Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant

Merger Proposal

A quick glance at this article shows it's not really about the "Levant". The vast majority of the article is based on sources discussing a particular part of the Levant , which casts into light on the peculiar usage of the author (who claims to be a Palestinian on his user page , using Hebrew sources and quoting MEMRI-translations) of such wider term. Of all the cities mentioned here: hardly any of them are outside of the Holy Land. It doesn't even link , or use sources from the History of the Arabs article which show that "Arab migrations to the Levant" can be somewhat misleading , as many areas of the "Levant" (The actual Levant ) were part of the Urheimat and ethnogenesis of Arabic-speaking peoples such as the Qedarites , where also the first ever Arabic inscriptions were in places like Transjordan and the Negev).

Some of the sources here are not represnted properly. Regarding Arabization : Ehrlich said that it was a process of initial tribal settlement as well as acculturation , as shown in his source Arabization versus Islamization in the Palestinian Melkite Community during the Early Muslim Period . He neither conflated Arabization with Islamization , nor said it was a wild onslaught as with the Anglo-Saxons and Britain. The "Arab"="Arabian" equation is more of a pop-culture thing than historical reality , but I think it's obvious who are its adherents and believers , given the few spots of sensationalist language in the article.

Ehrlich's study is also divided per region , yet circumstances of one region (Samaria) are superimposed on the entire land. Other sources are anecdotal such as the one discussing the urban Byzantine-Greek minority (Theodoropoulos) , and another one talking about the Middle East at large than the "Levant" (Donner)..

The article also doesn't mention sources which Ehrlich also cites , like reliable archeological sources like The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach , The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine demonstrate the continuity of Christian majority up until the Mamluk period , which imply that Muslims - the tribal Arabians the editor is so keen on "exposing"- were a minority before the Mamluks.

I believe all the above shows why its preferable that this article be merged into the "Big picture" article , where it logically belongs .

Unless the author discusses neighboring lands like Lebanon and Syria in more depth so that it would really be about the Levant , and not an hideous way of saying "Israel-Palestine-Holy Land" : this article should be merged , as the content in its current state matches another topic , and the topic itself is likely part of ARBECR restrictions . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @TheCuratingEditor, I think you should take back some of your comments. First, you are making comments me as a person and on my background. On Wikipedia, we talk about content, not people. This way of talking is something you can get banned for.

I modelled this article based on another article, Arab migrations to the Maghreb. If you have relevant sources, you are welcome to add them.

One final sentence. You say that the article is not about Lebanon and Syria. You should read it again. I think that at least half of it is about places in Syria and Lebanon today. Rajoub570 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey . Just finished a wholesome edit . Anyway :

|First, you are making comments me as a person and on my background. On Wikipedia, we talk about content, not people|

Sometimes ..you know : we might have unconscious proclivities that effect how we edit. That's besides how the sources' content was depicted here .

But that revision ..that doesn't look like a Palestinian's bias , even an indifferent one like an Israeli-Arab. Nobody invents discrediting or embarrassing things about themselves ..especially ones that omit from sources.

If somebody wants to pretend to be a Palestinian : they are going have to do more than just "think like an Arabush" or what ever the scriptwriters in Tel-Aviv like to cook up when making another Fauda season. Just saying ducks have to quack like ducks ..

___________________________________________________________

|I modelled this article based on another article, Arab migrations to the Maghreb|

Is there a credible reason to assume the processes in North Africa are analogous in the Levant , especially where the Arabic language originated from there compared to the Germanic Vandals ?.

More Arabian tribes actually migrated to the "Levant" (at least how you defined it) than North Africa , where they were influential enough to cause problems . But when seeing the implications of combined available peer-reviewed sources on language and non-Muslim settlement : they tend to imply that acculturation as the lead cause of Arabization , both in Palestine and in other parts of the Levant . Islamization came later while it was associated with foreign settlement of variable scales . There were other factors at play such as the presence of Sufi saints and Ehrlich's thesis , the dwindling of ecclesiastical authorities.. But that was the whole fallacy of the original revision: Islamization isn't related to Arabization ..Islam isn't an ethnic religion ..but then again , who thinks so besides Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer  ?.

______________________________________________________________________

|You say that the article is not about Lebanon and Syria. You should read it again. I think that at least half of it is about places in Syria and Lebanon today|

I just did . In the earlier revison  : 'Palestine' is used 14 times , 'Jerusalem' 4 times , 'Judaean Desert' , 'Samaria', 'Southern Syria' , 'Gaza' , 'Hebron', 'Bayt Aynun' , 'Transjordan' , and "Bethlehem" all just once  : that's over at least two dozen mentions. As an independent noun referring to the Northern Levant : 'Syria' is used 4-5 times. Other cities like 'Damascus' 8 times throughout the article , and around 7 in modern day South-Lebanon and Syria are only mentioned primarily in the Rashidun era section , the one talking about troops heading to Iberia. The Impact section also only talks about Palestine , and the "see also" includes a link specifically about Ottoman Palestine (Which I just remembered , I'll remove it when I am done here) .

Even with the current revision I just published : it still uses 'Palestine' 17 times.It doesn't look like my initial skimming of the earlier revision missed this focus towards it . It's expectable given the sources , especially Gill whose own work was originally in Hebrew that's mostly based on the Cairo Genizah , and others like Donner are general ones (Who doesn't even believe that Islam as we know it today existed in the Rashidun and much of the Umayyad periods ).

The original form insinuated that Arabic-speakers of the era must have been predominantly transplanted Arabians , an illusion because of undue weight and ignoring things such as the mawali class who's affiliation with Arab tribes was more political than historical , as always with genealogies being more about ideology than reality , and the spread of the Arabic language , such as church records or when the first Arabic translations of the Bible came out.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'll concede that the article is more than about the Holy Land , despite its clear predominance. I think it's better to add more archeological sources in the future so as to verify the scale of impact , and the ones that account for cultural acculturation as the factor in the Arabization of the Levant's interior and littoral areas , and to bring more sources specialized in either Lebanon or Syria . Otherwise in my view , a merger with the Palestine demographic history is preferable.

When I see people write as in the prior revision , I would just suggest they all go to r/askhistorians , or Conservapedia. POV and undue weight isn't allowed for a exact reason , and certainly against these purposes. But in the end : it's none of my business . I just care that articles of such individuals are Non-POV and adhere to RS sources faithfully , and censor what's against the rules. Other measures are up to the administrators.

Happy editing , Rajoub570. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure whether the article necessarily needs to merge, but I guess it could be improved and expanded to better reflect its title. The Demographic history of Palestine (region) and Arab migration to the Levant appear to be two distinct topics. The area of the Levant covers a large territory in the Eastern Mediterranean which is much more than just the region of Palestine. The demographic history of Palestine (region), also, seems to cover a much larger period, starting all the way from the Iron Age until the modern era, which is nearly 3000 years. This one seems to attempt to cover a more specific period of time which, I believe, as a topic has merit for a stand alone article. Piccco (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge as proposed. I'm inclined to agree with Piccco and Rajoub that per this source[1], the Maghreb, Spain, and the Levant are major locations of Arab migrations during the medieval period. This also has to do with Arabization. However, that source says, “Arab migration,” I take it to denote, first, movement by Arabs and Muslims from the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula to far-distance destinations (North Africa and Spain, Egypt, or Iraq and central Asia) and their settlement there. As I will discuss later, this means that the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula form the “region of origin” to Muslims and Arabs. And I was also not sure because the Arabian peninsula is not considered the Levant. But then it mentions shorter-distance mobility within that domain, such as from the Arabian Peninsula to Syria. Therefore, I think that is probably the scope of this article. And since Syria is not Palestine, though both are in the Levant, the merge premise is incorrect on its face. Andre🚐 23:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

"But I guess it could be improved and expanded to better reflect its title. "

I believe I have already stated as such in my case. As of now , no additional sources have been added that go beyond Israel-Palestine and concerned with Syria and/or Lebanon in depth yet.

___________________________________________________________________________________

"I was also not sure because the Arabian peninsula is not considered the Levant."

From the source :

"As a proxy, I consider the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant as places of origin for Arab or Muslim migration during the seventh and eighth centuries"

The author gives an implicit reference to the fact that there already were Arabic speakers in the Levant before the Islamic conquest , as part of their ethnogenesis. Of course a discussion of centuries long history from the Late Iron Age to Muhmmad's birth about Nabatean inscriptions and and evolution of the Arabic script would have simply been off-topic for the paper. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not accurate, as I just gave a source for Syria. Andre🚐 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"That's not accurate, as I just gave a source for Syria"

See ? , you are just showing why this article is fuzzy. This (1) , that (2) , and that (3) that make up these these places (A) (B) , are all called "Levant". It's like saying because I moved to Brooklyn from Manhattan , I am no longer in New York ..

That's why I say "Arabian" for these people from that place , and avoid saying "Arab".

Perhaps you want to tell us a time where there were no Arabs in the Levant , in its actual broad sense than a low keyword for some specific place  ?. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? There were Arabs that migrated from the Arabian Peninsula to the area of Syria. The former is not considered the Levant, the latter is. Brooklyn was once a separate city and is now a borough of NYC, but if you migrated from Manhattan to Brooklyn, you did indeed migrate. I don't agree with "avoid saying Arab," because RS say it. And I never said there weren't Arabs in the Levant at any time, but still, Arabization and the migration from the Arab Peninsula did take place. Andre🚐 23:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"There were Arabs that migrated from the Arabian Peninsula to the area of Syria" (...) "I never said there weren't Arabs in the Levant at any time"

Good then let's represent that properly , saying that parts of the Levant already were part of the Pre-Islamic Arab urheimat (Original Homeland) .

"Arabian Peninsula" is a geographical exonym. It would have been "Arab peninsula" if it referred to an ethnicity.

It's kinda like Germany and Germania .. Sure , there's overlap between the folks , but they are still different distinct natures . Hence why I used "Arabian" rather than "Arab" , that's to clarify what the sources were referring to.

______________________________________

"if you migrated from Manhattan to Brooklyn, you did indeed migrate. "

But you are still in New York city . Same thing here : how can a group "migrate" if it originated from the same area? . Are they really "foreign"  ? . You might move around the neighborhood ..that doesn't mean you really left it . You just switched spots in the same place.

That's why I added more than just "History of the Arabs" hyperlink in the Pre-Islamic section in my revison. It's to clarify that yes: there were migrations from that place we now call "Arabian Peninsula" , and no , it's not really interchangeable with "Arabia" , or that it's a short-term for the former. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In this analogy, New York City is the Middle East, the Levant is Brooklyn, and Manhattan is the Arabian Peninsula. We can and should differentiate between different levels of granularity. The Levant contains Syria and Palestine, just as Brooklyn contains Greenpoint and Williamsburg, and the Arabian Peninsula contains Mecca and Medina, just as Manhattan contains the Financial District and Greenwich Village. Andre🚐 23:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Be more precise : New York City is the Levant , Syria-Palestine-Lebanon is Brooklyn , and Manhattan is Arab-ia. ..You are just going back to square one of conflating two different supersets .

"Arabia" overlaps with "Arabian Peninsula" , but much of "Arabia" isn't in "Arabian Peninsula" . That's is why for example the first inscriptions of "Arabic" are actually in "Levant" at Ayn Avdat (Negev) and Transjordan.

Have you read my replies in depth , or you just want to keeping repeating ad nauseum the "Arab=Non Levantine=Arabian" equation until I rage quit ? .. We might as well just cut out the Pre-Islamic section entirely. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what the source here says. [2] The Arabian Peninsula isn't considered part of the Levant. Andre🚐 00:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused as the article does appear to contradict itself. It seems to argue "The process took place over several centuries, lasting from the early 7th century to the modern period" but also correctly points out that Arabs were already present in the Levant well before the 7th century.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's not really a contradiction. There were Arabs present and there were also migrations. Diasporas are gradual and take place over different events. Andre🚐 22:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but one can't imply the migrations started in the 7th century if there were populations already present.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  That was a specific documented wave of migrations. Regardless, we should look to how framed by RS. If RS want to put particularly focus on that timeframe, that's understandable given the historical events of that timeframe. Andre🚐 23:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's right .. The article in its current state is trying to replicate some different stories . The reality is much more than that , and might be the opposite impression . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• support. Per TheCuratingEditor, and also because the article contains too many inaccuracies to be fixed, it would be more efficient to merge it considering that it is predominantly about the post-islamic demographic history of Palestine already.

Stephan rostie (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice edits.

Just want to say there's currently an RfC discussion below regarding the Revision you edited , and an alternative one that you might want to take a look at it for verification and additional sources (Link) , which could be a less drastic alternative to an outright merger with that article , as it also discusses other parts of the Levant despite the extra focus on Historic Palestine.

I know I could have done it , but seeing the RfC will close soon without a firm consensus and that ARBCER restrictions were applied here 3 days ago .. my hands are rather tied. If you still want a merger : that alternative revision could serve as a good draft for a section there. Now , I'll try to avoid this talk page now before an Administrator smacks me a ban for possible disruptive editing as a non-EC editor. Anyway , I hope the tip helps on improving the article. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose. The article as is contains information about areas outside of Palestine (Damascus, Raqqa, Beirut, etc.), it's likely that other editors will gradually add more information. Also, Demographic history of Palestine (region) is not a small article and adding a lot of content about just one aspect of the demographic history will not improve it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

recent changes

I reverted the recent changes as they appeared to in some cases remove sources or in other cases state claims that I couldn't verify. Creating new section to discuss since the only other discussion was about a merger proposal. Andre🚐 20:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. ..I was actually making an edit this whole or so hour , that was going to add 4 additional sources .. It couldn't be published because of conflicts as the base article I was working on had already been reverted.. wasting my time and efforts in the end.

"They appeared to in some cases remove sources"

No sources were removed , they were only verified . Can I ask how because a "chunk" of content seems to have been removed, that it could be to none other than malicious intent behind the removal ?.

Here is the differences tab... It's clear it was aimed chiefly at Loaded Language , and some irrelevant anecdote from the (originally Hebrew) Moshe Gil source from a Genizah document.

Additions included specifying the primary sources of these secondary sources , restoration of contrary statements from the sources such as from Fred Donner and Bernard Lewis, and addition of other sources in the last section (As shown here) , and linking with other Wikipedia articles , and using non-POV /neutral language.

The byte-counter is a false alarm , and I think the difference tab should have been checked first before such quick revert.

___________________________________________________________

"In other cases state claims that I couldn't verify""

While I do have personal access to the sources , I am going to add Internet Archive links here for the Lewis and Donner statements:

https://archive.org/details/the-arabs-in-history/page/70/mode/2up?q=%22A+small+minority%22

https://archive.org/details/earlyislamicconq0000donn/page/246/mode/2up?q=%22Syrian+peasants%27%22

https://archive.org/details/earlyislamicconq0000donn/page/246/mode/2up?q=%22Authenticity%27%22

It's evident a few lines were omitted which challenged the "narrative" of genocidal hordes built up in the prior revision.

Is there any other suspicion towards my version , or valid reasons why the current revision should be maintained ?. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The original version seemed to have the following statements:

Arab sources depict Byzantine-allied tribes such as the Banu Judham and Banu Ghassan as concentrated in Provincia Arabia (later known as Palestina Tertia), encroaching over the Levant's borderlands and on the frontiers of the Roman and later Byzantine Empires. In one Arabic source, the region is referred to as "al-Takhim", a term borrowed from Hebrew and most certainly used by Jews. The Banu Judham, the main tribe inhabiting the deserts south of Palestine, are associated with Shuaib in Arab tradition. Their Christian influences were notable due to their Byzantine connections, and while some members of the Banu Wa'il branch were connected to Judaism, only a few actually converted. The Banu Lakhm, who mingled with the Banu Judham and were based in the northern Euphrates, also had a presence in Palestine. The Banu Ghassan, or Ghassanids, a large federation of tribes, were important Byzantine allies against other Arab tribes. Migrating in significant numbers to southern Syria and northern Transjordan, they established a vassal kingdom under Byzantine authority, with their center in Jabiya, a settlement located in the eastern Golan.

The conquest led to a urban depopulation, with many local residents fleeing, creating vacancies that Muslim migrants occupied. The Umayyad era saw further settlement in the Levant, as the rulers aimed to maintain distinct tribal identities and manage demographics through population transfers. Estimates suggest that by the end of the first century of Islam, about a quarter of a million Arabs had settled in Palestine and Syria.

Antioch's residents were given the choice to stay and pay tax or leave, and many chose the latter. Archaeological evidence, including a notable reduction in Caesarea's urban area, suggests that large-scale migration and depopulation occurred, especially along the Levantine coast; some Syrian cities also experienced substantial size reductions. It appears that the citizens of Emesa also departed, as an Arab commander allocated the abandoned houses and lands to Muslim Arabs. Some sources report Muslims entered into agreements with residents of various towns, which included conditions requiring the locals to vacate certain properties to accommodate Muslim newcomers. Often, these agreements specified that townspeople were to relinquish half of their homes and churches for use as living spaces and mosques. The abandonment of urban properties—whether due to flight, voluntary evacuation, or dispossession—led to their gradual occupation by Muslims.

In the edit I reverted it is changed to:

(first part removed)

Muslim sources such as Al-Yaqubi depict mention the Ghassanids and Judham tribal federations as Byzantine-clients in the Levant , acting as a buffer against the Sassanians under Byzantine tutelage, as well as encroaching Arabian tribes . The Ghassanids were able to establish a Vassal Kingdom under Byzantine authority with Jabiya located in eastern Golan, as the capital. The Banu Lakhm, who mingled with the Banu Judham and were based in the northern Euphrates, also had a particular presence in Palestine.

Some archeological evidence suggests certain areas were depopulated, likely as considerable portion of its population fled , an example being Caesarea whose size has been reduced by 70% in the 7th century. especially along the Levantine coast; some Syrian cities also experienced substantial size reductions. Many of the citizens of Emesa also departed. Muslim sources state that the Muslims entered into agreements with residents of various towns and cities , which included conditions requiring the locals to vacate certain properties to accommodate the Muslim newcomers , as well as to relinquishing half of their homes and churches for use as living spaces and mosques. Fred Donner disputes the authenticity of some of these treaties and their details mentioned in Muslim sources are of uncertain, and assumed they may have been "systematizations of subsequent generations of legal scholars seeking to rationalize later taxation or legislative measures". The abandonment of urban properties—whether due to flight, voluntary evacuation, or dispossession—led to their gradual resettlement by Muslims.

While I think the source supports, "The conquest led to a urban depopulation, with many local residents fleeing Archaeological evidence, including a notable reduction in Caesarea's urban area, suggests that large-scale migration and depopulation occurred, especially along the Levantine coast; some Syrian cities also experienced substantial size reductions. It appears that the citizens of Emesa also departed, as an Arab commander allocated the abandoned houses and lands to Muslim Arab", I don't see a basis for "Some archeological evidence suggests certain areas were depopulated, likely as considerable portion of its population fled" or "Muslim sources state that the Muslims entered into agreements with residents of various towns and cities , which included conditions requiring the locals to vacate certain properties to accommodate the Muslim newcomers , as well as to relinquishing half of their homes and churches for use as living spaces and mosques vs Some sources report Muslims entered into agreements with residents of various towns, which included conditions requiring the locals to vacate certain properties to accommodate Muslim newcomers (mosque portion 2nd sentence and framed differently) Or for The migration of Arabian tribes played a role in the Islamization of the Holy Land by settling in abandoned areas. Andre🚐 22:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

..That's quite a lot of quoting.

I had already said I removed that anecdote about the Judham tribe .. I am not quite sure why you insist on a Medieval Jewish tradition (Not Muslim as depicted here ) of Bedouins adopting some alleged Hebrew typography , is relevant to Arabian migrations ? .

Besides that , I linked to other Wikipedia articles to provide a background for the content in that section .

Here's also the Theodoropoulos source :https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341208539_The_Migration_of_Syrian_and_Palestinian_Populations_in_the_7th_Century_Movement_of_Individuals_and_Groups_in_the_Mediterranean

What I am seeing here is somebody stringing together quotations to make a narrative to present it as the source's content . That's not

So what you are saying because there's more volume , and phrasing that is more colorful and detailed , that it likely to be an extraction from the source , or a faithful representation of it ? ..That's not really verification. We have seen examples of that.

_________________________________

"The migration of Arabian tribes played a role in the Islamization of the Holy Land by settling in abandoned areas."

If you had seen the hyperlinks in my earlier Reponses : you wouldn't really think the bolded part is a "bonus". You can enter these phrases into the internet Archive links : I quoted from the sources either verbatim or summarized them. The sources clearly say Arabians either went to the open countryside , or houses abandoned in the urban cities. Ehrlich also confirmed that. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is stating a conclusion based on your own piecing together that isn't explicitly stated in the sources. Your changes are much less faithful as I showed above. Linking to other Wikipedia articles is not a source. I'm not sure what you mean about me insisting on Hebrew typography, or about volume and phrasing, I didn't say that at all. You changed "towns" to "towns and cities," which isn't in the source, nor do I see the "abandoned areas" in the source. Andre🚐 23:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not what Synth is . At that rate  : Wikipedia would just be a straight block of excerpts.. might as well just turn into a library.

It's actually the revision that you are advocating for that is a synth... It literally mixes between the countryside and urban areas , the whole country and specific areas , and a few cases with general trends.

I use both summaries and excerpts , especially the later for verification. It depends on which is sufficient and if the original text is too long.

_______________________

"Typography"

My bad , I meant "toponym" . Looks my auto corrector extension will be dumped away soon...

_________________________

"Nor do I see the "abandoned areas" in the source. "

That's because here I call back to the rest of the article. The word "abandoned" was literally used 5 times before that section , and only one instance is a direct excerpt ,had the word "yard" in it.

In fact , in the edit that I was making before you reverted : I was adding archeological sources in that section . TheCuratingEditor (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there some way that you could make your replies more concise and use less space? Every reply is a huge WP:TEXTWALL that's a bit difficult to respond to. Also, your edit had some grammar and typographical issues of its own; I take it that English isn't your native tongue, but could you please try at least to conform with the lexicographical and orthographic norms of discussion and editing? At any rate, I was not advocating for the prior revision, and reverting a bold edit doesn't mean I am now responsible for the entire text of the previous page; it was clear that your revision was a non-improvement and possibly furthering a slow motion edit war. You've now moved the goalposts to that there was SYNTH in the current version. If that's the case, can you concisely with specific points, show what claim the current version makes that isn't in any source? If so, it should be easy to either rebut that by providing the source, or make appropriate edits to excise that from the article or change it. Andre🚐 00:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"it was clear that your revision was a non-improvement(..) possibly furthering a slow motion edit war."

I guess I can finally see the problem here , seeing "improvement" involves insisting on removal of corroborating sources and insisting on language that doesn't fit the sources ..I really don't know what to say at this point.

________________________________________________

"Every reply is a huge WP:TEXTWALL that's a bit difficult to respond to" (...) "can you concisely with specific points, show what claim the current version makes that isn't in any source?"

That's quite an amusing oxymoron , you know ? . Seeing the conversation so far , It doesn't look like there will be much progress for a mutual understanding .

____________________________________________

"It should be easy to either rebut that by providing the source"

That , and the answer to the above , will all be in my next edit some week or so later . I'll add a lot excerpts from the current sources here , as well as others , and will try to combine the paragraphs and sections of the two revisions.

Now , I am very much done for today.

Happy Editing , Andre. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheCuratingEditor, your edit of 18 October is missing the long-form references for most of the sources that you used. Might I ask you to add them to the bibliography section? You can see which are missing by installing this script. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

References

RfC On the Better of Two Revisions

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that this RfC wasn't very useful. Editors felt that while there may be parts of both versions worth incorporating, there are also significant problems with both. Beyond that, very little was said; editors wanting to make improvements should proceed through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

---

The purpose of this RFC is to determine which of the two Revisions better fulfils Wikipedia's guidelines of Verifiability , and Neutral POV.

There's Revision A (November 12th , ID 1256971380)

And there's Revison B (November 16th , ID Revision 1257741855) , which is more or less the article as it is now.

Here's a differences link for comparison.

So the questions are :

• Should the article be reverted back to Revision A ?
• Should the article be kept as it is ? (Revision B) ?

TheCuratingEditor (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Options :

• Revert to Revision A
• Keep Revision B

TheCuratingEditor (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

Your vote goes here...

• Merge revisions. It's not an either/or question or dilemma. Better to just combine the two revisions.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC; close no action. Editor didn't have standing to make the RFC, and it isn't neutral. Andre🚐 21:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Editor didn't have standing to make the RFC

An Irrelevant ad hominem . The Discussion was around for days , ARBCER restrictions have been applied here less than 24 hours ago. I hope your presence here now after all this time is just a coincidence.

it isn't neutral

"Was not". It has been amended twice to meet that , making it a dead point which the discussion should be past by now.

Maybe you didn't read the discussion below , including the latest entry ? . It has already been listed for closure before ARBCER , with little consensus beyond using the first revision as a base , and the second one to complement it.

There's no need to parade me because I debunked your "Show me the sources" defense in the last thread. This isn't a battle , and I have already retired from this article ..but thanks for reminding me to put a more-on topic vote before I completely leave. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The RFC still isn't neutral as formed, as it doesn't ask a neutral question about what to do with the article. It's a leading question basically a referendum on your changes. There certainly isn't any consensus here as nobody has yet articulated a point of view on the question, probably because it's a hard question to answer by virtue of its form, as several users mentioned in the discussion. The rest of your comment might be construed as a bad faith personal attack. There is no reason why I haven't commented before now other than simply not having arrived at the action of doing so, but I think there's nothing wrong with waiting and thinking about what to do, and your implication that I'm somehow treating Wikipedia as a battleground because this is a bad RFC, as is plain to see below, is itself problematic. in the prior discussion you did not "debunk" anything, but we simply engaged in discussion that in my opinion didn't come to any conclusion, then you made a bunch of edits, that someone else other than me reverted. I haven't done anything else to the article in the intervening time. If this article is now under an ECR restriction, you should be barred from commenting further here except for making WP:EDITXY edit requests that are noncontroversial or at the very least atomic. Andre🚐 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry , I am not going to reply to these argumentive statements . ARBCER will come into effect after closure , and I have said my piece before so. I leave it and the article for the community now. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Neither. The article is totally missing the Arab migrations and establishments in the levant for an entire 1000 years before the islamic expansion, beside containing many inaccuracies at many sites across the article, a quick example is the “Muslim migrants from the Maghreb responded to his call to settle in the city” as an instance of arab migration, when the migrants were actually berbers not arabs, treating “muslims” and “christians” as a “race” across the article is itself very problematic. the article is apparently also predominantly about the region of Palestine for some reason, with barely any mention about the tribes that settled other parts of the levant, like the famous tribes that settled Lebanon many of which gave rise to prominent Druze dynasties later.

Stephan rostie (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Neither Neither is the best choice, I think so ! 110 and 135 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Seems to me a merging could be in order? I'd use Edit A as the basis and then graft in material which expands it from Edit B, replacing sections as necessary, where the material is duplicative. But it would be a lot of work. I would volunteer to do this, but it likely wouldn't be for a day or so, as I have other commitments. Lewisguile (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So your vote is to revert to revision A as a base , and then add different elements from revision B as complements to make a third , new revision ?. That's a nice suggestion that seems fair as well.. hadn't crossed my mind that could be an option. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Sorry for the late reply! I forgot to follow this thread. Lewisguile (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey.

If you want still want to merge the two revisions , here's a differences page. It should make the cross referencing easier. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this this afternoon. Thanks! Lewisguile (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

First you should note that the RFC should be neutral and your opinions should be moved below to the votes section. Second, I think there are unexplained removals in reversion B, for example mentions of Arab presence prior to 7th century. So what are the other changes excluding this? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey. I think the description gave a good gist. There was a revision that evolved in the past weeks that was reverted to another , Such reverting effectively acted as a reset button. This revert could be interpreted as being unjustified for removing things without due cause , or instead it was actually justified and those 40k bytes are mostly a heap of trash.

Which of these two things , I leave that for the participants of the RfC to decide.

As for what else was removed besides the Pre-Islamic section, I would say they are as follows :

• Almost the entire footnotes section , where almost every one of them contained extracts that verified the article's body.
• A lot of key paragraphs. These include reservations by Fred Donner , and ones in "Islamization and Arabization" section.
• Entire Two subsections. "The Motivations for Expansion and Migration" , which dealt with motivations behind the Rashidun conquest as well as potential migrations immediately after it. The other one is is "Settlement Distribution" in the "Impact" section.

• At least 4 Reliable Sources , including two archeological surveys by Kate Raphael and Itmar Taxel . Most of them are in the "Islamization and Arabization" Section.

The above excludes some paraphrasing in some parts , such as mentioning exactly who were the chroniclers that the authors are quoting such as Al-Yaqubi , Al-Baladhuri , Ibn Al-Arabi, etc.

There could be more , but these are the ones I recall now. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey. It's been a few days..

I just found a better way to display the differences between the two revisions. I think it to a good extent , it verifies the description I gave. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss would you support a merging of content? E.g., starting with Edit A and then reincorporating elements from Edit B to expand the text while avoiding duplication. That was my suggestion for a compromise. Lewisguile (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I will be honest here, I really dislike mass reversions; the two revisions have major differences and I am unable to focus and see each edit on its own. So, yes, the compromise seems to be reasonable for now. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. This RFC is not neutrally worded per WP:RFCNEUTRAL nor is it a concise summary of the dispute. The inclusion of This indiscriminately removes Revision A's contributions , which amount to 40k bytes. is definitely not neutral wording. You were also warned already about WP:CANVASSING[3] and you seem to have done so again [4] as you write one of the two revisions seems suspected of not adhering to a Neutral Point of View , and is possibly of a disruptive rather than a constructive nature. As WP:RFC says When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC. Framing one of the potential options of the RfC as disruptive is assuredly not neutral. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Reply. Sorry , as it might be obvious on my contributions history : it's my first time ever as an occasional editor to try and build consensus.. Beginners have to start somewhere.

Noticeboards are a legitimate means of reaching the community for an RfC , and the distant wording doesn't resemble campaigning.

Neutrality is important , which is why the other Revision is linked here so it would be taken into account. Neutrality doesn't entail that all viewpoints are of the same validity , it entails they are of equal consideration.

A part of that in this case is putting aside some mistaken initial notions , and actually checking the two revisions to fulfil neutrality. The differences in the wording and content between the two should be clear after a 10 minute cross comparison.

..I have started to think I should close this RfC , and try again with a statement that just asks two short simple questions rather than saying any comments on the topic , as discouraging participation or turning it into an ad hominem exchange simply defeats its purpose ..actually , that idea could ironically be the first ever consensus I achieved. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC statement has now been amended for better neutrality

A less radical alternative to starting all over again. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Still not ideal. The first three lines at the top are either irrelevant or are part of your attempt to influence the result, and should either be dropped, or moved into the #Survey section along with your !vote, where you are allowed to do all the influencing you want. I would also identify A and B more clearly, adding a permalink to the revision id, date, and kb size, for example, for 'A' you would have:

• A: revision 1256971380 of 14:16, 12 November 2024 (68,724 bytes)

followed by 'B', and a diff link between the two. Mathglot (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggest striking this discussion As acknowledged by User:TheCuratingEditor in [their first diff] on this talk page, I've added the relevant WP:ARBECR template. However, TheCuratingEditor is not EC. Therefore, I believe this RFC (along with the merger proposal and other discussion) should be closed as out of process and changes reverted, though individual edits (not a full page rewrite) can be added by edit request. While any editor can do this, as the template editor I don't feel confident in performing it unilaterally, especially in this topic space. So I'm leaving it to another editor, or the uninvolved administrator who I assume will be along shortly. Safrolic (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say.. getting locked out ..right now in the middle of this discussion.

It's good to see that the article's topic has finally been recognized as contentious and relevant to ARBECR sanctions , as long has been argued 2 months ago. In fact , the RfC is already listed on Closure Requests since yesterday.

However , I like to make a note for any EC editor or administrator who wishes to either revise or rewrite the article before leaving.

Rather than starting from scratch Revision A will likely make a good draft. It verifies the content of the sources through extensive quotations, employs neutral and mature language that faithfully represents the sources , as well as other RS sources , and restores conspicuously absent content from the sources , as pointed out in the replies to @Makeandtoss , All of such characteristics I believe better suits the nature of ARBCER articles. In case of suspicions of unfairness , @Lewisguile's recommendation would clear them out.

Learnt quite a lot from working on this article those past weeks , which would be handy once I reach 500 edits and become an EC editor.

It was an enjoyable ride. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.