Jump to content

Talk:Arabs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarah SchneiderCH (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 17 July 2023 (→‎July 2023: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Irreligious

Should irreligon be added to religions? 2A02:C7C:507D:0:41F5:466D:92ED:B669 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

Can someone explain why my edits are being reverted by ‘Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider’ for no apparent reason? My contribution was: “Before the spread of Islam, Arab referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula” and cited Britanicca, which is a reliable source. Soyouy553 (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica is written by superhumans? There are editors (see the the contributors of EB) who are likely to have incomplete and accurate information, and they themselves searched in sources such as books and others, just as an editor on Wikipedia. You should learn that in Wikipedia, not everyone who brings a source can put it, especially if there is disagreement on the text, so it must be discussed. You reverted it four times despite the warnings, and this may incite you to be banned from editing in Wikipedia. Secondly, the way the text is placed is not appropriate at all and It should be placed in a suitable section. I have already explained that the Arabs were also present in the Syrian desert as well parts of the Levant and Mesopotamia. Finally, I will completely redraft the text and put it in an appropriate place. I hope next time you discuss the matter before putting such a sensitive matter. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soyouy553: to save you from a potential block, I have reverted your edit. Please read the notice (you'll see it at the top of the article when you try to edit it) that says that you must have 500 edits before editing the article and not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

origin of arabs

it is known that Ismail is the father of arabs but he wasn't the first person to speak arabic, in fact the Jurhum tribe that immigrated to Mecca and met Ismail taught him their language, providing evidence that arabic didn't originate from the levant Abo Yemen 03:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native Arab Christian communities

@Derek-airtken: regarding this edit of yours:

which of the sources that you added mentions "native Arab Christian communities" in any of the countries that you listed? M.Bitton (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, apparently depending on the sources, most of the citizens who converts to Christianity are of Berber origin, so I omitted these countires. However, in Bahrain and Kuwait there are Christian citizens of Arab origins, their numbers are estimated at about a thousand citizen in Bahrain and between 300 and 400 citizens in Kuwait. Derek-airtken (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered the question. if none of those mention "native Arab Christian communities", then, technically, what you're adding is WP:OR. Since this article is about Arabs, the word Arab has to be mentioned and not implied or guessed (the same goes for the word "native"). Omitting the three countries doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have added them in the first place. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some source: Kuwait is the only GCC country besides Bahrain to have a local Christian population who hold citizenship. They number around 260 citizens in Kuwait while Bahrain has nearly 1,000., Christians comprise 10–14 percent of the population, with up to 1,000 Christian citizens originally from Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan who were present at the time of independence.. Derek-airtken (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was meant here was local citizens , there was a mistake, I apologize for that. The sources are clear that there are Christian citizens in these countries (Christian Arab citizens in Bahrain and Kuwait).Derek-airtken (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christian citizens doesn't mean either "Arab", "native" or "community". I suggest you read what I wrote and, please be careful when adding content to contentious subjects such as this one. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs are ethnolinguistic group.

The recent very important content i added to the article that i added here was for some reason reverted. Even though i cited very reputable academic sources from very reputable universities. I was told to reach consensus about it here. So may i know what is the problem with the content or sources ?

The article is seriously missing such important information. Lacartino (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs are indeed an ethnolinguistic group. Your edit was reversed because of the other line that asserted that arabs are not an ethnic group which on it’s own contradicts arabs being ethnolinguistic group. I removed the assertion about the ethnicity but kept the information that arabs are not identical, until a consensus is reached about that. Stephan rostie (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

@Stephan rostie: with regard to your recent additions:

I don’t know why all the added content was removed instead of the part that caused the trouble alone. which content are you referring to? Please provide a diff.

From what I can tell, all you did is add content to sections that link to main articles. As it is, this article is already too long, so it stands to reason to add whatever you think is missing the other articles instead.

The "ethnolinguistic group" description has been discussed and there was no consensus to include it. You are welcome to seek a new one. M.Bitton (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which content are you referring to? Please provide a diff.
i explained it in this reply
you are blocking people from adding content beyond the point you are arguing about, are you aware that this is against wikipedia policies ?
The "ethnolinguistic group" description has been discussed and there was no consensus to include it. can you please send the diff or talk ?
Please do not remove any content supported by WP:RS from the article before we reach consensus here because i see no one arguing or blocking others from editing except you.
You are welcome to seek a new one.
there is already an open one above. I see no one complaining or arguing or disagreeing or blocking others from editing except you. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a diff that supports you claim (highlighted above). None was provided. I see no consensus supporting your changes either.
Lastly, before you assume too much bad faith, a proposal for the exact change that you're after was put forward by myself 6 years ago (search the archives for it). It was discussed at length and ultimately, there was no consensus for it, I accepted it and moved on, though it took me years to understand exactly why (they were right). If you think that your proposal has a chance of achieving consensus, then you are welcome to seek one for it (just make sure you don't edit war and be prepared for a very long discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a diff that supports you claim (highlighted above). None was provided.
again, check: Special:MobileDiff/1165742502
a proposal for the exact change that you're after was put forward by myself 6 years ago (search the archives for it). It was discussed at length and ultimately, there was no consensus for it. Again, please send the diff or talk you are talking about.
If you think that your proposal has a chance of achieving consensus, then you are welcome to seek one for it
Again, there is already one above. No one disagreeing or complaining here except you.
Also, don't ignore what I said about the article being too long and you repeating what is covered elsewhere.
filling an empty section in a summarative way in just three passages don’t “make the article too long”, and adding three lines about the etymology regarding the origin of the word “arab” which was supposed to be mentioned and have the priority over the content below it won’t “make the article too long”. Your “too long” argument is itself flawed. And even if we were forced to remove content there are a lot of useless information in the article to be removed much less valuable than these. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually waste my time with edit warrior, least of all those who have discovered sliced bread in the last couple of days. I'll await the comments of other editors. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one edit warring here and blocking users from adding content to the article even unrelated to what you are arguing about, you are the only one complaining and disagreeing here, can’t you really see that ? Stephan rostie (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is this IP yours? A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not. You can make a wikipedia Wikipedia:CheckUser request if you don’t believe me. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I believe you; though that doesn't change anything to what I said previously (I'll await the input of experienced editors). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway you are welcome to join the talk above and share us your opinion about whether arabs are ethnolinguistic group or not.
but i want you to note that being ethnolinguistic group doesn’t contradict with being an ethnic group. Ethnolinguistic groups are ethnic groups by definition. So if a source says ethnic group and another says ethnolinguistic group. Then “ethnolinguistic group” fulfills both sources. I have checked your previous talk in the archive and you were actually pretty much right. Those who refused your proposal refused it because either you linked it to islam, and the others (who were a minority) rejected reliable sources for their personal opinions. such opinions shouldn’t be considered, as you can’t reject a reliable source unless you provide another reliable source rejecting it, and perhaps all of them didn’t.
for your knowledge. I don’t know if you are aware of that or not, but Arabs are exactly identical to Slavs in all perspectives.
i am telling you this not as part of “wikipedia reaching consensus” rather than as just friendly talk. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked your previous talk in the archive and you were actually pretty much right. now that you are aware that there is no consensus for the proposal, why don't you do the right thing and self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
now that you are aware that there is no consensus for the proposal. What do you mean there was no consensus ?
there was no reliable source that was sent there that objected to what the sources says or denying or contradicting arabs being ethnolinguistic group, only personal opinions and philosophies of a minority in that talk. Personal opinions is irrelevant and valueless as wikipedia is a tertiary source not a platform for personal opinions or first publishers.
above that, there is an already existing consensus in the recent opened talk above. So either ways you have no point. Stephan rostie (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either you don't understand what WP:CONSENSUS means or you're simply too embarrassed to admit that you messed up, either way, you now found yourself in a very sorry position where you are edit warring against the very editor who proposed the change that you want to impose on the community. Really sad indeed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and above that WP:CCC, there is an already existing consensus in the recent opened talk above. And a WP:EDITCONSENSUS by user Ira Leviton. So either ways you have no point or right and you are the only one disrupting the article, blocking different users from adding content, and causing trouble here. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring against the very editor who proposed the change that you want to impose on the community is the funniest thing that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It's hilarious. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't ignore what I said about the article being too long and you repeating what is covered elsewhere. M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan rostie The Arab people share more than just a language; it is completely explained in the box. Simply click on the letter (b) and read carefully. It is best to wait for agreement before changing anything. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]