Misplaced Pages

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 , 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)