So here I am looking up Arabic dialects:

Adnan, hmm, that sounds interesting…

Ishmael, son of Abraham - yes, that Abraham.

Read on. Everything is explained.

Sorry, what's the issue? Is there a reliable source that Ishmael son of Abraham didn't exist?

Is there a reliable source that he did? Is there a reliable source that "by the grace of god" (the article actually says that) he had twelve sons from the daughter of Mudad, whose names were Nabet, Qidar, Edbael, Mebsham, Mishma', Duma, Micha, Hudud, Yetma, Yetour, Nafis and Qidman, and who ultimately formed twelve tribes inhabiting Mecca?

Bear in mind, this article is not supposed to be about a religious concept, but the actual origin of a particular tribe.

The source is this book, The Sealed Nectar:

Scroll down the page for the genealogy.

But see the beauty of Wikipedia. This is a sourced article. So everything in it must stand unless and until somone provides sources to refute it.

Actually, note the title. It's supposed to be about a personal name and/or the person himself (the version before had name infoboxes but described a particular person), and I've restored it to the version from before it was vandalized.

Compare Genesis 25, 13-15, which lists the twelve sons of Ishmael.

I just hope the biographer of Noah and his progeny was more familiar with the subject than the would-be biographers of those two scientists who were discussed this week on NTWW.

Why complain about it when you can fix it?

Why make suggestions that banned users cannot comply with?

Random832 has saved Wikipedia by reverting the addition.

I am not expressing an opinion on the value of this addition, but why do editors such as Random832 become involved in a article in a subject area which they have never contributed and have no expertise? Surely it would have been better if the contributors to this article sorted out what to do with this latest addition.

Because it is a copyright violation from http://thearabhistory.com/adnan. That it stood for half a year with do-nothing copyediting from a dozen users is a cause for concern.

Proabivouac is not banned.

Not at this particular moment, but why should someone who is treated with such disrespect lift a finger to help Wikipedia?

The answer is they shouldn't.

Moulton, under which your comment sits, is banned. He sought to fix problems. He was banned for his good faith efforts. Giano identified a different type of problem and went through the proper channels and was promised a resolution. When he pointed out that the promised resolution was not forthcoming, a campaign of vilification was started. So it appears there may be many valid reasons why people cannot or chose not to "fix it".