Talk:Bilad al-Sham
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
Index
|
|
Separate article?
[edit]Why is this article a redirect to Greater Syria and not a separate article? [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- See past discussions at Talk:Bilad_al-Sham/Archive_1#Merge_into_Sham_or_oppositely_2 and below... AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't want to be excessively troublesome, but it seems to me that article would be the best place to discuss the technical etymology of the Arabic word "Sham"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi AnonMoos, my rationale is that this article is supposed to be about the region during a particular period of time (the Caliphate), whereas Syria (region) is supposed to be about the region named Syria or Sham over history - an umbrella article so to speak. Happy to leave it in both, but to my mind it is better place on the umbrella article. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with AnonMoos that this is a more adequate place to discuss the etymology of bilad al-sham. On that note, a reference is needed for the following claim: "There is no connection with the name of Shem son of Noah (which appears in Arabic as sam سام, with a different initial consonant, and without any internal glottal stop consonant), as is sometimes assumed." --says who? According to the famous Arabic dictionary al-Qamus al-Muhit the connection with the name of Shem son of Noah is not ruled out:
الشَّأمُ: بِلادٌ عن مَشْأمَةِ القِبْلَةِ، وسُمِّيَتْ لذلك، أو لأَنَّ قَوْماً من بني كَنْعانَ تَشاءَموا إليها، أتَياسَروا، أو سُمِّيَ بِسامِ بنِ نُوحٍ، فإِنَّهُ بالشينِ بالسُّرْيانِيَّةِ، أو لأَنَّ أرْضَها شاماتٌ بيضٌ وحُمْرٌ وسودٌ، وعلى هذا لا تُهْمَزُ، وقد تُذَكَّرُ،
Rustumpasha (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about that dictionary, but if it's the same one mentioned in article Fairuzabadi, then it would appear to be medieval, and therefore not necessarily the most authoritative in this particular area. In any case, the Shem-son-of-Noah etymology is quite incompatible with the ش ء م unlucky-left-north etymology, so if one is right, the other is wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course you don't know about it AnonMoos because you don't even speak Arabic. al-Qamus al-Muhit is one of the oldest dictionaries of the Arabic language and one of the most authoritative. This conversation just proves how incompetent Widipedia editors are. What a pity and good luck propagating myths. Rustumpasha (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Several issues
[edit]First of all, the phrase "Bilad al-Sham" or "Barr al-Sham" is just a colloquial phrase that was until the 19th century used as a name of Greater Syria. The phrases "Bilad al-Sham" and "Barr al-Sham" were not used by the Rashidun, Umayyads, Abbasids, etc. In the older Arabic literature one finds only "Al-Sham" الشام.
Second, the Arabic "Al-Sham" was not a province in "Syria." The word "Al-Sham" is simply the Arabic equivalent of the Greek "Syria." The Islamic province "Al-Sham" was identical to Byzantine Syria.
There are other issues with this article. It should be deleted all together.--HD86 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Totally agree, it should be deleted, it is confused and confusing and full of ignorance Rustumpasha (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Can you try doing something more useful than randomly calling people "ignorant"? Wikipedia is full of mistakes, and it is our gruelling task to fix them. Yes, sometimes the ignorance is astounding. At other times, the petty posturing is almost worse.
- added a split notice. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Whichever name the Caliphates referred the region to (I'm not going to comment on that); what is sure is that this article is designed to represent that region. Just as Syria (Roman province) refers to its area of control, and Ottoman Syria refers to its. Syria (region) is the parent article, and these are the sub articles. This discussion has been done before: and they came to a consensus. –DA1 (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class Syria articles
- High-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- C-Class Lebanon articles
- High-importance Lebanon articles
- WikiProject Lebanon articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- Low-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles