Talk:Arabs in Sweden

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arabs in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904224518/http://www.thelocal.se:80/50030/20130903/ to http://www.thelocal.se/50030/20130903/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904224518/http://www.thelocal.se:80/50030/20130903/ to http://www.thelocal.se/50030/20130903/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

How is 'Arab' defined for this article

As we don't have a Swedish census report defining who is considered Arabic and who is not, how do we read the Joshua Project's figures?

• Arab, Egyptian = 5,100
• Arab, Iraqi = 91,000
• Arab, Jordanian = 3,200
• Arab, Lebanese = 22,000
• Arab, Libyan = 2,000
• Arab, Moroccan = 5,500
• Arab, Sudanese = 2,200
• Arab, Syrian = 28,000
• Arab, Tunisian = 4,100
• Total = 163,100

If we add Algerian, Arabic-speaking = 2,300 (who do fit the Arabic profile), the figure becomes 165,400.

Add to that Somali = 45,000 (as a member of the Arabic nations), the figure becomes 210,400.

The term 'Arab' applies to Semitic peoples, which encompasses far more peoples than the term is usually construed to mean... so what do we include or exclude without breaching WP:NOR? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy:Well, Joshua Project is not a reliable reference (check this [1], [2] and [3]). If we can use another source that would be more Appropriate. --Aṭlas (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: Agreed that it is certainly not an RS for this context. It's on the same level as numerous articles about diasporic ethnic groups which I understand to fall under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The question, then, becomes whether the infobox should contain "Unknown", or the parameter be left empty altogether. The Joshua Project is used regularly in as an additional third party source in parallel articles (which I agree with according to the context), but with WP:INTEXT attribution. Given that there are no other references, should the content be used in the body of the article with attribution? Note, also, that the RSN seldom has any consensus decisions made and closed on the understanding that a given source is always understood to be unreliable. You can check for discussions of the same source and find completely different understandings dependent on the context and whose opinion on the source it is. Discussions which haven't involved multiple editors, and have not been closed by an experienced sysop or editor are not written in stone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: If we must use Joshua Project (like in this case) because there are no other sources. I think your idea (5,100 + 91,000 + 3,200 + 22,000 + 2,000 + 5,500 + 2,200 + 28,000 + 4,100 + 2,300 + 45,000 = 210,400) is suitable and Must be applied. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: I've added the figure with WP:INTEXT attribution. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)