Talk:Arab Christians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Important changes

• Make this article more about Christians who identify as Arabs, the majority of Palestinian and Syrian Christians do, many Lebanese Christians and some Copts do as well. So clearly, the article should be more about them.
• There should be only one section about how many Christians in the Arab world resent the label Arab Christians, and this section should then link to the articles on Copts, Maronites, and other Middle Eastern Christian denominations (I am certain the rejection of Arab identity is discussed in those articles).
• Another reason why we should remove any mention of "Arabic-speaking Christians" is because it is is not an ethno- nor religious- group and the term is very ambiguous and not common. For example, there are Christians in the Arab World that speak Arabic yet are not labeled Arab like the Armenians in Lebanon, but this article doesn't mention them.
• First step, change the title to Arab Christians. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• The Armenians don't speak Arabic only tough, ad that's the difference from some of the other groups who do not want to be labeled as Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to Arab Christians. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Arab Christians and/or Arabic-speaking Christians → Arab Christians — Reasons discussed under Important changes — Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - turn the page to a disambiguation page. Iraqi (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The current title is (stylistically) an abomination so I generally like the idea of a move but arguments must be made to overcome to issues mentioned in the article.

1. Many "Arab Christians" don't identify as such and maybe oppose such an identification and
2. Many "Arabic-speaking Christians," e.g. in the diaspora, don't speak Arabic

— AjaxSmack 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article will deal with just Arab Christians who do identify as Arabs. Many of them do, and this group is sizable enough to warrant an article where controversy does not overshadow them. There will be a section that will talk about the controversy related to the 'mislabeling' of some Christians in the Middle east, and then there will be links to articles such as Copts and Maronites, which I remember have a discussion on this as well. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If the controversial nature of the term and the alternate name ("Arabic-speaking Christians") is retained in the intro, it might work. I see some value in keeping at least some of the info together at this page rather than farming it all out to constituent articles. — AjaxSmack 01:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Speaking Christians is still kind of misleading, since many speak their mother-tongue language first before Arabic. Arabic Speaking Christians still sound as if its an ethnnoreligious Arab group. Their is a reason why the "Arab Catholic Church" or "Arab Orthodox Church" don't exist. How about Christians in the Arab World? Iraqi (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about "Arabic Speaking Christians" — it should be mentioned in the intro but should not be a part of the title. "Christians in the Arab World" won't work because it doesn't cover the diaspora but would include others such as Armenians not normally under the umbrella of "Arab Christians." — AjaxSmack 00:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For the diaspora you can create Maronite diaspora, Coptic diaspora, etc. Besides, the middle eastern Christian diaspora usually stop using Arabic as their language within the first generation, so it would be misleading. Iraqi (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not creating any articles. I'm talking about the title of this current article. — AjaxSmack 03:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AjaxSmack, an article entitled "Christians in the Arab World" would exclude Arab Christians living abroad. There are Arab Christians living in the West who don't speak Arabic but identify as Arab, many of them Maronites, some of the Copts. So I think that the title Arab Christians is the most appropriate option. Also, bear in mind, all other articles of different wikiprojects linking to this one are entitled Arab Christians. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional Support as the most concise of the discussed titles. It seems that all of the titles proposed so far would imply a narrower scope than the current title: "Arab Christians" excludes Arabic-speaking Christians who aren't ethnically Arab, "Arabic-speaking Christians" excludes Arab Christians who don't speak Arabic, and "Christians in the Arab world" excludes the diaspora. So none of them are perfect, but all of them are better than the current title. So I would say move this article to Arab Christians and make the other titles redirect to it. Then the article can be re-factored to more suit the title, and any material that doesn't fit can be split off into new articles or merged into more appropriate locations.--Aervanath (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per User:Aervanath's argument. — AjaxSmack 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose- A lot of you seem to be confusing and mixing two concepts with each other; that of ethnicity and politics. Just because some Christians born in the Arab world are not from Arab ethnicity that does not mean that they don't identify as Arab Christians. And the current title, which was a compromise itself, incorporates both narratives, the ones who are from Arab ancestry or view themselves as Arab and those who are born in Arab countries and are not from Arab ancestry and do not view themselves as Arabs. Therefore the title "Arabic-speaking Christians" applies to peoples who do not identify with the term "Arab Christian".George Al-Shami (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that begs the question, "Should all of these be lumped together in the first place?" If Arabiv-speaking Christians is a separate group, should they have their own article instead?--Aervanath (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It's an important question as to the content of the article.. But the title question is better thought of what is the best title for the current article which does deal with "all of these be lumped together". — AjaxSmack 02:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Point. But if they shouldn't be lumped together, then this discussion is pretty useless, as what's the point of debating the title of an article which will be functionally non-existent once it's split into pieces?--Aervanath (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Possible compromise': Arab and Arabic-speaking Christians. Since the article talks about both groups presently, then there's no reason for the "or", and there's no reason to have the word "Christian" in there twice. I think the current title is thoroughly unencyclopedic: can you imagine opening up the Encyclopedia Britannica and seeing a title with "and/or" in the middle? In the lead, certainly. Title? No.--Aervanath (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's rules is to have one title per page. Iraqi (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate. One of Wikipedia's rules is Ignore all rules, and if a non-rule solution seems better than a rule-based one, we should go with it, and then edit the rules later. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but does anyone actually refer to them like that? Not really, and that's a problem from a WP:RS perspective. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how that's a problem from a WP:RS perspective. If we have an article titled "Arab and Arabic-speaking Christians", that doesn't mean we're claiming that they are generally referred to with precisely that title. It means we're claiming that there are people called "Arab Christians", and there are people called "Arabic-speaking Christians", and that the article is about both. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I now see you're right. I still think the proposal is a bit cumbersome (we can explain the particulars in the body of the article; it's better to keep the title simple yet descriptive), and so would prefer "Arab Christians", followed by "Arabic-speaking Christians", then "Arab and Arabic-speaking Christians", with the current title dead last. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is just about the worst I can think of. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to Arab Christians or similar. First, we need to consider usage in English-language scholarly works. At Google Books, "Arab Christians" gives 823 results; "Arabic-speaking Christians", 627; and "Christian Arabs", 1010. To me, any of those are acceptable, but the current title is, as said, "an abomination". No sources use it; it's a clumsy, invented "compromise". Second, participants should realise that no one title will fully encompass all members of this group. For instance, Edward Said might not have been a practicing Christian all his life (I'm not sure), but culturally at least, he's still considered as an Arab Christian. Spencer Abraham might not speak Arabic (again, not sure), but should we title this "Arabic-speaking Christians", it would be fully appropriate to group him there, because that's his background. Most members of this group speak Arabic and practice Christianity, but just because not 100% of them do both is no reason to worry. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Biruitorul. Prefer "Arab Christians" as compared to other two though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I think it would be better if this page didn't exist as an article, but rather as a disam page that lists Christianity in Israel, Christianity in Syria, Christianity in Iraq, etc. Your always going to have edit wars so long as this page exists. Reality is, the only place that their isn't a problem to call its population Arab Christian is in Palestine/Israel, but outside of this area, it wouldn't reflect reality and will continue cause controversy. Iraqi (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good but might not deal with the full scope of the article which deals with a large Arab Christian diaspora in the new world. Many of these people migrated there before the current countries of the Near East were created and do not clearly identify with one of them. (Migrants were often designated as "Syrians" whether they were from modern Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, or Jordan.) Some provision should be made for this as well. — AjaxSmack 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not call the article Christianity in the Arab World? It's neutral, and in my opinion quite correct, since it leaves the questions whether the people in question actually speak Arabic or not, and whether they are ethnically Arabs or not, unanswered. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's good option, but like "Christians in the Arab World", it excludes Arab Christians not living in the Arab World. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Christianity in the Arab World" would also include peoples such as Armenians who live in the Arab World but are not usually considered Arab Christians and, as User:Falastine fee Qalby mentioned, would exclude the diaspora. — AjaxSmack 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Fairuz?

As far as I know Fairuz is Aramaean/Syriac, not Arab, she should be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Surname Haddad = Arab. Syriac Catholic is just her relgion. Haddads and Syriac Catholic Arabs, I found are Arabs, by my personal experience. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Haddad comes from the name of a Canaanite god Hadad its not necesassrily "arab" since the surname is rare to find in other places of the arab world. Fairuz father was from Mardin which is now in Turkey he was of Aramaean origin. she should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 09:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairuz identifies as Arab. She converted to Greek Orthodox Christianity when she married. I've added a source noting that she is an Arab singer. Her listing here is not controversial per the sources, only to certain editors who believe she is something that she is not. Tiamut^talk 11:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, while Haddad is word that predates Arabic, it is also a very common Arab surname. Some of my ancestors were Haddads. Tiamut^talk 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But her origins are not "arab" but Aramean/Assyrian. her father was a Syriac immigrant from Mardin and was probally escaping the genocide of christians in this area by the turks of the time. Fairuz like most Lebanese singers for practical reasons HAS TO identify as Arab its not a choice,in public because thats what singers from lebanon are expected to do if they want they want to raise their profile or sell to other countries in the arab world. I only realize this when I was told and when I realized from experinece nearly NO maronite,copt,melkite,copt or chrisitan in Lebanon,Egyp,Iraq ive met calls themself an Arab.The copts say "we are egyptians" the lebanese ones say "we are Phoenicians(even that may not be exactly true) or say we are Lebanese ONLY". the iraqi ones say we are "chadleans,assyrians etc" as their ethnicity. The ones I am sure DO relate with the arab identidy are Jordanian,Palestinian and Syrian (Greek Orthodox) christians.

Yes it is but if your from Syria,Palestine or Lebanon but mostly you find it Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Miss-simworld. While your personal experiences are interesting, they are not a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. We need a reliable source that says Fairuz is something other than Arab (for example a book, newspaper article, etc.). There is source cited in the article saying she is Arab, and there are many others that I've seen too. If there are some that say what you saying, we can include them too. But what you know to be true, isn't verifiable for others. Please read the links behind the highlighted words. Welcome to Wikipedia. Tiamut^talk 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Im making this arguement because i thinks its misleading Okay i (by tomorrow since its too late for me to look now) finding a source for her father's origin i can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.210 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Michel Aflaq

Michel Aflaq was not a chrisitan when he died he had converted to Islam. He should be removed

Khalil Gebran

Maronites REJECT the arab label nearly all of them do and the ones who say it openly are only doing it out of public pressure in the arab world. Including them in this article doesnt make sense because they feel their Lebanese identidy is seperate from the Arab one. Khalil Gebran never called himself an arab and even his home town of bsharre they only started using the arabic language (previously aramaic until the 1800s) around about the time he lived.

We use sources to determine who is Arab, not WP:OR speculation regarding the preferences of Maronite identification today. This source says, "The most famous Arab American literary figure is Khalil Gibran ..." In other words, reliable sources say he is Arab and so he can be listed here. Tiamut^talk 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who labeled him this? himself? No. He comes from Bsharri a village that only was introducted to arabic lanugage in the 1880s until then they used only Aramaic. We are not talking about what Americans label Maronites or Christians from Iraq,Egypt or Lebanon but what Christians from Lebanon,Egypt and Iraq label themselves and that is NOT arab. The lebanese christians (nearly all of them reject arabism) they faught wars against nasserists in the 1950s, PLO,Syria and their allies in the 1970s over this. go on facebook u find dozens of Lebanese groups with mostly chrisitnas that state "We are Lebanese not arabs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The author of a book on Arab-Americans (see here) If you have a book or some other source that says that he is not Arab, we can consider if we should remove it. If you would like other sources that say he is Arab to make sure this is accurate, we can look for more too. Tiamut^talk 21:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this Author "Lebanese" or from an another arab country? if so than this

Finding other sources I will look for tomorrown but hers a fact about the town of his origin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsharri In Lebanon, Bsharri natives are characterized as very courageous and fiercely tribal. They are especially known for their distinct accent when they speak Arabic. Unlike other parts of Lebanon, Aramaic was spoken in Bsharri well into the 1800s around about the time of Khalil Gibran birth . As a result, Bsharri natives developed an unmistakably strong accent which lasts to this day and which they are very proud of.

He came from a isolated Maronite town from the moutains where "arabization" was minimal and the arabic language(well part of it) introduced for praticular reasons.

Even now many maronite leaders like Sami Gemayelsaid on Al Jazeera I'M Lebanese christian a maronite and my identidy is Syriac not arab. so there is a STRONG agrument from the chrisitan side in Lebanon against arabism even on the political spectrum. If maronites are to added or iraqi christians the title should be changed to Chrisitans of the Middle East or Christians of The Arab World. would be more approriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.210 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon

There is some uncertainty about what figure to include for Lebanon, as many Lebanese Christians don't consider themselves Arabs, however most of them speak Arabic as a native language. Without a census-type reference it cannot be said how many are Arabs and how many are not, so I propose that Lebanon's Arabic-speaking Christian population should remain included. Izzedine (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Most (and I stand by that statement) Lebanese Christians (and many of the Muslims) do NOT consider themselves Arabs. They are not Arabs, neither ethnically nor geopolitically. In addition, many of them, especially the Maronites (who form the overwhelming majority of Lebanese Christians), speak French as first language and no one considers them to be French. The Armenian Christians (included in that roughly 2 millions figure) speak Armenian as first language, not Arabic. Some of the Greeks (Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholic) may consider themselves Arab in a linguistic and/or geopolitical sense of the term, even if many of hem speak Greek or Turkish. In conclusion, you cannot just include the total number of Lebanese Christians in an article like this and claim that all of them are Arabs. Clearly MOST of them are not and would not agree with that statement. I will leave the issue for a couple of days to see what other users think before I remove it again. ----Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 18:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the article might be better being titled "Arabic-speaking Christians", as I think it used to be. That cuts through all the nonsense. Izzedine (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys,m i tend to agree with Izzedine, if the article is to be more accurate it should be renamed Arabic speaking Christians, lets consider Lebanese for example, the Lebanese are a mix of various ethnicities regardless of religious affiliation. Pierre Zalloua On Lebanese Haplogroups classification is pointless, i think we must rewrite the whole article citing good references and just navigate away from these problematic minor details. Eli+ 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC) One more thing, to avoid this debate we should find a consensus on whether by "Arabic" we are designating the ethnicity or the language, once this is clear i think that there will be different courses of action. The article and the numbers Izzedine added are not false if we are not speaking of ethnicity. Eli+ 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article used to be "Arabic-speaking Christians" a while ago, and some people decided to change the name. This has been happening on and off for the last few years. As long as the article remains "Arab Christians", there will be no mention of Egypt or Egyptians, who are as far as you can get from Arab Christians. By Arab here I mean ethnicity, because I - just as well as most Egyptians - do not believe in labeling people based on languages or geopolitics. The reasons for this are many and include the following:

1. Geopolitics come and go. Before Britain created the Arab League and before Nasser came to power no Egyptian (and nobody else in the entire world) ever spoke of Egyptians as Arabs. This was only decades ago. Pan-Arabism was forced upon Egyptians by imperial powers and dictators, and to abide by this very non scientific definition in an encyclopedia is wrong. See the section on Egyptian identity for more.
2. There are millions of first and second generation Egyptians in Europe and North America who do not speak Arabic and yet self-identify and are considered Egyptians. Languages clearly come and go. No other group in the world is being classified solely on a linguistic basis, and Egypt should be no exception.

----Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ ^[talk] 19:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about this I have a suggestion, why don't we name the article, "Christians in the Arab World", this title implies nothing about ethnicity or language, simply geography, and incorporates all the Christian groups. Then, ethnicity and language can be described within the article. Sound reasonable? Izzedine (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a need for an article on Christians in the Arab World and while it overlaps with this article, it is a different topic than Arab Christians. Why don't you just create a new article on Christians in the Arab World? Or Christians in Western Asia? It can cover all the different Christians groups who do not identify as Arab and have a section on Arab Christians that links to this page. Tiamut^talk 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was moved by way of a formal move request, discussion, and a decision that consensus was to move it Arab Christians (here). The same process should be followed to move it to the new title you are proposing. As I say below, I strongly object to this move, particularly the way it was done out of process. I've asked for it to be restored to the consensus title, until a formal move request can be made, a new discussion opened, and a new consensus forged. Tiamut^talk 21:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Who moved the page?

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this move. There are people called Arab Christians (I happen to be one of them). Please return the page to where it was, open a move request and gain consensus for the move. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, I didn't move it I only suggested it, but I have offered a better suggestion for the title now to resolve this recurring problem. Izzedine (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article title you are proposing is a topic distinct from this one and deserves its own article. Christians in the Arab World can cover all Christian populations in Arab countries, including non-Arabs. You could even define it geographically as Christians in Western Asia and include Christians in non-Arab countries in the region, like Iran, Turkey, etc. In that article, there could be a section on Arab Christians that links back here.

This article is a page on Arab Christians. It is supposed to be built using reliable sources but is in very bad shape right now. When it is built that way, it will properly represent scholarship on this subject and should be limited to discussion on people who identify as Arab in the sources cited. Tiamut^talk 21:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, an article describing ethnically Arab Christians must be kept. This problem can't be solved then because it's about naming, and not everyone will agree on a name. Izzedine (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why it is a problem to have two articles? What would not be solved? Tiamut^talk 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because when the article is named "Arab Christians", along come those "Arab Christians" who don't want to be called Arabs, then when you change the name to "Arabic-speaking Christians", along come those Arab Christians who do want to be called Arabs. Then there is the issue of conflicting and partisan references. Izzedine (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Arabic-speaking Christians should be just as offensive to Syriac Christians who don't identify as Arab and use Syriac as their primary language. Why include "Arab" or "Arabic" at all in an article that wants to discuss non-Arab Christians in the Western Asia?

Arab Christian is an identity many are proud of and there is ample scholarly material to make an excellent article. When that happens, there should be a lot less problems around here in general. Too much of the editing at this page is done using opinions or pronouncements based on personal experiences. We need RS's and NPOV. And then we will be fine. Tiamut^talk 22:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Tiamut has a good point. The article was named Arab Christians after a voting, so maybe we should have another vote if people feel like renaming it. I will maintain my neutrality either way, and will not be voting for or against any of the name. However, if people feel like keeping the name Arab Christians, there will be no place in the article for Egyptian Christians, Lebanese Christians, and possibly some other non-Arab-self identifying Christians in the region. If people want to create 2 different articles, one about self-identifying Arab Christians and another about Christians in this geographical region of the world, I will strongly vote for naming the 2nd article Christians in the Middle East, which would in this case also encompass Christians in Israel, Southern Sudan and other places that are not Arab. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 22:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at naming conventions for Christianity by geographical region and it looks like Christianity in Asia or Eastern Christianity in Asia or either of those in Western Asia (or the Middle East) would do.

And I understand the personal biases at work and how they conflict, but that would be solved be insisting that every piece of information be sourced and that when there is a controversy discussed in a source regarding a given group's identity as Arab, that controversy can be briefly represented as well. The solution is using reliable, academic sources to draft the article and abiding by NPOV. Tiamut^talk 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What is relevant for this page

Elie plus, this edit adds a lot of interesting material, but I think it is better suited to the article on Christianity in Lebanon. This page, which is about Arab Christians, should focus more on the interplay between Arab and Christian identities among those identify that way. Christianity in the different countries can be covered in those articles, and in a regional article, like History of Eastern Christianity in Asia or the proposed contemporary version of that.

When I said above about the problem being solved by using reliable sources, I am talking about using sources that discuss the subject of Arab Christians, using that terminology, on the identity, by whom it is embraced/rejected, etc. Tiamut^talk 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

hi.

This is the second time i write this due to edit conflict :S I'd like to go back a bit, I accidentally moved the page Tiamut, i have never moved a page b4 and i thought the move button would lead to a request page that an administrator would approve or not :S so sorry for the inconvenience. Secondly this is one of the very few times i edit heated articles, this article is especially controversial and i can see why Lanternix was provoked by it. AS for the relation between what i wrote and the article, i made it clear that most lebanese do not regard themselves as ethnic arabs, if you want to restrain the topic to "the interplay between Arab and Christian identities among those identify that way" well you better revert my edits and go back to the unreferenced collections of incoherency. there is no census and no collection of opinions that define the standing of "those identify that way", i could always dig up the annals of panarab lebanese parties like baath and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, these would be perfect here. I just want to set this straight, i feel i was dragged into this mess and i will stay out of your way to do whatever you please with this article merge, move, rename or create another, i am adopting a Don't give a Fuck approach and go back to my den of limited interests. Eli+ 00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elie, I'm going to WP:AGF and try to undo what you did. You seem to have redirected Arab Christians to Arabic speaking Christians and vice versa, among other things. I'd ask that in the future, if you do want to move a page, that you ask for help and/or post at Requested Moves where you posted after you made the redirects. Okay? Tiamut^talk 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since users want to consider the mention of Lebanon in this article, I find Elie's changes to the Lebanon section to be relevant. I vote for keeping them here. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 00:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Any parts of Eli plus' additions that discuss Arab Christians can be kept here. The rest (majority) is more relevant to an article on Christianity in Lebanon where I have copied his additions into the history section. Tiamut^talk 00:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to your opinion, Tiamut, if people want to add Lebanon to this article - which I disagree with to begin with - then adequate information should be given about Lebanon. The mere presence of Lebanon in the article implies that Lebanese Christians are "Arabs", which makes Elie's contribution quite relevant, based on your last argument. Of course I don;t mind the information being added to Christianity in Lebanon as well --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that organizing this article by geographic region is problematic and we should consider other ways to organize the page (perhaps by sect? since many transcend nation-state boundaries anyway?)

This article should focus on including sources that discuss Arab identity, and the degree to which it is embraced or rejected and how it is expressed. The history of Christianity in different countries is better covered in articles like Christianity of Lebanon or History of Eastern Christianity in Asia. Sources used here should relate to the topic of "Arab Christians" and who self-identifies this way, why, what it means, etc. Christians in the Arab World or Middle East or Western Asia who do not identify as Arab can be covered in Christianity in ... articles. Tiamut^talk 01:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case Lebanon should not be covered in this article, unless someone can find sources clearly stating that Lebanese Christians consider themselves Arabs. The same applies to Christians in other Middle Eastern countries. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Egypt and Lebanon are special cases. Sources like this one The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East, will help in explaining these subtleties to the reader. Again, as long as we stick to reliable scholarly sources that directly discuss this subject, we should have no problems. Tiamut^talk 01:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting book. I just finished the chapter on Egypt. The word Arab is mentioned 9 times in the entire chapter, and never to describe the Egyptian Christians. I'm not sure how the chapter on Lebanon is (maybe I'll let Elie take care of this one). Like I said before, for it to be included in this article, someone will have to come up with sources clearly stating that a certain group of Middle East Christians self-identifies as Arab; and I think that won't be easy in the case of Egyptian (and most likely Lebanese and Iraqi) Christians. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we go back to the original title until things are decided on? this will go on and on and a solution will never be found, because as I said earlier, you have an unknown and unverifiable number of Arabic-speaking Christians that are happy with their linguistic identity, and you have an unknown and unverifible number of Arabic-speaking Christians who are not happy with their linguistic identity. Btw Tiamut, alot of Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs don't speak Neo-Aramaic and their first language is actually Arabic. Izzedine (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I can move the article back to its original title right now, but I really think we should have another poll to reach consensus on the most favorable title or titles if we're going to have two articles. Also, some problems with the current title are that they kind of rule out many of the diaspora Arabs and grammatically I think they're should be a hyphen between "Arabic" and "speaking". Anyway, I suggest one of you start a new section for a move request with the standard survey/discussion structure. Afterward, all the Arab world wikiprojects and other wikiprojects should be notified so we could reach a broader consensus. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Arab Christians was moved to Arab speaking Christians first, then Arab speaking Christians was redirected to Arabic speaking Christians, so to reverse this, someone needs to copy the current Arabic speaking Christians and talk page and paste it onto Arab speaking Christians and talk page, and then Arab speaking Christians needs moving back to Arab Christians. Then we can discuss the long term status quo for the article. Izzedine (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we need to move Arab speaking Christians back to Arab Christians, but the only way to do this is to delete the current Arab Christians article because a move won't work otherwise. Izzedine (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I could delete it right now, but I will make it a redirect to Arab Christians right after. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been solved Al-Ameer, I have reversed the move and we are back where we began. So now it is to discuss the issue here to find a concensus on the long term status of the issue. Izzedine (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have requested deletion for the Arab speaking Christians and Arabic speaking Christians articles as they are both grammatically incorrect. A concensus needs to be reached now about what to do with this issue. Izzedine (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted "Arab speaking Christians" for the obvious grammatical reasons, but Arabic speaking Christians should be a redirect to this page, not deleted. As for the survey, a new section should be started. The sooner the better. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. Before a poll is started we need to decide what the survey will be for. Izzedine (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Long-term solution

A concensus needs to be reached on what title is appropriate for documenting the Christians of the Arab World. I will post ideas when they come. I have suggested having an article titled Christians in the Arab World to document all the groups, but that doesn't solve the contention over this article, for the reasons I gave further up this page. Izzedine (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, a proposal is to have two articles: "Arab Christians" which would deal with Christians who traditionally identify as Arab and "Christians in the Middle East" which would deal with the Christians of the Arab world (including Egypt, Sudan, parts of North Africa), Turkey, and Iran. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

...and Israel. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 04:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's correct Al-Ameer, because it's not possible to include all the Christians in this article, and at the same time it's not possible to not have an Arab Christian article. To be honest, I can't think of a solution where everyone is happy. It's just occured to me that why do we have an Arab Christian article? we don't have an Arab Muslim article.. Izzedine (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Me either. I always preferred just including all Christians in the Arab world and their descendants in the diaspora in this article, but we could see the apparent problems with that. Anyhow, that's what I think the poll should be based on. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What i'm thinking is that, Arab Christians.. being Arabs, should just be included in the Arab people article. If you're Arab you're Arab... religions can be described in the Arab people article. Groups that have issues with Arab identity (Maronites/Copts et al) already have their own articles, why should Christian Arabs be seperate from Arabs? Izzedine (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. I would think Arab Jews would be included in this proposal too or no? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory yes, but that would open a new box of problems. There are many Mizrahi Jews especially Iraqi Jews who consider themselves Arab Jews, but the Ashkenazi posse marginalizes them. Izzedine (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to that idea in principle, but in practice, Arab people is already quite a long article and still does not cover what it should. This article is a piece of crap right now, but once it is improved, it would probably become too big for Arab people and would have to be farmed out to its page again anyway. Tiamut^talk 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it I actually don't think there is too much here to be included in the Arab people article. I've just had a new idea though, how about we have an article titled Religion in the Arab World where we can document all the religions Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Arab Jews, and language and ethnic considerations can be described per group in that article. Sound reasonable? Or, if there would be too much information to go into one article, we could have Islam in the Arab World, Christianity in the Arab World, Judaism in the Arab World and have Religion in the Arab World as a disambiguation page of these articles. Izzedine (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Arabic Speaking Christians"

This is by far the worst of all proposed article titles. An American or a Russian or an Englishman can be Arabic speaking, and may profess the Christian faith. That would make them Arabic speaking Christians, but that is not the demographic this article is meant to describe. Also, that would exclude Christian Arabs who don't speak Arabic (three of the four in the pictures: Ralph Nader, Carlos Menem and Carlos Ghosn, are second generation Christian Arabs, and do not necessarily speak Arabic very well.) --Fjmustak (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I say forget about "Arab Christians" or "Christian Arabs", all Arabs belong in one page, and religious considerations should be described there. Izzedine (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I totally agree. I stated something similar above. This probably won't even be proposed in the poll. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I disagree for practical reasons, though not on principle. Tiamut^talk 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There should definitely be a section on Arab Christians in Arab people though. It should be a short summary that links to this page. Tiamut^talk 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Tiamut, this page is a problem.. the title implies that Arabs are not Christians (otherwise it would be Christian Arabs) - and by extension, that Arabs are Muslims by default (where is the Arab Muslims page?). Izzedine (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Arab Christians does not imply Christians not being Arab or Arabs not being Christian... The difference between Arab Christians and Christian Arabs is the emphasis on which part of the identity. Arab Christians means Christians who happen to be Arab, and Christian Arabs means Arabs who happen to be Christian. I personally prefer the latter, as I attribute greater importance to my Arab (linguistically/culturally, not racially) identity than my religious one (or lack thereof). I can just as well see others attributing greater importance to their Christian identity.--Fjmustak (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer Christian Arabs, but am willing to go with Arab Christians since it seems to be more widely used, even for groups in which not all of the members identify as Arab (as per the title of the book I cited above). While I understand why some are worried about a page entitled Arab Christians, I really do believe that by sticking to scholarly sources that discuss Arab identity and Christianity we can make a great article. Right now, it isn't one, but that should only spur us toward improving it. Tiamut^talk 16:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I left for a week to come back and find the name unchanged, and information about Egypt added! I will not repeat myself over and over and over. I thought someone was going to post a poll for a name change to "Christians in the Middle East" or something of the like. Until this happens, Egypt has no place in this article. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ^[talk] 13:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Arab Gulf States

I don't think 100,000 Christian Arabs in the Gulf is a stretch. Of course it depends on your definition of Arab. I don't know how many Christians native to the Gulf remain, if any. The Copt article mentions there are 65,000 Copts in Kuwait. So if you include those, you would only need to find 35,000 more non-Egyptian Christian Arabs (Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian, Palestinian, Iraqi) in six Gulf States. This article talks about 120K Lebanese in the UAE (Let's say a third of those are Christians). Of course adding an RS can never hurt :) --Fjmustak (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Never thought of it like that, but I wouldn't support re-inserting the 100,000 bit without a source. Until then we could keep the 65,000 Copts. If you find a source saying there are 35,000 Lebanese Christians in the Gulf States then of course we could simply add the two figures and provide both sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Arab Christians

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arab Christians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "U.S.Dept of State/Egypt":

• From Religion in Egypt: "Egypt from "U.S. Department of State/Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs"". United States Department of State. September 30, 2008.
• From Egypt: "Egypt from "U.S. Department of State/Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs"". United States Department of State. September 30, 2008.

Reference named "FCO/Egypt/":

• From Religion in Egypt: "Egypt from "Foreign and Commonwealth Office"". Foreign and Commonwealth Office -UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs. August 15, 2008.
• From Egypt: "Egypt from "Foreign and Commonwealth Office"". Foreign and Commonwealth Office -UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs. August 15, 2008.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)