Talk:Arab rule in Georgia

Redirect to Emirate of Tbilisi or independent page?
Hum, it looks like the creation of this page, independently from the existing Emirate of Tbilisi, might be controversial, given that it was changed to a redirect to the latter few minutes after its creation. As the creator of the page, I feel obligated to defend it. I started the page because I saw it listed on the WikiProject_Georgia_(country) page as an "Article to be created". Reading the article History of Georgia (country), I noticed the absence of a section or sub-section devoted to the history of Georgia under Arab suzerainty, between the last presiding princes of Iberia and the 9th century rise of the Bagrationi. Reading the Emirate of Tbilisi article, I also noticed that, according to it, it was only one of several Muslim states, principalties, or attempts to assert Arab political power over Georgian land, even if it was the most prominent and durable one. The Georgian wikipedia has 2 articles, one about the emirate (თბილისის საამირო, one about the period Georgians know as Araboba (არაბობა საქართველოში. One is about a state, the other about a period in the history of Georgia. I plan to make clear in the article as I keep writing it that the Arab presence, successive invasions and struggle against local lords happened not only during and under the emirate. For instance, to quote Suny, "By 693, the Arabs had again taken Kartli-Iberia and Armenia with the aid of their Khazar allies, and this time they established direct rule through their viceroy at Dvin." --Susuman77 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. The wording Arab Georgia is wrong. The major Arab rule was on Tbilisi and surroundings, so it should be redirected on Emirate of Tbilisi GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm open to discussing the wording of the title, but it doesn't mean that the article should be redirected, for reasons I put above (Arabs were present in Georgia before the emirate, etc.). Your expression of "major" Arab rule is not clear enough, and even if direct Arab rule, at times, was restricted to Tbilisi and its surroundings, we can read in the historical sources about tribute being paid to them from other parts of Georgia, various military expeditions, etc. The fact is that there was no other power during the heyday of the Arabs, that could pretend to suzerainty, or political power, over Georgian lands - nor the local princes, who only controlled their fiefdoms, nor other states 5Byzantium, Khazars), making the expression "Arab Georgia" pertinent.--Susuman77 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Susuman that the article should stay and that Arab control was not always limited to Tbilisi. However, I also concur with GeorgianJorjadze on the naming issue. I understand that "Arab Georgia" is supposed to be a descriptive title, but, with all due respect to Susuman, it is still a neologism not supported by sources. The Georgian historiography uses a very flexible word, Araboba, to refer to the period in question, but, unfortunately, it is not directly translatable in English. Any thoughts? --KoberTalk 04:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually tend to agree with Kober in regards to the title, which I don't really find satisfactory. What about using Araboba? It is the Georgian word, can be explained in the introduction. Otherwise, I was also thinking of "Arab rule in/over Georgia".--Susuman77 (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The name should be changed to Arab conquest of Georgia as Arab Georgia as wording is wrong. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arab conquest of Georgia is also an option since we have many similar entries in the Category:Muslim conquests. My personal preference is "Arab rule in Georgia".--KoberTalk 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Between those 2 options, I favor "Arab rule in Georgia". There is already an article about the invasion of 735-737 at Marwan ibn Muhammad's invasion of Georgia (and we can create one about the 1st invasion of 645 if sufficient sources are found). If we change the name of the article here to "Arab Conquest of Georgia", only the 1st section remains pertinent. For the rest of the period, it can be argued that the article "Emirate of Tbilisi" is enough, but I think it best to keep the emirate article about the state itself, its conflicts with the caliphs, its progressive shrinking, etc., and keep a more general article here that can present both the conquest of Georgia by the Arabs and how their rule was progressively weakened by a series of factors: the people kept the Christian faith, the local nobles kept their faith and their local fiefs, the general balance of power was more favourable to buffer states than to the domination of Georgia by a single foreign power, etc. To put it more generally, I think this article can help present not only how foreigners kept invading Georgia, but also how Georgia managed to survive those invasions with its culture and statehood preserved. If I don't hear any objections, I shall move the article to Arab rule in Georgia.--Susuman77 (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do support the move and rationale you are supporting it with.--KoberTalk 17:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)