Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Rawadid dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kurdish-> kurdicized

[edit]

After the edit I saw this article which states that "Rawadid were of Arab origin" then "Kuricized". But they have been taken as kurdish in the lead and other articles. This is illogical. One does not name any "Hellenized identity" as "Hellenic" or similar issues.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first form of the tribes name written down was Revend, a wellknown Kurdish name. But there are theories on however this name originally was Rawadiya, an arabic name, therefore, some schoolars say there is a possibility that the RULERS of the tribe were arabs, not the whole tribe. Anyways, removed "kurdicized" --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Rawadid dynasty. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Rawadid → Rawadids – When a family etc name is formed by adding the "-id" suffix to its founder's name, the plural form is used. Here "Rawadid" means "descendant of Rawad", and referring to the dynasty as a whole, and not to any single member of it, it is clear that it should be in the plural. It is always either the "X-id dynasty/family/empire" or simply "the X-ids". Constantine ✍ 13:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Rawadid dynasty work? If so that would be better; this formula is much the most common at Category:Muslim dynasties, and eg Ilkhanid redirects to Ilkhanate. Whatever the name the lead needs a clearer start defining the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely OK with "dynasty" as well. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Vandalism

[edit]
Rawadid dynasty with its surroundings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.57.241 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rawadid dynasty - neutral map version without surroundings.

I object to an outrage vandalism of User:Taron Saharyan who deleted referenced map from this article, without even trying to offer explanation for such action. Map is clearly referenced, here are its references:

Now, User:Taron Saharyan, can you at least try to explain what you consider wrong with this map and its references? 109.121.57.241 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Куда исчез Сюникское царство, где Двинский и Гохтнский эмираты, где Анийское царство?--Taron Saharyan (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand Russian, this is English Wikipedia, so we should speak in English. So, you basically claim that this map is incorrect because it does not show some other states? So, what exactly is your claim here? Do you claim that states of Rawadids, Shaddadids and Nakhchivan Shahlig did not existed? Or you claim that they had different borders? Map uses Azeri sources, but Wikipedia policy is NEUTRALITY and presentation of ALL opinions about the subject. So, if (your) Armenian sources claiming that state borders were different in that time period then proper implementation of Wikipedia policy would be usage of two maps in the article - one based on Azeri sources and another one based on Armenian sources. There is no Wikipedia policy that supports deletion of a map simply because you dislike viewpoint presented in it. 109.121.57.241 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is now neutral map version. User:Taron Saharyan did not disputed borders of Rawadid state, but rather borders in surrounding areas. The new map version now depicts only Rawadid state, but not surrounding states, whose borders seems to be disputed by User:Taron Saharyan. However, these borders are not a subject of this article. 109.121.34.254 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rawadid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethicity in lede

[edit]

Most sources do indicate they originated as Arabs in the 8th century and became Kurdicized by the 10th century. Currently there's double emphasis on "originally Arab descent", once in the first line and then again in the first line of the second paragraph. As it stands now, the dynasty as mentioned in the article are the ones from the latter iteration. The first mention of conquest notes 979, and the list of rulers are all from the 10th century onward. Of course, that itself can be remedied and we should add some more background origins into the article.

I think the lede can be simplified without anyone thinking there's undue weight being put on one side or another. Would simply referring to them in the opening line as "of Kurdish-Arab descent" be acceptable? I'm also trimming the other redundancies in the lede which are already noted in the first paragraph of body, i.e, the name variants and duplicate sourcing. DA1 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Kurdish-Arab" is also objected to, the best option is to leave that ethnic emphasis (of one or the other) out from the first line, and let readers read their identity chronology in the second line. DA1 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

typo

[edit]

"Kurdish dynasty." written. ' . ' It should be ' , ' instead of ' . 88.243.199.207 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ChaharMenar

[edit]

@HistoryofIran: In the official website of the Imamzadehs of Iran, quoting the book of Hafez Hossein Karbalaei (Rozat Aljinan and Jannat Aljinan), the tombs of Abu Mansur Wahsudan and Abu Nasr Mamlan II are mentioned next to the tomb of Ali ibn Mojahed (in ChaharMenar). This issue has been mentioned in other sources such as ISNA. --Elmju (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are academic scholarly sites. And who is Hafez Hossein Karbalaei? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Encyclopedia of the Islamic world and Wiki Noor, etc., it is explained about Rozat Aljinan and Hafez Hossein Karbalaei. This historical book has also been republished. --Elmju (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: It is mentioned at the bottom of this website that it belongs to the Organization of Endowments and Charity of Iran and is an official website. Rozat Aljinan is also a historical book, and in some reliable encyclopedias, the name of this book and its author are mentioned. --Elmju (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Endowments and Charity of Iran and an official website =/= academic scholarly site. Regardless, based on your previous comment, I guess it seems reasonable enough to have them. Re-adding them now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

[edit]

@Jackhanma69: Kindly take your concerns here and reach WP:CONSENSUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright then, i think it's better to add back that reference I put on their origin. since the reference is wiki reliable. With all due respect Jackhanma69 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying Kennedy's reliability. However, you worded it as if the source was more correct than the three others. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest then? Since it's a reliable source you put it in one way or another. Jackhanma69 (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest then?
To not word it as if it's more correct than three others..? It's not like Kennedy has more credentials in the topic of the Rawadids.
Since it's a reliable source you put it in one way or another.
I am not required to do that, it's not my responsibility. However, I'm interested in doing it in this case. I can try to assemble all the high quality WP:RS there is and rewrite their early history, but I cant promise it will be done immediately. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it if you do it. Jackhanma69 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origins part 2

[edit]

@Quirk1: Please take your concerns here and reach WP:CONSENSUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you cited the Iranica article of the Rawadid dynasty [1], which doesn't support your changes either; "a family of Arab descent that controlled Tabriz and north-eastern Azerbaijan in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. Their Kurdicized descendants ruled over Azerbaijan and parts of Armenia in the second half of the 10th and much of the 11th century." This article is about the family in the 10th and 11th centuries, not 8th and 9th centuries, hence saying "originally Arab and later Kurdicized dynasty" is not quite correct, because the 10th and 11th dynasty was not "later" Kurdicized, they were Kurdicized from the get-go. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest of the sources

  • Patricia Crone, "The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism", Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 49, 61 - Talks about the Rawadids during the time of Babak Khorramdin, not the Rawadid dynasty of the 10th and 11th centuries.
  • Alison Vacca, "Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy", Cambridge University Press, 2017, p.7 - "The Iranian intermezzo in fact includes a number of other Iranian, mostly Kurdish, minor dynasties in the former caliphal provinces of Armenia, Albania, and Azerbaijan before the arrival of the Seljuks, such as the Kurdicized Arab Rawwādids in Azerbaijan and the Kurdish Marwānid family in eastern Anatolia from the tenth to the eleventh centuries.
  • As for the The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, you have cited 9 pages. I highly doubt you need 9 pages to demonstrate your point. But to no surprise, it doesn't support your addition either, page 236; "The Rawwadids who succeeded the Sallarids in the rule of Azarbaljan were descendants of the Azdl Arab family of al-Rawwad b. al-Muthanna which in the 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries had dominated the town of Tabriz. With the rapid rise in strength of the Kurdish element in Azarbaljan in the 4th/ioth century, they came to associate closely with it, especially with part of the Hadhbani tribe, and were themselves generally considered as Kurds."

In other words, you've been misusing citations, since the Rawadid dynasty was not "originally Arab and later Kurdicized dynasty", they were already Kurdicized by this point. Please don't do this again. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the sources in the article do not claim that they became kurdicized in the early tenth century. infact it says the process was completed around ~959 (late 10th century) if you do the math. also the family and the dynasty are the same people. my sources were not about the tribe, it was about the same dynasty in this article. did you read them? Quirk1 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What..? You just repeated your previous edit summary [2], which makes even less sense when replying to my comment listing the citations. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
look at the edited version Quirk1 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've reverted that (not that it made any more sense tbh [3]). Please dont fundamentally alter your comment after it has already been replied to, this just makes all this confusing/messy. Please just reply with a new comment instead. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did you do the math? the sources in the article do not claim that the family became kurdicized by the early 10th century. it says the process was completed around ~959 (late 10th century) if you do the math. also the article says the "family" but when I cite sources about the same family, you say you're not talking about the tribe as if it was something else? Quirk1 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're still repeating yourself, and it still doesn't make any more sense. Can you just please address my comment instead of WP:REHASHing the same comment over and over? I've literally listed the sources and their info, and they do not support your changes. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if I am repeating it, it's because my edit asking you why you didn't answer it was reverted. what part of it doesn't make sense for you? answer me and I'll answer you because I was seeking an answer first. I'd appreciate an explanation Quirk1 (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of it makes sense, how many times do I have to say that? We're talking about the sources and info you added, no? I've listed them, so which part supports your changes? Zero. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you don't know what "the sources in the article do not claim that the family became kurdicized in the early 10th century." means, then how is it my problem? do you want me to speak Farsi Quirk1 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally do though, read my comment up above, I've cited each source. It's also quite ironic that you're ridiculing me by saying "do you want me to speak Farsi" when you are the one with WP:COMP issues. Heck, it took me many tries to make you even read my edit summaries, so I doubt there is any hope of you to read my comment about the sources. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your edit summaries, I tried to talk with you in both our talk pages. And I do not know why you are avoiding the statement. You said they were not Arab during that time, but the timeline of their rule atleast in that article is 955-1071. And the sources in the article claiming that they became kurdicized in the early 10th century are not supported in those sources. This means your statement about them not being Arab (in the beginning of their rule atleast) is factually incorrect unless you can provide a source for it? infact a simple calculation from those sources will show you that the process of their kurdification was completed in 959, which is late 10th century. Quirk1 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you read my edit summaries after MULTIPLE attempts at getting you to do it. And you're still not supposed to talk me with my on my talk page, as you've already been told. Okay.. last try. Here's hoping you will read:
The Iranica article of the Rawadid dynasty [4], doesn't support your changes either; "a family of Arab descent that controlled Tabriz and north-eastern Azerbaijan in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. Their Kurdicized descendants ruled over Azerbaijan and parts of Armenia in the second half of the 10th and much of the 11th century." This article is about the family in the 10th and 11th centuries, not 8th and 9th centuries, hence saying "originally Arab and later Kurdicized dynasty" is not quite correct, because the 10th and 11th dynasty was not "later" Kurdicized, they were Kurdicized from the get-go.
Patricia Crone, "The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism", Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 49, 61 - Talks about the Rawadids during the time of Babak Khorramdin, not the Rawadid dynasty of the 10th and 11th centuries.
Alison Vacca, "Non-Muslim Provinces under Early Islam: Islamic Rule and Iranian Legitimacy", Cambridge University Press, 2017, p.7 - "The Iranian intermezzo in fact includes a number of other Iranian, mostly Kurdish, minor dynasties in the former caliphal provinces of Armenia, Albania, and Azerbaijan before the arrival of the Seljuks, such as the Kurdicized Arab Rawwādids in Azerbaijan and the Kurdish Marwānid family in eastern Anatolia from the tenth to the eleventh centuries.
As for the The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4, to no surprise, it doesn't support your addition either, page 236; "The Rawwadids who succeeded the Sallarids in the rule of Azarbaljan were descendants of the Azdi Arab family of al-Rawwad b. al-Muthanna which in the 2nd/8th and 3rd/9th centuries had dominated the town of Tabriz. With the rapid rise in strength of the Kurdish element in Azarbaljan in the 4th/10th century, they came to associate closely with it, especially with part of the Hadhbani tribe, and were themselves generally considered as Kurds."
In other words, WP:RS is not with you. Your constant and random mention of 959 makes zero sense. Don't do this again to any other article. You have done it enough times [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], next time you will be reported to WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since you said they were kurdish from the get go. do you have a source supporting that they became kurdicized in the beginning of their rule in 955? because the sources in the article say otherwise Quirk1 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my point. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
proved nothing tbh, they were not kurds in 900. Quirk1 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quirk1: Did you seriously cite not the actual body, but the namelist of the The World of Persian Literary Humanism (very relevant source) as a source for the date of the Rawadid dynasty, despite it being clearly established by actual relevant WP:RS in the article? You are clearly doing this time to push an Arab connection again. Revert yourself or I will report you, I don't have more WP:ROPE left. You can repeat as much as you want that they were not Kurds, it won't change what WP:RS says. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the summary of the edit? I said the 955 date could maybe be correct but just asked if there was a source for it Quirk1 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I was thinking about changing the name of the article to Rawwadids and write about the history of this family in one article, just like iranica. Because creating two articles for the same family is ridiculous Quirk1 (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See you at WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what do you mean by "despite it being clearly established by actual relevant WP:RS in the article?" I don't understand Quirk1 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rawadid_dynasty&oldid=1255072293"