Talk:Pre-Islamic Arabia

message: As an outsider to Wiki and Arabia expert, I find the comments to this article to contain a mixture of facts and polemic. Briefly, Wiki articles are not supposed to be a reflection of given faith or belief, but rather of fact. Special interest comments are evident.
South-eastern Arabia also belongs to Arabia, but is not represented in the article. Azd0815 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I changed the phrasing of the first sentence. It previously stated "Pre-Islamic Arabia (aka. Jahiliyyah) is the history of Arab people who lived in the Arabian Plate before the rise of Islam in the 630s."  Arabia refers to an actual thing which existed in the world; while history is written on it, Arabia is not "the history of...".  I also removed the reference to Jahiliyyah. It doesn't maintain an NPOV, since it's solely an Islamic conception of the era.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edits 

message: We cannot describe Bedouin culture by talking about later Muslim classifications of marriage forms. I removed the irrelevant material. There are useful discussions of Bedouin society in Watt (Muhammad at Mecca, Muhammad at Medina) and Donner (Early Islamic Conquests), probably in other books as well -- I just don't have them to hand. 
I've just found a fascinating book, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, Robert G. Hoyland; Routledge, 2001. It is based on the latest in archaeological research and it seems to be quite good. I'm reading it through my Questia account. So far, I'd enthusiasticly recommend it.
The Hawting book, overall, isn't that good. But the bibliography was useful. Zora 11:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bedouin culture 

message: Their is nothing worth mentionning in Ancient Arabia, The people who left Ancient Arabia spread their language to Mesopotamia, thats not worth mentioning.
*According to Elias and his best Admin friend (Dab) Ancient Arabia should be shoved into PreIslamic Arabia because Islam came and wiped all the ignorance (jahiliyah), case ended. Dab and Elias Islamist efforts (in Arabic Juhd) paid off! After all Arabia and Mesopotamia today are Islamic and the past doesn't matter--Skatewalk 19:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually liked the Ancient Arabia article, until you came and ruined it with your "every Semite is an Arab" mumbo jumbo. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:22 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
I never did that? you didnt give me a time to fix it!
The last version didnt even have the word Arab. It just said people who migrated out of Arabia!. Look at my last version and be specific on what is wrong? talk to Vonnones we had a talk about this. You can't brush everyone with th same brush! Just like the nexttime I find an Assyrian I will try ot to associate him with anything--Skatewalk 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just add it here and we will see; that article was horribly unsourced and had controversial claims. --Vonones 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Arabia article

message: Go propose for a name change for example, to Pre-Arabia or PreHistoric Arabia or whatever. --Vonones 01:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh, the problem is that "ancient" is a fuzzy term. There is no historical "ancient" period in Arabia, except for Yemen (Sabaeans). Arabia only enters the historical period in the centuries predating the rise of Islam, which in other parts of the world is the "early medieval" period. It makes sense to treat the period from the earliest sources to the 7th century together, hence "pre-Islamic" (8th century BC to 7th century AD). I am not saying "Ancient Arabia" isn't a term in use (27,000 google hits, as opposed to 40,000 for "Pre-Islamic"), but it is at the same time more restrictive and more ambiguous. The problem with your "Ancient Arabia" article was not so much the title as the content. Instead of actual history, you discussed early medieval Muslim genealogy, and kept unduly mixing that with your idea that the Akkadians are "Arabs". The Nabateans are not part of "Ancient Arabia" proper, since the Nabatean kingdom was not in Arabia, but on the border of Syria and Arabia. dab (𒁳) 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Arabia Denial group 

message: The Arabian peninsula extends well into Syria South of Mesopotamia. and on the west The RedSea/Dead sea/ Jordan river/ Tiberias/Litani river which marks the Northwestern border. Dont confuse Ancient Arabia with political Arabian peninsula today. Its a Geographic term. Ancient Arabia is simply the region to the south of Mesopotamia.--Skatewalk 07:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography

message: the article is shaping up well, thanks for your contributions Skatewalk. We still need to figure out the somewhat chaotic ToC, but first we have to get a stable sketch of the points to be treated here. The one major section here appears to be "Iron Age South Arabia", which should maybe be shortened since it has a main article Ancient history of Yemen. --dab (⁳) 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: progress

message: I saw this quote on Mr Bachman's page, accompanied by a query as to its context. From internal grounds I could see it was a reference to Hugo Winckler's theory in his Altorientalische Forschungen (1893-98), which had some vogue for its daring hypothesis that several key narratives of the Bible are better explained as late substitutions of  Misri (Mizraim =Egypt) for Musri (identified in Babylonian texts as an area in northern Arabia), based on philological similarities.  The implication was that the Hebrew narratives involving Egypt (and Kush) were late reworkings of an almost forgotten tradition that evolved from the proto-Semitic groups (habiru etc) issuing out of Northern Arabia. Musri is also used in northern-Syrian/Anatolian toponyms, and though I don't think Winckler made the point, this clearly lent itself to speculations that Abraham's varied wanderings, which took in the north, could be accounted for as reflections of an originally Arabian provenance. This is perhaps useless for this page, and probably, since I don't find many references to it these days, forgotten speculation. But I thought a note might clear up the apparent context of Lewis's passage. Regards  Nishidani 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Bernard Lewis

message: I like the idea of a map, and it does look appealing and I don't mean to belittle the work done on it.  However, the location of almost every tribe on that map is incorrect (sometimes grossly so, as in Hanifa, Sulaym, and Kalb).  Also, the caption says it describes the situation at the dawn of Islam, but the political boundaries seem to reflect the situation 2 or 3 centuries earlier. I'd like to remove it from the article temporarily until someone gets the chance to fix it. -- Slacker 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Slacker (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Let's stop this stupid nonsense of 'BCE' and 'CE'.  The terms BC and AD are quite in order and amply adequate.  Interestingly enough, BCE can stand for Before the Christian Era and CE for [pertaining to] the Christian Era.  Another example where political correctness shoots itself in the foot.  I encourage all readers to edit out BCE and CE wherever they are found.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.200.204 (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your comment from the top to the bottom where it belongs. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year numbering systems while either can be used they should not be changed without consensus. "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." Currently I see no consensus to change so I have reverted back for now. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 'BCE' and 'CE'

message: I am getting lost in reading all your talk page.
But I will address the three sources, that are given for the section which says that semetic people or Amorites and Akkadians migrated from arabia, into mesopotamia.
The sources do not say this. And it is incorrect to say that any of these people came from Arabia. As wikipedia says itself they came from either west of mesopotamia, or north. Not south.
Source 1 : 
"The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas."
This doesn't tell us anything. And no proof of what exactly it says in that source. And it says there are migrations , but it doesn't say to which areas. And it doesn't say when, or who, or where to. And nothing to check. And all the other articles on these semetic people are saying that no, most were from the west or north, and migrated back and forth.
Maybe some people in Arabia did migrate, but that doesn't make them "all of the semetic people in the middle east, have to come from Arabia". There are some people in Arabia. And there are some people who were in the middle east from mediterranean to syria and mesopotamia. There is no connection to say that all the people must have come from Arabia. And all the pages here at wikipedia about the individual people, say that they came from canaan and syria, not Arabia.
Source 2: Akkadians
http://public.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/AKKAD.HTM
This page does not say what it has been used for a citation for. It's mention of Akkadians coming into contact with Sumerians as they moved up from the south is talking about Akkadians in South Mesopotamia moving up. Because the Akkadians were in the south of mesopotamia after they first arrived there, and the sumerians were in the north. So this is not South as in Arabia. It is south as in Mesopotamia. And migration from Arabia is mentioned nowhere in that source.
Source 3:  Encyclopedia Britannica says "Although the Amorites were equated with the west - by the people of the time". Encyclopedia Britannica then says that "It is likely that the people of the time were wrong, and that encyclopedia Britannica want to say what is likely, and it gives no reason for its claim. :D amazing from an encyclopedia, it says an opinion of "likelihood", without any basis of facts.
The pages at wikipedia, about the Amorites, and other people do say that they came from the west, or north, and never say they came from Arabia in the south.
"ARTICLE
from theEncyclopædia Britannica
Amorite,  member of an ancient Semitic-speaking people who dominated the history of Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine from about 2000 to about 1600 bc. In the oldest cuneiform sources (c. 2400–c. 2000 bc), the Amorites were equated with the West, though their true place of origin was most likely Arabia, not Syria. They were troublesome nomads and were believed to be one of the causes of the downfall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c. 2112–c. 2004 bc)."
Wikipedia page about the Amorites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorite
Doesn't say anything about migrating from Arabia. It says they came from the WEST!
"Origin
In the earliest Sumerian sources, beginning about 2400 BC, the land of the Amorites ("the Mar.tu land") is associated not with Mesopotamia but with the West, including what is now modern Syria and Canaan." 
"From inscriptions and tablets
In the earliest Sumerian texts, all western lands beyond the Euphrates, including Syria and Canaan, were known as "the land of the MAR.TU (Amorites)"."
Summary: This is being deleted again.
It is not correct and you have no right to claim people migrating from Arabia, to try and claim something for Arabs or Arabia history, which belongs to Canaan and Syria geography, and belongs to other semetic ethnic groups not ones from Arabia. When the people who were Amorites and Akkadians were other semetic peoples, who did not come from Arabia, but came from Canaan and Syria according to all their own individual article pages here at wikipedia, and so also according to the sources which are included within those article pages.
There has been plenty of explanation of why the claims are false, and that the evidence is showing that these people did not come from Arabia. And so please stop restoring incorrect and wrong information and undoing another person's edit, without respecting other's spending their time to write you these explanations, so you can see why it is wrong.
If I claim that Arabs migrated from Europe when it is not true, how will you like it? Stick to your own history and don't alter other's.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.168.139 (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing for the second time the incorrect Section on Early Migrations. Read the explanation! 

message: The Sasanians' ally; the Lakhmids, were also Christian Arabs, but from the life giving rivers of modern day Iraq.
The section on 'Late Antiquity' is written very strangely, and sounds like it was translated by a non-English speaker. The text should be cleaned up if you want it to sound like a normal article. Would edit it myself but not certain about the facts involved. 96.246.247.252 (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Narrative 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pre-Islamic Arabia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071112044629/http://www.iranica.com:80/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a002.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a002.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any information about the population of Pre-Islamic Arabia, especially during Muslim conquests? 46.225.74.129 (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many population? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pre-Islamic Arabia. 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/20150528053210/http://www.aub.edu.lb/communications/media/Documents/May_2011/grant-syriac-EN.pdf to http://www.aub.edu.lb/communications/media/Documents/May_2011/grant-syriac-EN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528032636/http://heritage.brookes.ac.uk/downloads/abu-dhabi-collections.pdf to http://heritage.brookes.ac.uk/downloads/abu-dhabi-collections.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112054008/http://www.iraqandiraqis.com/Arab%20history.htm to http://www.iraqandiraqis.com/Arab%20history.htm
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) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The entire third opening paragraph is entirely uncited and makes some fairly, in my opinion, controversial claims when presented as fact. For example, how sure are we of the relative composure of people in pre-Islamic Arabia who followed Indian religions? Surely, if only by pure chance, there were definitely some individuals there who followed Indian religions, but are they enough to warrant a mention without potentially leading readers into overstimating their prevalence? If we mention, based on conjecture and estmation, those who follow Indian religions should we not equally, based on conjecture and estimation, include how many athiests were in Arabia in this time? Further in the article Buddhists are mentioned, again uncited, which frankly makes me think this may have been an overzealous edtior. Sorry if I'm coming across as aggressive, that's not my intention but I could see how it could be read that way.
JBrahms (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third paragraph needs a revamp in my opinion 

message: "Pre-Islamic Arabia": it's so painfully Islamocentric! Thousands of years of history hiding behind an, admittedly major, event of the 6th-7th c. CE. You cannot hinge a whole millennia-long history on one aspect, we need a proper periodisation for the region. Anyone?
What are the archaeological and historical periods used by mainstream scholars for the Peninsula? For instance, which of the following periods known from the Southern Levant do apply?
* Neolithic (Pre-Pottery and Pottery)
* Chalcolithic
* Bronze Age
* Iron Age
* periods named after dominant Mesopotamian empires: Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian
* Hellenistic period (Hellenistic rule not, but huge cultural influence)
* Nabataean period?
* Roman period
* Byzantine and/or Sasanian period? 
Then following:
* Early Muslim period:
** Muhammad & the Rashidun period
** Umayyad period (fitnas, so maybe less so here)
** Abbasid period
** Fatimid period
Further up north the Crusaders create the upper boundary of the Early Muslim period. Here, apart for some raids from the Oultrejourdain holdings, they were hardly a presence, but were a .ajor impulse for the reumification of much of the Muslim realm.
* Ayyubid period
* Mamluk period
* Ottoman period
It's badly needed. Arminden (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodisation? Missing!