Jump to content

Talk:Arabic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by M.Bitton (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 11 October 2024 (Reverted 1 edit by 41.140.194.107 (talk) to last revision by Rosguill). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Minority languages by country

[edit]

These need serious sources. I doubt Arabic is recognized in most of those countries. Beshogur (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but at least the Israel and South Africa appear to be actually recognized no clue on the other countries Qwv (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and why's Pakistan there? ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 12:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats like saying Brazil isn’t Portuguese because of its name, yet it’s like saying United States of America is American (It is English, are you stupid?) Cometkeiko (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New country accepted arabic as an official language

[edit]

Mali had accepted arabic as an official language as “Hassaniya arabic” which is a dialect within maghrebi arabic, so mali should be added within the countries with arabic as an official language. 88.240.249.238 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "Arabic" that is official but Hassanya (in French in the Constitution of Mali: "le hasanya (maure)"). So Mali is listed there: Hassaniya Arabic but not here. Similarly, Malta isn't listed here even though its official language, Maltese, is a variety within Maghrebi Arabic. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that Hassaniya Arabic is not Arabic? M.Bitton (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that our primary source (the Constitution of Mali) gives "hasanya" as the official language and not Arabic so we shouldn't add it for the same reason that we don't add Maltese. Also I couldn't find reliable secondary sources giving "Arabic" as the official language of Mali. So I think the status quo in the infobox is the best option, although I'll add the information in the rest of the article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of Hassaniya is tricky. In some places, it is in a diglossia relation with Standard Arabic, in others, it resembles Maltese in being within the linguistic range of an Arabic variety, but having the status of a language entity of its own (including a distict literary form, even if not standardized). I think @a455bcd9's solution is a good one. –Austronesier (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For consistency we should probably remove Cyprus, Mali, and Senegal from "Recognised minority language in" in the infobox. (Otherwise, why isn't Morocco listed as well? Indeed, Morocco has "Arabic" as its official language and "Hassani" recognized in Article 5 of the Constitution.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get it. I suspect that by "not Arabic" you mean not MSA. Am I mistaken? M.Bitton (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you say that "Arabic is the official language of X", will you ever expect that anything else but MSA is meant here? ("Official" in the sense of being the language of jurisdiction, public administration etc.) –Austronesier (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, we have Hassaniya Arabic (which is Arabic, but not MSA). M.Bitton (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, and this is why flatly saying "Arabic is the official language of X" (or "Official language in X") without any qualifier ("Hassaniya Arabic" etc.) in such special cases is potentially misleading, given the well-known diglossia in Arabic-speaking world. My personal expectation when simply reading "Arabic is the official language of X" is that MSA is meant here. We can have such special cases in the infobox, but with an appropriate qualifier.
NB this is only for "official language". In the case of "recognized minority languages" which does not necessarily imply official usage and therefore is not acrolect-focused, the wider inclusion of non-MSA varieties does not carry the element of surprise for me. –Austronesier (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, you can argue that flatly saying "Arabic is the official language of X" (or "Official language in X") without any qualifier ("MSA Arabic" etc.) is also misleading. M.Bitton (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Once you talk about "official", my default expectation is the acrolect. That's just me though :) –Austronesier (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said it, that's your expectation. M.Bitton (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But frankly, how many Arabic-speaking countries do actually go against this uninformed expectation of mine? As in, in how many Arabic-speaking countries, the constitution is not written in MSA? –Austronesier (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Austronesier. And most importantly: how many reliable secondary sources have we declaring that Arabic is the official language of Mali? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we all agree that it's MSA that is official in the mentioned countries? M.Bitton (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Yes, all the countries to listed mention "Arabic" as their official language in their legislation and we have reliable secondary sources giving "Arabic" as their official languağ as well. In practice the written standard they use is MSA. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a yes. Should we specify in the article that MSA is official in X countries (to avoid any potential confusion)? M.Bitton (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already specified in the introduction: MSA is only acquired through formal education and is not spoken natively. It is the language of literature, official documents, and formal written media. In spoken form, MSA is used in formal contexts, news bulletins and for prayers.[19] This variety is the lingua franca of the Arab world and the liturgical language of Islam.[20] It is an official language of 26 states and 1 disputed territory, the third most after English and French.[21] It is also one of six official languages of the United Nations.[22] a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the Infobox which simply states "Official language in". M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should we specify in the article that MSA is official in X countries (to avoid any potential confusion)? From my previous remark, obviously, no. "Arabic" can potentially refer to all its varieties on the mesolectal and basilectal level, but once you speak about Arabic as an official language, the default reading is MSA. We have similar situations for German, Italian, Bengali, Hindi, Malay and others. –Austronesier (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already do, so now the question is just about adjusting the Infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Official language in" part looks fine. No need to throw in "Modern Standard Arabic" there. However, "recognised minority language in" might need some kind of relabeling. It is a recognised minority language in the classic sense in Niger, Cyprus, and arguably Israel (after it was deprived of its co-official status). In Senegal, it is specifically Hassaniya Arabic that has a status of a "national language". In Mali, Hassaniya Arabic now has co-official status. In South Africa, it is recognized nationwide as liturgical language. Similarly, in the Philippines, Arabic is recognized in the constitution because of its significance for Philippine Muslims, but there is actually no Arabic-speaking minority (except for unassimilated residents/expats).

I don't suggest to squeeze all this information into the infobox. I'm just thinking about a better label (the infobox allows for a custom parameter here). –Austronesier (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is meant to summarize what's covered in the article, so I'm sure we can find a way to do that without misleading the readers or squeezing in unnecessary info. M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

t I'm gratefully that you are 197.241.43.12 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2024

[edit]

"Having emerged in the first millennium BC" is a mis-citation and misleading. The cited resource states "f theneo-Assyrian monarch, Shalmaneser III (853 BCE). ". This is the earliest evidence know according to the reference author, this does not mean that the language emerged then. DecolonizeKnowledge (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seeking consensus: useless infobox image

[edit]

Traditional Arabic The current image in the infobox is useless. It is just the single word العربية, which already appears above it in text in the infobox. The image caption says it's "written in Arabic naskh script"; it's not written, but typed, and with the inferior typeface Traditional Arabic. For more on why this typeface is terrible, see Titus Nemeth's Arabic Type-Making in the Machine Age (2017).

I explained this in the edit summary when I replaced the useless image with a folio of the Blue Quran, widely appreciated as one of the highest quality manuscripts written in Arabic.

Snowstormfigorion reverted my edit arguing standard for modern language articles to either have no image or a simple text file of the language's name in its script; image is also already present in the vocabulary section

To me, the basis of their opinion of Arabic as an exclusively modern language is unclear. Hebrew has an image of the Isaiah Scroll scroll. The other image in this article is a different image of a different folio of the same Quran, but it can be removed. Or if a more suitable image can be chosen we can use that one instead. But the current image is useless. إيان (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having no image. The map would become the top image. FunLater (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted an image using the Thuluth script, as used on the main page of the Arabic Wikipedia. Also, the article linked above refers to ancient and not Modern Hebrew. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about Hebrew generally, not Biblical Hebrew or Modern Hebrew, the same way this article is about Arabic generally, not Classical Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic.
The text you cite from the WP:AR main page is decorative. It is not used on the WP:AR article about Arabic. The main image of an article is meant to be representative/illustrative of the topic. What does File:Arabic calligraphy thuluth.svg illustrate about Arabic? Nothing. It's needlessly ornamental and does not representatively illustrate Arabic. It's placement as the main image of this article, implying that it were representative or illustrative of Arabic, is also somewhat Orientalist. There is also the issue that the mononym العربية is a neologism. Throughout most of the language's history, its speakers called it اللسان العربي.
Instead of a bad SVG image, the main image should be from a manuscript—the primary way in which Arabic has been recorded over the past millennium+. This would be representative and illustrative. إيان (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first argument regarding the file being a duplicate of the typed Arabic in the article is valid, those concerning the Thuluth script, however, are null. "Needlessly ornamental" is entirely subjective; "does not representatively illustrate Arabic", it's one the oldest and most well-known scripts of Arabic; "Orientalist", see prev, the script has been in use since before orientalism was a thing; "اللسان العربي (a-lisan al-arabi)" is absurdly over-meticulous and not the used term to refer to the language either in Arabic or other languages, WP:COMMONNAME would apply here. Again, if it's used on Arabic Wikipedia's front page, using it in this article is fine, at least until further consensus is reached. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowstormfigorion please self-revert. The discussion is ongoing and you don’t have consensus for the change you wish to implement. A majority so far (FunLater and myself) believe the article is better with no image at this point. When I have a moment, perhaps tomorrow, I’ll address the arguments you make though you haven’t satisfactorily addressed the ones I raised. إيان (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funlater's response was concerning the previous file, and I believe I did address your arguments. Again, text files, as opposed to images of medieval manuscripts, are the standard infobox files used for articles on modern spoken languages; there's nothing wrong with SVG images, see Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Persian, Urdu, etc. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 07:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the file that was used on 29 February is not a good representation of typed Arabic script. It looks unlike most modern typed text and it is, unlike most Arabic text, vowelized. But...
I still find no image to be the best option, the same way there is no need to add an image saying "Latina" or "English" on each of these pages. The image is redundant, العربية by itself (without لغة), instead of عربي, is uncommon in my Arabic language (and likely many others) and the Arabic script can't represent all Arabic languages: The Maltese language uses Latin. Levantine, Darija, etc. are commonly written in slightly different versions of Arabizi, in addition to the Arabic script, and Levantine is sometimes even written in the Hebrew script (the infobox has a list of scripts).
A map of Arabic varieties, in my opinion, better represents Arabic than العربية does, and should be the top image. FunLater (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, a file of one of the most well-known scripts of Arabic is a good representation of Arabic, the fact that an aspect or two of it are not present in other scripts is not really a reason not to include it. Also, the Arabic script is integral to Arabic and the second most-used script in the world, not inserting it simply because it's not used in Maltese, makes little to no sense. As for العربية, it is the most common term used to refer to the language in Modern Standard Arabic and other languages, e.g., the languages side menu on Wikipedia. Until further decision and consensus is made, the thuluth file is a decent replacement and compromise. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabic Wikipedia is in MSA and is referred to in MSA. This page isn't about MSA or the Arabic script; it's about all the non-signed Arabic varieties, which cannot be represented by a single word written in a single script using a single font. Also, please let's keep using the stable version with the bland العربية until a general consensus is reached. FunLater (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with no image. And with the bland Traditional Arabic version of العربية over the Orientalist ornamental image Snowstormfigorion keeps trying to force despite consensus against it. إيان (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the Arabic script cannot be used to represent Arabic due to Maltese and other minor forms whose number of speakers all-together represent >1% of the majority using the script is plain unreasonable; the Arabic script is perhaps the most distinguishing feature of Arabic. العربية is used in Modern Standard Arabic due to it being the standard term used to refer to the language; and as it is not possible to use all fonts at once a well-known font is used instead. إيان, again, "ornamental" is completely arbitrary and subjective, and calling thuluth orientalist is the same as calling this 1250 quran orientalist. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not only about so-called MSA nor is it only about Arabic vernaculars. It treats Arabic comprehensively in WP:summary style, from its historic predecessors and origins through to the present. Indeed, this article should not give undue weight in the main image to marginal use like Maltese or ad-hoc chat orthography with which virtually nothing is published. If there is an image (which, again, is not necessary), it is entirely appropriate for it to be one that displays Arabic script.
That Snowstormfigorion's image is uselessly ornamental is not arbitrary or subjective. All of those little V shapes are purely decorative and serve no purpose at all. They are called علامات الإهمال. Once upon a time they denoted a حرف مهمل but now they are often used (abused) by calligraphers as space fillers.
The 1250 muṣḥaf is actually in the muhaqqaq hand, not thuluth. There are historical manuscripts of quality written in versions of thuluth made over the centuries since Ibn Muqla reportedly invented it that are much better than the garbage image Snowstormfigorion is trying to force through. However, the best hand/font for representing Arabic would be Kufic (also used in the 1250 muṣḥaf). It's more significant historically and today, and—unlike thuluth—it has been used everywhere Arabic has been used; it's not an exclusively Mashreqi hand. إيان (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is how the script is written, and why is the image "garbage"? because it's an SVG? As for regional use, it's really not a factor that should be considered, instead the notability of the script. It seems that your argument against the thuluth script is simply that you're not fond of it. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SILENCE, I've reinserted the image of the thuluth script, as I don't see the argument it being anything more than arbitrary. If it's featured on the home page of this site's Arabic iteration, the flag of the country spanning most of the language's region of origin, and the flag and emblem of the Arab League—which the article itself states is used for the language—then it's fine to include here. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: It's easy to "no consensus" and "stop edit-warring"-revert other editors; unless you disagree with the edit and have a valid argument for doing so, all you're doing is WP:STONEWALLING.
The last posting made by myself hasn't received a response in 4+ months, and I made it abundantly clear in the edit summary that the edit isn't set in stone and that, as stated prior, any who disagree and have a valid argument against the edit are welcome to revert and discuss this in the talk page. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The WP:ONUS to seek consensus for your proposed change is entirely on you. 2) Not a single editor has agreed with you. 3) The other editors are not obligated to answer, much less convince you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EDITCON, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted". There's yet an established consensus concerning this and no disagreement has been voiced for over four months since the last posting, and mere argument devoid "agreeing" is not how this works nor how consensus is built, as the former by itself would constitute WP:JDL; applies to your third point withal. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, therefore, there is no reason for you to assume anything other than it doesn't have consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion did not result in a consensus to include or omit anything. Again, there hasn't been a response to the last posting in almost five months, thus there is no reason for you to assume there is sill disagreement; the latter I made clear that if persists the edit may be reverted and that discussion can be resumed. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion did not result in a consensus to include or omit anything therefore, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. M.Bitton (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary—therefore, per WP:EDITCON, and as stated above, unless you disagree with the edit and have a legitimate argument for doing so, you're WP:STONEWALLING. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as others have disagreed with you, and they have (you know this all too well), you have no choice but to abide by the NOCONSENSUS. If you're not happy with that outcome, you know what to do. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this—WP:EDITCON—works; since the end of the discussion, I've since made another post, and unless there's evidence of further disagreement, you should, as you're not warranted to revert solely on "no consensus". Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the image you are adding per the same arguments I made previously when I disagreed with the image you were adding. FunLater (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That not cool with me 102.220.249.249 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am all with إيان and FunLater here. User-generated vector graphics that simply diplay the endonym of the language in a larger size than the native name parameter right above it are generally useless in language articles, whether they produce plain text or feign to be calligraphic. They add nothing of value here. FunLater has suggested to add a distribution map instead, but note that we have a different parameter for that which is already in use. I basically like إيان's idea of a snippet from a historical manuscript, although finding the proper choice might open another can of worms of unnecessary discussions—but maybe not. –Austronesier (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FunLater, Austronesier, what and why exactly do you disagree with what's been stated here? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was used in the places you mentioned based on its style. But the font looks too different from the most commonly used fonts to warrant it representing Arabic. FunLater (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the addition of File:Arabic calligraphy thuluth.svg in this article. The file is not in use any of the three articles you mentioned in your comment from 06:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC). Obviously, your Commons image of the thuluth script is not featured in the flags of Saudi Arabia and the Arabic League.
Sure, you like your own work. I don't disagree with that, i.e. the fact that you like that image so much. But I disagree with using the file here in this article. Why? See what I've written less than three hours ago (and also all the very good arguments brought forward by User:إيان). –Austronesier (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good image that could represent Arabic should be
  • high quality,
  • significant to Arabic,
  • and not something that would make any popular Arabic-speaking ethnicities feel not well-represented (for example, Islamic manuscripts won't represent Arab Christians).
FunLater (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

[edit]

change ""Arabic is an official language of 26 states and one disputed territory, the third most after English and French, one of six official languages of the United Nations,and is the liturgical language of Islam." to

"Arabic is an official language of 26 states and one disputed territory, the third most frequently spoken after English and French, one of six official languages of the United Nations,and is the liturgical language of Islam." 2601:2C3:C000:3830:44A9:E5AE:1261:A607 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not the third most frequently "spoken". M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's gotta be the third most something. If it isn't the third most anything then, of course, the clause doesn't belong there. Largoplazo (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's referring to the number of states where it's official (that's why French is listed as the second). M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

[edit]

This article needs attention from an expert in linguistics. The specific problem is: There seems to be some confusion surrounding the chronology of Arabic's origination, including notably in the paragraph on Qaryat Al-Faw (also discussed on talk). There are major sourcing gaps from "Literary Arabic" onwards. 64.189.18.48 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skitash (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn. Consensus was don't move per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), and the nominator withdrew his request. FunLater (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic → Arabic language – Like French language, Hebrew language, Persian language, etc. --Karim talk to me :)..! 10:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per all above Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn Ok, I initially didn't notice that this title is fine per WP:NCLANG, so I withdrew my request. --Karim talk to me :)..! 16:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arabic&oldid=1250610233"