Template talk:Historical Arab states and dynasties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Arab world (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


@Nabataeus: there is generally no need for an image, especially as large as the one you've added, in templates of this kind. Layout should be consistent with similar templates[1]. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect links[edit]

Alid dynasties of northern Iran, Shirvanshah, and Marashis weren't "Arab dynasties" just because they had some Arab ancestry down the line. They were all very much non-Arab in identity. Its like saying that the Russian Empire was a "Tatar Empire" just because Peter the Great's mother was of Tatar descent. And they weren't located in the Mashriq either. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The Russian analogy is flawed I am afraid. The Shirvanshah were indeed of paternal Arab origin, and were culturally under the constant flow of Abbasid influence until the rise of Persian dynasties, where they were gradually Persianized in culture. As for Mashriq, I concur. New section should be made (labelled "Other dynasties" ?) Nabataeus (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: The Shirvanshahs are mostly remembered for being great patrons of Persianate culture and for embracing the dominant Persianate ethnos of the area. If one were to look at their entire lifespan, there was really nothing noteworthy "Arab" about them, except for their origin. Abbasid influence is a weak comparison; look up any noteworthy reliable source about the Shirvanshahs; the vast majority of it is dedicated to their Persianate history/culture/identity and role in overal Iranian history. But I'm willing to compromise; sure, lets include the Shirvanshahs (and Muzaffarids, which were also not located in the Mashriq) under an "other dynasties" section. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Alid dynasties of northern Iran and Marashis should be deleted, however. Its really far fetched, and simply incorrect to label them in any form as "Arab dynasties". I'd say it would even qualify as WP:OR.
  • "(...) of the Mazandarani Marashi sayyids. (...) and his own Mazandarani mother Khayr al-Nisa Marashi (...)" -- Newman, Andrew J. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire. I.B.Tauris. pp. 42, 58 -
- LouisAragon (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I would be careful to not make unsustained remarks concerning the Shirvanshahs. Aside from few accounts, numismatic evidence, and archaeological records, we don't have detailed materials to give us full picture of the nature of the dynasty. They, however, appear to be relatively Persianized judging from the title and names of later rulers. Also, it's noteworthy that major projects in the 15-12th century (i.e. Baku fortress, Shirvanshah palace) were recorded using the Arabic language in an area where the non-Arab populace constitute the majority.

The first Alid dynasty was founded by Hasan ibn Zayd, born in Arabia. As for the Marashis you may proceed and delete them, I have my doubt on their Sayyid claim. Nabataeus (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious what other others, who also frequently edit this topic area, have to say on this. @Cplakidas:, @Kansas Bear:, @Wario-Man:; Do you think that the Shirvanshahs and Alid dynasties of northern Iran (just to name two) should be added to this template? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea about this template and how it defines "Arab". Is it based on both culture/language and origin? What I suggest is creating a list (List of Arab dynasties and countries) like List of Iranian dynasties and countries and List of Turkic dynasties and countries. You can find other similar lists here.[2]. The advantage of having a list is that you can clarify many things. For example, look at List of Turkic dynasties and countries again. About this template and the recent additions by Nabataeus: if the background of those dynasties are not disputed and most sources support Arab origin, it's OK to add them. But we should avoid WP:OR and personal analysis. Do historians call Shirvanshah, Alavids, Rawadids, Muzaffarids, and Marashis "Arab", "Iranian", or XYZ? Because for example, we have dynasties like Safavids. Their background is mixed and even Safavids themselves claimed Sayyid origin BUT historians call them Iranian/Persian. What I don't understand is that "Mashriq". It seems wrong and there should be a new section. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A compromise[edit]

I deleted the Marashis. The Alavids will be kept. As for the Shirvanshah, the dynasty seems to have been ruled by three different families, the (Mazyadid), the (Kasranids) and the (Darbandids). I replaced the Shirvanshah with the Mazyadid, since the cultural Persianization of the dynasty started only with second family, the Kasranids, as mentioned in the article. Frasfras17 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If (X)ization is the criteria of this template (Or others for that matter) then perhaps we should add the Ayyubid and Mamluk dynasties, as both of them, additional to being Arabized, claimed Arab lineages (The Burji dynasty in the case of Mamluks). We might also in the process delete the Seljuks from the Turkic states template[3] since they don't fulfil the requirement. The nature of this template is the list of dynasties of Arab origin. Shirvanshahs were irrefutably of Arab descent who were initially Abbasid governors. Sources of their Arab origin are provided in the Shirvanshah article with further input (If additional sources are needed, then I will gladly provide them). That being said, I agree with the removal of Marashis, however I will restore the Shirvanshah in the template. Nabataeus (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, as long as the title is "Arab states and dynasties", then the Alids and the Shirvanshahs should be included. They were ethnically Arab, even though they were active in a predominantly Persianate environment. It is not ideal, but when in doubt, inclusion is better than removal IMO. That said, I strongly urge to rename the template from "History of the Arab League member states" to something in line with the actual current content. Constantine 12:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
’History of the Arab World’ perhaps? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Seems you guys misunderstood my comment. I didn't say you should add or remove a dynasty per culture. Because Persiante or Persianized does not change the background of a dynasty. I said just focus on the sources. If the origin of a dynasty is Arab according to most sources and it's not disputed by historians, then add it to this template. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2018[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the template at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:History of the Arab League member statesTemplate:Historical Arab states and dynasties – This template includes ancient and medieval states and dynasties, the current name is wrong, misleading and confusing. For example, A medieval Arab dynasty in Caucasus or Persia (Iran) has nothing to do with modern "Arab league". Wario-Man (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support nominator and per my rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2018
  • Oppose Proposed edit makes no sense since Arab states are defined as being members of the Arab League. Arab World term might be more inclusive and not related to territory but to ethnicity.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The content of the template has nothing to do with the current title. The "Arab world" is relatively a new term. There had been Arab dynasties long before such a term was coined. And as mentioned above, some Arab dynasties and states did exist outside the "Arab World" like in Spain, Sicily, Crete, and Iran. Frasfras17 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support more appropriate. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and my comments above.--Constantine 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


Any additional comments:

@Makeandtoss: Actually both your suggestion "Arab world" and current name "Arab League" are some kind of anachronism. Consider User:Frasfras17's comment[4]. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Arab League refers explicitly to the members of the league while Arab world is a vague term that could be used to include Arabs from outside the Arab world. Or History of the Arab people? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. We are not arguing to replace the term "Arab league" with the term "Arab world". Both terms are anachronistic and should not be used. What we are proposing is to change the article title into "Historical Arab states and dynasties", which is the scope of this template.Frasfras17 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2018 (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.