Talk:Levantine Arabic/Archive 3

Contentious points as of Oct 10th
As suggested by, I create a new thread and copy-paste my previous suggestion so that people can follow what the issues are:
 * The ethnicity of speakers and whether or not (all) "the" Arabs in the Levant speak Levantine Arabic
 * Mentioning the lack of official status of Levantine Arabic and the situation of the language in Israel and Turkey in the summary
 * The "states" field of the infobox

A455bcd9 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The changes generally look good. E.g. 'Arab countries' is a rd to 'Arab League', which is irrelevant, and of course 'the Arabs who live in Jordan' (and Syria) is wrong.
 * But I find the following sentence too obvious to belong in the lead:
 * Levantine Arabic is primarily spoken by Arabs and it is also spoken as a first or second language by other ethnic groups in the region.[10]
 * Frankly, it sounds a bit insipid. It might work in the body of the article where we go into detail on who speaks the language.
 * But I disagree with the info box. You arrange alphabetically; I'd arrange by number of speakers or by % of the population. I.e., Turkey should come last not because it begins with a T but because the language is least important there. So I'd order it Syria (14.7M), Lebanon (6.6M), Jordan (5.6M), Palestine (4M), Israel (1.4M), Turkey (1.25M). (Whether you include the populations is optional, but would show why the countries are in the order they are.)
 * Also, the info box should be as succinct as possible. Instead of saying "Israel (Arab communities)", I'd consider shortening it to "Israel" (with a rd to Arab citizens of Israel). You could do the same with "Turkey" and a rd to Arabs in Turkey, and take out the needless "only", for "Turkey (Adana, Hatay and Mersin provinces)".
 * According to the MOS, we should not link to countries unless doing so would contribute to the article. I know people do it all the time, but it's useless and contributes to the SEAOFBLUE problem, detracting from links that are actually usefull. There's no reason to repeat the problem here. I'd either remove the links to the countries entirely or change them to something that is actually helpful, e.g. making "Syria" a rd to Languages of Syria.
 * — kwami (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * Thanks a lot.
 * I agree with everything you said.
 * WatanWatan2020 insisted to mention the ethnicity of speakers in the summary. That's why other contributors (Boynamedsue: "I don't see it as a massive issue, I prefer not entering into the question of ethnic groups at all in that position, as it raises the question "which groups?" which is not necessary that early, imo. But I will go with the majority." and AdrianAbdulBaha: "since this is a nuanced issue, the entire comment probably does belong in the text rather than in the summary.") and I accepted to add this sentence. But it does sound insipid. It could be removed and we could create a new "Ethnicity" section after "Speakers by country" to provide more information about Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Circassians, Jews, Chechens, and Assyrians who speak Levantine. (I added some sources to my draft)
 * Similarly, "Arab communities" was added to the infobox by WatanWatan2020 but is not necessary here and it can be developed in the body.
 * A455bcd9 (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with 'Arab communities' as a rd, it just sounds insipid to spell it out as text. Israel should be a rd either to that or to langs of Israel. Probably the former, though it doesn't really matter. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure!
 * Here's an updated suggestion based on 's feedback (+ Boynamedsue and AdrianAbdulBaha's opinion cited above).
 * What do you think?
 * (I didn't add figures in the list of countries because I haven't seen that in any other article and because there's an ongoing discussion at Ethnologue about these figures, especially for Turkey, and Ethnologue said it'll be fixed in the upcoming edition: https://www.ethnologue.com/contribution/634566 Turkey figure includes native locals from Çukurova and Syrian refugees)

A455bcd9 (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. One final quibble: "the Levant, that is in present-day" > "the Levant, in". We hardly need to say "present day". The verb "is" covers that. I'd still take out the 'only', especially given the millions of refugees that you referred to. Maybe > "(historically in XYZ provinces)" — kwami (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's so much easier to see what's going on here after separating this into its own thread. Discussions in Wikipedia too often devolve into unreadable walls of text.  Kwami's suggestions have greatly improved this section.  As pointed out, it's not necessary to specifically point out in the intro that there are non-Arab communities that speak Levantine when you remove the "spoken by Arabs" comment.  It's somewhat equivalent to not having to name all the ethnic groups speaking English in Britain or the US.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kwami's suggestions were super useful: thanks a lot!
 * So, at which point do we consider that a consensus has been reached? TaivoLinguist, kwami, AdrianAbdulBaha, Boynamedsue, and I agreed on the proposed changes and so far WatanWatan2020 is the only one who opposed them. I know that consensus <> unanimity but I don't know what to do next... A455bcd9 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Third opinion here. My first issue with the article is its length - I understand that there are a lot of references, but 250k bytes seems excessive. Secondly, I agree with the proposition to remove the word "indigenous" from the introductory sentence and replace it with "spoken". However, I would resist the removal of "Levantine Arabic is also spoken as a first or second language by other ethnic groups in the region". Lastly, the addition of "Levantine is not officially recognized in any state or territory" seems overly ideological and ignores the fact that North Levantine and South Levantine are grouped separately linguistically (with the linguistic codes apc and ajp, respectively). I object to this sentence's inclusion regardless, but - if it needs to remain - "Levantine varieties are not recognized in any state of territory" would be a preferable sentence. Otherwise, these changes to the introduction seem fine (overlaid with my recent edit). Esmost   talk   14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Esmost.
 * Give the large consensus I'll implement the changes to the infobox and the diglossia part (with "Levantine varieties") and "indigenous" => "spoken" in the first paragraph. I'll keep "Levantine Arabic is also spoken as a first or second language by other ethnic groups in the region." for now, waiting for more opinions (, as you contributed to this article in the past). A455bcd9 (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done:
 * Infobox edit
 * Diglossia + status edit
 * First paragraph edit A455bcd9 (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. @A455bcd9 do that again and i will report you. There is no consensus reached so do not falsely claim such. Thats very obvious in the previous discussion which is the same as this one. I suspect it was you as well that came under that anonymous tag and made that edit before i reverted it. Dont try it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have read the last section and its more concise outline of the proposed changes, and agree with TaivoLinguist, kwami, AdrianAbdulBaha, Boynamedsue and A455bcd9. Regarding the last comments, for some reason WP:BOOMERANG comes to my mind. –Austronesier (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached. Half of the users that A455bcd9 mentions were regarding different points. He made 9 points that he wanted changes to. i compromised with him and allowed the majority of them, 7 of 9 of them. You should go and read that part in the previous discussion. And no consensus has been reached for you to do the same thing A455bcd9 is doing. You should know better at this point. I compromised as much as possible to reach an overall agreement. He has made 0 compromises with me. Go figure please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Give me one good reason why e.g. in "your" version, Syrian Jews, Turkish Jews in Çukurova are mentioned in the infobox, but not the article text, when MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored? I can't see why we should not adhere to basic WP guidelines for this detail. –Austronesier (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That was done by A455bcd9. He added all of that in there. in the summary text, this portion that concerns you is summarized as “Levantine Arabic is also spoken as a first or second language by other ethnic groups in the region.”

If wanted, that could be adjusted to “other ethnic groups” with a link.

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it was done by WatanWatan2020 only a short while ago. If this wasn't the intention of your mechanical reverts, fix it. –Austronesier (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What i meant to say was that during the discussion here on the talk page we were having, A455bcd9 decided to add all of that in there on his own. I saw that he did that when he first published it, although i didnt oppose it, like numerous other things he has published as well. In fact, he adds more than anyone on here, and i dont challenge any of it. But when its the other way around, he deletes immediately. the logs will clearly show that. Again i have made the most compromises on many contentious points he took issue with as i explained earlier.

But back to the point, When i reverted the page back recently, obviously that would get included.

So, are you saying to change it to simply “other ethnic groups” with a link? WatanWatan2020 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Conciseness, when there is more in the article. There are four possibilities for data in infoboxes: ⟨in article text / in infobox⟩✅, ⟨not in article text / not in infobox⟩✅, ⟨in article text / not in infobox⟩✅, ⟨not in article text / in infobox⟩. You have changed the article to a -configuration. That's my point. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thing: since you have already devoted 25k of text to this discussion (means: you're highly engaged in this topic), I would expect that you are in full control and responsibility of what you're doing when editing the page, without things "obviously getting included" even when they're not in your intent. –Austronesier (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

i understand. Although A455bcd9 has added that in there, i suspect he can better place the extended information where it needs to be. Im not sure if hes doing it while the page keeps getting edited into a new version, which is in violation of our discussion here and the WP:consensus. He can add that material in the bottom where it needs to be as long as the article is not changed, specifically in the contested points. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * So please, if you understand, why do you continue to do exactly the same thing in the same pattern? Talking about violation, you are aware that you have made your 4th revert? Your talk page looks like a tapestry full of EW-warnings... –Austronesier (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not clearly sure as to what you are saying when you mention “why do you continue to do exactly the same thing…” are you talking about removing material that has been recently added while this conflict is happening? If so, i apologize because that is not the intention. Rather, and like i said, Any user could add it. But it seems A455bcd9 is doing it while this is happening in the hopes of making me look guilty since it seems i am deleting all information being added. He or any user couldve added this before or even now when the reverting conflict is not happening.

He has been engaged in SEALIONING (Please check Wiki for definition WP:Sealioning). This is what i feel after discussing with him for the longest time.

And in regards to my talk page with EW warnings, if you investigate them closely, i was not in the wrong. Rather i challenged POV pushing narratives like i was doing here, because there is alot of that happening on WP.. and unfortunately, sometimes, there is strong connections between certain users in which the 3rd user like me gets the short end of the stick. This is an ongoing phenomenon. I only implement whats truthful and whats right.. Just like “Levantine Arabic is indigenous to Arab countries and communities within the Levant”. Or is any alleged linguist taking issue with this statement? POV pushing and disregard for truth would want this statement removed, it seems. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@User:WatanWatan2020, WP:CONSENSUS does not require either unanimity or the original dissenter (you) to agree. It requires a broad agreement among multiple editors, which the other editors reached. At this point, you are wrong. I have reverted to the agreed-upon text which was placed in the article. If you continue to fight against consensus, then it is YOU and not any other editor here, who will be reported for edit warring against consensus. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks @TaivoLinguist. FYI kwami has already reported WatanWatan2020 here. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Here it is, my suspicions were right. a discussion between Kwami and A455bcd9 in which it was discussed what would be the next step against me:

“Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can”

Are the rest of you in on it as well? That was lodged into the complaint.

And here is an excerpt from WP: Consensus : “ Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority.”

What you claimed just contradicted this statement. It is easy to identify lies when the obvious is on display. No consensus has been reached as you are falsely claiming and i will lodge into the report any of you who continue in this pre-meditated effort.

WatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It is amazing. I have explained to you in simple language a simple thing that is wrong with your package of edits that comes with every revert. It didn't take me even 10 minutes to see it. And tt's not about the POV parts. You even say yourself that you do not intend to add all this, but just want to mechanically revert out of what you consider formal reasons. Obviously, you have lost control over what you actually want to add and the result of your edits, just in order to display strength. That's not good. –Austronesier (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Didnt i mention to you where you or anyone else can go ahead and change it?? especially since you take so much issue with it?? I already told you multiple times that i am fine with you changing it and even asked you if i should change it to “other ethnic groups” to which you gave no response.

a455bcd9 keeps doing it during this conflict to make me seem like im deleting all contributions to make me look guilty. He is engaging in “Sealioning” this whole time. Check what the definition is on WP:Sealioning and then come back here and explain it so i know that you read it, since it seems like you and the other dont even bother to read even the core discussion, rather, just here to take sides with an individual who is engaging in sealioning. Youre just falling for his nice guy acting.

So for the third time i ask you, should i change it to “other ethnic groups” with a link or no?? WatanWatan2020 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you have unilaterally completely removed information about the Levantine Arabic-speaking Circassians. Any consensus for that? –Austronesier (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As discussed with kwami, I created a new section Levantine_Arabic.
 * It's especially relevant in the case of Levantine (compared to say "having to name all the ethnic groups speaking English in Britain or the US") as there are marked differences along sectarian lines and most (if not all) academic sources and teaching material on Levantine present at least some of them, such as the Druze pronunciation of /q/.
 * Because this section is now quite developed and nuanced, I simplified the "Ethnicity" field in the infobox and moved the sentence "Levantine Arabic is also spoken as a first or second language by other ethnic groups in the region" (that Esmost wanted to keep) from the summary to this field. I hope everybody will be satisfied with these changes.
 * A455bcd9 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier. Youre not answering the question i have asked you 3 times already. If you would mention how i shoudve changed it, i wouldve that way. But youre not here to help it seems.

Although, A455bcd9 has now made edits yet again while this issue is not resolved, especially as there is a complaint lodged at ANI.

What i did was compromise and allow #4 to to be implemented now. Even though there is no consensus on this point. This means i have now compromised on 8 of 9 points he has proposed. All the descriptive information that was requested to be added is in the article now. So i am not mechanically reverting it all back. I have only included the point in which there is no consensus on, while compromising on one of the two. That one is in there now. 07:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs)

Sorry that I might have been late. I think that the proposed version in the table is better, doing away with generalizations about the identity of the speakers. I see from the current version in the table that it assumed native speakers are called Arabs while others are "ethnic" minorities. That statement is problematic. By referring to the table, I mean the last table. Mahmudmasri (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your feedback.
 * I don't understand which "current version in the table" you are referring to.
 * The current version of the article (not the above tables) does not mention the identity of speakers in the summary. It is mentioned in the "Ethnicity" field of the infobox template: "Ethnicity: Primarily Arabs. Also used as a first or second language by some other ethnic groups in the region." Is there anything wrong with this statement? The source uses the word "ethnic" as well, for instance: "The most important ethnic and linguistic minority group in Lebanon is the Armenian community, who account for 6% of the population. The Armenians are generally bilingual in Armenian and Arabic." A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I meant that table. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was requested to participate in this discussion as a previous editor of the page. I'm also a speaker of Levantine Arabic, while not being an ethnic Arab (which is not that uncommon in the Levant, as many non Arabs do speak Arabic, mostly Levantine dialect). I do hence agree with point 2d. Regarding point 4d - to the best of my knowledge, Arabic is an official language in Israel, along Hebrew; whereas English is not official but has a special status (due to issues related to independence from British Mandate in 1948). Point #10 - is mostly correct about Arab minorities in Israel and Turkey, but there are also non-Arab speakers of the dialect in significant numbers - there are about 1 million non-Arab Israelis speaking Arabic (mostly Levantine) and Turkey is probably similar.GreyShark (dibra) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sprachbund
Even in the middle of the fiercest mortar shelling, one thing in the opening sentence of the lede has been uncontested: "Sprachbund" has a wikilink, and is cited from Al-Jallad (2012). Our readers who don't know what a sprachbund is can click on the wikilink, but when they return to this page, they will find this statement to be non-sequitur because it is nowhere elaborated in the main text. Is it intended to mean that Levantine Arabic is a typological convergence area of Arabic varieties that not necessarily belong to the same genealogical subgroup of Arabic? If so, there should be some more explaining text somewhere, otherwise it's just mimicking Al-Jallad's terminology who btw also does not say more about the traditional Arabic groupings than this: "...these groupings are better conceived of as Sprachbunde rather than branches on a dendritic model of development from PAr [=Proto-Arabic]. (Al-Jallad 2012:211)".
 * Levantine Arabic [...] is a sprachbund of vernacular Arabic [...].

I think the easiest thing to do is just to reduce WP:JARGON. What about: –Austronesier (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Levantine Arabic [...] is a group of vernacular Arabic varieties [...].


 * I thought about the same thing earlier but didn't want to bring up yet another issue... Now that things are more quiet it's a good time to discuss this point.
 * I agree with you on the problem. By the way how did you get Al-Jallad (2012)? I tried on here but got: "The requested document was not found"
 * Sources describe Levantine Arabic as a "dialect" (Al-Masri 2015), a "language" (Cowell 1964), a "continuum of dialects" (Aldrich 2017), a "dialect bundle" (Brustad & Zuniga 2019), a "group" of "dialects" (Lentin 2018), "dialects" (Al-Wer 2008 & Versteegh 2014 but Versteegh adds that "it is fair to say that the linguistic distance between the dialects is as large as that between the Germanic languages and the Romance languages, including Romanian, if not larger.").
 * So your proposition seems perfect. I suggest these links: "Levantine Arabic [...] is a group of vernacular Arabic varieties [...]." (maybe also Dialect continuum on "group" or "group of"?) A455bcd9 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything but "sprachbund". It bothered me earlier as well, but you were right to let the dust settle before addressing it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, "subgroup of varieties" would be better because "variety" is a bit ambiguous between "dialects", "subdialects", and "languages". It works better because linguists can quibble between whether North L. and South L. are separate languages or divergent dialects.  And since Glottolog includes Cypriot with NL & SL languages in a subgroup, then that works.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "subgroup" vs. uncommited "group", but at least we're in good company (Glottolog). Let's make it . I don't want to link to vernacular, because linking to a page which opens with tag-bomb is little helpful when the reader actually only needs a dictionary definition. –Austronesier (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ A455bcd9 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, after all the above discussions about Levantine also being used by non-Arabs, the following points in the lede could also be improved:
 * "It is also spoken by members of the Arab diaspora coming from this region" => "It is also spoken among diasporic communities from this region" (something less pedant than "diasporic" would be better though)
 * "Levantine is used by Arabs for daily spoken use in" => "Levantine is used for daily spoken use in"
 * What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Guys, why all those disputes? Levantine Arabic is sometimes considered just one dialect or just two very similar dialects. Having variations of pronunciation, like the /q/ sound doesn't make them different dialects! It sounds relatively similar, but those bloated expressions give the wrong impression that it's even wider than northern and southern Egyptian dialects, as an example! I often find it hard to tell the difference of which Levantine variety I hear. Sprachnund is definitely not the case! And claiming that it's spoken by Arabs is rather an inflammatory statement. There are many Lebanese, for example who definitely don't identify as Arabs, but yet not of ethnic minorities. Sprachbund is when two unrelated languages meet and start influencing each other, a classical example is Akkadian and Sumerian. Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Having variations of pronunciation makes them different dialects. This is what dialectology is about :)
 * 2. claiming that it's spoken by Arabs is rather an inflammatory statement: I'm utterly confused. There are Arabs who speak Levantine Arabic, so I heard. If you mean "exclusively spoken": nobody says so here.
 * 3. Forming a sprachbund does not exclude genealogical relationship. See Balkan sprachbund; all its members are Indo-European languages, thus related to each other. –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * An insignificant minor pronunciation variation is a dialect if you like. Redefine linguistic terminology as you wish, but that is quite irrelevant to this article. By the way, what is your relation to modern contemporary dialects of Arabic? How familiar is the topic to you? Do you speak one of them? Please, don't act like a clueless jugmental outsider! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:Mahmudmasri, as professional linguists, we understand the science and terminology of language better than most native speakers, who operate from unscientific impressions without precision. The best linguistic sources separate North Levantine and South Levantine into separate languages, not "dialects", which is colloquial and imprecise terminology driven as much by political desire as it is by any linguistic precision.  Please don't assume that Austronesier and I don't understand the problem because we are not native speakers.  We are trained linguists and we usually understand the problems of distinguishing language from dialect far better than the majority of native speakers.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether genealogically related or not, the fundamental definition of sprachbund is a region where the languages share common features that are not the result of genetic descent from a common ancestor. Thus, the Iberian peninsula isn't a sprachbund, but the Balkans are.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like we all agree that:
 * "sprachbund" shouldn't be used,
 * Levantine Arabic is a group of (very similar and mutually intelligible) dialects,
 * It's not spoken only by people who are (or consider themselves) Arabs and therefore "by Arabs" should be removed.
 * Do I understand well or am I mistaken? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:A455bcd9, you are correct. I just wandered off the path for a bit (I got distracted by the word "sprachbund" again).  Yes, most inhabitants of the Levantine countries (barring Israel) speak Levantine Arabic as a first language, so just saying "majority language in X, Y, and Z and minority language in Israel should get past that pesky "Arab" label.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And you don't need to say "very similar and mutually intelligible". "Mutually intelligible" automatically implies "very similar", so "mutually intelligible dialects" is sufficient.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Taivo. So, to sum up, what about the following modifications?
 * "[...] Levantine, is a subgroup of vernacular Arabic varieties" => "Levantine, is a subgroup of mutually intelligible vernacular Arabic varieties [...]" (sources to add: Aldrich 2017, p. ii & Kwaik 2018)
 * "[...] Levantine is used by Arabs for daily spoken use in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria" => "Levantine is the majority language used for daily spoken use in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria [...]" (no source to add) A455bcd9 (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good and logically covers speakers regardless of their ethnicity. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph is about diglossia, not (again) about who speaks Levantine and where it is spoken. I have adjusted the text accordingly. –Austronesier (talk)
 * Thanks for implementing the changes Austronesier. I'm not a big fan of this change as it fails to mention that, although Levantine is the majority language in these countries, it is not the official one. This paradox (for most [Western?] readers I think, who may consider that in each country "official language = most spoken native language = most spoken language") is worth mentioning. And the first paragraph only mentions where Levantine is historically spoken but doesn't say anything about its majority/minority status. Alternative: "In the frame of the general diglossia status of the Arab world, although Levantine is the majority language in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, it is used predominantly as a spoken vernacular in daily communication, whereas most of the written and official documents and media in these countries use Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), a form of literary Arabic that is only acquired through formal education and does not function as a native language." What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence begins with talking about diglossia, so anything that follows serves as a concrete explanation what this actually means (if all our readers knew what diglossia is, we could actually drop all of it and just mention the literary counterpart (MSA) and that's it). So talking about Levantine being the majority language should appear outside of the diglossia statement. It's a different thing. –Austronesier (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, would that work? "Levantine is the majority language in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, but it is used predominantly as a spoken vernacular in daily communication, as, in the frame of the general diglossia status of the Arab world, most of the written and official documents and media in these countries use Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), a form of literary Arabic that is only acquired through formal education and does not function as a native language." A455bcd9 (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about: "Levantine is the majority language in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, but in the frame of the general diglossia status of the Arab world, it is predominantly used as a spoken vernacular in daily communication, whereas most of the written and official documents and media in these countries use Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), a form of literary Arabic that is only acquired through formal education and does not function as a native language." So first say there's diglossia (with wikilink), then explain what it is. –Austronesier (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ✅! A455bcd9 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, A455bcd9. We are finally leaving the debate with a constructive result. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem with transliteration
The universal declaration of human rights is not transliterated correctly. The Arabic version reads:

يولد جميع الناس أحراراً ومتساوين في الكرامة والحقوق. وهم قد وهبوا العقل والوجدان وعليهم أن يعاملوا بعضهم بعضاً بروح الإخاء.

whereas the Latin transliteration reads:

Yūladu jamī'u n-nāsi aḥrāran mutasāwīna fī l-karāmati wa-l-ḥuqūq. Wa-qad wuhibū 'aqlan wa-ḍamīran wa-'alayhim an yu'āmila ba'ḍuhum ba'ḍan bi-rūḥi l-ikhā'

I don't know the Arabic implied vowels, so could a native speaker please correct this? Havoc219 (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * It's what the source says. Do you have another source for the romanization of the UDHR in MSA? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I checked the source, which is Omniglot. It turns out that the transliteration is correct, but the Arabic text in this article is not the same as the Arabic text in Omniglot. I propose we replace the MSA text in this article with the MSA text on Omniglot.Havoc219 (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * As the MSA text comes from the United Nations's website, I think we should keep it: https://www.un.org/ar/universal-declaration-human-rights/
 * In that case, we have to find the correct transliteration if the one on Omniglot is wrong. A455bcd9 (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Replacement of ’ by '
Hi,

replaced all ’ by '. In English sentences, I'm okay with this edit. But in Arabic romanizations I'm not sure. The romanization of Arabic often uses ʼ or ʾ or ˈ for ء ‎(hamzah ʔ) and ʻ or ʿ or ʽ or ` for ع (ʻayn ʕ). Both could be replaced by ', and yet here they convey a different meaning. So I think it's important to distinguish them and to use the same characters as the sources. Elihay seems to use ʼ and Liddicoat ʻ. (I don't have Assimil with me).

Unfortunately, as explained in the note on that article: "Neither standard defines which code point to use for hamzah and ʻayn. Appropriate Unicode points would be modifier letter apostrophe ⟨ʼ⟩ and modifier letter turned comma ⟨ʻ⟩ (for the UNGEGN and BGN/PCGN) or modifier letter reversed comma ⟨ʽ⟩ (for the Wehr and Survey of Egypt System (SES)), all of which Unicode defines as letters. Often right and left single quotation marks ⟨’⟩, ⟨‘⟩ are used instead, but Unicode defines those as punctuation marks, and they can cause compatibility issues. The glottal stop (hamzah) in these romanizations isn't written word-initially."

I recommend reverting the edit on Arabic romanizations. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can use hamza and ayin to ensure a proper display of transliterated text, and also to make sure these symbols will no be changed in spell-check edits. –Austronesier (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:APOSTROPHE applies. Surely there are special characters within unicode somewhere that are the proper characters to use in romanizations; use those characters rather than misuse apostrophes (of either flavor).  I would have thought that somewhere in one or more of the language wiki-projects, this topic would have been discussed and codified in a topic-specific style guide.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know these really useful templates! I've just modified the article to use them. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know these really useful templates! I've just modified the article to use them. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing page number
The source of the first paragraph of the "History" section is Al-Jallad, Ahmad (2012). Ancient Levantine Arabic: A Reconstruction Based on the Earliest Sources and the Modern Dialects. ProQuest LLC. ISBN 978-1-267-44507-0. but there's no page number.

I didn't manage to get access to the source but based on a discussion above about "Sprachbund" I think that you had it. Could you—or anyone else with access to this source—please check the citation or send it to me so that I can do so? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * –Austronesier (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking
I recently tagged this page for over-enthusiastic linking, after an attempt to remove some links to common terms per MOS:OL was reverted. Since then a good number of excess links have been removed (thank you!), along with the tag. However, the table in the Speakers by country section still contained inappropriate links (to, for example, "United States"). These were caused by flag templates, which added not only inappropriate links but annoying little coloured flags as well. I've again removed them, in the hope that that might be acceptable. If there's really editor consensus for the silly little flags, would someone kindly find a way of re-adding them without linking the country names? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted on your talk page and moved here:
 * "Hi,
 * You removed flag icons in this list. However I understand from MOS:FLAG that the use of the model "flag" is allowed in lists and tables. Did I misunderstand something?" A455bcd9 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you did, – I explained above that the flag template not only adds the annoying little coloured flags, but also wikilinks the names of major countries, which MOS:OL specifically says should not be linked. I also explained this when I added the 'overlinked' maintenance tag to the page, which you later removed without having dealt with that problem. For what little it is worth, my own opinion is that the little coloured flags serve no useful or informative purpose, and distract attention from the content of what seems otherwise to be a very good article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes MOS:OL says that major countries shouldn't be linked, that's why I removed these links (except for that table) and then removed the 'overlinked' maintenance tag. MOS:FLAG says that the flag template can be used in lists and tables (or at least that's what I understood). And I think that directions for a specific situation supersedes more general directions. So I thought that MOS:FLAG would supersede MOS:OL. These "silly little flags" are also used in so many featured articles (e.g., Battle of Dunbar (1650), Battle of Savo Island, 68th New York Infantry Regiment, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), 1896 Summer Olympics, 1952 Winter Olympics, 1956 Winter Olympics, 1982 Formula One World Championship, Calgary Hitmen, 1985 Tour de France, 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final, Second Test, 1948 Ashes series) and so many Featured lists (e.g., List of countries without armed forces, Member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Member states of the United Nations) that I assumed their use was "okay". Am I wrong? (also, if the use of these flags is that "silly", "inappropriate", "annoying", useless, and distracting, I'm surprised that no one mentioned that before despite two peer reviews, one good article review, one FAC, one DYK review, and one TFA review) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes,, the damned flag template is much (ab)used in military and sporting articles. But this page is neither – there's no element of national rivalry between the countries listed because of this Arabic dialect (of course there may be rivalries for other reasons). There's no reason to emphasise the nationhood of the areas that carry those various names in this context. Anyway, as above, if a clear consensus develops on this page for the little flags then I won't oppose that; please just make sure that the country names are not wikilinked – that's something we don't do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But isn't the use of the flag template allowed in lists and tables per MOS:FLAG? A455bcd9 (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't want the country name linked then use "flagicon" instead. No big deal. For the US it would be "🇺🇸 United States". If you don't even want a mouseover then use the flagg template such as ". That should help with Justlettersandnumbers concerns of overlinking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s beter to use flagg. With that template you can taylor the functionality of the icon to your wishes.Tvx1 11:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If flag is inappropriate to use in tables, what's its appropriate use then? Also, @Justlettersandnumbers, is your main concern with the use of the flags or the fact that the countries are linked (or both)? Because to me, it sounds like you have a problem with the flag template itself, not with its implementation in this specific article. Nehme1499 11:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Tvx1 for the suggestion. I used flagg (more precisely, a variant with less verbose: flag+link) to display the flag icon and link to Languages of country (as suggested by kwami in an earlier discussion here). I think this respects the MOS. Please let me know if I made any mistake. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this solution is a good compromise. Nehme1499 10:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd waste of time, and I'll un-watch this page in a moment. However:, by trying to link to those Languages of [country] articles, you've again linked to the country articles for Jordan and several others. You've also introduced deceptive WP:EGG links in both the table and the infobox – if we see a blue link to Syria, the expectation is that it will lead to an article on that topic, not some related page. , the answer is both (once we have the country name in plain text, what possible purpose can the flag have? to help people who can't read to read the article?), but as I've said above, if there's consensus here to keep the silly little flags then so be it. But for pity's sake unlink the country names. Thanks, over and out, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Linking "Syria" to Languages of Syria when this article is about a language is hardly an WP:EASTEREGG. It quite makes sense. –Austronesier (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Speaking Lebanese?
The article currently claims, "Most Lebanese in Israel speak Lebanese ...." However, "Lebanese" is not the name of a language, nor does this article clearly identify it as a synonym for Levantine Arabic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, that whole sentence was odd. First the 'Lebanese' language statement and the unrelated discussion about Lebanese ethnic self-identification. Removed. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in "Naming and classification": "Lebanese literary figure Said Akl led a movement to recognize the "Lebanese language" as a distinct prestigious language instead of MSA." Today, many Lebanese people still consider that Lebanese Arabic is a language of its own rather than a dialect of (Levantine) Arabic. See for instance: No, Levantine is not a “dialect of” Arabic by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. As Lebanese Arabic is already linked above, we didn't link it per WP:OVERLINK. I added "Arabic" after "Lebanese" to make it clear. Please note that "in Palestinian" and "in Lebanese" are used elsewhere to refer to "the Palestinian [resp. Lebanese] dialect of Levantine Arabic". Let me know if it's not clear.
 * @Iskandar323: I reverted your edit. Not only did you remove parts about Lebanese people in Israel but also mentions about Levantine Arabic-speaking Jews, for no reason. Also, the self-identification of Lebanese-Arabic speakers is relevant and mentioned in RS because this is a group of Levantine Arabic speakers who do not consider themselves Arabs and this paragraph is about non-Arabs who speak Levantine. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the "Naming and classification" section clearly says: "The term "Levantine Arabic" is not indigenous and, according to linguists Kristen Brustad and Emilie Zuniga, "it is likely that many speakers would resist the grouping on the basis that the rich phonological, morphological and lexical variation within the Levant carries important social meanings and distinctions." Levantine speakers often call their language ‏العامية‎ al-ʿāmmiyya, 'slang', 'dialect, or 'colloquial' ( lit.  'the language of common people'), to contrast it to Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Classical Arabic (‏الفصحى‎ al-fuṣḥā, lit.  'the eloquent'). They also call their spoken language ‏عربي‎ ʿarabiyy, 'Arabic'. Alternatively, they identify their language by the name of their country." A455bcd9 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, ʿāmmiyya is the term used across the Middle East for spoken Arabic as opposed to formal written, and sometimes spoken in the news, fuṣḥā. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @A455bcd9: The main statement here, that 'most Lebanese people in Israel speak Lebanese Arabic' is entirely unsourced, and it really shouldn't be restored (also with the maintenance tag removed) without resolving this. So we have, in the first instance, WP:OR, then blended into a segue into some minutiae of ethnic self-identification that is wildly off-topic, and here again, I am not sure the sourcing stands up. For instance, the source on Lebanese Jews notes: "“But (Lebanese Jews) have tenderness for Palestinians, because somewhere they feel they are Arabs.”" Somewhat at odds with the bit about not identifying as Arabs - it's a slapdash, whizzed-over mess. These issues really shouldn't have been able to wheedle their way into a featured article. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And honestly, this article shouldn't be delving into ethnic identity on such a superficial level. Ethnicity is the type of topic that should be covered either properly, in depth, or not at all ... and certainly not rattled out in poorly sourced statements. For instance, the open-access source on the 'Phoenician' note refers specifically and only to 'SLA veterans'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The expression "Lebanese in Israel" does not include Lebanese Jews. I made it clearer by adding "Christian and Muslim" before.
 * The source is: "Shachmon, Ori; Mack, Merav (2019). "The Lebanese in Israel – Language, Religion and Identity". Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Harrassowitz Verlag. 169 (2): 343–366. doi:10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.169.2.0343. JSTOR 10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.169.2.0343. S2CID 211647029."
 * Abstract: "While native speakers of Arabic, the SLA's children attend Hebrew-speaking schools and are not taught to read and write in Arabic."
 * Full text: "All former SLA soldiers speak Lebanese Arabic as their mother tongue. Having arrived in Israel in their twenties, thirties or forties, they are graduates of the Lebanese school system, whether public or missionary. They have full command of written Arabic, and many know French as well. In Israel, however, their majority lives, studies and works almost exclusively in Hebrew-speaking environments, and barely comes into contact with the local Arab population. Thus, interaction between the Lebanese and Palestinian dialects is minimal, and the exposure of SLAs to local Arabic is limited, though not altogether nonexistent.7 Like many Lebanese in Lebanon, the SLAs in Israel spice up their spoken Lebanese dialect with French words, such as bonžūr (French “bonjour”) and its Arabicized “dual” response bonžurayn; kadoyēt is used for “gifts” (the Arabic plural of French cadeau), and so on. Moreover, the Lebanese dialect enjoys great prestige in their view, and some react negatively when addressed in Palestinian Arabic."
 * Regarding the self-identification: "In the case of the Maronites, the quest for identity by no means began with their relocation to Israel. It already existed in Lebanon, where, to this day, some communities distinguish themselves from their Arab surrounding by referring to themselves as descendants of the ancient Phoenicians (Kaufman 2001; Kraidy 2005, pp. 119–120). The roots of this claim originated in the 19 th century, when certain communities in the Ottoman Empire sought their origins and self-definition. But over the years, and after nearly two centuries of wars between the different religious communities in Lebanon, the Phoenician identity has become a Christian symbol – especially for the Maronites – that separates them from the Arab others. For similar reasons, they refer to their language as “Lebanese” (Ar. lubnānī, or colloquial lǝbnēni) and not “Arabic” (Kaufman 2014, p. 133).31 In this context it is important to note, that some of the Israeli Maronites are also uncomfortable with their supposed Arabness, and prefer to dissociate themselves from the local Muslim population by defining themselves as Aramaics and Israelis.32 Yet, unlike many other Maronites in Israel, the SLAs have not adopted an Aramaic identity, and seem to adhere more to the Phoenician one, which they conceive as “pan-Lebanese”, i. e. not only Christian Lebanese"
 * The other source is Haaretz: "It is easy to see why tensions have run high between Lebanese Israelis and Arab Israelis over the years. Most Arab Israelis regard the SLA veterans as war criminals who perpetrated unspeakable –and well documented – acts of torture on Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners. SLA veterans, meanwhile, reject the suggestion that they are “Arab,” claiming instead to be “Phoenicians” from Lebanon. Indeed, they fought hard with Israel’s Interior Ministry to be registered as “Lebanese,” not “Arab.”" A455bcd9 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But again, this is not an article about identity, or about Arabs/non-Arabs, or Arab-ness in generally, which is a highly fluid, ethnolinguistic category. The article is currently treating the Lebanese as somehow exceptional, when they are not. The article could also go into detail, at length, into whether Circassians or Druze consider themselves 'Arabic' or not, et cetera et cetera ... ad absurdum. Is the opening statement referring to 'most' Lebanese people in Israel ... even sourced? There certainly is not one, clear inline source for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The title of the article used as the source is "The Lebanese in Israel – Language, Religion and Identity". The article says: "In what follows, we use the term SLA/SLAs to refer to this Lebanese community in Israel." So "SLAs" is synonym with "Lebanese in Israel". And then the source says "All former SLA soldiers speak Lebanese Arabic as their mother tongue" and "Most of the children, of course, understand spoken Lebanese Arabic, and may also use it actively, yet it is noteworthy that in Haifa and Safed we met families whose children no longer speak Arabic at all, or use it poorly and hesitantly. Clearly, the great majority of the second generation, even if they understand and speak Arabic, are unable to read and write it, unless they learnt Arabic at school or in some other formal framework."
 * So the source says that all first generation Lebanese in Israel speak Lebanese Arabic and that "Most of the children"/"the great majority of the second generation" understand and speak it as well.
 * So yes, the opening statement is sourced.
 * Regarding identity, the mention is I think needed in a paragraph about ethnic groups which opens with "Levantine is primarily spoken by Arabs. It is also spoken as a first or second language by several ethnic minorities." The self-identification of Lebanese in Israel could be a footnote if you think undue weight is given to this piece of information. A455bcd9 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove General Arabic Dialects Map
I hope you all are well. Today (2 September) I removed the file Arabic_Dialects.svg from this article. Shortly thereafter, User:A455bcd9 reverted my edit, stating the source was acceptable, implicitly because it had been present & addressed in a review for Featured Article status: Featured article candidates/Levantine Arabic/archive1. (Congratulations, by the way, to all the editors who worked on passing that review. I've never been part of that process.) I'm writing this comment to make the case for removal of that map. I'll address the review first:


 * 1) My understanding is that when an article is Featured, this does not canonise its contents. They are exemplary articles, but that does not mean that they may not contain mistakes. The fact that an article passed review does not immunise its contents from later editing.
 * 2) In the present case, I believe a mistake has been made: The map was recognised in the review as not citing its sources. It was later realised that Genevieve Schmitt, in the chapter "Relevance of Arabic Dialects: A Brief Discussion" in Handbook of the Changing World Language Map (Springer, 2020: 1383–1398) employs this map. It was then suggested that this might retroactively make the map sourced. I believe that this is a fairly clear case of WP:CIRCULAR; with regard to circular sourcing, our Verifiability policy says: 'Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.' That is not the case here. (Minor complication: In the form in which User:buidhe has modified the file's metadata at Wikimedia Commons, it's a very clear backwards reference—that is, there it's not circular: It's just unreferenced for Wikipedia's standards. The argument in the featured article review which takes this later usage as a post hoc consecration is a circular reference. There are two more minor complexities that I'll mention now—they're less important, but could come up in further discussion: First, the version that Schmitt uses matches the final 2013 version of this map. The map has been edited since. Second, Schmitt actually does not explicitly cite this map: The version she uses is pixel-for-pixel identical at the same size, but she describes the source simply as 'Open Source'. For another map in the same chapter that she herself produced, she identified the source as 'Author'.)
 * 3) We can trace much of the history of the production of this map at Wikimedia Commons. As best I can tell, there is only one case in which an editor provided the sources for their edits. Over a period of more than ten years, most edits seem to come from personal knowledge. The editor who does provide the sources is Wikimedia Commons user Moester101, in this comment from 2012. Note that Wikimedia Commons & Wikipedia have different criteria for their contents: Wikimedia Commons hosts all kinds of unsourced stuff. But these edits don't pass muster for Wikipedia's criteria. I'm going to give a couple of examples. I know this comment is long, but I think the case is complicated, & I want people to understand why this matters:
 * 4) * Moester101 adds a dialect of "Somali Arabic" based on Ethnologue. This seems to be in part a misunderstanding, in part some unwarranted conclusions. Ethnologue states that Arabic is a "Statutory national language" based on the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter. (This is a little outdated: Somalia has since adopted a provisional constitution in which Arabic has been demoted to the status of "second language," but Ethnologue is a reliable source, so their error isn't a Wikipedia problem, per se.) Ethnologue's entry for Somalia does not identify "Standard Arabic" (فصحى) as any Somali's first language. It identifies Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic as the native language of 17,000 Yemeni immigrants. For comparison, this is fewer Arabic speakers than there are in Dearborn, Michigan, & a smaller percentage of the population. Ethnologue's map for Somalia shows Somali as the language spoken for almost the entirety of the country, with a very small pocket of Mushungulu speakers near Kismayo & a small pocket of Swahili speakers on the coastal border with Kenya. Ethnologue does not list a dialect of Somali Arabic, nor does any specialist source. This is a faulty conclusion which has led to a major error in the map.
 * 5) * Moester101 places Nubi on the border between Egypt & the Sudan. Nubi is a creole spoken in Uganda & Kenya. The editor doesn't actually explain the placement, but it seems likely that they confused Ki-Nubi with the Nilo-Saharan Nubian languages, a couple of which are spoken in this region, but which are completely unrelated to Arabic. This places Nubi in the wrong countries—in countries that don't even border the place where it's actually spoken. Moester101 did not make this error, but another editor seems to have used similar reasoning extending "Badawi" from the Sinai down into the Sudan. The specialist sources & Ethnologue both identify this dialect as being spoken along a very limited range of Egypt's Red Sea coast. An editor seems to have confused this dialect with the Cushitic Beja language, the autonym for which is Bidhaawyeet. Beja is spoken in the areas in question, but it is not a dialect of Arabic, & the sources do not identify it as such.
 * 6) * Finally, a pervasive variety of edit is based on WP:ORIGINAL research: In multiple cases, the editor explains that they have looked at an area in question in Google Maps, seen that there is no human development there, & thus decided that Arabic was not spoken in the area. They've thus removed it from the map. In these cases—in many different cases—the editor may be right, but the edit either conflicts with the source, or is original research without any source. These edits are numerous. While most dialects are—as best I can tell—in pretty much the right place, relatively few of the specific dialect borders are actually justified by reliable sources.

So: I think this map should be removed. Ideally, a better map, based on reliable sources, would take its place, but I think that will take time.

I know that this is a long comment. I apologise. There are multiple issues involved. In my original edit comment, I noted that my change reflected a proposal at Talk:Arabic. There's more there, tho you'll likely find it repetitive at this point. That discussion also led to a lengthy conversation at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, tho I would note that the circularity issues are somewhat different. (I do not think that the express mention of a backwards copy at Wikimedia Commons creates a circularity issue by itself. Using the backwards copy as a source produces a circularity issue.) Take care. Pathawi (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A455bcd9 explained their reversal of my edit at Talk:Arabic, where this conversation has already been happening. It would probably be best to continue the conversation there, to avoid forking. My apologies for creating confusion. Pathawi (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility of Levantine Arabic and MSA
There is a claim in the article that Levantine and MSA are not mutually intelligible. In the introduction no source is included. In the section Levantine Arabic there's the following sentence:

"Levantine and MSA are mutually unintelligible and differ in their phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax. "

I've checked these sources. Cowell, Liddicoat, and Versteegh make no such claims in the specified pages. The closest claim is made by Al-Sharkawi:

"While children grow up speaking one of the aforementioned varieties as a native tongue, nobody was ever born speaking Classical Arabic. In addition, the structural differences between dialects and Classical Arabic are both numerous and in all levels of linguistic analysis. Major differences in gender, case and agreement set Classical Arabic apart from the dialects and make mutual intelligibility less feasible" (Al-Sharkawi, p. xvi)

That claim is not equivalent to "they are not mutually intelligible", and is not based on any studies of mutual intelligibility. High surv (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the statement that differences "make mutual intelligibility less feasible" is a far cry from "mutually unintelligible". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * forgot to mention as well that Schmitt also makes no claims about mutual intelligibility.
 * These five sources are good for the second part of the sentence, not the first. High surv (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MSA and Levantine have about 50% of words in common (see article for sources). That's less than French and English (as Latin and Greek words in English also exist in French). Ethnologue gives 37% lexical similarity between North Levantine and MSA, which is less than between English and German (60%). This should be enough to discard any claim of mutual intelligibility. Unfortunately, this is original research :) So going back to the sources:
 * The (now reverted) version saying that "Levantine and MSA are mutually unintelligible" was based on this source: Levantine colloquial Arabic is so different from the Modern Standard Arabic that the two varieties are not mutually intelligible. However, during the Featured article review, this source was deemed not to be of a high enough quality (even though the author is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics & Foreign Languages at Yasouj University) and was discarded, but we didn't change the sentence. According to the remaining sources:
 * Cowell: The differences between Colloquial and "Classical" Arabic make it necessary, for present purposes at least, to treat them as different languages. The grammatical structure of Syrian Colloquial Arabic is autonomous, and must be described in its own right [...].
 * Liddicoat: just a note on grammar, not super relevant
 * Schmidt: Some Levantine speakers may argue that their language is closer to MSA than other dialects, but the fact remains that their language varies significantly from Modern Standard Arabic.
 * Versteegh lists all the main differences between colloquial varieties and Standard Arabic, with a focus on Syrian Arabic: Before we go into the theories that have been advanced for the present-day situation of Arabic, we shall first survey the common features that characterise the dialects vis-à-vis the Classical language. No single dialect exhibits all of these features, but they may be regarded as a common denominator of the structure of dialects in the Arab world. Generally speaking, these features are much more frequent in the sedentary dialects, for which Syrian Arabic has been used here in most examples, whereas the Bedouin dialects tend to be more conservative (cf. below, Chapter 10). Before that he says: Nowadays, Moroccans and Iraqis, each speaking their own dialect, would find it extremely difficult to understand each other, and it is fair to say that the linguistic distance between the dialects is as large as that between the Germanic languages and the Romance languages, including Romanian, if not larger.
 * I also looked for newer sources and I found the following:
 * This recent article also lists the various differences between Levantine and MSA.
 * This source says p. 24: Despite being considered the same language, the Proper Arabic and many spoken dialects are not mutually intelligible, but I'm afraid it's a high-quality source for this featured article.
 * Resources and Applications for Dialectal Arabic: the Case of Levantine is a great source and says: MSA is so different from the colloquial dialects that they are in some cases not mutually intelligible. The differences are clearly evident in all linguistic aspects: pronunciation, phonology, morphology, lexicon, syntax and semantics. However, the degree in which the individual dialects differ with respect to these aspects has not been yet quantitatively measured. In this paper, we focus on measuring the lexical distance between MSA and Arabic dialects using natural language processing techniques, tools and text corpora. [...] However, MSA and DA have a number of differences that make it difficult for one to apply state of the art MSA natural language processing tools to DA. Previous attempts to do so have resulted in very low performance due to the significant difference between the varieties. Habash and Rambow report that over one third of Levantine verbs cannot be analysed using an MSA morphological analyser[21]. The degree of variation between MSA and dialectal Arabic depends on the specific dialect of Arabic. MSA and dialectal Arabic differ to a different degree phonologically, orthographically, morphologically, syntactically, lexically and semantically [22, 23]. The author then concludes that: Most of the measurements used indicate that the Levantine dialects are in general the closet to MSA, while the North African dialects the farthest. However, despite being the closest, the "Percentage of vocabulary overlapping" (Table 9.8) between MSA and Levantine is 19% at most, way too low to allow for mutual intelligibility.
 * So I don't see how they could be mutually intelligible. So they're mutually unintelligible. And I suggest reverting to the original version. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two other sources concluding on mutual unintelligibility: According to Dell Hymes: diglossia is "coexistence in the same community of mutually unintelligible codes" and Arabic is characterized by diglossia (source 1, source 2).
 * Similarly, this book (in Italian) describes in the introduction MSA and Levantine as not mutually intelligible, like Latin and modern Italian dialects. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a small comment: as a (diaspora) speaker of Lebanese Arabic who has never studied MSA, I can confirm that the two are not mutually intelligible. The comparisons raised above by A455bcd9 (English–German, Italian–Romance languages, among others) are accurate. I can maybe sort of understand some words, but I wouldn't be able to strike up a conversation with someone speaking to me in MSA. Anyway, this is just my personal experience, valid sources (which A455bcd9 seems to have provided anyway) are obviously necessary. Nehme1499 19:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt or question that Levantine and MSA are different. What I was doubting was the claim on mutual intelligibility, which is difficult to establish in a situation of diglossia.
 * It seems to me that Resources and Applications for Dialectal Arabic: the Case of Levantine is a sufficient source for this. I agree with reverting to the original version with this source included in both the introduction and the "Status and usage" section. High surv (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, I modified the paragraph and added the source. Regarding the introduction, the common practice is not to include references: "as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be" (see Template:Leadcite comment). A455bcd9 (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why kasrah for "اللَّهْجَةِ الشَّامِيَّةِ"?
I hope it's not a complete stupid question or has been already asked and I didn't find it, but: Why does "اللَّهْجَةِ الشَّامِيَّةِ" in the first sentence have kasrah ʾiʿrab? Is there a reason to make it genitive case? As far as I can see it's also not reflected in its romanization which leaves out the ʾiʿrab completely (That the leading "Arabic:" (linking to the macrolanguage) is followed by a transcription for Levantine Arabic is also a bit confusing I think, maybe give the phrase/its transcription in both Levantine Arabic and in its dachsprache MSA?). Thanks for any help, best, --Marsupium (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed the diacretics because I couldn't find a source with them. Ethnologue gives "il-lahje š-šāmiyye" for the romanization. And the MSA Wikipedia (ar:لهجات شامية) mentions this term as well: "أحياناً يقصد بمصطلح 'اللهجة الشامية' لهجة الشوام في مدينة دمشق فقط". I hope this solves the problem, thanks for noticing it! A455bcd9 (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for the fast reply! I didn't mean all tashkil, only the ʾiʿrab, i.e. both kasrah under the both ta marbutah. So I'd propose to write "اللَّهْجَة الشَّامِيَّة" instead of "اللَّهْجَةِ الشَّامِيَّةِ". Sources are لهجة and شامي and a bunch of other (printed) dictionaries if needed.
 * But that would be fusha/MSA I guess. So I'd propose to make the whole something like:
 * giving
 * "or اللَّهْجَة الشَّامِيَّة Standard Arabic:, Levantine Arabic: )"
 * I think it's helpful in general to have tashkil (that readers of ar:لهجات شامية don't need), but with indeed with the transliteration(s) it might not be strictly necessary here either. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Other words in the article don't have tashkil so I would recommend removing them there as well for consistency. And as you said with the transliteration it's not strictly necessary. Also, I wonder if we need to add the MSA pronunciation here. The Levantine one may be enough. So I would recommend:
 * or اللهجة الشامية )
 * What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the very late reply! I agree with leaving out the tashkil. Using MSA transliteration in addition seems like a good idea to me though considering the diglossia situation, mostly it's good to have both MSA and spoken variant alike I think. --Marsupium (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the very late reply! I agree with leaving out the tashkil. Using MSA transliteration in addition seems like a good idea to me though considering the diglossia situation, mostly it's good to have both MSA and spoken variant alike I think. --Marsupium (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Romanization of "ق" = [ʔ] in Liddicoat et al.
In the table of #Orthography and writing systems as a romanization of "ق" by Liddicoat et al. $⟨q̄⟩$ is given. But the 2011 revised third edition, [ p. 20 on Google Books]) reads: "The strike-through bar is used with q̶ ق to indicate that it is pronounced as a glottal stop (as opposed to q ق which is pronounced as a deep-throated k)." So, I'd propose to replace the $⟨q̄⟩$ given in the table with $⟨q̶⟩$ (= ) using the “combining long stroke overlay” (U+0336) Unicode character. What do you think? Best, --Marsupium (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Marsupium: Good point, done! A455bcd9 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

apc is now Levantine Arabic
Hi all, per ISO 639-3 MA update https://iso639-3.sil.org/request/2022-006 now  refers to all of Levantine Arabic and   is now deprecated. This should be reflected in the tables here. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Srl: yes (I'm the main proposer of the request). But the tables are based on Ethnologue (and not SIL) and Ethnologue will be updated next week. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Aleppo dialect
Im not sure if my edit was reverted per accident. Anyway, ill do it here. The source used to support a Mesopotamian influence on the dialect of Aleppo does not state this unless Im using it wrong. Can anyone quote directly from it to support that claim? Otherwise it is an non supported claim that should be deleted. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Attar-Aram syria. Sorry for reverting your edit without explaining my reasoning. The source says: "Aleppo dialect shows Mesopotamian (North Syrian) influence." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. I cant read this part in it but this is probably because Im not familiar with the website and dont know how to use it or read the full text. Anyway, Im from Aleppo so reading this part made me curious. I made my own research and apparently the dialect of Aleppo do indeed have some similarities with Mesopotamian and Anatolian but its not clear whether this is due to Mesopotamian influence or simply a parallel development from a common ancestor. I think it is helpful to give an example of the Mesopotamian features in the dialect of Aleppo, maybe in a note or something. If you have the time to do that I will not do it myself but I can maybe provide the sources I found (since you brought the article to its excellent current form and it would be better to write new additions in your words to keep the style as it is).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Unfortunately the source (Ethnologue) doesn't give more details. You probably can't see anything because you don't have a subscription. It's quite expensive... If you live in a low & middle-income country (such as Syria) you can get a free access: https://www.ethnologue.com/pricing/ Otherwise, you can apply to the data contributor program: https://cam.ethnologue.com/contributor/apply
 * In any case, if you have reliable sources, feel free to add them directly. (at least here?) There's no need to keep "my" style :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah a subscription. Thats why. Now, I live in NL and Im not really big on linguistic... barely passed my Ancient Greek courses. So I wont be getting a subscription but thanks for the clarification.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)