Talk:History of the Romans in Arabia

Bias?
Phrases as the second sentence "Unlike many other territories, the Romans never managed to conquer Arabia proper." raise the question of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumannd (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: move the page to the descriptive title (N.B. descriptive titles need not be intuitive) History of the Romans in Arabia at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Arabian Peninsula in the Roman era → Romans in Arabia – Current title is wrong. This page is not about the Arabian Peninsula in the Roman era. It is not about the whole peninsula at all. It is about what its first sentence says: the Roman presence in the Arabian Peninsula. There is nothing in it about Eastern Arabia, for example, because the Romans didn't go there. The proposed title could perhaps be improved, but the current title isn't it. This page was moved unilaterally to a title with a typo in March 2018 by. The typo was fixed by in May and the capitalization was changed by  in June. There was never any discussion. I reverted to the original title earlier today only to be reverted in less than an hour by with the ironic edit summary  The article was stable at the proposed title (the original one) for 8 years. Srnec (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose the Romans in Arabia is less descriptive. I would welcome a new suggestion but Romans in Arabia is far worse than Arabia in the Roman era.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't worse, since, as I pointed out, this page is in no way about Arabia in a given era but about one aspect of Arabian history. Another option is Roman presence in the Arabian Peninsula. –Srnec (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At least that sounds better than "Romans in Arabia". "Romans in Arabia" sounds like a title of a novel. It's ambiguous and clickbait title.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as phrased, but suggest we could find a more intuitive title. What about "Roman Arabia"?  My first idea was "Arabia in the Roman era", which would be an improvement over the present title, but the article would need to cover non-Roman cultures in Arabia, and at present it doesn't seem to do that.  If it were expanded with additional sections—even stubs indicating what else needed to be there—then that would still be an option.  With its focus squarely on Roman trade and occupation, "Roman Arabia" would be better.  However, I think a more expansive article on Arabia during the period is justified, and it probably makes sense to have an article on "Arabia in the Roman era".  Thoughts?  P Aculeius (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently, Roman Arabia redirects to Arabia Petraea. –Srnec (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds logical, in which case "Arabia in the Roman era" would be a good title, but in my opinion it would need to cover Arabia as a whole during the Roman period, not just Roman activity in Arabia. Titles beginning with "Roman" probably should be short, so searchers can intuitively find topics using the name of the place being described as "Roman", while "Arabia in ..." should be equally intuitive, if not more so, and likely would compete against fewer other titles.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Query can somebody direct to the place that has arguments that the current name is incorrect? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument is given above. This article isn't presently about Arabia in the Roman era, it's about Roman activity in Arabia.  At no point was all of Arabia a Roman province, or under Roman occupation, or significantly Romanized.  The article doesn't treat any parts of Arabia except those where there was Roman activity, and it focuses entirely on that activity.  If the article is to be kept at its present title, or an alternative such as "Arabia in the Roman era" or "Arabia in Roman times", it would need to cover non-Roman topics as well as Roman ones.  The first alternative suggested above, "Romans in Arabia", has at best very weak support.  "Roman Arabia" might sound more encyclopedic, but nobody else has weighed in on that suggestion yet that already directs to Arabia Petraea.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , So in one hand we have Netherlands in the Roman era, Slovakia in the Roman era, Switzerland in the Roman era, Serbia in the Roman era, Greece in the Roman era, Libya in the Roman era, Wales in the Roman era, Crimea in the Roman era and Georgia in the Roman era on the other hand we have Romans in Sub-Saharan Africa, Romans in Persia and this article was Romans in Arabia. The title Romans in Arabia doesn't actually reflect what the content is about and sounds ambiguous. The title Arabia in the Roman era or Arabian peninsula in the Roman era, in my opinion, don't require that we cover non-Roman related topics. However, I would suggest Roman-Arabia relations or Roman-Arab relations if Arabia in the Roman era is not okay.SharabSalam (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I disagree about the title "Romans in Arabia" not being accurate; it's accurate, in my opinion, but not a great title for the other reasons you mentioned above. It does sound like the title of a book, or perhaps a program about some fringe theory of history.  I think that "Arabia in the Roman era" would necessarily encompass all of Arabia, not just the bits with Romans in them.  Although as I said above, it's not necessary for each section of the article to be fully-developed in order for it to be valid.  Some could be written as stub sections or subsections for later expansion, but their presence would prevent the title of the article from being misleading.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The page Slovakia in the Roman era was created as Romans in Slovakia and was moved to Marcomannia, then back and then to its present title by Laurel Lodged with the edit summary "Not called Slovakia in the Roman era". I'll leave it to Laurel to explain how one goes from "Not called Slovakia in the Roman era" to the title "Slovakia in the Roman era". Likewise, Wales in the Roman era was originally Roman Wales. There has clearly been a series of moves to standardize titles. Some of these moves make sense, others do not. All from last year:
 * Laurel Lodged moved page Roman Crimea to Crimea in the Roman era: Not called Crimea in the Roman era
 * Laurel Lodged moved page Roman Greece to Greece in the Roman era
 * Laurel Lodged moved page Romans in the Netherlands to Netherlands in the Roman era: Not called Netherlands in the Roman era
 * Laurel Lodged moved page Roman heritage in Serbia to Serbia in the Roman era: Not called Serbia in the Roman era
 * Laurel Lodged moved page Roman Georgia to Georgia in the Roman era: Was not called Georgia in the Roman era
 * Laurel Lodged moved page Roman Libya to Libya in the Roman era: Was not called Libya in the Roman era, except near the end
 * None with discussion and in every case with a nonsensical rationale. Srnec (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the rationale being nonsensical. In the Roman era there were no places called "the Netherlands", "Serbia", or "Georgia", and as alluded to ancient Libya is only remotely connected with the modern state, so the alternative titles make good sense to me in these cases.  None of them have historically been defined by their present borders.  "Roman Greece" is a closer call, since at least the Romans called it "Greece" (well, "Graecia"), but it sounds a bit odd to me.  The only thing in favour of "Roman Crimea" is that Crimea has always been clearly delimited, even if it hasn't always been called "Crimea".  However, I think it's fine to have relatively well-defined places with the title "Roman ...", particularly if they had the same (or cognate) names in antiquity; i.e. Roman Britain, Roman Syria, Roman Egypt.  Wales, perhaps not so much, since it was part of Roman Britain, and didn't become Wales until post-Roman times (and had variable borders for some time).  As for it not having been discussed, obviously you could have raised the issue at any time (or still could), preferably for the group of them (although that wouldn't require that they all be resolved the same way).  Nothing wrong with being bold, as long as there's a logical reason, and you're open to discussing the move afterward should people object.  Obviously if you anticipate significant objections, it's better to start a discussion first.  But as I said, if you object to these old moves, we could certainly start a discussion at CGR, where more of us could participate.  P Aculeius (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how "Not called Serbia in the Roman era" applies to "Roman Serbia" but not "Serbia in the Roman era". The rationale is literally "not called X so we'll move it to X". But aside from that, I'm not arguing for moving any of them back. Interesting that Romans in Persia wasn't moved to Persia in the Roman era, eh? Srnec (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He's not saying that it wasn't called "Serbia in the Roman era", he's saying that in the Roman era there was no place called "Serbia"; this distinguishes it from "Britain" or "Syria", or for that matter "Persia", which certainly did exist as a political and cultural entity under that name throughout the period of Roman interaction. "Roman Serbia" or "Romans in Serbia" could imply that the Romans recognized Serbia as a distinct location or culture, which of course they didn't.  With the title "Serbia in the Roman era", readers should readily understand that it means "the place we now call Serbia"—in Roman times.  As for Persia, we don't know whether Laurel Lodged was even aware of the article, or if there was a particular reason why he only moved certain articles with this title format; perhaps these were the only ones that he was working on, or which he encountered while working on something else.  It's not like there's a rule that if you're going to move some articles in a series, you have to keep going until all potentially-affected articles have the same title format.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm saying that "Roman X" and "X in the Roman era" do not differ in their implications regarding the use of the term X during the Roman era. If "Switzerland" is anachronistic, "Switzerland in the Roman era" is as anachronistic a title as "Roman Switzerland" since there was no Switzerland during the Roman era. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's not what the title "X in the Roman era" means in this context. It means "the place now called X in Roman times, not "the Roman period of the place that the Romans called X", which is what "Roman X" suggests.  "Roman Wales" is not as good a title as "Wales in the Roman era", because the Romans had no concept of "Wales" as a distinct place—but we do, and the place called Wales existed in Roman times, even though the Romans may not have regarded it as such.  One formulation tends to suggest that X was a distinct unit in Roman times, the other that the place named is probably a modern concept.  While the two interpretations overlap, each is more likely to be understood with one meaning than with the other, so distinguishing them this way helps minimize ambiguity.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are some suggestions
 * "The Roman history in Arabia" or "The Roman history in the Arabian Peninsula"
 * "History of the Romans in Arabia" or "History of the Romans in the Arabian Peninsula"
 * "Arabia in Roman sources"
 * Do think these titles are okay?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "History of the Romans in Arabia" and "History of the Romans in the Arabian Peninsula" are acceptable to me. "Arabia in Roman sources" sounds like a fine article, but this isn't it. "Roman history in ..." does not sound right to my ears. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think they're a bit problematic. "The" would almost certainly be struck from the beginning of the first two, although that's not really important.  There are two or three other problems with those suggestions: first, they don't seem very intuitive.  I can't see people looking for them under "Roman history", which is a very general title.  Secondly, while technically it's "part of" history, it's not about "history", i.e. the documenting of events by persons we refer to as "historians", as it is about Roman involvement in Arabia or interactions with the people of Arabia; strictly speaking the title might be misleading.  Perhaps related to this, it could suggest not what Romans themselves did, but how Roman history is taught or viewed in modern Arabia—not at all what the article is about!
 * The second two suggestions are good descriptions of the article's contents, but not at all intuitive. Nobody is likely to search under these titles, i.e. type in a phrase that seems like it might be the title of an article about this topic, using these specific constructions.  I'm not saying they're bad titles, but they sound more suitable for the title of a book or a journal article than encyclopedia articles; can you imagine how many articles would begin with "History of the ..." if that were a typical formulation?  It's not, precisely because it's pretty vague, and Wikipedia still has oodles of them!  It would work if someone typed "History of the Romans ..." because we currently have only one other article beginning that way, but because it's such a generic title I don't think many people would think to look under it.  However, if I had to choose one of these suggestions, "History of the Romans in Arabia" would be the best choice: I think that most readers would consider "Arabia" synonymous with the Arabian peninsula, even if the Romans might have thought of it in a more restrictive sense.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec about "Arabia in Roman sources". It's a logical article title, but doesn't fit the way that this article is written.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contradiction in article?
It says: "The conquest of Arabia was not officially exulted until the completion of the Via Traiana Nova in 120s. This road extended down the center of the province from Bostra to Aqaba. It wasn't until the project was finished that coins, featuring Trajan's bust on the obverse and a camel on the reverse, appeared commemorating the acquisition of Arabia. These coins were minted until 115, at which time the Roman imperial focus was turning farther eastward."

Am I missing something or does the date 115 conflict with no coins till the Via Traiana Nova in the 120s? Were they minted but not distributed? Cornelius (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)