Talk:Ishmaelites

message: Why do you use the Arabic names for these people?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.82.43 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beacuse it has to be "politically correct". I think they should use the names wriiten in the Bible. Arnie Gov 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think "political correctness" had anything to do with using Arabic-derived names; many of the primary sources and commentaries are in Arabic. The current policy about how to refer to people can be read at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). If you are referring to the Hebrew Bible, that is in ancient Hebrew; the Christian Old Testament is in ancient Greek. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we use the names commonly used in English, not Hebrew or Greek or Arabic. Given WP:COMMONNAME, an easy way to find the most common English name is to look at the title of the Wikipedia article about that person. I've adjusted the names used in the article to follow those, while pointing out correspondances where appropriate, e.g. giving romanized Arabic names when summarizing the Quran. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic names

message: Ishmaelites is mentioned in "Comstock Mining and Minors" by Eliot Lord (written 1882) published by USGS 1883 pg 15. They seemed to be persons without the value of property ownership as the word was used for persons who stole food and provisions seemly with some sort of right to those food and provisions because of proxsimity.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.200.235 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's just a nineteenth century Christian way of referring to Arabs or Muslims, that reference does not seem worth mentioning in the article. -- Beland (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comstock Mining and Minors

message: The Old testatment was written with the Assyrian empire in recent memory, so it only makes sense to link the Jews/Ismaili Arabs to Ashur claiming a prestigous lineage!
*The lineage is Mythical/Legendary the medieval Arabs recognized this and simply began to claim the lineage through Qahtan of the Yemen and Adnan of Hejaz.
*Should the article mention that this is a smei-legendary lineage? Modern studies clerly links the Hebrews to Southern Mesopotamia and the Arabs to varied origins.--Skatewalk 18:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the intro to clarify that most scholars doubt that Ishmael and family really existed. -- Beland (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Important point

message: This article needs quite a bit of rework. I've tried to clean up the nonsense and POV polemic and replace with raw facts, but what is there still does not do the topic justice. And why the table with Ishmael's descendant according to the the book of Jashar?? Jashar is largely fable. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to do clean up but please avoide to remove cited statments.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I'm removing it again, the verse doesn't say that the term "Ishmaelites" applied to the descendants of Keturah's children. The verse in Jubilees is correct but does not explain clearly the exact usage of the terms. The verse points out that the descendants of Ishmael and his brothers intermingled but then makes an ambiguous statement "they were called Ishmaelites and Arabians". Looking at this statement in isolation it is not clear how the terms are actually applied. Looking at how the terms are used in the Bible and other works one sees that "Ishmaelites" is used for the descendants of Ishmael, including Ishmaelites who had been absorbed into the Midianite armies at the time of Judges (Midianites are descended from Midian, Ishmael's brother) although eventually the term excludes the Hagrites who became a separate group, while "Arabian" is used only in a later era to mean the mingled peoples of the desert (i.e the early Nabatean Arabians who shouldn't be confused with the modern Arab nation and who are descended from a mix of Ishmaelites, descendants of Keturah and also other tribes not descended from Abraham at all). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend,You have no right to remove documented statements according to it's opposition with your original research.If you have any documented facts that supports your opinon. Please simply add it! Here is wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia! And False and Ture is not belong to here. Everything should be documented. Please also refer to WP:NOR.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What original research? I do have the right to remove statements that are just plain wrong. The verse from Jubilees does say that the term "Ishmaelites" was applied to the descendants of Ishmael's brothers, that is your personal misunderstanding of the verse. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My Friend, as I told before here is Wikipedia! The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please refer to WP:NOTTRUTH also. You have no right to remove documented statment that you personally call it wrong! I ask others to help us solve this issue!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And your statement is not verifiable, its falsifiable, the original statement of the article that "Ishmaelites" are descended from Ishmael is verifiable,e.g. the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for "Ishmaelite" says "a descendant of Ishmael". Oxford English dictionary says "a descendant of Ishmael, a son of Abraham and Hagar", Encarta says "descendant of Ishmael: in the Bible, a descendant of Abraham's son Ishmael". The article should reflect these mainstream definitions which all agree that the term refers to descendants of Ishmael and not your invented interpretation that it includes descendants of his 6 brothers which is not actually supported by the verse you quote form Jubilees. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You have a very strange understanding of what that verse is saying. Consider the following statement: "The people of Sweden, Norway and Denmark intermingled and their descendants were called Swedes, Geats, Danes and Vikings." That would be a correct statement but it would not mean that all Vikings were called Danes. Yet that is the type of conclusion that you are drawing from the passage. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The NET Bible site you mention above shows that the majority view is that Ishmaelites means descendants of Ishmael, the old and outdated ISBE provides one commentators confused discussion which is contradicted by other commentators, the Tektonics site which is generally not regarded as a reliable source shows the same confused discussion. The problem goes back to smartass criticisms of the Bible in the 19th century which claimed that the Bible was inconsistent about whether Joseph was sold to Midianites or Ishmaelites and knee jerk reactions by apologists who tried to claim that the terms were interchangeable without actually looking at how the story is presented in other texts and how traditional commentators have viewed it. The story as recounted in the Bible as well as other Jewish works is that the brothers planned to sell Joseph to Ishmaelites they saw in the distance. But then he was stolen from the pit by passing Midianites who sold him to the Ishmaelites and then the brothers found him missing. The Ishmaelites sold him into Egypt via the Medanites. This is what the account in Genesis 37:25-36 actually says. Nowhere does it say Ishmaelites = Midianites = Medanites and indeed in other accounts of the story in Jewish literature it is absolutely clear that there are three different groups involved, long before 19th century pseudo-scholarship came along. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework

message: Does secular history agree that the modern day Arabs are descendants of the Ishmaelites?  I realize that Islamic theology claims they are, but is this belief accepted as historical fact?  The article is rather silent on the historicity of this claim. --B (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same question... 77.251.46.60 (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I have updated the intro to clarify that. -- Beland (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular history 

message: I've removed or rewritten some of the material added in recent edits. Relying on a forged book (Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) while not even linking to the correct article suggests at the best carelessness that might exist throughout their edits. I also found for instance "In Kebra Ch.83: "Many countries are enumerated over which Ishmael ruled" - Kebra however is a disputed geological feature, not a book. "In the Jewish Samaritan Book of Moses" wasn't helpful either as the source is a book called "The Secrets of Moses", so a link to the Book of Moses is inappropriate. Putting all of these non-biblical sources under a section heading "Biblical origins" is also inappropriate. I've explained the rest of my edits in the edit summaries.  looks like a useful source but the quote that was in the footnote is not from the source. There is still some poor/confusing writing left. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I should note that it looks as though snippets have been used as sources, which is something that should only rarely if ever be done as it leaves out important context which may alter the meaning of what can be seen in the snippet. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My reverts of recent edits 

message: I provided good references research studies). 
02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which don't mention Ishmaelites. Sources need to discuss the subject. Do you have any peer reviewed sources on genetics that mention Ishmaelites? The idea that Arabs are descendants of Ishmael is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Genetic information doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: No scientist believes that what is called Y-chromosomal Aaron has anything to do with a real Aaron, which is why our article says it was " jocularly dubbed "Y-chromosomal Aaron"." And as our article says, "was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago". Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It simply means that there was a single common ancestor for a particular lineage among a population in a particular geographical area. There are also other lineages, of course. I've no idea what you are saying about Aaron. Who "cannot possibly lie"? The article on Y-chromosomal Aaron makes no claim that it supports (or even fits with) Biblical accounts of Aaron. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

text: What professional genealogist makes claims that go that far back? For genetic genealogy you need an authentic genealogy. There's a big difference between a cousin in Australia and claiming a genealogical relationship to someone thousands of years ago that no one can prove even existed. And you haven't answered Paul's question about Aaron and who "cannot possibly lie?" Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed the claim that Ishmael is not a religious belief - it is only a religious belief. He isn't a historical character, he's a character in a Bible story. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I deleted it again for the same reasons. We seem to have an editor here who doesn't understand our sourcing policy and our policy on original research which is also evident in other articles he's edited or created. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: why delete section genetic geneology?

message: I have only slowly realised that the genealogy section has probably consistently been copyvio, at least Valentino's edits. I've warned him twice, once over another article, and will ask for him to be blocked if this continues. The OR problem is minor compared to the copyvio issue. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug listed the websites in one of his edit summaries. For example, this website contains the sentence: "However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations". Your section contains the sentence: "Haplogroup J1 originated in the southern part of the Mesopotamia and is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations." Paul B (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishmaelites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226224121/http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=ISHMAELITES to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=ISHMAELITES
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I will try to add reliable source to this article and remove unsourced and false claims. I hope I would find some help in this.  SharabSalam (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is written from the Muslim perspective of Ishmael and Hagar. I tweaked the intro to reflect Ishmael from the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish perspective. 2601:589:4801:5660:19FC:E3E8:C033:2862 (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very awful article full of unsourced and false claims 

message: It mixes later traditions and myths with the original source code of where the term Ishmaelites derives from, the Hebrew Bible. It'd be best if there will be an arragement of this article with all it's half-truths and myths and other irrelevant topics. There is not a signle mentioning of Ishmaelites as a term outside of the Bible, the others like Kedar etc. have their own articles and should not be explained upon here. I just hope it was done academically over there, cause this article is a mess.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given this article a bit of a trim, but there are still some parts relying on a doctoral thesis which I assume hasn't been fact-checked. The existence of an "Ishmaelite confederacy" is unclear, and it's also unclear if this simply would have been referred to as an "Arab confederacy" by anyone not making reference to the Jewish or Islamic religious traditions. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Historic Accuracy of this article isn't academic