Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirate of Arabistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Arabistan

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Emirate of Arabistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article suffers from heavy WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:VER and WP:POV issues. Examples can be found in the discussions at [1] [2]. It has already been established that WP:RS heavily contradicts this article and its contents (such as the newly created article Safavid Arabestan). HistoryofIran (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per talk page. Benyamin (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Split per [3] -- Qahramani44 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see any reason why this article should be deleted. There has been a continuous attack on the article's page by those attempting to erase the Arab history of the region in question. It appears that the same 4-5 accounts are constantly on the offensive trying to remove as much information that discusses the Arab identity of this region. From what I understand primary sources can be used on wikipedia, but instead every primary source used on the article was removed as "original research". I do not think that official British documents from the British archives are original research. And even if they are, the page doesn't have any archive material left, so why the WP:OR? Instead of trying to help form a better article, the 4-5 contributors have gone out of their way to remove as much material as possible. It doesn't take much to do some research and see many references to the Emirate of Arabistan both in English and other languages, unlike the newly created page "Safavid Arabestan" with its newly created name that has no historical mention whatsoever. VivereInPace (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't take much research, then why do you keep attempting to add WP:OR sources to the article, as you have just done recently? [4] Unlike this fictional article, Safavid Arabestan is backed by high quality academic sources (I.B.Tauris, Brill, etc) and leading scholars (Rudi Matthee, Willem Floor, etc), and which haven't been mixed together either for that matter (WP:SYNTH). I highly advise you to read the afromentioned rules, as well as WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. Also, all of those 4-5 users are established users, not just some randoms. There's nothing wrong with removing information that violates several guidelines, but there is certainly in adding. I can't help but feel all this looks like tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what WP:OR is? Or do you just like throwing it around every time you see something that you don't like?
The definition of original research in the policy is: material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
This definition is clarified in a footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
You cannot declare something to be original research merely because the current version of the article does not name a reliable source for that material. Content is only original research when no source in the entire world could be cited to support that material. If you are reasonably certain that any reliable source (anywhere in the world, in any language) says the same thing, then this is not original research.[1]
Also, the link that you provided on Edgar O'Ballance doesn't say that he is just a journalist, but that he is a military journalist, researcher, defence commentator and academic lecturer specialising in international relations and defence problems. Seems pretty reliable to me. And I don't see why there is a problem with the source as the history of Arabistan is relevant in the context of the Gulf War.VivereInPace (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there are zero (reliable) sources that support the history of this so called 15-20th-century Emirate of Arabistan which you made through a mix of WP:SYNTH, non-WP:RS, etc ([5]), then yes, I still stand by that you are engaging in WP:OR, amongst other violations of guidelines, such as at least WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:VER. It is not for nothing that huge amounts of information have been removed by veteran editors [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and several discussions have been made against it, including one where you mixed several sources together to push a certain point of view, a section where you failed to answer Pahlevun [14] What relevance does O'Ballance's qualifications have to do with this historical topic? Is it his military journalist background? No? His 'research' (whatever that could be)? No? No His defense commentary? No? His academic lecturing in international and defense problems? No? Then what is it then? Could these qualifications be relevant for modern events? Probably. Since you just read WP:OR, you might want to read WP:SPS next. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not WP:OR. The Emirate of Arabistan has historically existed so you can't say that it is original research when there are sources that say that it did. And there are currently no self published sources on the page so I don't know why you are mentioning WP:SPS. The points that you are making are specific to contributions. If there are still any problems within the page, they should be resolved. That does not mean that an entire article should be deleted. In addition, given that the history of Arabistan has been suppressed it is more difficult to find secondary material, especially in English, hence the use of primary sources and even O'Ballance, who, despite everything you said, is still an academic writing about a historical event. VivereInPace (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained (just like how you haven't explained a lot of things, including Pahlevun's recent concerns in the diff above) how O'Ballance is reliable, when he is not specialized in this field, not even being an actual academic historian. Anyways, we could sit and argue all day. Ultimately the diffs speak for themselves. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I have not managed to convince you that the O'Ballance source is unreliable then you should remove it. Similarly, all the issues that have been identified have been removed. And if there are future issues on the page, you can also remove them. Again, nothing that you are saying warrants a deletion of the page. There is also plenty of work to be done shed light on the history of this region.VivereInPace (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research
  • Delete Per persistent failure of the creator of this page to rebuff the sound concerns raised at the article's talk page, over a very long period of times, all of which are based on numerous core WP policies (WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, etc.). Their persistent attempts at sweeping these justified concerns under the carpet, combined with their only interest being a very small part of Iranian history, I believe they are finding themselves deep within WP:OWN, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:AGENDA and WP:TENDENTIOUS territory, which will probably require ANI at some point (we may have crossed this line a long time ago already). Their attempts at labeling numerous established Wikipedia users as "the same 4-5 accounts" only serves to reinforce this. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a reason to delete the whole page. As per Wikipedia, "It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough." And you are absolutely right in saying that the history of Arabistan is "a very small part of Iranian history", because it is. Arabistan (and by Arabistan I am referring to what is today the south western part of Khuzestan and not the entire province) shares more with the rest of the eastern Arab world than it does with anywhere in Iran. VivereInPace (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize the term "Arabistan" applied to southwestern Khuzestan only dates back since the Safavid period, yes? And as I pointed out in the talk page [15], this article hasn't yet decided what exactly it should be. There was no "Emirate of Arabistan", there was an (attested) Emirate of Muhammarah, ruled by the Bani Ka'ab from 18th-early 20th century, and there was a "Province of Arabistan" (since 16th century to 1925). The two are separate concepts since the former sometimes only controlled a sliver of Arabistan and the latter's borders changed wildly over the centuries. This current article seems to have an identity crisis between being "Emirate of Muhammarah", "Safavid/Qajar Arabistan", and "History of Arabs in Khuzestan". All three subjects while related are extremely different in their timeframes and details and splitting this article into those three components makes a lot more sense than arguing over whether the article title is legitimate or not. Lastly, conspiracy theories about "history suppression" and other nonsense is the kind of stuff belonging on forums, not on Wikipedia. --Qahramani44 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I believe the article must be improved and some sections are poorly written, I oppose to removing most of Wikipedia pages on historical subjects. In particular, this subject seems notable and needs additional review, and probably second opinion of the experts on the Arabic history. I also wonder why no one tried to improve the article as Wikipedia policy clearly requests to first try to improve it. If necessary, I'm ready to do some additional research in the coming weeks and leave the sources (if found) on the Talk page for a new discussion. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the issue. This article is not a historical subject. Qahramani’s comment up above yours perfectly summed it up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the results of the key words search:

My point is that there are plenty of sources to be found and improve the page based even on the initial search here. I see no sense in deleting the article only because it is poorly written. We are not talking about company or a person here, - it is a historical region. However, I may agree that "Arabistan" might be more appropriate and I do not mind to change the page's title, and it most certainly has to be improved. --Onetimememorial (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS, those first two links are far from reliable. The two remaining links are just searches for it (no one is disputing the existence of the word 'Arabistan' either). Moreover, it seems that you did not read the diffs above either. If people are going to come with their opinion, experienced or not, could they please do it at least somewhat thoroughly? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm probably not an expert on Arab or Persian history but I still did some research. Now I feel that you are trying to diminish my vote by implying "I'm an expert and you are not". I don't think it is a constructive discussion if someone is condescending in dialogue - what do you think?
  • Second, you simply stated the the two first articles are not reliable. Can you detail why they are not reliable?
  • Third, I just realized that there this topic exists on three more pages - Punjabi, Arabic and Urdu. I also noticed that most of the people here are experts on the history of Iran but my point is that if the page exists in three more languages that means that we need more experts who know those languages. This is why I think it is preliminary to delete and I now change my opinion to speedy keep. --Onetimememorial (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Existing in different languages doesnt make this article anymore legitimate. As for your question, kindly click on those links I linked up above, as those will address it. Also, I apologize if you found my tone concending, that was not my intention - I will try to do better in that regard. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First article seems fine, second article is from Al-Arabiya which is the state media of Saudi Arabia. In the Emirate of Arabistan Google Books link you sent a couple of the (first page) books appear to be questionable (one by David Frum who seems to be a political partisan not a historian, one near the bottom which appears to be written by the Syrian Ba'ath). The second link shows mostly 19th-century (British) primary sources so their use should consider WP:PRIMARY principles. Other than that no issues in my opinion, it's mostly about sorting historians from political partisans. --Qahramani44 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A lot of the arguments for deletion seem to be based on verification issues. While problematic, this is not a reason for deletion. The state of the content has no bearing on notability, and this state existed and is discussed by sources, and, in fact, my Google Scholar search terms up at least four sources not even used here discussing the state's occupation, annexation and general status, dating it from at least 1857 to 1923. If the deletion argument was that the current piece is so bad that it should be removed from mainspace, then I would expect arguments for either draftification or WP:TNT, but there are neither here. And again, there does not appear to be an issue with notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that my suggestion of splitting the article is basically the same as WP:TNT, so "there are neither here" is incorrect. I don't think anyone here is disputing the existence of Arabistan as a historical region, only how the article + its title portrays it. --Qahramani44 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emirate_of_Arabistan&oldid=1092378574"