians" gives 1 result

search for "Assyrian Arabs" gives 3 results

search for "Assyrian people" gives 296 results

search for "Assyrians" gives 30,300 results

Maronites

search for "Maronite Arabs" gives 10 results

search for "Arab Maronites" gives 4 results

search for "Maronite people" gives 34 results

search for "Maronites" gives 9,480 results

Copts

search for "Coptic Arabs" gives 1 result

search for "Arab Copts" gives 3 results

search for "Coptic people" gives 71 results

search for "Copts" gives 10,300 results

Syriacs

search for "Syriac Arabs" gives 3 results

search for "Arab Syriacs" gives 0 results

search for "Syriac people" gives 25 results

search for "Syriacs" gives 363 results

Chaldeans

search for "Chaldean Arabs" gives 2 results

search for "Arab Chaldeans" gives 2 results

search for "Chaldean people" gives 71 results

search for "Chaldeans" gives 16,800 results

Frankly there is little to derive from this experiment, but one can see a wide use of "Assyrian people" term (including (Syriac and Chaldean) and lesser uses of "Coptic people" and "Maronite people". Except Aramaic speaking groups - there is no certainty to define Maronites and Copts as people, but on the other hand they are too rarely being defined as "Arabs". One could also try "Arab Phoenicians" (Lebanese / Maronites) and "Arab Aramaeans" (Syriacs) to complete the picture, but this is redundant at this point.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the contrast results for strictly defined Arab Christian tribes:

Ghassanids

search for "Ghassanid Arabs" / "Ghassan Arabs" gives 44 results

search for "Arab Ghassanids" gives 16 results

search for "Ghassanid people" / "Ghassan people" gives 1 result

search for "Ghassanids" gives 566 results

Lakhmids

search for "Lakhmid Arabs" gives 27 results

search for "Arab Lakhmids" gives 3 results

search for "Lakhmid people" gives 0 results

search for "Lakhmids" gives 426 results

Unlike previous cases, the academic sources suggests that Ghassanids/Lakhmids are much more related as Arab peoples, rather than distinct identity group. Just for general info - today's Arab Christians of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and West Bank are largely identified with past Ghassanids (surely addmixed with Byzantine Greeks and others), whereas Iraqi and the Gulf's Christian Arabs identified with the Lakhmid branch. While most Lakhmid/Ghassanid Arab Christians belong to Catholic or Orthodox Churches, there are many of them, who belong to Chaldean, Maronite and Jacobite Churches, which makes it a hard time to separate from ethnic Assyrians/Syriacs and especially hard to distinguish between the Lebanese groups ("Phoenicians" vs "Arabs"). We need good sources for this to bring some order into ethnic and religious identity of today's Arab Christians and their definition.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The affiliation with the Lakhmids is almost non-existent nowadays. Although one can't deny the existence of prominent Arab, Persian and Turkic Nestorians during the middle ages, Any link with Arab tribes or Persian and Turkic people has become very negligible as Christians in Mesopotamia become increasingly weary of outsiders in later centuries. I doubt that you will find many Chaldeans/Syriacs that still associate with those Arabs, even if such link exist.--Rafy talk 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, this is why the vast majority of Christians in Mesopotamia and the Gulf are ethnic Assyrians. I'm not perticularly familiar with who are those 5,000-20,000 non-Assyrian Arab Christians, but i assume they have to do with Lakhmid or other Arab tribes' legacy from Byzantine period. Regarding Levantine Christian Arabs - those largely can be easily traced to Ghassanids (especially West Bank, Israel and Jordan, some in Lebanon and Syria), with addmix of arabidized Greco-Byzantines (i personally know a Levantine Arab Christian, who traces his family to middle-ages Anatolia). I didn't mean that there are many Chaldean Church/ Syriac Church adherents who identify arabs, but it is possible. The same way some Maronite adherents may be ethnically Arab (like Ghassanids), whereas most of the Maronites are most probably arabidized Lebanese. It is useless to distinct Maronites of Lebanese or Ghassanid ancestries - all intermixed, just like the neighbour Yemenite and Qeisi Druze.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a basic problem with this sort of counting. If it's generally understood that (for example) Frebs are Frolish, you'll not get many hits for Frolish Frebs. You'll get hits for Ralish Frebs and Tremulous Frebs, because they're distinguished, but otherwise scholars just talk about Frebs and don't specify Frolish Frebs. NebY (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Figures in the infobox

• Although I couldn't find solid numbers of members of Christian Churches in Iraq, most sources agree that Chaldeans form more than 50% with Assyrians, Syriac Catholics and Orthodoxes and Armenians coming next respectively. This would make the figures of traditional "Arab Christians" (Greeks and Latins) less than Armenians and thus less than (10,000) you can through 10,000 more but the number is nowhere near 200,000 or 300,000.
• Those in Syria are also difficult to measure. We know that Greek Catholics are the largest then comes Armenian and Syriacs. There have been lately an influx of refugees from Iraq which are mostly non-Arab. So I would guess that it's 50-50.
• Lebanon might prove the most difficult to estimate,but I would suggest putting a figure ranging from 50% to 80% of the total Christian population.--Rafy talk 11:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, church affiliation may be the best method to separate between Assyrian peoples and Christian Arabs, but if someone could find a source for this - we could conclude the issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Copts - there is no indication that 821,000 are Arabs, they could be foreign workers as well. Maybe in case of Egypt and Lebanon we better give the figure including all Christians and mention "including Maronites" and "including Copts" respectively. What do you say?Greyshark09 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to you suggestions but I'm afraid some Copts and Maronites might start an edit war on that.--Rafy talk 13:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the data again, i would like to support the idea of writing "exluding Copts" and "excluding Maronites" - that would be a better, less controversial, info. According to this [25] - most Arab Christians are Greek Orthodox - the amount of those in Egypt who are not Greeks and not Copts is probably only in tens of thousands, not 800+ thousands as proposed in infobox.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point re foreign workers, but if we include Copts then we've got a figure in the millions at the same time that we've got good reasons to think that the Christians who are clearly Arabs number less than 800,000. I'm coming back to the view that we should just stop trying to put population numbers in the infobox at all! NebY (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my initial idea as well. --Rafy talk 13:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rafy and Greyshark, is correct that majority of Chaldeans Christians are Syriac/Assyrians, but i want mean a many time one thing. The church is no traces your indentity, the same way you talk term "Arabized" about christians, many were "assirianized" after Brithish rule early of century when surge the assyrian moviment. Another day we talk about genetics and genetically we Christians of Iraq are close to the Arabs second DNA studies. But it does not matter, what matters is how people identify themselves. Today many identify themselves as Assyrian but there is a large portion that identifies as Arab.I have 75 years and my family is baptized in Chaldean Church in Mosul, i'm not assyrian and like me have a lot in Mosul and other places of Iraq that go to Chaldean Church but not assyrian identinty. In Mosul we were going also in Latin Church, Syriac and Chaldean in center of city. The true is many christians that go to Chaldean Church, Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic are not assyrians. I know armenian friends that go to Chaldean Church also and they are not assyrian. The correct number to you say about arab chrisitans today in Iraq unknown. But im remember in 1985 the governor say that more than 200.000 person are arab christians in Iraq and the majority of this live in cities. I say all of these only to you understand one thing, have many arabs that go to chaldean church, like go to Syriac orthodox and syriac catholic. And how i say if you consider genetic studies Arab Christians in Iraq is majority of country but this is no matter, the person is that what the person is that identify himself and the culture that follows. So i take average 10.000 to 200.000 is correct because when give this media 10.000 to 200.000 you avoid making any mistakes. I hope he understands and respects my amendment. Allah ma3ak Rafy and Greyshark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim1187 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Which governor? Can you bring a source for that? Also your experience doesn't count as a source here.

BTW, since you speak Arabic why don't you involve yourself in the Arabic version of the same article? I needs some serious help imho--Rafy talk 13:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem you have a concrete understanding of genetics - it sounds to me like a WP:OR. I'm having a degree in related science, and i have not heard about genetic identification of Assyrians with Arabs, on the contrary - Assyrians form a distinct genetic cluster, within Mesopotamian populations (Kurds, Iraqi Arabs, Jordnian Arabs - see here [26]) and far from Arabian populations (Saudis, Yemenis). The entire story on "who is Arab by genes" is non-sense (usually there is a running rumor that J1 is an "Arab" marker - which is far from truth), and promoted by those who don't understand genetics.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In Saddam Hussein time this numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salim1187 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Greyshark09 i read your article, and that i see the assyrians from Iraq and others are very close to Lebanese, Jordanian and other people of asia. This explains the similarity of Assyrian people with the Lebanese people. Another thing the Lebanese are placed how Arabs here and other places , but according to this study that you show the lebanese are more far than Iraqis and Assyrians of the arabs. If you follow this genetic, the Lebanese are genetically near of Assyrians. If is correct the lebanese people is more far of arabs in genetic that assyrians and iraqis of arabs. I mean the assyrians and iraqi are more near of arabs than lebanese are. So if assyrian are not arab, Lebanese people aren't also because this study show lebanese near of assyrians but more far of arabs than assyrians. God Bless you and Thank you of your article.--Salim1187 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not accurate - as you know Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq have many ethnic & religious groups, but the article doesn't say which group/s were tested for the purpose of this study - there is no "Jordanian ethnicity" or "Iraqi ethnicity" or "Syrian ethnicity", as most are ethnic Arabs but many minorities live in those countries. It could be that some Jordanian and Lebanese Christians of Syriac background were also tested in this survey. Yet, you can certainly prove that Kurds and Assyrians are natives to fertile crescent. We can also see Lebanese, Jordanians and Iraqis carry a significant amount of local genes of populations which were "arabidized". Yet we don't know how many relative genes of Lebanese/Jordanians/Iraqis are also originated in "yemeni/saudi" clusters (could be also a lot, but not the majority). In the end you cannot know by this article who is "closer" to Arabs of Arabia - both Lebanese and Assyrians are genetically quiet far.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean that assyrians and lebanese are quite far from arab cluster? Using common sense , i think lebanese people also muslim are farther away from the Arabs in genetically than of Assyrian of arabs. I say this because arab were in Mesopotamia before Jesus and they had settled in mesopotamia. In Lebanon the arab presence is much smaller and Lebanon stay in the coast, were the entry to middle east, so many people enter in middle east by Lebanon. Lebanon in some times have a latin languages, also greek and aramaic. If you see the lebanese culture is more far the arab culture, maybe this explain the low arab presence in Lebanon. Other thing, DNA exams of Pierre Zalloua in Lebanese Christians and Muslins found a different genes of Syrians, Jordanians and Arabs but same frequences of Cyprus, Malta, Morroco, Spain and Cartage. (Phoenicians Places) This studies say that majority of Lebanese people have a mediterranean race mixing with ancient semitics how hebrews and cannanites. Sure that assyrians have own culture, language and ethnicity but all DNA studies that have show that assyrians frequences is more near of arabs and lebanese more far of arabs Majority of lebanese people reject arab indentity, how assyrians reject also. assyrians consider heritage about native assyrians/syriacs background the lebanese say about phoenicians. All studies of Dna that have show that Lebanese people is more far of arabs and assyrians more near, and the arabs of Iraq (Muslins and Christians) same more near of arabs and lebanese more far. I don't say that lebanese aren't arab and assyrian are, but that i have seen the Iraqi people in general is more arab than lebanese and i include the assyrians.

God Bless you--Salim1187 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Common sense" is subjective and not something you should rely on in issues you are not expert in. You should rely on WP:RS sources, not "rumors" / original research / propaganda / synthesis. If you have more questions on genetics - you better ask me on my discussion page, since i doubt it is relevant here. The way Lebanese feel about their identity vs. Assyrians is not very relevant to history and genetics, and by the way the first large Arabian migration to fertile crescent was Banu Amela, who settled Hauran and south Lebanon in 2nd century BCE (though Nabateans can be accounted as their predecessors in the southern Levant, arriving in 4th century BCE).Greyshark09 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the notion of defining ethnicities and affiliations based on genetics is false and misleading. For example after 300-400 years of existence in North America 30% of African Americans have European ancestries[27], should we ask them to be affiliated with Europe rather than Africa? Ethnicities are defined by culture, history, religion, language and even politics, but never by DNA.--Rafy talk 11:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, i don't agree with you in general - dna does have a lots to do with ethnicity, to a point that it is possible to identify the ethnicity (and therefore general looks) of a criminal by testing an unidentified dna and easily find the ancestral origin of an average American, who is a mix of many nations. However, i totally agree that dna testing is almost useless to identify nations in the Middle East, as all different ethno-religious and ethno-linguistic groups are so closely related - we cannot see the difference on the individual level. It sounds absurd, but Kurds are genetically identic to Jews, Jews are genetically similar to Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Arabs are genetically identic to Saudi and Yemenite Arabs and Lebanese. Does it make Kurds to be genetically similar to Saudi Arabs? No, but it makes them all inter-related - a big and (not so) happy family.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I said is not only the genetics that defines the ethnicity. I believe that Assyrians and the Kurds are also interrelated with the Saudis, Yemenite and Jordanian arabs. About the lebanese people, all the studies say they are more far Arabs and Assyrian more closer to the Arabs. But there is a possibility for all Middle Easterners are interrelated.--Salim1187 (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I added figures from CIA world factbook but they were removed. Instead the source used is this: [28], which is basically "Arabic Bible outreach". Is this really a reliable source?123.136.64.13 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And who decided the CIA is WP:RS ? Seems to me that CIA is a very much biased source, and i really doubt they employ experts on demography and ethnicity of the Middle East. Politics, politics, politics. The "Arabic Bible" is not a good source, so you are welcome to tag "better source needed", but the numbers are brought by a scholar of Ph.D degree, so i think this is quiet reliable and makes much more sense than CIA numbers. I assume some other editors would agree on it with me.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We must put "Arabic-speaking Christians" back in the title.

No matter how much you agree or disagree with the title, we must keep "Arabic-Speaking Christians" back in the title. Leaving it out violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.207.111 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, your suggestion violates NPOV, while currently all views are presented.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"The suggestion violates NPOV" really? Read WP:BASH about using policy as weapons. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your remark is the perfect example of WP:BASH. Nice try.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad title

The article title shouldn't be Arab Christians really. Arabs proper are people of the Arabic peninsula, who have a long continuous history of Arabic and Arabic culture. Mesopotamians are Mesopotamians of varying heritage, f.ex. Syriac, Iraqi, Chaldaean, Babylonian (?) etc., while Egyptians are Egyptians, Libyans are Cyrenaic, Berber and Libyan etc.. That they use the Arabic language as their lingua franca and paternal tongue doesn't define their nationality. What's referred to as "Arab" and "Arabic" here is pretty much rather the Islamic cultural sphere.

I rather propose "Christians in the Islamic Culture" to get the right perspective, or else the article should treat real Arabs (Arabic descent, etc.) in the Arabic peninsula that are Christians. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to add: confusing "Arab" with "Islamic sphere" is embarassingly ignorant! Read history, by Jove! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Copts?

Any article on Arab Christians which ignores Copts, who are exclusively Arabic-speaking, just because some proactive Copts nowadays refuse to identify as Arabs is ridiculous IMO. Levantine Christians are just as much "Arabian". Either there's an article about Arabic-speaking Christians including such non-Arab-self-identifying groups or you might as well just reduce the article to Christians from the Arabian peninsula. This article is being hijacked to promote political views I believe. Anyone seeking information about Arabic speaking Christians from the Near East is either going to be disappointed if more informed about the topic, or will be completely mislead by it if less knowledgeable. 79.168.233.173 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-read the article, there is a section on Copts, and they are described in the lead. Though, their Arab identity is somewhat disputed.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Revising numbers in Lebanon and Egypt

The article deals with Arab Christians, who are adherents of Melkite (Greek Catholic) and Greek Orthodox churches (per sources). Some Christian Arabs are adherents of other churches such as Protestant and Chaldean, but the issue is minor, with some 80% being Greek Orthodox and 20% Greek Catholic. However, i must note that the "1% other Christian sects" for Egypt is apparently including all Chrisitian sects, apart of Coptic (only a minority of which are actually Arab Christians of Greek churches). I would say the number is not 821,000 , but rather close to 10,000-20,000. And by the way the section on Coptic Chrisitians should say something on the demographics as well (even though not included in the template).

In addition, since there is a separation of Arab Christians and Maronite Christians (some of which deny Arab identity, and some adopt), maybe it is a good idea to make demographics for Maronites apart from the Arab Christian demographics, while still including in this article in the Maronite section. Maronites, whether Arab or not, are a very distinct identity than Levantine Arab Christians of Greek Orthodox and Catholic churches.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is finally some data on the various Churches in Egypt here [29]:
•Total population, including non-Christians: 83 million •Copts: 7.5 million •Greek Orthodox: 350,000 •Coptic Catholic: 200,000 •Protestant: 200,000 •Small numbers of Armenian Orthodox, Melkites, Maronites and Syrian Catholics.
Hence, the number in Egypt should go down to 350,000. In addition there are 7.7 million Copts.

I would also like to finally revise the numbers in Lebanon:
•Total population, including non-Christians: 4 million •Percent Christian: 34-41% •Maronite: 700,000 •Greek-Orthodox: 200,000 •Melkite: 150,000
So, we can say the number of Arab Christians is about 350,000 (makes sense) and there are also 700,000 Maronites with disputed Arab identity.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Another source - BBC review from 2000, says the following numbers [30]:

Coptic Christians (Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelic-Protestant) 6-7 million; Roman Catholics ~1,000; Greek Orthodox - "only a few thousand"; Other denominations - "The remaining Christian communities make up a tiny minority, totalling a few thousand."

The source is outdated and slightly unclear, but nevertheless gives a clear idea on the situation - the number of Arab Christians is certainly not 821,000 and anywhere near.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

removed tags

I have just removed the pov and copyedit tags since they are not needed anymore (imo).--Rafy talk 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Article is much better now, but there are still more sources needed, and better and clearer definition needed in lead and other sections (especially about who is Arab and who is Copt and Maronite). Removal of POV at this stage is however ok with me.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Arameans

Though Arameans are definately not the subject of this article, but they should be mentioned among the various peoples of the Middle East, sometimes included by pan-Arabists as "arabic" (and those inlcude also Assyrians, Maronites, Copts, Jews, Samaritans, Mandeans, etc.). The article on Arameans, just like articles on ancient Israelites and Assyrians mentions the people of Aram (also mentioned in the Bible), the article also includes a section on Arameans in modern times. Just because you deleted this section doesn't mean several tens of thousands of Syriac Christians, who claim to be Arameans "vanished". First of all let's face a fact - self-identified Arameans exist [31], [32]. Second lets see in sources what WP:RS say about this, and the historic link to ancient Arameans (the same way some doubt that Jews and Samaritans relate to ancient Israelites and todays Chaldo-Assyrians are the descendants of ancient Assyrians, and that Kurds descend from Karduchi). So i'll move this discussion to the talk page of Arameans article, and bring the arguments.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to the Names of Syriac Christians article. Those who claim an Aramean identity do not claim a different identity than Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans, etc...

One of the major political proponents of this name is ArDO they clearly don't wish to be considered as a separate group as you can see.--Rafy talk 17:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Eastern Churches, but this source might be useful [33]. It says Jacobite Church adherents relate themselves as Aramean Christians.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway i think that erasing the section on modern Arameans, and then claiming that there are no such people is absurd. And wrong. I shall learn about it more, but unless the info is merged into "Assyrians" article, it is a serious information assault and POV pushing. Anyway let's discuss this on "Arameans" page.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read this if you have enough interest and spare time.--Rafy talk 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I will , thanx.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Rafy, i have read the research and it was quiet fascinating. The author argues that a need for identity prompted a strict definition of "Assyrians", "Arameans" and even "Chaldeans" within the Suryoyo diaspora communities. However he doesn't argue that there is no basis for such national definition. I would say that pre-Arab people from Western Syria, named Aram in ancient times, can easily identify as Arameans, whereas Eastern Syria and north Iraq (Ninwe) more closely relate to Assyria, with south Iraq being Babylon in the ancient times, populated by invading Chaldeans, who probably mixed into local Assyrian-Babylonian. It seems the need for identity eventually goes to actual historical-geographical, cultural and ancestral identities and we can see it among other diaspora peoples, such as Circassians and more recently Palestinian Arabs - i doubt there was a common national identity of those before their diaspora took place.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thia might not be the right place to discuss this issue. I will leave you a message at your talk page.--Rafy talk 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the Aramean people issue is not the main issue here, i suggest a compromise to call Syriac Christians for all denominations of Chaldo-Assyrians and Arameans. Armenians are never disputed for being Arabs, so i see no reason to mention them, while Syriac people are identified by some western sources and pan-Arabists as "Arab Christians" (same as Mizrahi Jews are called "Arab Jews") - which is most probably mistaken and erroneous, but we should mention this issue.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I would prefer using a single name, I personally have no strong objection in using multiple slashes, hyphens, etc... I know that many would disagree and I understand why.--Rafy talk 18:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm indeed suggesting using a single name - "Syriac Christians".Greyshark09 (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Syriac Christians will do in most cases since it represents a distinctive form of religious and cultural identity than Arab/Greek Christianity. --Rafy talk 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Greyshark09, this has been discussed a several times. The article about the ethnic people belonging to the Syriac Orthodox Church (Jacobite), the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church is this article. It was called Assyrian/Syriac/Chaldean people before, but was changed back to just Assyrian people after WP:common name. The article "Arameans" is about the ancient people and has nothing to do on this page. That is why I changed Arameans to Armenians in that secion, because they are the only Christians in Iraq together with Assyrians (.../Syriacs/Chaldeans...). Shmayo (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Just because you deleted this section doesn't mean several tens of thousands of Syriac Christians, who claim to be Arameans "vanished"." "It says Jacobite Church adherents relate themselves as Aramean Christians.", I suggest you read more in other talk pages, as the on in the Assyrian article. I'm Jacobite myself. Shmayo (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And there where no mention of Arameans until IP 81.106.116.120 added it a month ago. Shmayo (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not go into this - i believe you might know the issue better than i do. I know well about Levantine Arab Christians of the Orthodox and Latin churches.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Armenians are never disputed for being Arabs", absolutely not as much as Assyrians, but this is a line I just found in the article Syria here on WP: "...while some 10% are arab Christians, which includes Arabs and Armenians.". I know, it sounds very wrong, but anyway. It actually said Armenians here for a long time before you changed it. Do you still think "Arameans" should be included here? Shmayo (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it give an external source for this claim? or just wiki text?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't read talk pages, but sources. i will read Rafy's link.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Will you agree to say "excluding Syriac Christians"?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't mind not to mention Arameans, but regarding Armenians this is certainly redundant. The same way there are Christian Philippinos in Iraq, we should not mention that the count excludes them - it is obvious.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It was just wiki text, just wanted to show that there are people actually calling them Arabs. But yes, you're right that most people don't consider them Arabs. My main point is that "Arameans" is a article for an ancient people, the article for the ethnic people living today is this one. So remove Armenians, but also Arameans. Writing just "Syriac Christians" is wrong, it's actually a ethnic people, not just a religious group. And reading talk pages could be good before editing, to see the consensus that has been reached. But do you agree writing just Assyrians there? Shmayo (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure i agree for Assyrians or Chaldo-Assyrians. Fine with me - you are welcome to change this.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sister article

Somebody made up an unreferenced article named Greek Orthodox Christians in Greater Syria. I think we should propose it for deletion since it deals exclusively with Arab Christians (even though it say also Orthodox Greek Assyrians, but that is UNDUE). In addition Greater Syria is a WP:SYNTH and WP:POV, since it is a rarely used today geographic term for Levant and parts of Mesopotamia. Suggestions?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no interest, i subject that article for speedy deletion.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ethnic nationalism

This article is supposed to be about Arab Christians, not ethnic nationalism. I'm afraid this article continues to be hijacked by a vocal POV-pushing minority who are turning the majority of this article into a manifesto that rejects the so-called "Arab" identity; that's not how an encyclopedic article should look like. Interested parties who edit this article should keep focused about the article, and that is -Arab Christians-.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which parts of the article you find encyclopedic? Can you be more precise?--Rafy talk 19:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean, which parts I don't find encyclopedic; the "questions of identity" section and the infobox is not only laced with pov, but does not add to the article at all. Everything that has to be mentioned about identity is already amply mentioned in the intro; and the other ethnic groups in question are even named. We don't know how many Arabic-speaking persons identify either way, as Arabs or non-Arabs; this is a question of personal views or personal politics. Just because there is a source about one Maronite elder claiming that he rejects the "Arab" identity does not logically mean that the majority of his community either backs or agrees with him. Basically the 2 pov sub sections, those who don't identity and those who identify as "Arabs", are being used by each side to push their pov. Trying to claim that a whole community rejects or accepts a title just because one or two leaders says so is called original research on Wikipedia.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Kataeb and Hurras el-Arz are main political entities that claim to represent the Maronites and the article clearly doesn't assume they are speaking on behalf of all Maronites.

Maronites were removed from the infobox because main political entities that represent them mostly reject the Arab identity and their religious institute as well defines the Maronite church as culturally Syriac. I agree with you that this is a question of personal views, and it is impossible to give exact numbers of those who identify as Arabs, but the current figures given in the infobox are the best guesses and I wouldn't mind removing them all.--Rafy talk 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep and improve the numbers, because Arab Christians with solid Arab identity (adherents of Greek Orthodox, Latin and to large degree Melkite churches) are a sizeable community in the Levant (and diaspora), with distinct cultural and historic roots, and it is important to accurately describe them. We have a scholarly opinion on who is and who is not an Arab Christian with some numbers, so this is the best to begin with.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that Galilean Maronite community also claim non-Arab Aramean-Phoenician identity (quote "The Maronites were initially aided in their struggle against the Arabs by the Greeks and established their first state by the end of the 7th century..." [34]), as well as the case of American Maronite societies that denied to be represented by "Arab American Institute" [35] (ironically, even though one of its founder was a Maronite). Anyway, there is definately a WP:DUE case for such non-Arab self-definition.

The Pan-Arabist position on Maronites is of course notable (expressed also here [36]), this is why it is mentioned in the article, however the opposite positions are also notable (for example here [37]) as mentioned above, thus are also brought in the most balanced way altogether (disputed identity) - all according to wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@George, when examining the article, maybe there is a need to some rephrasing and moving of some paragraphs to more relevant articles for WP:WEIGHT (i will move some to "Maronite Church#population"), but still this article is a great improvement since it was called "Arab and Arabic-speaking Christians", and consisted a total mess, forked from Christianity in the Middle East. Please help improving it further per WP:GF.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Who claims a non arab ethnicity?

"the largest Middle Eastern Christian groups of Lebanese Maronites and Egyptian Copts claim a non-Arab ethnicity" I don't know about the copts but for the Maronites I am pretty sure this is a minority. Do not confuse right wing lebanese groups with maronites and christians in general! many of the most influential pan-arab theorists were maronite christians! Philoleb (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Most political parties as well as the Maronite religious institution do not claim an Arab identity.--Rafy talk 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Do maronite religious institution claim an identity? I looked on the patriachs websetite, bkerkelb.org and could not find anything... and politcal institutions? the christian political party that won the most seats in parliament claims an arab identity as far I as am concerned (FMP)... And there are much more prominent christian lebanese pan-arabist, or that claim an arab identity than prominent christian lebanese phoenicianists. And then suppose you are righ why did we put 90 000 arab christians in lebanon instead of 0? And why is President Sleiman's picture up there he is a maronite, and if you discount them, then his picture should be taken out. And I don't think about.com is a good source for that kind of stuff :)Philoleb (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My bad bout the 90000 mis read ;p Philoleb (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Maronite church do claim an identity which is rather complex but doesn't include being Arab anyway.[38]

If we look at the political scene we find that most prominent "pure" Maronite parties such as Lebanese Forces, Kataeb Party, and Marada Movement claim a non-Arab identity. The Free Patriotic Movement although led by a Maronite, doesn't necessarily represent them and their standpoints generally vague regarding the identity of the Maronites.--Rafy talk 14:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pres. Suleiman, if Maronite, should be removed from the template and moved to Maronites. Greyshark09 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be probably replaced. How about a female politician, like Hanan Ashrawi?--Rafy talk 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The question is are we sure he is a Maronite (sorry, i personally don't know);

regarding Ashrawi - i have already placed her here but later removed on second thoughts - we can find much more famous and contributing historical figures like Constantin Zureiq, John of Damascus and if speaking of Palestinian Christians - how about Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought of a female for the sake of political correctness. The infobox has enough Palestinians IMO .--Rafy talk 23:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of putting a female, but i think Ashrawi might have a notability problem to be put as the sole representative of Arab Christians. By the way, regarding Palestinian Christians - the article is in quiet a bad shape and the definition are heavily affected by Arab nationalism. You can find in this article definition of "Palestinian" as a nationality of modern Christian citizens of PA, but also Hellenistic Byzantines (who resided within the province of Palaestina Prima in antiquity), Arab citizens of Israel, former citizens of Mandatory Palestine (refugees and immigrants) and their descendants. Salim Joubran, an Israeli prime court judge, is for example a Maronite citizen of Israel, but is defined as "Palestinian Christian" within that article.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it very odd that the history section makes no mention of pre-Arab Christianity in Palestine. I can imagine that the sense of Arab nationalism among Palestinians in general is rather accentuate. I will put the page on my watchlist and make some changes in the future.--Rafy talk 10:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sleiman is maronite, the president has to be, its the system in Lebanon. This is exactly what I read yesterday Rafy and I could not find anything specific that claims non-arab identity...maybe I missed it, but in any case I beleive you. Also about the marada: •لبنان وطن واحد سيّدٌ حرّ وموّحد, رافض لكل اشكال التقسيم والفدراليات ,عربي الهوية والانتماء، منفتح على جميع دول العالم.

(http://marada-news.org/?q=about) And trust me the FPM is essentially christians, and has the most of the christian votes, even the wikipedia article about fmp says so.Philoleb (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I think I confused Marada with the Guardians of the Cedar. I understand that the FPM is mainly Christian but not "purely" Maronite like the Quwat and Kataeb. Am I right?--Rafy talk 23:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not theoretically "pure" i guess but on the ground it is essentially Christian... however, I think that casting out al the maronites as non arab christians and putting say all the orthodox in the arab chrsitian section could be wrong. Significant number of maronites view themselves as arabs.Philoleb (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that a simple categorisation of "Arab" vs. "non-Arab" is not very useful. I can imagine that you find in the same family some who identify as Arabs and others who don't. If you follow the article's history you'll see that it was previously named "Arabs and Arabic speaking Christians" a consencus was reached to rename it and to include only "obvious Arabs" in the infobox, thus dropping Maronites, Asyrians and Copts.--Rafy talk 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This is very true;p I think that if this was the concensus, than we have to go with it, (even though I still beleive that maronites are obvious arabs) but then I think the lebanon section of this article needs some reworking because its mostly talking about maronnites. Could you also take out President Sleiman's picture I don't know how to do that. On another note, I was reading the maronite section in the identiy question section of the article and it says that "In post civil-war Lebanon, since the Taif agreement, politically Phoenicianism, as an alternate to Arabism, has been restricted to a small group" If we assume that all maronites are not arabs we cannot say "small" group. Cheers.Philoleb (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Phoenicianism means both non-Arabness and claiming Phoenician descent as well. One thing is to claim non-Arabness (which might be much more widespread), another is claiming Phoenician descent. In any case there is a notable ethnoreligious group of Maronites, which deserves an article of its own, and since a significant share of Maronites have an identity issie, we mention them under "disputed identity" section, and do not put in the template. By the way Arab Christians are not only Greek Orthodox (or Arab Orthodox), there are also Latin, some Anglican and i think it is as well a consensus that Melkites are considered Arab Christians as well.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of anglican come from the maronite chruch... if they are identified as arabs, then maronites should be too, tey are the same people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.34.154 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that many Maronites converted to protestantism, Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. I don't think that their numbers are of any significance.--Rafy talk 10:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So, the Lebanese president Michelle Suleiman is out (because he is a Maronite, and Maronites are not strictly defined as "Arab Christians"). The question is now - is there a need to add more people to the template (maybe 2 more), and whom? I suggest John of Damascus and Marie-Alphonsine Danil Ghattas, both religious historic figures - a man and a woman, which would add another dimension to politicans, historians and writers already in the template.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I added John and Marie into the template.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Suleiman1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Suleiman1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We should return the title "Arabic-speaking Christians"

The term "Arab Christian" is quite offensive to those of us who don't consider ourselves Arab! Insisting on the term Arab Christians is very POV! We should return to the NPOV term Arabic-speaking Christians. Just because we speak Arabic doesn't make us Arabs, whether you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.161.222 (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that Maronites are Arabs. Obviously there are some views which advocate this claim and this is duly mentioned here.--Rafy talk 14:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Rafy's words are my words - we have made a long way on this article, and it finally reflects actual matter of things and more or less NPOV and WP:RS. Some improvements still needed though.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this article has been taken over by those with political agendas. I put objective information and sources on it, e.g., Kemal Salibi's House of Many Mansions, and it was immediately removed by those with who are devoted to anti-Arab mythology. Eleanor1944 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem with your sources, just you are not allowed to put them as recommendations in the lead. Put them in "bibliography" section. And speaking of, if you are accusing anyone of political agendas, those should be those who ruined this article in the first place - making it a Ba'athist propaganda piece.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Kamal Salibi is a good source for WP:further reading, as most of his views are completely rejected if not ridiculed by his peers.--Rafy talk 20:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Section on Orthodox Christians

It seems to me the "question of identity" section should not include this part - it doesn't really belong and creates more confusion, as it discusses whether the Arab Orthodox or Melkites accept pan-Arabism/Arab nationalism or not, rather than really questioning their self-identity. I know some Arab Orthodox reject pan-Arabism and actually even argue for historic Ghassanid identity and some awkward kind of "Ghassanid" nationalism, but they for sure don't claim to be non-Arab.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Eleanor1944

it seems to me you are a beginner here, since your edits are highly non-encyclopedic and often violate the regulations of WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and general guidelines of wikipedia. I will not revert you, but most of your edits need to be properly sourced and placed in appropriate sections.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor, when providing references, please input them as proper citations, by putting in the following structure:

<ref>Author. ''Title''. Publisher, Editor, Year, Volume, Chapter, pages, "the citation (optional)".</ref>.

Thank you and good journey in being a wikipedian.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)