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)

• 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)

• 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)

References