Talk:Ancient Arabs

The Akkadians
Dear Elias, Assyria is listed as a Non Arab nation because they were not Arabs and they were a group that evolved within Mesopotamia. just like goths later evolved by mixing with Iberians into Castile/Aragon etc...
 * The article is clearly talking about the Akkadians before entering Mesopotamia. Just like the Goths left Germany to Spain. they became Spaniards in Spain (ofcourse modern Spaniards are not German), but the Goths are still considered German!

Today the "Eastern Semitic" family entirely is extinct in Mesopotamia. The only Eastern surviving dialects are in Eastern Yemen and Oman. A glance at the map will confirm an Eastern connection to East Arabia and the the Akkadians, linguistically and culturally.
 * The Akkadian language,

Our language evolved, just like modern self identified Assyrians speak Aramean! Do you find me claiming you are not Assyrian just because you stopped using the old "Akkadian" Eastern Language?
 * The Akkadians, lived in Arabia, spoke Ancient Arabian. Guess what that makes the Akkadians? yes, you guessed it right. Arabs I mean what else do you want? passports at 2300BC?

Assyira is the North, never part of ancient Arabia. the ancient Arabs article should not offend you, unless you are looking at the Mideast through the visions of Imperial Assyria (from Medes to Egypt), then I am sorry!--Skatewalk 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still lost on why the article is being reverted? --Alameer 10:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Akkadians, were not Arabs. They were Semites. Arab is not synonymous with Semite. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:27 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Semitic is the Arabs language, but the Akkadians were Arabs geography (Arabian peninsula), culture (nomads) and language wise (Eastern Semitic).

When they entered Mesopotamia they mixed and produced new people that are not Arabs.

Simple exmaples:

Lombard Germans enter Italy, now they are considered Italians not Germans. but the Lombards in classical times are considered Germans.

Greeks enter Siracusa, Siracusa. Today Siracusans are Italian, In ancient history we call them Greek.

Saxons enter England, today English ppl are not German anymore, but the Saxons at some point of history were Germans.

If you look a this issue from a sensitive Assyrianist or Anti-Arab prespective. then you will not be able to stomach it.

The Akkadians were Arabs. once they entered Mesopotamia they were known to be Akkadian for a certain operiod of time after that they were absorbed and in the Mesopotamian melting pot that included every group in the middle east at that time.

The title of the article is Ancient Arabs. Review other culture history articles and see how their past doesnt necessary has to be the exact to the present.

Assyrian history is different, because it was preserved among a small isolated group that resisited assimilation by the Turks, Arabs, Byzantines, Kurds...etc. So I understand why you will be ultra defensive to any article that merely mentions your history. --Skatewalk 12:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Semites, are not Arabs. What part of this, don't you understand? When the Akkadians emerged and conquered Sumer, the very word Arab, didn't exist. In hindsight, Arab nationalists are trying to take credit for ancient Mesopotamia and its culture. Do you actually have any academic source classifying Akkadians as Arabs? No? I thought so. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:12 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Skatewalk, since you're new here, let me show you something important: WP:NOR. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:16 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

alright, I think this establishes that Skatewalk has no case, and no idea what he is talking about. Case closed, I suppose. This is a confusion of 'Arab' and 'of Arabian origin'. 'Arab' and 'Arabian' are not synonyms. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann/Elias; You seem to have a habit of Vandalizing articles that you don't like (Arameans) for example. You refuse to look at the truth. Google "Akkadians", read the first article. Semite is a linguistic term. Arabs existed as far as history goes. Modern Arabists are not related to this subject at all. Do you understand the difference between ancient origin? and ethnicity? cultural identity? --Skatewalk 12:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We were actually trying to revert vandalism on the Aramaeans article, by a troll, who is now banned. Look, Akkadians may have originated from the Arabian peninsula, thousands of years before Semitic peoples evolved into Arabs. That doesn't make Akkadians into Arabs. You seem to think that the word Arab, is a universal word for Semitic peoples in general. This is clearly Arabism. Sorry, not accepted here on Wikipedia. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:35 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * read "Proto-Semitic". The Semites may have originated on the Arabian peninsula, which would make them "of Arabian origin" [not "Arabians", not "Arabs", and not "of Arab origin"]. dab (𒁳) 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Proto-Semitic is a better word. It all of course, depends on if the Arabs in the Arabian peninsula are Semitic peoples? They might as well be something else, and have been imposed a Semitic language (Akkadian), and now they count as Semites, even though they aren't. By the way: &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:42 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * personally, I do endorse the hypothesis that the Arabian peninsula is the Semitic homeland. It stands to reason. It is also the mainstream assumption, but there are also serious suggestions perferring the Horn of Africa. This was in 4000 BC, or 3,500 years before the "Arabs" first appear. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's quite possible, of course, that the Akkadians originated from the Arabian peninsula. That doesn't make them Arabs. There was nothing Arabic over them, except that they spoke a Semitic language, and Arabs today, speak a Semitic language. That is all. They most likely didn't even look like modern Arabs look like today. Judging from Sargon of Akkad's face, he looked zero Arabic. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 17:55 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Assyrianism
Elias, you can't impose the Semitism on the Arabs. Semitic is a European/Biblical term. Arabs considered themselves as Arabs and this article is talking about ancient history from an Arab prespective. Its irrelevant to the modern Arabism. If you want to start an article about the ancient Semites, start a new article. --Skatewalk 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I agree, that Imninalu.net isn't the most unbiased source available. But look, ancient Arabs, and labelling all these ancient peoples as Arabs, that's not all right with me (some of them are my forefathers, and I refuse to take such insults as calling my forefathers "Arabs", considering what they're doing to Assyrians in Iraq right now ). Now look, Ancient Semites, is a better title for this page, since it deals with Semitic peoples in general, of ancient times. Here's my suggestion: keep the title Ancient Arabs, and remove over half of the non-Arabic Semitic peoples, or keep the title Ancient Semites, and make it more NPOV. Also, redirect properly, by moving. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:18 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, I strongly disagree with the whole article, but I don't like the Anti-Arab attacks. And quoting Imninalu is offensive. I suggest that you start an article about Ancient Semites. Myself I will not edit it. Thats the temporary solution for this issue now, until the Jews and Arabs make peace then we can quote imninalu! --Skatewalk 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

the article is perfectly valid inasfar as it treats pre-Islamic Arab tribes. But it should probably be merged into Pre-Islamic Arabia. dab (𒁳) 06:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dbachmann, The problem is that the Ghassanids are Qahtani Arabs. There is not alot to use as sources besides (alHamdani) he was the father of Arab history and tribes.

Teh nabateans are a mystery but they came in relatively recent times (after the fall of the Near East to Alexander which seperate the ancient Arabs and the Qahtani revival which the Arab christians in the 3rd century and later the Muslims in the 7th century). If you wnat to add the Nabateans I can't remove them because they are not Qahtani or Adnani Arabs. (some relate them to Nabot son of Qidar of the Ishamelites, not to be confuse with Adnan lineage that starts much later around 1BC). I will fix the article this week and seperate (or remove) the Assyrians, Phoenicians (because they were influenced by an already mixed group) The Assyrians by the Akkadians. And the Phoenicians by the Arameans/Amorites. My main goal is clearing the fog. you can take whatever parts you wnat of the article and merge it into ancient Arabia. However, the Ancient Arab article is needed --Skatewalk 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

...and I refuse to take such insults as calling my forefathers "Arabs" To Elias, whenever you find yourselves refusing such insults please do never forget to avoid insulting other people as they refuse to be insulted. I hope you don't lose your mind and remain civil when explaining yourselves. You could have said that you refuse the fact your ancestors are being considered as Arabs and everybody would have understood you w/o any big effort. We don't have time to waste dealing w/ incivility. We've had enough in Wikipedia. Thank you. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  11:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Elias' tender feelings have nothing to do with this. I recommend Skatewalk should spend some time reading our Arab and related articles before attempting to edit again. There is no "Arab" identity predating Islam. aʿrāb was a term for Bedouins in Muhammad's time (see Arab (etymology)). Various "Proto-Arabic" tribes can be traced to the 6th century BC, scattered throughout the desert (see Old North Arabian). That's it. dab (𒁳) 12:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

merge/redirect
no need to get excited. Merge this into Pre-Islamic Arabia, which is the actual article on "ancient Arabs". Also, did I mention everybody should cite their scholarly sources? dab (𒁳) 12:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * redirected. there is no valid content here not already treated at Pre-Islamic Arabia. --dab (𒁳) 08:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If this article is not going to cite sources, then I agree with dab that it should be a redirect. Listing every kind of people that has lived in the Middle East as Arabs, is not based on historical accuracy. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 10:57 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

if the edit warring continues, especially with socks joining the fray, we'll semi-protect the page to enforce discussion. Skatewalk, what is the reason you do not want to discuss your material at Pre-Islamic Arabia? "Ancient" in the context of "Arabs" means "pre-Islamic". dab (𒁳) 09:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Skatewalk, please tell me, where does it say that Akkadians were Arabs? Speaking a Semitic language, does not make you an Arab. Although, Arabs are trying to make all speakers of Semitic languages into Arabs, that is not a fact. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:12 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to enter an edit war, but this article is unsalvageable. Its content is in broken English and treats Semitic peoples in general, not "Arabs". I say, revert to the redirect until Skatewalk presents some actual sources on "Ancient Arabs". --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is why I at first, redirect it to Ancient Semites, because it mostly dealt with Semitic peoples in general, of course, by calling them Arabs. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:39 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)


 * indeed. this was a confused presentation of various Semitic peoples, all of them labelled "Arabs". What nonsense. Our actual treatment of "Ancient Arabs" is at Arab. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is typical Arab nationalism, Arabizing all Middle Eastern peoples. Example: &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 13:24 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, how cute. Now he calls us sockpuppets too. I'd say that it's pretty safe you and I aren't sockpuppets, considering how much we've been disagreeing. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 13:28 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, since you seem to agree this should be a redirect, why do you keep editing the trolled version instead of reverting to a redirect? And yes, if you were my sockpuppet, I should need to seek professional help immediately :p dab (𒁳) 12:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't want to get into another User:Nochi kind of revert war, so I figured I'd be lenient for once. But since he's not adding academic sources, I've just redirected it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:09 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

he is confusing "Arabian" and "Arab", and is using "Arab" in the sense of "Semitic". Nothing to see here. This may be motivated by Pan-Arabism, but we should "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by mere stupidity" dab (𒁳) 12:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Word. Nice to see us agreeing for once, hehe. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:38 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * ssh, Elias, people will think we are socks. dab (𒁳) 12:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, oh shit! I blew our cover! &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 14:45 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Skatewalk, do you have any reliable sources that support your position? -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  14:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)