Talk:Qabus ibn al-Mundhir

Name etymology
There seems to be an issue with the part of this article that mentions the origins of the name "Qābūs", as I can't find any evidence of a Persian origin for this name except for unsubstantiated claims (such as the source currently given in the article), whereas the Arabic etymology is quite clear, being derived from the root ق–ب–س (meaning fire, or firebrand), hence its Arabic meaning, “man with a light colour”.

As an example for context, Abū Lahab was named Abū Lahab because he was very light in skin tone (“Lahab” in Arabic literally means “flame”), as ancient Arabs would use such words to describe those with light skin, perhaps because the blood in their faces would be visible and give them an appearance of being reddish and passionate, as the Arabic word for "red" (حمراء) also fulfilled an identical function in these contexts and meant that an individual was light-skinned (see: ‘Lisan al-Arab’).

Any thoughts? Basilieus Araves (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're using the word "unsubstantiated" correctly here? This is what the "unsubstantiated" source, written by C. Edmund Bosworth, one of the most acclaimed scholars in Middle Eastern history, says: "The extension of Persian cultural influence amongst the Lakhmids at this time is shown by the fact that one of the kings bore the Arabized Persian name of Qābus (< Kāvus; r. 569-73)." --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a statement I've tried to look into but couldn't find any actual evidence for. Bosworth does not cite anything as proof, nor does he give any reasoning for his assertion, and I personally could find nothing in the way of either historical evidence or etymologies to confirm what he said. Again, considering that the Arabic etymology of the name is clearly-established (virtually any classical Arabic lexicon can confirm this) and its usage is perfectly in line with other Arabic names and words which have the same or similar meanings, this appears to be a very odd discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilieus Araves (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that we listen to a Wikipedia user rather than a educated historian? Read Reliable sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm simply pointing out what I believe is a flaw in this article. As Wikipedia editors, we're all on the same team. I've given my reasoning:


 * • The Arabic etymology of the name is perfectly clear, being derived from the root ق–ب–س, meaning fire, or firebrand, hence its Arabic meaning, “man with a light colour”


 * • The above point is corroborated by other Arabic words which have the same or similar meanings *and* were used by ancient Arabs in a similar or identical fashion, to describe people of light complexion. I gave the well-known examples of Lahab/لَهَب, meaning "flame", and ḥumrā’/حُمراء, meaning "red", and cited the most renowned classical Arabic lexicon in the world, ‘Lisan al-Arab’, to back up my points here. Hardly an unreliable source, as you implied.


 * • I could find no evidence, historical, etymological or otherwise, which would suggest that the name "قابوس" is of non-Arabic origin, let alone of the specific claim that it is an Arabized form of the Persian name "كاووس". Once again, there's ample evidence that contradicts Bosworth's unsubstantiated claim, and so I see no reason why his claim should remain on this article.


 * • Also, as a side-point which I think is relevant: there is no "v" sound in Arabic. When a word with a "v" is Arabized, the "v" becomes an "f", not a "b" (e.g. ❝video❞ → ❝fīdyū/فيديو❞), so the alleged Arabization of the name "Kāvūs" doesn't even make sense.


 * On the other hand, the argument for "Qābūs" being Persian in origin is simply that a historian asserted that it was (with no evidence or reasoning given to back up his assertion). Regardless of how well-known or qualified he is, this appears to be little more than an argument from authority, i.e. that because Bosworth is qualified, he is correct and his claims are truthful and reliable by virtue simply of being made by him, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Determining the truthfulness of someone's claims by their identity rather than by the substance of their reasoning, sources, and arguments (or lack thereof, in the case of Bosworth) is the polar opposite of what impartiality is, and any experienced Wikipedia editor should know this. --Basilieus Araves (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The source is about the Lakhmids, not about the whole history of the name Qabus and its origins. Majority of what you've said is WP:OR. A simple search on the internet will show you more sources that state that the name is of Iranian origin, such as here and on the "History of al-Tabari Vol. 5, The: The Sasanids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen", page 370 (note 906), which you can't access via ebooks (the page that is), so I'll cite it for you; "The appearance of this purely Persian name, an Arabized form of Kawus (>Avestan Kawi-Usan, see Nöldeke, 345 n. 4; Justi, Namebuch, 334-46; Mayrhofer, Die altiranischen Namen, nos. 208, 210, 323), among the Lakhmids, is an indication of the strength of Persian cultural influence within the dynasty. See further on this, Bosworth, "Iran and the Arabs before Islam," 609ff." If you have nothing else but your personal (unreliable) opinion, then I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)