Talk:Arabs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Arabs are indeed an ethnolinguistic group (check the cited sources in this revision). 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)

@Sarah SchneiderCH

The Arab people share more than just a language;

of course they do. They are ethnolinguistic group !.

check Ethnolinguistic groups:

An ethnolinguistic group (or ethno-linguistic group) is a group that is unified by both a common ethnicity and language.

ethnolinguistic groups are ethnic groups by definition. It’s impossible for a group to become an ethnolinguistic group without being an ethnic group and sharing the same ethnicity. that’s why there is no contradiction between the sources inside and outside the note you are referring to.

It is best to wait for agreement before changing anything.

i already agree with user lacartino and with user Ira Leviton through WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

so do you have any problem with the cited very reliable sources (per WP:RS)stating that arabs are ethnolinguistic group ?

side note: you removed content from the article more than just what we are arguing for in the lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make up baseless claims about other editors. Ira Leviton doesn't support your POV.

Anyway, given the fact that there is a discussion below (July 2023), there is no point in commenting on this one. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make up baseless claims about other editors. Ira Leviton doesn't support your POV.

Check WP:EDITCONSENSUS

Anyway, given the fact that there is a discussion below (July 2023), there is no point in commenting on this one.

this section is a WP:CCC WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. If you want to contribute and send sources to support a POV (with sources of course) then you are welcome. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question: is this IP yours? A simple yes or no will do. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

the discussion about it is not here. It’s in “Arabs are ethnolinguistic group.” Section. Stephan rostie (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense! The discussion about the POV pushing against consensus is very much here. M.Bitton (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What consensus ?! You consider yourself alone “a consensus” and the three of us (me, lacartino, Ira Leviton) are none ?

You never even argued any point. You just revert and say “there was 5 years ago …” so and so. ( WP:CCC)

The consensus was reached recently in “Arabs are ethnolinguistic group.” Section and through WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and is now being further discussed at “Arabs are ethnolinguistic group.” Section. If you want to join the discussion and write something relevant to the topic then come, if you don’t and want to keep saying that you are the representative of wikipedia editor community then stay here. Stephan rostie (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The long established consensus. Stop making baseless claims about Ira Leviton who doesn't support your POV pushing.

You never made any point, so here's you chance to enlighten us.

I couldn't care less about other articles, but in this one, you'll need to work really hard to convince the rest of us of the value of your newly discovered definition that has been rejected by the community for years. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

you'll need to works really hard to convince the rest of us

Lol, “us” ?!, stop talking as if you are the official president of the republic of wikipediestan Lol.

Ira Leviton who doesn't support your POV pushing.

check: WP:EDITCONSENSUS :) Stephan rostie (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with the policies. Anyway, if you have anything of value to add to the discussion, please do so, otherwise, I'll consider the matter closed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah SchneiderCH: I agree with you. what is already explained in the note and what has been said before aside, I will add that one doesn't even have to speak Arabic to be an Arab. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC about arabs being ethnolinguistic group

recently there have been a debate on whether arabs are ethnolinguistic group or not.

there are many reliable sources stating clearly that arabs are ethnolinguistic group:

• “Nor are Arabs a race, but they can be loosely defined as an ethnic group or, more accurately, as an ethnolinguistic group.”
• “Arabs are the largest ethnolinguistic group”
• “not only are Arabs the overwhelmingly dominant ethnolinguistic group …”

sources stating the importance and centrality of arabic language in Arab ethnic identity:

• “the Arabic language is perhaps the single most important aspect of Arab identity”
• “Language and Identity in the Arab World explores the inextricable link between language and identity, referring particularly to the Arab world.”
• some reliable sources even went as far as defining an Arab as: “a person from Western Asia or North Africa who speaks Arabic as a first language”

Important. there are some important things you need to be aware of before replying:

• Ethnolinguistic groups, like ethnoreligous groups, Are Ethnic groups. Ethnolinguistic groups share ethnicity. So when some sources say that arabs are an ethnic group, and others say arabs are ethnolinguistic group. Describing arabs as ethnolinguistic group will fulfill both sources.
• Try avoiding personal opinions and personal philosophies about what an Arab is as much as you can. If you want to falsify any of the reliable sources above then provide a reliable source that falsifies or contradicts it rather than just personal opinions.

goal of this rfc:

describing Arabs as ethnolinguistic group rather just ethnic group in the lead of Arabs article because it is more accurate and descriptive, and goes in agreement with a wider range of reliable sources (i.e sources that describes arabs as ethnolinguistic group and those who describe the centrality and importance of arabic language in Arab ethnic identity).

Hint: Arabs and their case is identical to Slavs. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and suggest a speedy close. This is a joke and not a RfC. First, there is nothing remotely neutral in the wall of text by the biased editor who's not even supposed to edit the contentious article and is actually blocked for edit warring. Second, there has been no recent debate about the issue (just some mumbo jumbo about them having gained imaginary consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Stephan rostie is clearly trying to push a POV here while ignoring the 16 sources right next to "The Arabs are an ethnic group". The fact that they have edit warred against multiple editors shows that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Skitash (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi skitash. Thanks for your contribution with us.

  ignoring the 16 sources right next to "The Arabs are an ethnic group"..

  apparently you didn’t read the content written above because if did you would have known that Ethnolinguistic groups, like ethnoreligous groups are Ethnic groups. All ethnolinguistic and ethnoreligous groups are ethnic groups, but not all ethnic groups are necessarily ethnolinguistic or ethnoreligous groups. So when stating that arabs are ethnolinguistic group like many sources do as the ones above it fulfills both the source saying that arabs are ethnic groups as well as the sources stating that arabs are ethnolinguistic groups. It doesn’t contradict any of the sources you referred to and in fact fulfills them. But the difference is that it is more accurate (as reliable sources directly and clearly stating), and goes in agreement with a wider range of reliable sources like those saying arabs are ethnolinguistic group and those stating the importance and centrality of arabic language in Arab ethnic identity. So what do you think about it (per reliable sources) ? And please assume a good faith and stop personalization.Stephan rostie (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  All ethnolinguistic and ethnoreligous groups are ethnic groups, but not all ethnic groups are necessarily ethnolinguistic or ethnoreligous groups. So when stating that arabs are ethnolinguistic group like many sources do as the ones above it fulfills both the source saying that arabs are ethnic groups as well as the sources stating that arabs are ethnolinguistic groups. It doesn’t contradict any of the sources you referred to and in fact fulfills them. You have it exactly backwards. If:

  • there are two sets, S1 and S2;
  • everybody agrees that S2 is a subset of S1 (for example, that ethnolinguistic groups are included in the set of ethnic groups, as you've stated);
  • some people believe that X is a member of S2; and
  • the rest of the people believe that X is a member of S1 but don't agree that it's a member of S2

  then both groups agree that X is a member of S1. So if Wikipedia writes "X is an S1", that is going to satisfy everybody. "X is an S2", placing it in the subset, will not satisfy everybody. Largoplazo (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  the rest of the people believe that X is a member of S1 but don't agree that it's a member of S2

  the point here is that there is no source disagreeing that X is a member of S2 to begin with !, if you note one then please provide it. There is no disagreement or contradiction among sources about it (being ethnolinguistic group) to begin with. So i just want to know why are WP:RS being rejected if there is no disagreement with other sources and go in agreement with a wider range of sources ?, while at the same time, in fact, reliable sources even state that it’s more accurate to describe X as member of S2 than S1 . So what is the basis of the rejection ? Stephan rostie (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  If that was your point, then you wasted some of my time by writing something that conveyed a different point, the one I responded to. As for RS, if your claim as to what they say is correct, then that's a good point. Largoplazo (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  I already know what an ethnolinguistic group is, thank you. Adding that to the lead is really unnecessary and redundant, especially when there are already many sources which correctly identify Arabs as an ethnic group. The majority of sources say that they're an ethnic group and we should stick to that. Besides, language isn't the only thing Arabs share. Not all Arabs speak Arabic, and many speak other languages as their native language, such as speakers of South Arabian languages in Yemen. Skitash (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Adding that to the lead is really unnecessary and redundant

  How is following reliable sources redundant and unnecessary ? You are rejecting reliable sources, as far as i know you need to provide reliable sources that contradicts or disagree with it to do that. The sources saying arabs are ethnic groups goes hand in hand with sources saying arabs are ethnic groups, as all ethnolinguistic groups are inherently ethnic groups, but not all ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic groups.

  The majority of sources say that they're an ethnic group and we should stick to that.

  and there are many sources saying they are ethnolinguistic groups, again, no contradition, defining arabs as ethnolinguistic group fulfills them all, “ ethnolinguistic group” is the equivalent of saying (ethno) “arabs are an ethnic group …” but with adding other extra important information about their being which is (linguistic)“whose language plays an exceptional important role in their ethnicity and ethnic identity”.and in fact, reliable sources even say that it’s more accurate to call arabs ethnolinguistic group than just ethnic group. the cited sources (which say that arabs are generally ethnic group) don’t deny nor contradict that (that it is more accurate to describe arabs as ethnolinguistic or arabs being ethnolinguistic group), so on what basis should we reject or falsify the sources and omit a such important information ?. And above that, it goes in more agreement with other sources that emphasizes on the exceptional importance of arabic language in arab ethnicity as in the sources mentioned above.

  language isn't the only thing Arabs share. Not all Arabs speak Arabic of course !, nor religion is the only thing jews share, there are atheist ethnic jews, and language isn’t the only thing slavs share, there are slavs who don’t speak slavic languages for several reasons and are still ethnic slavs. That’s basically why they are ethnolinguistic and ethnoreligous groups.

  such as speakers of South Arabian languages in Yemen. not all yemenis and omanis are ethnically arabs, in fact, ancient south arabians who spoke south arabian languages as Sabaeans, Qataban, and himyarites weren’t ethnically arabs. Anyway, thanks for sharing your rationale with us.Stephan rostie (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Robust oppose: It's essential to recognize and respect the multifaceted nature of identity and culture. Language is undoubtedly a significant aspect of any ethnic group, including the Arabs. However, limiting the discussion of an ethnic group solely to its language can indeed be overly simplistic and exclusionary. If you wish to discuss this matter, it is preferable to do so within the context of an article focused on the ethnic group, as Arabs are indeed considered an ethnic group by definition. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Language is undoubtedly a significant aspect of any ethnic group, including the Arabs.. Yes indeed, but language for ethnolinguistic groups as Arabs (per sources) and Slavs, like for religion for ethnoreligous groups as jews, hold a special position in their ethnic identity and ethnic being as stated in reliable sources above. And that’s why many reliable sources defined arabs as ethnolinguistic group, and even WP:RS saying that it is more accurate to define arabs ethnolinguistic group than just ethnic group.

  as Arabs are indeed considered an ethnic group by definition.

  Again, let me confirm, ethnolinguistic groups, like ethnoreligous groups are ethnic groups. There is no disagreement or contradiction between sources to begin with, all ethnolinguistic groups and ethnoreligous groups are ethnic groups, but not all ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic and ethnoreligous groups. So may you tell us what is you basis for rejecting WP:RS if sources are in agreement with each others ? Stephan rostie (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Support, in principle, though I doubt this RFC is going places. This article gross oversimplifies Arab identity. Arab peoples form an ethnolinguistic group is the truest meaning of the term in that the most common thread between all Arab peoples is their language. Beyond language, Arab identity (including ethnic identity) is highly diverse, reflecting the rich tapestry of the Arab world's peoples and history. There are multiple layers of Arab identity at work in the Middle East and North Africa, from purely linguistic association (and little more than this, e.g.: the Maronites) through to deeply tribal identity still rooted in the Bedouin past. The current lead of this page says Arab people share common ancestry, which is a highly dubious statement at best and a good example of the gross reductionism and generalization that is at work here. And if Britannica's version of "according to tradition" is the best anyone could come up with to support this, then that bodes poorly for the overall level of verification and sourcing on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Does that mean that someone who doesn't speak Arabic is not an Arab? Equally, does it also mean that if someone speaks Arabic, then they must be Arab? M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You can imagine your same question as being asked about a Slav. And it’s answer will be the same answer.

Skitash asked the same question and he was answered in details and with real-time examples. Check it out. Stephan rostie (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do me a favour and refrain from replying to my comments. The non-neutral RfC aside, you have literally bludgeoned the process to death with your colourful walls of text. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you there is a misunderstanding. I am not replying to you. your sarcastic and personalizing comment about the RfC alone is enough for anyone to not think about opening a talk with you. I am replying for the users and readers who will come and read that. Anyway, thanks for the “bludgeoned” link, i never knew that it was even a thing. one is knowing new things about WP policies everyday i guess :) Stephan rostie (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean ... on the face of it, no to both. E.g. when Arabs become expatriates, even if their languages falters, their linguistic connections to Arab culture remain, in their family names, their foodstuffs and other cultural references. As with any ethnic identity, their connectivity to their Arab identity will evolve and change depending on their personal circumstances. Thus, while not speaking Arabic does not make you not Arab, a generation or two of detachment from Arabic language can quite quickly make individuals feel less or not attached to any Arab identity. Conversely, speaking Arabic will not make you Arab, because it is still an ethno-linguistic identity. Just because language is key does not mean other cultural attachments are meaningless. Someone who speaks Arabic but has not grown up in an Arab society has not been imbued with the full cultural milieu that forms an Arab identity. They will likely identify as something else. But ultimately, gradual cultural assimilation is exactly how the Arab conquests proceeded, with entire societies becoming slowly Arabizing under a tribal Arab elite. As Patricia Crone puts it: "Where the Romans built up their empire over centuries, the Arabs carved out theirs in less than one [...] In the first centuries after the conquests, all native converts were Arabized, and Arabization continued thereafter too in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, while Arabic everywhere remained the high cultural language ..." [1] Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment No opinion on the article. But this looks like a complete abuse of the RfC process to me. I am not at all a fan of procedural closes, but I don't think this should be allowed to continue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Copied over from my talk page:

  hey !,

  You recently commented on RfC about arabs being ethnolinguistic group

  with that you think it is abuse of rfc. Can you elaborate why do you think that exactly ? And what should i do or have done ?Stephan rostie (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Given that you haven't been editing for long it is understandable that you are not familiar with all the rules. So the fact that you edited an article in a WP:Contentious topic area without the required number of edits is absolutely excusable. So is unfamiliarity with rules on WP:Canvassing. But the way this RfC is formulated is so far from neutral that in my opinion any result would be unusable. See WP:RFCNEUTRAL for information on how to write an RfC. What I would recommend for future RfCs is to first discuss with others how the RfC should be worded. Ideally even when people can't agree on the issue they can at least agree on the options that should be presented. Only if that fails should you consider unilaterally formulating an RfC. And that RfC should be short and neutral. As a rule of thumb, if you can tell from the way the RfC is formulated which option the writer prefers it is not neutral. In this instance a neutral RfC could look like this:

  Should the opening sentence say that

  a) Arabs are an ethnic group?

  b) Arabs are an ethnolinguistic group?

  -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The RfC is a non starter, simply because it lacks merit. Arabs are accurately described as an ethnic group. Perhaps a procedural close given the canvassing by the OP (which led to the lone support vote) and the clearly POV starting statement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment One last comment to clarify a few things befor closing. The Arab people can be classified in various ways, such as ethnosocial, ethnolinguistic, ethnocultural, and ethnonational, considering factors such as ethnic identity and ethnogeography, among others. All these classifications contribute to defining the current ethnic group without excluding any factor at the expense of others.

1. There are approximately 50 million expatriate Arabs, and between 20 and 30 million reside in South America. Most of them, however, do not speak Arabic; instead, they identify as Arabs through their ancestors and their ethnic heritage.

Key aspects of cultural identity include: Language - Traditions and Customs - History and Heritage - Religion and Beliefs - Food and Cuisine - Art, Music, and Literature - Clothing and Fashion - Geographical Location.

• Comparing Arabs and Slavs is like comparing Portuguese to Italians who speak Romance languages. Arabs speak Arabic, which is understood by most Arabs, albeit with regional dialects. The Arabic language belongs to the Semitic language family, along with languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Maltese. On the other hand, Russian and Macedonian are both Slavic languages, but they have distinct grammatical structures and vocabularies, it difficult to understand each other without prior learning of the other language. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The RfC makes little sense in the first place, not to mention that the question is ignoring a number of relevant sources. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is no comparison between the Arabs and Slavs, it is a ridiculous comparison. The Arabs are an ethnic group that shares their own characteristics, just like any other ethnic group. In Portugal, there are Arabs who do not speak Arabic at all but ethnically identify themselves as Arabs. This should be closed. Portoseecalm (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Portoseecalm: in New York, just as for every major global city, there are lots of people who ethnically identify as Slavs but do not speak a Slavic language. Slavs and Arabs are absolutely equivalent concepts – i.e. a trans-national macro identity across states and dialects, bound fundamentally by a disparate but related language family. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Partially agree, with suggestion: The nominator has a point, and many of the commentators have not read the post in full. There also appears to be a poor understanding here of both the history of the term Arab, and what it means today. And a poor understanding of what ethnic identity is more broadly - this is a problem in many ethnic group articles in the encyclopedia.

Beating down the nominator here will not fix the wider problems, such as too many ethnic-group articles being written from an essentialist viewpoint, incorrectly implying that ethnicity equals genealogical descent, and not acknowledging that ethnicity is at its core a very personal matter.

An Arab is simply a person who identifies as such, via one or more of many possible cultural connections. As the nominator says, this is true for Slavs, and many other ethnic groups.

If there is opposition to the concept of "ethnolinguistic group", because it is true that not everyone who considers themselves Arab speaks the language, we can instead state that the genesis of the modern Arab identity was language-based. Language is what created the modern Arab identity, a fact central to every work on modern Arab ethnogenesis.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, but thats beyond the point here.

RFC is about whether or not to describe the group as an ethnoreligious ethnolinguistic group - Which would be inaccurate.

Whether or not language was relevant to the formation of the identity is a separate discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: did you mean ethnoreligious or ethnolinguistic?

On your second sentence, it was foundational so can’t be truly separate.

I would be very interested to understand what the oppose commentators here think an ethnolinguistic group is. Do you think there is no such thing? Is there a better example you can think of? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

They clearly meant ethnolinguistic (as they are referring to the RfC). It's also fair to assume that everyone in here knows what it means. M.Bitton (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, mistyped. Fairly obvious though, you get the point. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @CapnJackSp and M.Bitton: could you both provide an example of an ethnolinguistic group? Just one is enough. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, knock yourself out. Feel free to reach out if you need help in understanding terms in future as well. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: thanks for your help and for your offer of future support as well. This kind of collaboration is the best of our project.

I looked at your helpful list, and thought Tamils would be a good example of a large yet cohesive group, which also has “ethno-linguistic group” in the first sentence of its article. Could you kindly provide one characteristic of Tamils that is different to that of Arabs, such that you consider Tamils are an ethnolinguistic group but Arabs are not? Just one characteristic will be enough. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this WP:OR, but while we're at it, we might as well compare them to Italians. M.Bitton (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @M.Bitton: do you think Italians are or are not an ethnolinguistic group? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm not really sure how my beliefs are relevant, but since you ask, I'd say that all ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic in one way or another. M.Bitton (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

See our article ethnicity:

Depending on which source of group identity is emphasized to define membership, the following types of (often mutually overlapping) groups can be identified:

• Ethno-linguistic, emphasizing shared language, dialect (and possibly script) – example: French Canadians
• Ethno-national, emphasizing a shared polity or sense of national identity – example: Austrians
• Ethno-racial, emphasizing shared physical appearance based on phenotype  – example: African Americans
• Ethno-regional, emphasizing a distinct local sense of belonging stemming from relative geographic isolation – example: South Islanders of New Zealand
• Ethno-religious, emphasizing shared affiliation with a particular religion, denomination or sect – example: Sikhs
• Ethno-cultural, emphasizing shared culture or tradition, often overlapping with other forms of ethnicity – example: Travellers

This list provides excellent examples of ethnic groups which are not ethnolinguistic. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did say all "ethnic groups", meaning all groups that are defined as such. As for the above: in the Ethnoreligious group article for instance, the Alawites are cited as an example. In their main article, they are described as an "an Arab ethnoreligious group". M.Bitton (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this offers a route to a middle ground. We could harmonize both terms along the lines of the Arabs being "an ethnic group of the ethnolinguistic type" - in that way neglecting none of the sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with that and in any case, the result of the RfC is pretty clear. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's like calling a pet "a dog of the poodle type" to avoid saying it's "a poodle". Whatever problem one might think that would solve, it won't. Largoplazo (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• comment. I just revised many of the sources which is cited for saying that “arabs are ethnic group” in the article. Apparently Some of it are vandalism, and others are not specialized sources about the Arabs or even the middle east. All The following sources are the sources cited in the article as supposedly saying “arabs are ethnic group”. Here are what i found for now:

1. “Whatever 'Arab' has meant in the past – marginal camel herds, cultic guardians, tribal raiders – it now means, primarily, users of the Arabic language.” (Arabs)
2. “arab ethnicity is difficult to define. it is generally accepted that it is primarily based on speaking the arabic language.” (Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East)
3. “As Persians, Syrians, Copts, Berbers and others flocked to the fold of Islam and married Arabians, the original high wall raised earlier between Arabians and non-Arabians tumbled down. The nationality of the moslem receded into the background. No matter what his nationality may have been originally, the follower of Muhammed now passed for an Arab. an Arab henceforth now became one who professed islam and spoke and wrote the Arabic tongue, regardless of his racial affiliation.” (The Arabs), alongside this, I couldn’t find where in the source does it states that the modern term “Arabs” means ethnic group.
4. “In essence, in modern times, an Arab is generally someone who speaks Arabic as a mother or primary tongue, or, in the case of Arabs living in the diaspora, who identifies ethnically” and “Yet because of the ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity within the Middle East, the term “Arab” itself must be understood as a loose shorthand referring to people from countries that are predominantly Arabic speaking, though some of them speak Arabic as a second language and may not identify ethnically as Arab at all.“ (The Cambridge Companion to Modern Arab Culture)
5. ”In any case, one ought to be very cautious about thinking of “Arab” as an ethnic archetype. Just as the Arabic language has many dialects, Arabic speakers come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Indeed, like most ethnicities, the term “Arab” has, at best, a very imprecise relationship to any physical or cultural attributes.” (Understanding and Teaching the Modern Middle East)

these were the most reliable and most specialized on Arabs sources cited in the article as supposedly supporting the notion of the modern term “Arab” meaning “just a mere ethnic group” and “arabic have nothing to do with Arab ethnic identity or formation”. The inclusion of these sources suggests that the one who added it didn’t bother to read the sources itself. the rest of the cited sources have passing mention of Arabs and/or not comparable in reliability as the above sources or even have any specialization in the topic. perhaps the only two reliable and specialized sources that didn’t go with much cohesion with all these reliable sources above are The Arab World that of encyclopedia of islam which says: "“Arab” (in anthropology) is a primarily ethnic term denoting a people defined by a common language and putative common descent.", though it did assert about the common language property in defining Arabs and confirmed that the meaning of the term have been continuously changing throughout history: "the historical transformation of the meaning of the word ʿarab has been a continuous process".

Outside the sources cited in the Arab ethnicity note in the article, other sources like encyclopedia Britannica agrees with the above sources: “Arab, Any member of the Arabic-speaking peoples native to the Middle East and North Africa.”, in addition to the sources already cited when the RfC was posted. It seems that the overwhelming majority of the most reliable and specialized sources support describing Arabs as ethnolinguistic group (as described by many reliable sources already) rather than a mere ethnic group. I request from the respectable editors @CapnJackSp, @Iskandar323, @Largoplazo, @Onceinawhile, @Sadko, @Portoseecalm, @Sarah SchneiderCH, who voted to reconsider their stances after the news i provided above from the sources that is cited to supposedly argue that “Arabs are a mere ethnic group” or that “arabic language have nothing to do with Arab ethnic identity or formation”.

Thanks everyone for your contribution in advance, and pardon me for the unbalanced RfC lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all of those five sources are eminently well-grounded on the subject and hit the mark. Perhaps we simply need a new "definition" section to include this top-level secondary/tertiary material. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

argue that “Arabs are a mere ethnic group” or that “arabic language have nothing to do with Arab ethnic identity or formation Nonsense! Nobody said that language has nothing to do with ethnicity. If anything, I specifically said that all ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic in some form or another (meaning that language is an intrinsic part of ethnicity). This subject covered in multiple RS (just Google "language and ethnicity" and help yourself to plenty). This simple fact about how important language is to ethnicity makes the Arabs no different from any other ethnic group and I see no reason to single them out. M.Bitton (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I am disappointed to see the repetition of your claim that all ethnic groups are ethnolinguistic in some form or another (meaning that language is an intrinsic part of ethnicity) when the examples provided above prove beyond doubt that there are many other types of ethnicity. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that you failed to reply to that comment when a perfect example (taken from the very list that you supplied) was given. M.Bitton (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Stephan rostie is aware of the fact that they are not supposed to participate in a RfC about this contentious subject, so the question is: why are they deliberately ignoring what WP:ARBECR says? M.Bitton (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not an RFC anymore; it's been delisted. It's just a discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Coptic people speak Arabic and do not refer to themselves as Arabs. They are Egyptian. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's not an RFC any more, and you seem to be refuting something that no one particularly claimed. No one has said that everyone who speaks Arabic is Arab. And you don't need to go to cases as liminal as the Copts to day otherwise, because the world contains people who study and speak Arabic, but are not Arabs. So yeah, duh, language alone doesn't define a person. This page doesn't mention the Copts, and this discussion isn't about them. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  If speaking Arabic doesn't necessarily make one an Arab and not speaking it doesn't exclude one from being Arab, then how can the Arabic language be described as the defining characteristic of the Arabs? M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  

  @Iskandar323 It's important to cultivate a more empathetic and considerate approach when interacting with others. Avoid giving the impression that you believe yourself to be more knowledgeable, and refrain from making others feel uninformed about what they already know. Instead, strive to create an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, valuing the perspectives of all individuals regardless of their background. If you wish to apply this matter to the Arab population and your insistence is strong, then it should be done across all ethnic groups.

  Given that I am Swiss, I can confidently state that my ethnicity is Swiss. However, when we find ourselves in Switzerland coming from two distinct regions, it is more accurate to describe myself as German-speaking Swiss (That my mother tongue is German does not mean that I am German, but rather the Swiss take from themselves an independent ethnicity. So here the Swiss are divided into an ethnolinguistic group. Another example of ethnolinguistic groups are the Afghans. An Afghani defines himself as an Afghani, but in the geographical scope the language plays a role in ethnolinguistic division.

  In essence, the articles should cover various aspects of topics such as ethnicity, language, religion, etc. The level of discussion should be comprehensive, akin to the depth found in Wikipedia articles. The ultimate goal is to work collaboratively towards finding holistic solutions that can be applied universally across all ethnic groups. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

References

The introduction 'Abrahamic traditional account' is Old Testament Judeo-Christian account rather than a pan-Abrahamic one or an Islamic one

"According to the Abrahamic tradition, Arabs are descendants of Abraham, with his son Ishmael. Ishmael had twelve sons, each of whom became a tribal chief in one of the regions from Havilah to Shur (from ancient Mesopotamia to the east of Egypt)."

I'm not sure why (or if it's even appropriate) that a religious account is relevant in this article introduction. The cited source (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) quotes the Book of Genesis with some Rabbinic accounts. The Jewish Encyclopedia does mention "Mohammedan" (islamic) narrative but that is not what the Wikipedia cites or reflect from the source. The Islamic narrative on Ishmael is quite different, in the Quran Abraham left Hagar and Ishmael at Mecca whom they were first to settle, and Islamic sources stress that Ishmael is a direct ancestor of the Prophet of Islam and thus Qureshian Arabs. But it doesn't mention who are Ishmael direct descendants or their numbers.

I think it's important to highlight this 'editorial question': What do we want to represent in this article introduction on the Arabs ethnicity and where this theocratic narrative falls. Although I'm quite skeptical on its placement on the intro, to play the devils advocate I presume a cultural origin story might be relevant to paint a picture of historical and societal ideals of a civilization at a place and time (especially since Abrahamic religions played an important role in Arabian cultural heritage). But this begs the question: Why present a Judean Old Testament narrative conceptualized by an outside group rather than present an Arabian account. It seems.. Odd?

One could argue that the Islamic narrative have played a far greater role in Arabian history on their historical self historiography. During Abbasid times historians took it as canon in the origin story of their civilization like in the accounts of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir's al-Bidaya wa-l-Nihaya (to name a few). It's, in my opinion, more relevant simply because it's their own cultural product. The Quran after all is written in Arabic, spread by Arabs who ultimately spurred a new cultural legacy during Abbasids times which guided the collective memory till modern times where it's still popular in the Middle East today.

Personally I think either we axe the whole paragraph, or highlight the shared Abrahamic heritage (Arabs descendence from Ishmael in Old Testament and Quran) and then describe the islamic narrative (with relevant sources). — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The crux of your point here is misguided, since Muslims also refer to the old testament, and Abrahamaic tradition is very much the all-embracing term for this kind of thing, not least in direct relation to Abraham himself. However, I also wonder if this religious cruft needs to be in the lead at all, and if the jury verdict is yes then I would say position it further down - prefacing the second paragraph of the lead is no place for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Except Muslims do not refer to the old testament.. There's a branch of islamic studies called Israʼiliyyat but it's not taken as canon and the two largest islamic sects the Sunni's and Shia's stance is that they accept what confirms their official islamic narrative in the Quran and Hadiths (Sunnis and Shia disagree on Hadith collections) while taking other stories with skepticism. I don't think I mentioned Abrahamaic tradition being related to Abraham himself? Obviously it's a general term for a group of closely related religions, and in this case those religions diverge on the story of Ishmael — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Abrahamic tradition is a set phrase, and yes it's related to Abraham, and this stuff is exactly what it is about. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait… I’m confused. Are you contradicting your earlier statement? Your first comment an hour ago “Abrahamaic tradition is very much the all-embracing term for this kind of thing, not least in direct relation to Abraham himself”. Anyway this is pointless, Abrahamic religions refer to a group of religions Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Ahmadiyah and other smaller cults. But this is.. besides the point of the topic I’m raising. Not sure what your fixated on? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not contradicting myself. And no, it's not pointless, unless the thread you raised is. You started by drawing a distinction between old testament mythology and Quranic mythology, but it all falls under the same bracket. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by “fall under the same bracket”? The source itself the Jewish Encyclopedia recognizes such differences that’s perhaps lost on you. And they’re in fact quite distinct, for starters muslims believe in the binding of Ishmael in contradiction with the Judeo-Christian narrative. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just read our own Ishmael page - there are, at bare minimum, competing Islamic traditions on whether it was Isaac or Ishmael who was bound, and it is generally considered unimportant by modern commentators (being unspecified in the Quran). Frankly it isn't important, because whoever it was that was 'bound', they basically just fulfill the role of a stage prop in the story for Abraham's faith dilemma. But one way or another I fail to see the relevance here, since nothing to do with this pertains to what is written in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, the lead cited source agree that Muslims have a different narrative to the story of Ishmael. The relevance, again, is whether to cite a work central to Arabian culture like the work of the historian Ibn Ishaq or leave it at the current source. It’s about what’s more relevant here is it the theological aspect or was the paragraph sentiment supposed to portray liturgical heritage, and if so, which one? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like general statement about Abrahamic folkloric tradition to me, and the sourcing is somewhat irrelevant. The traditions and sources converge on Ishmael birthing the Arabs, which is all the first statement claims. As the for the second part, the Jewish encyclopedia defers to Arabic literature, and is a tertiary source, so I'm really not sure what the problem is. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Except it isn’t. It’s outdated, not citing which ‘Arabic literature’ it’s sourcing from and I would love to know because Arabic literature does not state that Ishmael had 12 sons other than those quoting the Israʼiliyyat. It’s also not a primary source and is using archaic language “Mohammedan” i.e. Islamic — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 23:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Other than pushing the paragraph down or axing it (which I vote for). Pushing it down still leaves the question of which "Abrahamic tradition" to present in the article — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

All three. Just see Ishmael. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

By all three, do you mean we list all the different narratives? That seems excessive and unnecessary. The point I was trying to make in my main post is the following: which narrative is more relevant to this article about Arabs. Is it a story written by an adjacent ethnogroup or one that was written by Arabs themselves as they envisioned themselves like for example in Ibn Kathir The Beginning and The End which is popular in the Arab World today. Not to mention that it’s reiterates a narrative that was postulated during the Ummayud-Abbasid period and consequently contributed more to the ‘Arab identity’ heritage — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 21:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

All three traditions have Arabs descending from Ishmael. The minutiae after that you can attribute if you like. You could have done that without starting a thread. I had assumed you opened the thread to seek input from other editors, but seemingly not ... Iskandar323 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

……. I don’t even know what to say.. perhaps I could have worded my post in a different way because clearly you didn’t understand my OP. It’s not about whether Arabs descend from Ishmael or not, it’s about the sourced narrative, moreso the Old Testament narrative includes other details listed in the article that are not present in the Islamic narrative. Likewise for the Quran story. Also I’m not sure why you’re singling out “All three”. Newsflash Abrahamic religions don’t only refer to those three but also other religions as well like Bahai’s for example. Why not cite their work? why is it less relevant?…… Do you see now, That the point I’m trying to get across: if we’re going to include a cultural theological origin story which narrative is more relevant to an article about Arabs one that was written by them or one that is not — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you are simply getting needlessly hung up on granular differences between stories when religion is all mass plagiarism - hence 'Abrahamic' religion is a useful catch-all for the cross-pollinated mess of mythology. All of the theological origin stories are equally bullshit and equally irrelevant to the actual anthropology, so I actually don't think a particular line of bullshit is preferable to another, no; they're all on the same level really. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok.. Not sure what that has to do with anything here… Anyway, it’s really simple I’m saying I don’t prefer keeping the paragraph but if we do for the sake of cultural background than I think there’s a better source for that. That source being a historiographical study of a medieval Arabic text. Rather than the current source. Tomorrow hopefully I will put a draft on this talk page — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 22:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, the current source is a perfectly reasonable tertiary source that references the Arabic literature, so I'm really not sure what the problem is with it from a sourcing perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just noting here for anyone reading this thread to please check the linked source, because if anything… it could be much better than that. Also I’m not sure why @Iskandar323 keep repeating and stressing that the source “references the Arabic literature” because it doesn’t. The linked 1900’s Encloypedia doesn’t provide citation for the Arabic literature used other than a single Quranic text irrelevant to the info presented on the section. But to give the benefit of the doubt perhaps @Iskandar323 saw the subheading ‘Arabic Literature’ and called it a day — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 23:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because it's a tertiary source with a good reputation that is very strong on middle Eastern subjects, and also because it is true. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That’s not how it works…… Ok since you mentioned that it’s a “reputable tertiary source” care to mention which primary sources (Arabic literature) this 1906 Encyclopedia is sourcing its info from? No? You do understand what a tertiary source means right? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 07:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I also know it's true and it's sourced on the Ishmael page. You can go there and copy sources if you like. I know how sourcing works, better than you know how to AGF. I also know that leads don't require sourcing. If you stopped wittering on the talkpage for a minute you could easily source this from a thousand places, but you don't want to, because you want to remove the material, so the sources are actually irrelevant - it's just the weaker part of your premise for removal, and also irrelevant, because there's plenty of agreement that's it's not that important in the lead. Given this, you could just dispense with being snarky, but hey ho, each to their own. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah.. AGF, sure, as in you assuming me wanting to remove the paragraph when I clearly said that I will rewrite the paragraph with better sourcing even though I dispute its relevance in the lead. But sure. Your real issue here is with your ego, you misunderstood what the topic was, kept pressing on beating around the bush even contradicting your own statement. You claimed that the cited Encyclopedia is a tertiary source, then list the primary Arabic literature that was the source in the citation. Can you find it or were you just BSing? As for using other sources, lmao thanks that what I explicitly suggested and said I was going to do hopefully by today. If you dropped your ego for a moment trying to one-up in the void perhaps you would notice that what is suggested in the OP. What source to use and what is important on this article about Arabs. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Talking to a mirror now I see. Good. You keep going with that. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Check your ego on the way out. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• The belief that Arabs are descended from Ishmael: Was that a tradition that Arabs had before it was asserted in the Qur'an, or is the Qur'an the source of this belief? If the former, then it suffices to say that it's Arab tradition. If the latter, then it should ascribe it to Islamic tradition. There's no need to digress into what amounts to "by the way, some other religions share these views as well".
• Anything that follows should be there only if it accords with Arab or Islamic tradition, respectively as per my previous note. There's probably no need for it to say anything it all, and the part about the tribes is another bit of a digression because those tribes themselves don't exist today and so it sheds no light on the matter of the origins of the Arab civilization.
• It shouldn't be in the lead, which should stick to what's known factually or at least through scholarship-class inductive reasoning from the evidence. Largoplazo (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely, especially on your second point which I was trying to reflect in my OP. This article is supposed to be about an ethnic group and their culture. If we’re going to display a theological origin text than it should be central to that specific group. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The belief existed in the pre-Islamic period, as mentioned on Ishmael - it was part of the general milieu of early monotheistic but pre-Islamic folklore, amid a swirl of Judeo-Christian influence on the peninsula. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Good. Then perhaps that what should be reflected on the article, not Old Testament verses. But if you checked the sources for the ‘pre-islamic Arabia’ section under Ishmael you would find that those are in fact all sourced from Islamic era records and books. Like Ibn Kathir tarikh and Ibn Khaldoun as well. It should be noted and reflected on the text that it’s a 14th century Islamic claims about pre-islamic Arabs. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 08:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's no secret that pre-Islamic Arabs were well versed in Abrahamic traditions. There were multiple tribes and cities converted to Judaism. This is mundane information. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

“No secret” “Mundane information” yet you don’t have an actual contemporary pre-Islamic source. What you’re saying boils down to hey “Everyone’s know”. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 10:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Edited Abrahamic narration paragraph in the intro

As per the previous talk, I have edited the paragraph and introduced some relevant sources. Namely: Arabs and Empires before Islam, which is a collection of 250 translated extracts from an array of ancient sources divided into sections by multiple authors, the section I quoted is Arabs and Christianity by Greg Fisher, which highlight that the first Christian author who connected Ishmael and Arabs was the 3rd century scholar Origen. Another source on Arabic medieval Islamic background is from the book Journey in Holy Lands, which review medieval islamic historians narrations and relate/compare them to the wider Abrahamic religions narratives. I have also included that medieval Arab authors claimed that the pre-islamic Arabs descend from Ishmael (per @Iskandar323 note) mentioning Ibn Kathir (while it was widely circulated by the Abbasid period) and highlighting that it's not a contemporary source, but a later narration of oral tradition dating hundreds of years by then.

Here's the edit:

According to the Abrahamic tradition, Arabs are descendants of Abraham, with his son Ishmael. Islamic sources further propose that Abraham brought Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca. The 14th century Arab historian Ibn Kathir argues that the pre-Islamic Arabs considered Ishmael as their patriarch..

— ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 12:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)