Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|1=

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)