Talk:Arabs

Why Peter Webb's work isn't mentioned ?.
It should be specified in the Pre-Islamic period that the concept of "Arab" as an ethnic identity did not yet exist among the Arabic-speaking populations in the world. Arab shouldn't be confused with "Arabian". TheCuratingEditor (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Era
This article used the BC/AD convention until 17 September 2008 when an IP user unilaterally changed parts of the article to the BCE/CE convention without discussion. The Manual of Style states the following: "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." The unilateral change by the IP user in 2008 was clearly in violation of this rule.

In 2018, a user brought the issue up on this Talk page, arguing that "a general unwritten rule on Wikipedia that when an article is closely related to a non-Christian people, we use BCE/CE". Another user indifferently agreed and the issue has not been brought up again. This issue should be revisited now for discussion of the merits under the MoS.

The correct era convention for this article under the MoS is BC/AD. This was the original convention and per the MoS should not have been changed without reasons specific to the content.

The 2018 Talk entry suggestion for changing the convention is there is an unwritten rule. Wikipedia is built on written rules and citations, neither of which apply to the argument here. It could be just as easily said that the majority of the world uses the BC/AD convention, the majority of the world is not Christian, and thus there is an international rule to use the BC/AD convention at all times. The implied suggestion that non-Christians find the acknowledgement of the current calendar being based of the believed year of Christ's birth offensive and that those people would rather believe in a recently conceived imaginary common era that coincidentally aligns with the year of Christ's birth makes a lot of unsupported assumptions about those people. The MoS could easily state that if a user finds BC/AD offensive or believes a group that may read the article would find the convention offensive, a user may change it. Instead, the MoS looks only towards if there are reasons specific to the content of the article. Reasons specific to the article should be limited to technical limitations of the subject that would require the use of one or another. An article that draws heavily from quotes that use one convention should likely stay with that convention outside of the quotes. To allow a change in era for every article not dealing directly with Christianity is anathema to the dictates of the MoS.

The implied suggestion that the subject of the article would somehow be offended by a portion of the article that is factual and follows the MoS is not a reason to go beyond the rules of the MoS. If there is a genuine concern that BC/AD shocks the conscious of potential Arab readers then why use CE when the Islamic calendar tells us that it is the year 1445 AH? The answer should be because Wikipedia uses a set of neutral rules to write about facts. The 2018 Talk writer even acknowledged that there are Arab Christians. Per the current Wikipedia article, there are 10-15 million. Following the logic of the 2018 Talk post, those millions of Arabs love Christ, but more Arabs are not Christians, so we should change the established style to placate the majority. This is a dangerous othering of a religious minority.

It should be clear now that the imagined, uncited offense a user claims may be felt by one group should not be the standard by which an article deviates from the MoS. I do not suggest this last point I will make should be part of the discussion, however, I mention it for those that believe the MoS can be changed based on implied allegations of offense to be taken. Following the 2018 Talk page's own logic, that BC/AD should be limited only to pages discussing those people who love Jesus, it should be noted that [https://www.dailydemocrat.com/2023/01/01/i-love-jesus-because-i-am-muslim-clergy-corner/#:~:text=Muslims%20respect%20and%20revere%20Jesus,of%20Allah's%20messengers%20to%20mankind. Muslims] [https://www.vox.com/2017/12/18/10660648/jesus-in-islam-muslims-believe-christmas-quran. love] Jesus.

If, after considering the rule in the MoS, there is a consensus that there are not reasons consistent with the MoS to have changed the Era style in the article, I would respectfully request someone with editing privileges to revert the Era style to BC/AD as it was before the unilateral decision to change it in 2008. Shaggydan (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've never been able to understand the passion that some people bring to the AD/CE issue, but if you're very worried about offending people, then it might be better to avoid a simplistic "Muslims love Jesus" slogan, since Christians who are knowledgeable about their religion are aware that Muslims love a Docetic 100% human Jesus. AnonMoos (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the edit was made 16 years ago, the article's established era style is the current one. M.Bitton (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024
remove text as there is an insane ampount! 64.189.18.28 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's unclear what part you want to have removed. Aintabli (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit proposal
I would sincerely ask that you directly, clearly and unambiguously emphasize the Semitic origin in the first paragraph. Thanks. Bagyblazha (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The style of your request suggests that it's not simply about adding information but about taking a contentious stand on the matter, which Wikipedia doesn't do. Largoplazo (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what is disputed? In the article about Russians, it says that they are Slavic, Turks are Turkish, Spaniards are Romance... Bagyblazha (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I didn't say anything is disputed. Largoplazo (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For that matter, I just removed "Romance" from the first sentence of Spaniards, as "Romance" isn't normally used to characterize peoples. We don't even have an article on "Romance peoples", that link led to Romance languages. Largoplazo (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole article is a disgraceful mess.
I tried to fix it but there is too much that can be done by one person. The main problem in the article is that the editors are mixing up actual Arabs - those who speak variants of Arabic or proto-Arabic - with speakers of the Old South Arabian languages, such as the Sabaeans. The Arabs are less related to the Sabaeans than they are to the Canaanite groups such as Hebrews and Edomites. "Arabian" doesn't mean "of Arabs", it just means "from Arabia".

This whole article is pretty laughable and extremely poor quality. It gives a very misleading view of the relationship between the Semitic peoples and their languages. The Mummy (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you looking it this as a matter of genetics? The article explains up front that it's covering Arabs as an ethnic group. As the Ethnicity article holds, "An ethnicity or ethnic group is a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups." In other words, it's a distinct classification from a purely genetic one. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it has little to do do with genetics and more to do with actual ethno-linguistics. The speakers of the Old South Arabian languages and those who spoke (and speak) Arabic didn't consider themselves the same people and there is literally no evidence that they did. The Sabaean, for instance, are not ethnic "Arabs" when it comes to genetics, linguistics or cultural affiliation and even Hebrews and Aramaeans are more related (ethno-linguistically speaking) to Arabs. "Arab" and "Arabian" in this context are two different things.
 * Old South Arabian is a subgroup of the South Semitic language group and Arabic is a subgroup of Central Semitic, as are Hebrew and Aramaic. If we are going to claim that more distant ethno-linguistic groups are "Arabs" we might as well claim that Hebrews are too, as they are more closely related as an ethno-linguistic group to actual Arabs. The Mummy (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is good information! Do you have sources relating to the topic? It sounds like it ought to be included. Zanahary (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost every other article on an ethnicity defines or characterizes said ethnicity by genetics though.
 * Japanese for example. Maxwatermelon (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if that was a fact (I haven't checked), how is it relevant to this article? M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems irrelevant to me. It’s very likely that scholarship on Japanese ethnicity is different from scholarship on Arab ethnicity in this regard. @The Mummy do you have any recommended reading on the complication of the term “Arab” and its historicity? Zanahary (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Or, better: please add some content to this article about it! Zanahary (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From the fact that many ethnicities are entirely determined by genetic unity, it doesn't follow that all of them are. Largoplazo (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)