This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arabs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this versionofArabs was copied or moved into Arab identity with this edit on 10 December 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this versionofArabs was copied or moved into Demographics of the Arab League with this edit on 21 December 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
There is significant amount of the arab diaspora in the Dominican Republic which is not mentioned here. There is an estimate of 1 million descendants of arabs in the Dominican Population, specially coming from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. This must be added as in the map is not even marked. The influence is so high that the current president is arab, the vice president as well as his wife. 2A02:AA10:227E:5380:89F6:AA8:6F1C:158F (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is stated that the Amorites "likely originated from Arabia, but as even mentioned on the Amorites Wiki page, the prevailing academic consensus is that the Amorites (actually) most likely originate from central Syria in the mountainous region of Jebel Bishri. This should be mentioned to avoid creating a false impression of the dominant global academic consensus. 2601:587:4302:1620:1A6:8CEB:D70A:D0CC (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It should be specified in the Pre-Islamic period that the concept of "Arab" as an ethnic identity did not yet exist among the Arabic-speaking populations in the world . Arab shouldn't be confused with "Arabian" . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article used the BC/AD convention until 17 September 2008 when an IP user unilaterally changed parts of the article to the BCE/CE convention without discussion. The Manual of Style states the following:『An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed.』 The unilateral change by the IP user in 2008 was clearly in violation of this rule.
In 2018, a user brought the issue up on this Talk page, arguing that "a general unwritten rule on Wikipedia that when an article is closely related to a non-Christian people, we use BCE/CE". Another user indifferently agreed and the issue has not been brought up again. This issue should be revisited now for discussion of the merits under the MoS.
The correct era convention for this article under the MoS is BC/AD. This was the original convention and per the MoS should not have been changed without reasons specific to the content.
The 2018 Talk entry suggestion for changing the convention is there is an unwritten rule. Wikipedia is built on written rules and citations, neither of which apply to the argument here. It could be just as easily said that the majority of the world uses the BC/AD convention, the majority of the world is not Christian, and thus there is an international rule to use the BC/AD convention at all times. The implied suggestion that non-Christians find the acknowledgement of the current calendar being based of the believed year of Christ's birth offensive and that those people would rather believe in a recently conceived imaginary common era that coincidentally aligns with the year of Christ's birth makes a lot of unsupported assumptions about those people. The MoS could easily state that if a user finds BC/AD offensive or believes a group that may read the article would find the convention offensive, a user may change it. Instead, the MoS looks only towards if there are reasons specific to the content of the article. Reasons specific to the article should be limited to technical limitations of the subject that would require the use of one or another. An article that draws heavily from quotes that use one convention should likely stay with that convention outside of the quotes. To allow a change in era for every article not dealing directly with Christianity is anathema to the dictates of the MoS.
The implied suggestion that the subject of the article would somehow be offended by a portion of the article that is factual and follows the MoS is not a reason to go beyond the rules of the MoS. If there is a genuine concern that BC/AD shocks the conscious of potential Arab readers then why use CE when the Islamic calendar tells us that it is the year 1445 AH? The answer should be because Wikipedia uses a set of neutral rules to write about facts. The 2018 Talk writer even acknowledged that there are Arab Christians. Per the current Wikipedia article, there are 10-15 million. Following the logic of the 2018 Talk post, those millions of Arabs love Christ, but more Arabs are not Christians, so we should change the established style to placate the majority. This is a dangerous othering of a religious minority.
It should be clear now that the imagined, uncited offense a user claims may be felt by one group should not be the standard by which an article deviates from the MoS. I do not suggest this last point I will make should be part of the discussion, however, I mention it for those that believe the MoS can be changed based on implied allegations of offense to be taken. Following the 2018 Talk page's own logic, that BC/AD should be limited only to pages discussing those people who love Jesus, it should be noted that Muslims love Jesus.
If, after considering the rule in the MoS, there is a consensus that there are not reasons consistent with the MoS to have changed the Era style in the article, I would respectfully request someone with editing privileges to revert the Era style to BC/AD as it was before the unilateral decision to change it in 2008. Shaggydan (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove text as there is an insane ampount! 64.189.18.28 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would sincerely ask that you directly, clearly and unambiguously emphasize the Semitic origin in the first paragraph. Thanks. Bagyblazha (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I tried to fix it but there is too much that can be done by one person. The main problem in the article is that the editors are mixing up actual Arabs - those who speak variants of Arabic or proto-Arabic - with speakers of the Old South Arabian languages, such as the Sabaeans. The Arabs are less related to the Sabaeans than they are to the Canaanite groups such as Hebrews and Edomites. "Arabian" doesn't mean "of Arabs", it just means "from Arabia".
This whole article is pretty laughable and extremely poor quality. It gives a very misleading view of the relationship between the Semitic peoples and their languages. The Mummy (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply