Talk:Arabistan

Arabistan

This is the real name.

Early Revert of stub before article has chance to develop

Note: i'm on self-pledged no revert on some topics, but this isn't one of them. first observe than long-standness is no endorsement whatsoever, in particular when no serious discussion exists on the talk page. you may further note that the word 'arabistan' in english does not refer to Saudi Arabia or the arabian peninsula. this whole thing reeks of an attempt to hide the emirate. admittedly, this was a stub, but a well referenced one, much better referenced than the disambiguation page. i'm reverting your revert, please continue the discussion in the talk page. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no political motivation here: I came by to "stub-sort" the article, from WP:WSS, looked at the history and observed that in between various arguments the article had been a useful-looking dab page, albeit too longwinded. No explanation had been given by the various editors over-writing the dab page. Perhaps there needs either to be a disambiguation page at Arabistan (disambiguation) with link from your article, or your article to be moved to Arabistan (emirate), with link from the dab page. PamD (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, being involved with political articles makes people twitchy. i've been burned by this myself, and then i find myself ashamed enough to inflict the very same thing i dislike. now, back on the subject - i don't believe the other disambiguations have any merit - 'Arabistan' refers to Saudi Arabia or the Arabian Peninsula in languages other than english. I don't think that merits a disambiguation - the little 'If you were looking for...' italicized text is more than enough to direct the odd foreign-languaged visitor to the english name, in particular when compared with the burden of content-free disambiguation. Keep in mind that the other meanings are not of content by themselves, so we don't supercede an article by another - an important reasoning behind disambiguations that doesn't apply here. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! you obviously have more wikipedia experience than i do, it looks much better now. MiS-Saath (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

References don't appear unless you type {{reflist}} or similar. And they appear better if you put in full "inline citations" - for the easy way to do this, go to "My preferences", "Gadgets", "Editing gadgets" and tick "refTools". Then you get a button in the edit bar to add citations, and it makes it a lot easier to put in all the fields so that it comes out as a readable reference, not a raw web address. PamD (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

'Fringe theories' and 'POV fork'

I contend that this page is NOT a POV fork or a fringe theory:

First and foremost, it is better sourced now than before. the fact that there existed an Arab Emirate in the area has academic support from the Journal of Middle eastern studies and from human right organizations such as the UNPO. The merits of the disambiguation have also been discussed and shown thus far to be of significantly lesser value. MiS-Saath (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a Disambig page not an article, the point you want to raise is already mentioned in the Khuzestan article, but feel free to enhance that section of Khuzestan article with better sources even further.Farmanesh (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing which inherently makes this page a disambiguation. repeating the same argument does not make it correct. the merits of the disambiguation have been discussed here, and you have not added anything constructive to this discussion. Since i cannot revert anymore, i will have to resort to dispute resolution. A redirect to the appropriate section in Khuzestan is appropriate indeed, but somehow i doubt it will be an accepted solution. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That is, of course, without regarding the attempts to rip this information off the Khuzestan article, so this will point to nothing. I don't see any way out besides calling for intervention. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your sources like amnesty international and UNPO are not a valid sources for history. Such weird sources get their information from a political group. The name Khuzestan is more ancient, and has been used continuously since Parthian times. Arabistan has been used in Parallel to Khuzestan during the Safavid and Qajar era. SO the name which is common. more ancient, more current and official is going to be used in Wikipedia. Your just putting false information where-as the area was not renamed Khuzestan. Khuzestan has been used continuously, even during Qajar and Safavid times, and finally it was the correct name that was chosen. I have sourced from 1883 (even an Arabic Lebanese encyclopedia) and an agreement from 1908 that uses the name Khuzestan (Qajar era). Of course there are sources from Parthian, Sassanid, Abbassid, Mongols times. UNPO does not standup to this. Arabistan can not be redirect to Khuzestan since it was a name that was used in parallel to Khuzestan only for a short period. Khuzestan though encompasses a much longer period, it is the official name and has been used continuously from Parthian times to Qajar times and onwards. --Nepaheshgar 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the UNPO page. It says: As part of the centralization and the re-appropriation of the region by Teheran, Al-Ahwaz was renamed Khuzestan by the central government in 1936, further attempting to deny the Arab presence in Al-Ahwaz.. This is pure nonsense and fabrication. The area was not called al-Ahwaz in any period. Ahwaz/Ahvaz is just a major city and it is actually a plural of Khuzz, Akhwaz. The Khuzz being an Elamite people. This again shows why the UNPO site is not material to be used in an Encyclopedia.--Nepaheshgar 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

UNPO may not be RS for historical data, but the primary source for Arabistan was an article in the Journal of Middle Eastern studies. as the UNPO echos that, it was added as a secondary resource. as is, the name 'arabistan' refers in the english language to a single thing - the short-lived political entity in Khuzestan. therefore it should be preferred to the current (useless and not well referenced) disambiguation page, as explained above. Furthermore, it is not up to you to judge the truthfulness of what UNPO says, but rather its reliability as a source. see WP:V for more details. but this is all moot, since the primary source was a reference from an academic journal. MiS-Saath (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your not reading the arguments. So I will repeat them. The UNPO is not a unbiased site and journal it quotes (from an Arabian country?) has no weight if it contradicts primary sources. And one can not verify its veracity if it is quoted by UNPO or it is not available (where is the author and is the author unbiased?). I just showed you that the UNPO site fabricated history and instead you are pusuing the same POV. I looked at the UNPO page. It says: As part of the centralization and the re-appropriation of the region by Teheran, Al-Ahwaz was renamed Khuzestan by the central government in 1936, further attempting to deny the Arab presence in Al-Ahwaz.. This is pure nonsense and fabrication. It is pure fabrication of history and basically questions the whole reliability of the page. Even it quotes a journal(author? which journal? Where is the actual quotes?), you are making original research WP:OR based on a unacademic site and supporting fabricated information in an Encyclopedia. And no, Arabistan was not a short-lived policitcal entity as it the maps have it under Qajar rule. Maybe there was powerful chiefs there, but that holds for much of Persia/Iran during Qajar rule, where the central government was not strong in many areas, but there was no independent political entity. Note this Zand [1] map. It says Chusitan/Khuzstan. Another map of Persia [2] no such thing as "Arabistan". A map of Qajar, there is no separate entity from iran called "Arabistan"[3], but just parallel name of Khuzistan and Arabistan. So the fabrication that Reza Shah changed the name is simply a lie (in the UNPO site it mentions this lie). The wider fabrication is that the area was called "Ahwaz"!. Show me a map before 1936 during the Pahlavi era that the area is called "Ahwaz"! There is no "Arabistan" as a short-lived political entity outside of recognized Qajar territory. Show me some maps prior to the 20th century that has "Arabistan" outside of Qajar government. So everything you are writing is coming from UNPO, which is not reliable and contradicts primary sources. And I just showed the site you are quoting from puts out a big fabrications and it is my right to judge its truthfulness. Again to make it short: 1) The UNPO site fabricated history (at least twice). 2) Arabistan is only Khuzestan for a few centuries in parallel with the name Khuzestan. Arabistan was used for a few centuries, Khuzestan has been used continously for more than 2000 years. Both referring to the same area. Even in the Qajar era. 3) There was no independent entity called Arabistan. It (Khuzestan which was in parallel also called Arabistan in the Qajar era) was under Qajar rule and like much of Qajar rule, there was a Khan-khaani (tribal) system where some tribes held important powers in some provinces. But they are recognized as part of Qajar government (see the maps I showed) by foreign governments. --Nepaheshgar 14:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Arabistan article was primarily based on an academic journal as a source. UNPO wasn't the primary source. this is not the issue here, nor is it the issue at Talk:Iranian Arabs (it relates to using UNPO in an entirely different matter). but what you think or 'prove' about the UNPO is meaningless as it's not the forum to do so. show me an academic quote (and not a self-researched thesis) that says that UNPO is not a reliable human rights source, and i'll add reservations to the appropriate article. but none of this applies to Arabistan anyway. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above makes UNPO unreliable. I show two gross historical errors and I backed up my claims with maps and actual sources. Where is a reliable source that states :"The area was called Al-Ahwaz before 1936". If the historical aspect of the site is unreliable and politically motivated, then the site is unreliable for Wikipedia. If there is a human rights issues that could be correct in that site, then other reliable sources should mention it and you can put it in ethnic minorities in Iran. Also please give full citation for the journal article and exact page and paragraph where it mentions that the area was called al-Ahwaz before 1936! Or that the area was not called Khuzestan during the 19th century. I have primary sources (maps, encyclopedias and etc.) that use Khuzestan during the Qajar era. So yes, please prove it with maps that the area was not part of the recognized Qajar government and it was independent and it was called Ahwaz. All these historical fabrications are politically motivated and they have no maps, books and etc. to support such a claim. --Nepaheshgar 15:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just an encylopedia, not a solution to the worlds political problems. Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary has an entry for Arabistan on page 61: '1. Peninsula. Asia. See ARABIAN PENINSULA. 2. Province. Iran. see KHUZESTAN.' There should be links to those articles on this page.harlan (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Format of dab page

If this page is to remain as a dab page, then it needs to be tidied up in line with WP:MOSDAB. It needs the tag {{geodis}} rather than {{disamb}}, and the entries need to be reduced to a minimal amount of text. I made these changes yesterday and think that this version is an improvement on the restored version currently protected. (The article on the Arabian Peninsula does not mention Arabistan or Arabestan, which makes me wonder whether this link belongs in the dab page:is there any evidence for this sense of the word?). PamD (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of Arabistan in connection with the peninsula is certainly well documented. It is understandable that the article on the Arabian Peninsula doesn't mention that it was located within Arabistan, since the two terms weren't completely synonymous. The Ottomans used the term in a slightly broader sense for all of Arabia. That included the area starting from where the Euphrates river makes its descent into Syria (i.e. the Taurus mountains of Cilicia), Syria and Palestine, as well as the Arabian peninsula itself.

There doesn't seem to be an article that satisfies those exact geographical requirements. Here is some information that could be included in a stub article for 'Ottoman Arabistan':

A typical Ottoman application of the term was the 'Arabistan Ordusu', or the provincial Ottoman Army for Arabia. It was based at Damascus, and was put in charge of Syria, Cilicia, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula. see History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, Cambridge University Press, 1977,ISBN 0521291666, page 85 The Damascus Protocol provides another illustration of the relationship. Arabs living in one of the existing Arab districts of the Arabian peninsula, the Emirate of Hejaz, asked for independence on behalf of 'the whole Arab nation'. Their request included the peninsula and an adjoining Arab state comprised of Cilicia, northern Iraq, Syria and Palestine as indicated on the map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ArabstateDamascus1914.png

Arabistan was also used in the context of the 'Greater Syria' or the Pan-Arab movement. For example, Butrus Bustani wrote that 'Syria which is widely known as barr ash-Sham and Arabistan is our fatherland [watan] in all its diverse plains, rugged terrains, coasts and mountains. And the people of Syria, whichever their creed, community, racial origin or groups are the sons of the fatherland.' Antun Sa'adeh: The Man, His Thought: an Anthology, Adel Beshara, Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2007, ISBN 086372308X, page 137.

In classic Arabic, the Cilician-Syrian frontage was called 'Ash Sham' or the 'Left', Bilad ash-Sham, or Barr ash-Sham (Land of the Left). The hinterland of the Arabian peninsula, where Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Ka’ba edifice, was called 'Yemen', or the 'Right'. see for example Palestine: The Reality, Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries, Published by Longmans, Green and co., 1939, Page 4 One of Jeffries observations about that entire region was that 'the Turks call it "Arabistan"'. The modern state of Yemen is in fact located on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. The Ottomans either exercised sovereignty or maintained suzerainty over Yemen until the modern era. These 'Left' and 'Right' wings were the northern and southern halves of Ottoman 'Arabistan'.

The concept of the geographical unit that became Arabistan probably predates the current era. In the tradition of the Abrahamic religions, Gen 14:15 explained that Hobath was 'on the left hand of Damascus'. Gen 15:2 indicates that Abraham and his kinsmen lived in the vicinity of Damascus. All of Jacob's sons were thus born somewhere in the 'Land of the Left', except one son who was born in the vicinity of Bethlehem (Gen 35:18). Jacob named that son Benjamin (Ben Yemen), the 'son of the Right Hand'. The story of Abraham, his kinsmen, and the covenants are purportedly the raison d'etre for the ancient boundaries in this region. harlan (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)