Edmund Sutton and Talk:Arabs: Difference between pages

Revision as of 16:22, 5 June 2004

Revision as of 19:50, 20 July 2004

Line 1:

There is a "user page" with basically the same content but reworded and ''Ibrahim'' for the patriarch's name. If a contributory wants to take the user name ''Arab'', I have no problem with that, but let's not confuse a user page with an article page. [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Wednesday, April 10, 2002

Edmund was the son of [[Lord_Dudley|John de Sutton]], K.G. (b. 25 Dec 1400, d. 30 Sep 1487) the son of John de Sutton (b.1379, d.1407). John de Sutton (Edmunds father) wed after 1422, to Elizabeth the daughter of John Berkeley, whom had issue,

The following text was moved from user:Arab because it seems more like it applies to the [[Arab]] article than to a Wikipedia contributor. [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]

being: Edmund, Katherine Sutton, Margaret Sutton, William Sutton, Jane Sutton, Oliver Sutton, Eleanor Sutton, and John Dudley, Esq., of Atherington, Sussex, who became Sheriff of Sussex and Surrey in 1484/5, and whom was the grandfather of John Dudley, (Duke of Northumberland).

Arab (noun) - descibes a person of Arabic descent.

Sir Edmund Sutton was born in the year of 1425 in Dudley, (d. After 6 July 1483). 

Historically, an Arab is descendant from one of two sons of the Prophet Ibrahim. The other son's linage is claimed by the Jews

By right of his first wife, the family title was passed to her as the third and youngest daughter of lord Sir John de Tibertot, the sister and heir to John, her brother, the Earl of Worcester by her mother, Joyce, being the daughter of Edward lord Cherleton.

----

Thus it came to pass that through this association the quartering of Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent, youngest son of King Edward I came, through the families of Holland, Cherleton and Tibertot to the Dudley family.

Haisam - please don't copy and paste that text from [http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=248] again - that page is copyrighted, and so we can't reproduce it here. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]. You're free to weave in the info on that page of course, but you have to do it in an original way, rather than simply copying it across. --[[User:Camembert|Camembert]]

-------- Original Message --------

Camembert:

Here's the authorization to use the definition:

Message-ID: <025c01c2aa9d$43a0e340$[e-mail]>

From: Marvin Wingfield <[e-mail]>

To: <[e-mail]>

Subject: Definition of Arab

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:03:51 -0500

Mr. Ido:

I am not quite clear as to what you are asking. You are free to used

the ADC definition. It is the ordinary agreed on definition. An Arab

is someone whose primary language is Arabic, who shares in the common

culture and history of the Arab world.

[[User:haisam]]

Hm. I see no indication that the person you contacted is aware of the ramifications of placing their text under terms of the [[GFDL]]. This is very different than a one time grant to use the text (which is implied in the message). If the it is OK for us to use it then please ''integrate'' the text into the current article and don't replace it. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 23:29 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

----

'' The Berber peoples of North Africa, for example, though often called Arabs by Westerners, are connected to Arabia only by often speaking Arabic as a second language, since that remains the official language of the country in which they live as a result of the Arab expansion.''

:Never have I heard anyone refer to the Berbers as being Arabs. Should this be removed?

----

''Racially, an Arab is a person of Arabic descent, whose original ancestry comes from the Arabian Peninsula. Arabs are a Semitic people, who trace their ancestry from the ancient patriarch Abraham.''

:I don't see how this makes sense. The Arabs are racially very mixed, as they're descended from a mixture of conquored/assilimated peoples and millions of slaves from throughout the Old World.

----

''Arabs are racially classified as White. ''

Um. Which classification scheme are we using here? Because by language, Arabs are [[Semitic]], as the article makes clear; by "[[race]]", they are "[[white race|white]]", yes, but we all know [[nothing|how much that means]]. --[[User:Mirv|Mirv]] 08:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

----

==Definition of Arab==

<i>such as the Maronite Christian Arabic-speakers of Lebanon, or the Arabic-speaking Copts of Egypt, or Arabic-speaking Jews, reject this definition, wishing to identify not with a group defined by language but with a narrower one defined by religion or shared communal history.</i>

Huh? First of all, the classification of "Arab" is not based on language (at least, not anymore...there was a period when this kind of Arab Nationalism was popular during the Ottomon period, but not anymore). Second, only an extreme fringe of Civil War-period Maronites reject the label of "Arab". I myself am a "Maronite Christian Arabic-speaker of Lebanon" and I take offence at such a claim. The only real, modern definition of an Arab is someone who is a citizen of an Arab League nation. --[[User:Jad Baaklini|Jad]] 13:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

*Hi Jad. Though I wrote most of that paragraph, I sympathise with some of your objections to it... I mentioned that some Maronites reject the label "Arab" because I've actually talked to several such people; but I agree, we should make it much clearer that this is an extremist minority. As for the "Arab = speaker of Arabic", though, I think that makes a lot more sense than "Arab = citizen of Arab League nation"; if you call a [[Berber]] or a [[Dinka]] or a [[Kurd]] "Arab", the substantial majority of them (though not all) would strongly disagree, and conversely, the Arab minority in southern Iran or southeastern Turkey or Chad is no less Arab for having happened to fall outside the borders of the Arab League. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 19:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

**True, but I think we need to add both definitions: the sociopolitical as well as the ethnoliguistic, because, as you just pointed out, neither is enough as a definition. Maybe we should distinguish between Arab peoples and Arabic peoples, the first refering to the political definition, and the second referring to the linguistic definition. In this way, the minorities in Iran, Turkey and Chad would be Arabic minorities, and not Arab. I know that this may seem like a frustrating play in semantics, but I think that its the only way to deal with the two point of views while mantaining NPOV. Is that alright with you?

So, why don't you expand the part on the minorities within Arab nations, and add that part on Arabic minorities within non-Arab nations?

*Hmmm... How about something like this:

:There are three factors which play varying degrees in determining whether someone is considered Arab or not:

# Political: whether they live in a country which is a member of the [[Arab League]].

# Linguistic: whether their mother tongue is [[Arabic language|Arabic]].

# Genealogical: whether they can trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the [[Arabian Peninsula]].

The relative importance of these factors is estimated differently by different groups. The third factor was the original definition used in medieval times, but is usually no longer considered to be particularly significant. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 20:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

**Great work Mustafaa...I think we have achieved NPOV! Total wikiness in action! --[[User:Jad Baaklini|Jad]] 05:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-----

==Most of the scholars were AJAM (every body who was not Arab)==

Strange is that the scholars generally were no Arabs and this applies both to the scientists in Islam and in science. And if there is an Arab under them, then he is '''Arabised'''. Nevertheless the owner of CHARIA (Islamic legislation) came from '''their middle'''. And this comes because the Arabs are ignorant and have had never knowledge. Even those '''whom Arab grammar products has made expatriate'''. First Sibawayh were from '''the Persian realm''' and then Al-Zajaaj, these two were AJAM (everyone who is no Arab). The expatriate have made grammar for the Arabs and learned '''them the Arab language''', art, laws and educate science. '''The most which Al-Hadith after to products have told of origin no Arabs'''. Then the Islamic scholars were not almost all Arabs. The Arabs could not write, note and not to express. And all those scientists who and have explained products have noted Islamic leathers and '''Arab grammar''' and have kept no Arabs of origin. '''Science was conducted by the Persian scientists''', whereas the Arabs for competing with were concerning the power. The Arabs have ternauwernood interfered with science. The industry was carried out by the '''Arabised'''. When the Arabs devastate Egypt and the power there got, the '''Egyptians''' have kept themselves busy with science and Egypt was the country of science and industry. To these '''Arabised''' which kept themselves busy with science were: SAAD ADDIEN ATAFTAZI, IBN ALKHTIEB, NASR ADDIEN ATTUSIE. The work of other '''Arabiseds''' has been destroyed. ([http://www.al-eman.com/islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=163&CID=41 the original text])

hai, mustafaa, why you delite this frenquenly ? he is an arab according to you. and i didn't brought it from my books, it was in the almuqaddimah of the great arab historian. who can he be an great '''''arab historian''''' if we cannot use his works? ,i'll translate other works

and are you saying that i attempt to revange ? are you feeling dat did anything wrong against me ? .[[User:Aziri|Aziri]] 12:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To put something in a Wikipedia article, it has to be relevant. I could simply paste vast translations from al-Idrisi (or is he Berber?) into this article, and he talks about "Arabs", but that wouldn't make them relevant or interesting. Moreover, I'm tired of correcting your English; from now on, if you add a lengthy section which reads like a Japlish VCR manual, I'll just delete it until you fix it yourself. - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 02:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

if you are tired ,late it to an other who can that.[[User:Aziri|Aziri]] 14:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Page protection ==

Folks, I protected this page so we can have a rest from this reversion war to a while. You can list objections here, but note that protection is completely within the guidelines in these circumstances. --[[User:Zero0000|Zero]] 23:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i'm disagree sir : ''''Zero''' , i think that you protected mustafaa not the page. [[User:Aziri|Aziri]] 12:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

ibn khaldun used the name arab as bedouin ? who say that ? is that not a claim ? is that not couinterfeiting ?

and further are the moor not Mauri's but mix of arab and berber? this wikipedia is beeing to became a '''theatre''' not ensyclopidia .[[User:Aziri|Aziri]] 12:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK: does ''anybody'' watching this article think it's improved by adding a long, random Ibn Khaldun quote translated from Dutch? I don't... - [[User:Mustafaa|Mustafaa]] 18:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

not me...i don't even understand it...--[[User:Jad Baaklini|Jad]] 07:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...and who write with ease concerning his beautiful historie ?[[User:Aziri|Aziri]] 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==But it does bring up a point...==

Do you think we need to add a section on what "Arabized" means? For example, I know that the Christian Spaniards during the Arab conquest of Spain were considered to be Arabized, and now there is a word in English to describe them (Mozarabs)which comes from the Arabic word for Arabized (Musta'arab). Just a thought... --[[User:Jad Baaklini|Jad]] 08:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

no and no... i liked just show some body how ibn khadlun is the historian of the arab. [[User:Aziri|Aziri]] 11:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

...i don't mean to be rude, but i think you should stop posting on the english wikipedia. why don't you write for the dutch version? then you won't have to deal with pesky people like mustafaa ;-) ok? you might be making a great point with your contribution...the only problem is we can't understand it (or at least, ''I'' can't). --[[User:Jad Baaklini|Jad]] 06:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Indian numbering system (unrelated to any discussion) ==

This is unrelated to the current discussion. In India, an ancient numbering system is still in place. '''See [[Indian numbering system]]'''. We use terms such as [[crores]], [[lakhs]] and [[arabs]]. 1 arab is equivalent to 1 billion, (9 zeros). Once the current dispute is resolved, please put up a <nowiki>{{otheruses}}</nowiki> template on top of the arab page, and update the newly created link. [[User:Nichalp|&#x00b6; <font color="green">nichalp</font> | <font color="brown">[[User talk:nichalp|Talk]]</font>]] 19:50, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)