Talk:Hammudid dynasty

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spain Stub‑class

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Morocco Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Help expand the project:

You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mounir Charïbi
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data
Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco
Stubs : Morocco stubs
Other :
- Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu

Berber?

These sources say Berber.[1], [2][3] And we have Ali ibn Hammud al-Nasir @Alhaqiha and Kansas Bear: Doug Weller talk 18:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And when the book by Watt was introduced as a source, Kansas Bear wrote "The Hammudid dynasty was a Berber<ref>William Montgomery Watt, Pierre Cachia, ''A History of Islamic Spain'', (Edinburgh University Press, 2001), 92.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arab

There are different sources which claim differnt things. The most probable thing is that those arabs were berberised, and many history books say te same. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HAc_AQAAIAAJ&q=hammudid+Berberised&dq=hammudid+Berberised&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVn77r0pHNAhVrKMAKHcL7BZkQ6AEINTAB, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xyWAMAEACAAJ&dq=hammudid+Berberised&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVn77r0pHNAhVrKMAKHcL7BZkQ6AEIMjAA, or the first alinea of this wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifa_of_M%C3%A1laga. Maybe we ca leave it at berberised arabs. It includes both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This book appears reliable. Whereas this book, is a copy of Wikipedia and can not be used to reference Wikipedia.

In contrast to this quote, "The fall of the Umaiyads and the rise of the strongly Berberized Hammudid dynasty brought the non-Arab elements of Cordova into the limelight for the first time." -- The Shuʻubiyya in al-Andalus: the risāla of Ibn García and five refutations, James T. Monroe, ‎Abū ʻĀmir Ibn Gharsiyah, page 9.

Perhaps you can explain this edit, where you changed referenced information without explanation, discussion or even adding a reference? Even to the point of edit warring! I am not against any changes on any article as long as there are academic sources to support such changes. Oddly, most changes made to this article have been done without edit summaries, talk page explanation(s) or even source(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kansan Bear, I changed that information because I saw this. 1. I didn't see any explanation for it's removal, but now I can see that you reverted it from another person because he didnt give an explanation in the first place. Strangly enough, I have read that in many books, so I guess the person who inserted that piece in the first place didnt insert any sources 1 (Last alinea). "The fall of the Umaiyads and the rise of the strongly Berberized Hammudid dynasty brought the non-Arab elements of Cordova into the limelight for the first time." -- The Shuʻubiyya in al-Andalus: the risāla of Ibn García and five refutations, James T. Monroe, ‎Abū ʻĀmir Ibn Gharsiyah, page 9. This article also says that the hammudids were strongly berberised, as you can read the title.

Most of the time giving explanations doesn't really help. I have given many summeries for the changes I made on different pages, but I feel people don't really read them and don't really care about them. Im going to do a research about the berberised arabs as I have shown, and when I can find good academic sources, you can tell me wether it is good enough?? Have a nice day!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an explanation as to why you removed referenced information, with no edit summary. Not to mention, not starting a discussion on the talk page and instead engaging in edit warring.

"Most of the time giving explanations doesn't really help. I have given many summeries for the changes I made on different pages, but I feel people don't really read them and don't really care about them."

So your recourse is edit warring? Changing referenced information without adding a source? Sounds like a good way to get blocked.

When someone(IP) removes a reference and/or referenced information, my recourse is to restore that information. And to present something as historical fact when the academic source states "claimed" is disingenuous.

"This article also says that the hammudids were strongly berberised, as you can read the title."

Apparently you missed the part that says "..brought the non-Arab elements of Cordova into the limelight..", which means the Monroe source indicates the Hammudids were of non-Arab origin. That is the contrasting element of the source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the non-Arab element here is the fact they represent a the unassimilated "New Berbers" that were used by Almanzor. They have been recently immigrated into the area and were used in service. I would just go with 'Berberised' Arab, the reason the author says Arab is from my the reading of her work is that they are "supposed descendants of the Idrīsid dynasty of the Maghrib" Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bosworth calls them Berberised Arabs, and I personally do not have any particular POV about the matter. What I have issue with is Alhaqiha's removing, changing, using unreliable sources with no explanation, even to the point of edit warring(August 2015!). If this pro/anti Berber editing nonsense continues I will contact an Admin and have them systematically protect all these articles for an extended period of time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How they are Berberised?

In which way this dynasty is Berberised? There language? There culture? There heritage? There art? How they are Berberised? Please explain what is the cultural and language influence on this dynasty from the Berbers? Please explain that for me before you delete my edits. Tajotep

Dear Kansas Bear, thank you for your advice. As you see I'm discussing a lot of topics on the Talk page, I do not want to be in an Edit War as you said, and I hope you will discuss with me as well.

First learn to sign your posts. Second, Bosworth calls the Hammudids Berberised Arabs, check the source in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shia?

Per @Al-Zaidi:'s edit warring the Hammudids were Shi'a.

Ignác Goldziher & Bernard Lewis, Introduction to Islamic theology and law, page 218. Page 218, makes no mention of the Hammudids at all nor their supposed Shi'a leanings.
Peter C. Scales states:
page 94, "Al-Qasim has been described by Ibn al-Athir and Al-Nuwayri as shi'ite, although both do add that he made no show of his beliefs". So this sentence negates itself. Which user:Al-Zaidi has cherry picked to add into the article.[4]

--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't negate itself. Arab scholars know what that sentence means: a pro-Alid, i.e. a general shiite, and either a Zaydi (9/10), or a Twelver Shia practicing taqiya —Al-Zaidi (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

page 94, "It is interesting that this information comes from two Middle Eastern writers. The only reference made to this in a Hispano-Muslim source is in the Jadhwat al-Muqtabis, but al-Humaydi refutes this saying that: it has been said of him that he was a shi'ite; this report is unfounded..." Scales refuting both al-Athir and Al-Nuwayri, again this was ignored by user:Al-Zaidi.
page 94, "Were the Hadmmudids shi'ite? If not where would the story come from, of the shi'ite tendency? It would seem highly unlikely that they were shi'ite." Again this was ignored by user:Al-Zaidi.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two dozen more "Middle Eastern writers" that state that the Hammudids were pro-Alid Shiite and Idrisid Zaydis, which is very different from twelver Shiism. However, Scales does not reference them. The sources are all in Arabic so even if I were to reference them on the page, Kansas Bear would just rollback the edit anyways. If Kansas Bear could read Arabic sources he would realize that Scales cherry picked al-Humaydi to refute al-Athir and al-Nuwayri and ignored every intellectually honest Arab scholar who has written on the subject. It should be noted that Kansas Bear has also laid claim to the Idrisid page and has set aside the overwhelming literature, primary and secondary, that state that the Idrisids were pro-Alid Zaydis, in favour of two references that claim them to be Sunni (the secondary source cited is intellectually dishonest). Given Kansas Bear's actions, I will remove myself from contributing to these pages any further. Unfortunately, the public is poorer for it. —Al-Zaidi (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, user:Al-Zaidi's removal of "Berberised" is referenced by Bosworth, page 15, "..or were Berberised Arabs like the Hammudids of Algeciras, Ceuta and Malaga." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear relax, this was caught is a rollback edit. I was going to re-input it but you rolled it back before I could.—Al-Zaidi (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]