Talk:Varieties of Arabic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Varieties of Arabic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 21 days

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.

RfC on map of varieties

Should we keep the new map on this article? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Agree A455bcd9 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this needs an RfC unless there is someone opposing the new map. Anyway I see no reason not to use Ethnologue data, it's probably better than a lot of what you can find out there. (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, there's some strong opposition from some users, see for instance: here, there, or Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arabic Varieties Map. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I support if this is the best map available in your opinion. (t · c) buidhe 18:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it is the best map available. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The map looks good; it is properly sourced; and it is useful and informative for the article. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but let's mention the source (Ethnologue). Some issues have been raised concerning the accuracy of the map however I think that the value that the map provides to the reader outweighs these concerns. Alaexis_¿question? 12:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Alaexis: what do you mean by "let's mention the source"? The sources are already all mentioned on File:Arabic Varieties Map.svg. And although Ethnologue is the main source, five other sources were used. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I didn't look past the first item in the list. It does seem like the main source, just counting the countries, so maybe we can write "per Ethnologue and other sources." We can also add these sources as references here to make them more visible. Alaexis_¿question? 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Alaexis. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

@A455bcd9: RfC statements are supposed to be brief and neutral. Can you please move everything that you added before the question to the discussion section or your own !vote? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: Hi, sorry for that, I've only done a few RfCs in the past. I fixed the problem, thanks for the feedback. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not quite right. If you're going to do a survey + discussion format, the survey section should just say "agree" and your arguments should go in the discussion section, so people can extend or rebut them in context. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffedata: sorry again... M.Bitton adopted this format. I moved my comment below, is that fine? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a455bcd9's opinion

The community reached a consensus in August and September 2022 and decided to to remove the previous map because it was WP:OR, unsourced, inaccurate, and erroneous. The new map, requested in the Map workshop, follows Ethnologue's maps. Ethnologue is considered a reliable source in linguistics per Ethnologue#Reception,_reliability,_and_use and Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Interpreting online sources of data. This map also follows the guidelines of Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect map is better than no map

Between data from a reliable source (and Ethnologue does appear to be accepted as that in Wikipedia) and data from original research / no source, I'll go with the former.

When the reliable source is wrong, that's a sticky situation, but there's nothing we can do about that; an encyclopedia isn't an authority on the facts; it just summarizes other sources. If there is no reliable source contradicting Ethnologue, we have to report the Ethnologue facts. To me, it's like when a judge has to assume Congress meant what is written in the law even though the judge knows lawmakers intended something else. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sharqi Arabic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sharqi Arabic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 7 § Sharqi Arabic until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 23:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]