Talk:Bene Ma'zin

Arab?

For the last 37 year, Gawlikowski was the head of the excavation team in Palmyra. He provided two articles, both cited in this article, regarding the origin of the tribe. The Demos in Palmyra was Palmyrene, that’s how the city's inhabitants identified themselves, because they were an ethnic mix. Yes, Ma'zin is an Arabic word, but that does not mean that the tribe is Arab just like all Plamyrenes speaking an Aramaic language does not deny the Arab origins of some of them (actually all of them, just like all of them had Aramean origins as well, since they created their own demos that mixed their blood). Gawlikowski is writing, based on his archaeological and linguistic work, that the tribe is a coalition of pastoralists from different origin; obiously Arabs had a big share in it. Teixidor is generalizing without mentioning the details and he, as good of a scholar he is, is not match of the city's excavator.

However, I've seen that the word "Arab" means a lot for many new editors lately, hence, at least, remove the combination Palmyrene-Arab tribe from the lede and move the ethnic arguments to its own section, like its the case in Bene Komare.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no reply, I will edit the article to avoid the contradictions.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: Yes, in away there was macro identity, that to say Palmyrene. But in no way it exclude the micro identity of the inhabitance. Not participating in the excavation work is not sufficient excuse to discredit Teixidor claim, who is notable and authoritative scholar --frequently cited as a reference-- of Palmyra. Moreover, the statement of Gawlikowski in the article is not contradicting Teixidor, being of various pastoralists origin could be many things, similarly how Nabataean scholars perceive the Nabataeans as coalition of nomadic tribes of various origins (of Arabic root, even if not stated), that worked as a continuum of the Qedarite tribal confederation (who were also of various nomadic origins).

Could you please share an accessible source for that specific claim? That there was a "linguistic" and "ethnic" differences in the tribe? As there's no indication that the two sources contradict each other Nabataeus (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the macro identity dominated, and since Palmyrene inscriptions do not make any reference to the micro one, then its suitable to present the tribe as a Palmyrene tribe instead of adding another ethnic identity. As for Gawlikowski: Teixidor is not discredited, but he does not give an argument regarding the Arab ethnicity, while the article of Gawlikowski is more specialized. I can not give an accessible source and I made no claim of different linguistic and ethnic origins. Accessible is not a criteria in Wikipedia as most academic sources are not accessible; personally, I acquired the source through my university library (I think through google books you get a snippet view). Regarding the contradictions and your statement "(of Arabic root, even if not stated)", this can be one interpretation, but the sources we have so far do not support it. NPOV dictates that we dont present one view over the other, and provide the readers with what academics wrote (Gawlikowski wrote origins and did not specify and neither should we), and leave the conclusion to them; its already mentioned that the name is Arabic, so why would that not be enough?

On a separate note, and please take this friendly, I notice that you are capable to do research and improve articles, yet you only concern yourself with Arab ethnic goals; Odaenathus is an example. The article already notes that Odaenathus have Arab rootes, yet that was not enough for you and you had to write more trying to make readers lean towards a sole Arab origin by counting on the works of Byzantines who did not know what they were talking about since by their time the old Palmyra of Odaenathus did not live and the city was actually a center of Arab tribes who moved from the countryside’s following the Roman destruction of the city. Now another editor, enthusiastic about Aramean ethnicity, will come and try to take the ball to his field (btw, Teixidor concludes that Odaenathus was an Aramean, but thats his opinion, you cant ascribe an ethnicity to a Palmyrene), thus lowering the quality of the article (Some might come and write a whole parargraph about how unreliable Malals was and he will have tons of sources to support this since Malalas was really unreliable). I will not contest those edits of course because I hate edit wars, but I will adjust the sourcing style to make it coherent with the rest of the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)