Revision as of 17:22, 20 September 2024 editLargoplazo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers120,008 edits →Wrong information: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply← Previous edit |
Revision as of 18:24, 20 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Arabs/Archive 14, Talk:Arabs/Archive 15) (botNext edit → |
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
Line 32: |
Line 32: |
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Mecca) ]. <!-- {"title":"Mecca","appear":{"revid":691997701,"parentid":691986190,"timestamp":"2015-11-23T13:04:12Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":,"replaced_anchors":{"Other religions in northern Arabia":"Other cultures in northern Arabia"}},"disappear":{"revid":843186088,"parentid":842489579,"timestamp":"2018-05-27T13:34:28Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Mecca) ]. <!-- {"title":"Mecca","appear":{"revid":691997701,"parentid":691986190,"timestamp":"2015-11-23T13:04:12Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":,"replaced_anchors":{"Other religions in northern Arabia":"Other cultures in northern Arabia"}},"disappear":{"revid":843186088,"parentid":842489579,"timestamp":"2018-05-27T13:34:28Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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" . ] (]) 17:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Era == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article used the BC/AD convention until when an IP user unilaterally changed parts of the article to the BCE/CE convention without discussion. The ] 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 Misplaced Pages: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 ] up on this Talk page, arguing that "a general unwritten rule on Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 ] tells us that it is the year 1445 AH? The answer should be because Misplaced Pages uses a set of neutral rules to write about facts. The 2018 Talk writer even acknowledged that there are ]. Per the current Misplaced Pages 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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 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 ] 100% human Jesus. ] (]) 11:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Since the edit was made 16 years ago, the article's established era style is the current one. ] (]) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024 == |
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2024 == |
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)
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)
This map is misleading as it draws the territorial area of the Lakhmids using the borders of modern political subdivisions. Somebody probably made it using mapchart.net or another similar utility. It should be deleted or replaced with something higher quality. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
This is just generalizing on entire groups of people with different cultures and ancestries that they are all Arabs. This article like Persians is entirely misleading. There are Arabic speaking people in Bahrain of Iranian Ancestry and most Kuwaitis are Iranian of origin, further more Egyptians and North Africans in generally have completely different genetics (same with Morocans most of which are Amazigh) and history and dialects of Arabic influenced by their older languages. The ethnic Arabs are those with high level of J1 Haplogroup such as Yemen and Saudi, and that's it. Actual Arabs are a minority everywhere else. Mrox2 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)