Template talk:Historical Arab states and dynasties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Arab world (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Image[edit]

@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)

Survey[edit]

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)

Discussion[edit]

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.

Assassins and Sayyid dynasty: Avoid WP:OR and personal analysis[edit]

Neither Assassins nor Sayyid dynasty were specifically Arab.

  • Assassins is the common name used to refer to an Islamic sect formally known as the Nizari Ismailis.
  • And which history source says Sayyid dynasty was Arab? That "Sayyid" claim is similar to Safavid dynasty's claim but no historian puts Safavids in Arabic dynasty category. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
i agree with the removal of the sayyid dynasty. Kingesh (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq
if they said that they were arab then who are we to go against it? do we have sources that cast doubt on there claim like the Safavids?. Umayyadinian (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq
If you read WP:OR carefully, you will see why we can't add them to this template. You can't interpret articles and create background/origin without providing reliable sources. All I see is an unsourced part in Sayyid dynasty: "Members of the dynasty derived their title, Sayyid, or the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, based on the claim that they belonged to the Prophet's lineage through his daughter Fatima, and son-in-law and cousin Ali." Where are the sources which call that dynasty Arab? Also that dynasty was related to Delhi Sultanate and I don't see anything Arabic there too. Same things applies to Assassins. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
same thing does not apply to the assassins. Kingesh (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq
@Kingesh: Do you have a source that states that the Assasins were a dynasty/kingdom of Arab origin? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hassan-i Sabbah. Kingesh (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

FYI, Wikipedia can not be used to reference Wikipedia articles.
Also, there are sources stating Hassan-i Sabbah was Persian:
  • Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbāh and the Assassins, Laurence Lockhart, "Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies", University of London

Vol. 5, No. 4 (1930), pp. 675-696.

  • The Old Man of the Mountain, Charles E. Nowell, "Speculum", Vol. 22, No. 4 (Oct., 1947), pp. 497-519.
  • The New Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith, page 64.
Considering the numerous "new users" that continue to edit war over this article, I would think one of them would learn how to do research! HA! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ahh!, the good old "sock-puppet" accusations, never gets old. :)

anyway, the point is. sources about his origins on Wikipedia presents him as an arab, and the template will act accordingly. Kingesh (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq

  • " the good old "sock-puppet" accusations, never gets old."
Considering the numerous editors that appear to edit war on this article(not to mention numerous other articles pushing an Arab POV) using similar editing styles, English usage, and other mannerisms and you expect everyone to act stupid?
  • "sources about his origins on Wikipedia presents him as an arab, and the template will act accordingly"
Ah, your one of those. When faced with reliable secondary sources, you simply ignore what you do not like. No surprise there. Typical POV editor rhetoric. FYI, what is "presented on Wikipedia" can be removed(ie. like sources calling Hassan-i Sabbah, Persian). --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
i made this comment when i saw atlas accusation of me being a sock-puppet, and also fofo being a secondary account of me, not to even mention he reported MWahaiibii as a sock-puppet of the same user. but nothing was shown, only accusations...
and mate, i didn't care to look for sources on the origins of Hassan, i looked up Hassan origins on wikipedia and then added his state to the template.
i didn't "ignore what you do not like", you can go ahead and remove and add whatever you like. Kingesh (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)<--- CU blocked sock of User:Ehsan iq
No thanks. You have proved my point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yemen is the origins of Arabs[edit]

Dear Aṭlas, Yemen is the origin of Arabs, Yemen is pure Arab country, these ancient kingdoms are Arabs. The Qahtanite are Arabs who originated from south Arabia they are pure Arabs who came from Yemen and vast majority of Arab tribes originated from Yemen. I have travelled to Yemen and learned a lot about of it's history and I met with a lot of Yemeni historians and all said that these ancient kingdoms are Arabs. Even though I'm not the one who added these kingdoms, but I strongly agree with them. There are a lot of users who added these ancient kingdoms like Nabataeus, Umayyadinian, MWahaiibii and I agree with them Fofo235 So please do not revert any edits until you explain why you did so and if you have any hatred against Arabs and you do not want to admit that they had ancient civilizations than that is clearly unexpected and it is only your opinion, so please discuss on the talk page if you want to talk about your opinion and we might see what can we agree on oFofo235 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Ehsan iq

"Yemen is the origin of Arabs"
Do you have any reliable academic sources for this claim?
"these ancient kingdoms are Arabs"
Any sources?
"The Qahtanite are Arabs who originated from south Arabia they are pure Arabs who came from Yemen and vast majority of Arab tribes originated from Yemen."
Do you know that modern historians reject this orign myth? Do you have any modern secondary reliable source to support this claims? The "arabicised arabs, pure arabs and exinct arabs" story is just a myth with no evidence whatsoever and it's rejected by modern histography. All of this stories were produced in the Umayyad age.
"I have travelled to Yemen and learned a lot about of it's history and I met with a lot of Yemeni historians and all said that these ancient kingdoms are Arabs."
evidence from anecdotes
"Even though I'm not the one who added these kingdoms, but I strongly agree with them."
I just like it is not an argument to use in talk page discussions
"There are a lot of users who added these ancient kingdoms like"
No Shits Given
"if you have any hatred against Arabs and you do not want to admit that they had ancient civilizations"
I don't give a shit about your personal beliefs and nationalist agenda. I don't have anything against arabs and their culture/civilisation. You're just turning the discussion personal to victimise yourself.

-Aṭlas (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


Aṭlas It seems like you are rude and bad person, this is a place to discuss not to insult each other. You are asking me for sources? Funny, my sources is Wikipedia itself, the Qahtanite pure arabs is NOT a myth and if you have an prove against it then please mention them. Today, more than 80% of Yemeni people have the J1 which is considered an "Arab gene" making them one of the purest Arab people in the world. If Yemen is not the origin of Arabs than where did Arabs come from? Historical fact, the Greeks and Romans called Yemen as Arabia Felix or Happy Arabia since Yemen was very wealthy and civilized , I wonder why did they call it Arabia if they were not Arabs? If you read some articles on Wikipedia about the Arab tribes or Arabs outside the Arabian peninsula they say that they originated from Yemen, actually I have a lot of friends who say that there ancestors came from Yemen, and Yemen being the origin of Arabs is common knowledge in the Arab World, I do not think that Arab people do not know there origins but you know, funny. for example, Ghassanids and Lakhmids are major Arab tribes that ruled the Levant and Iraq and they migrated from Yemen, sources? Go check it on Wikipedia articles Ghassanids and Lakhmids. More sources? Well, the Arab Nasrid dynasty which ruled Al-Andalus was a branch of Azd tribes which came from Yemen, also this tribe is a branch of Qahtanites. Another Arab Muslim scientist Jabir ibn hayyan is also descendent from Qahtanites trib, and there is more and more examples of Arabs who originally from Yemen. To know more check Arabs, Tribes of Arabia, Arab tribes in Iraq I have been studying Yemeni history for a long time and visited Yemen and all people I met said that these ancient Kingdoms were Arabs, Yemeni people know there history well and I do not think there is need for foreign sources to talk about there history, I do not know how to prove that I visited Yemen but you can visit the country when the war ends and ask the people, historians...... Again stop doing this war editing please. Fofo235 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Ehsan iq

"It seems like you are rude and bad person"
Oh my god you got me I'm so bad. Keep victimising yourself
"this is a place to discuss not to insult each other"
Where is the insult?
"You are asking me for sources? Funny, my sources is Wikipedia itself, the Qahtanite pure arabs is NOT a myth and if you have an prove against it then please mention them."
no sources given, all of this is your point of view. The burden of proof is on you, but you want some sources "Comtemporary historography unveiled the lack of inner coherence of this genealogical system and demonstrated that it finds insufficient matching evidence; the distinction between Qahtanites and Adnanites is even believed to be a product of the Umayyad age, when the war of factions was raging in the young Islamic Empire" Citizenship in the Arab World: Kin, Religion and Nation-state, p:30
"Today, more than 80% of Yemeni people have the J1 which is considered an "Arab gene" making them one of the purest Arab people in the world."
We're talking about ancient yemenite kingdoms, and not about the genetics of modern yemenis. You didn't give any sources.
"If Yemen is not the origin of Arabs than where did Arabs come from?"
Not my business, go find it in reliable sources
"the Greeks and Romans called Yemen as Arabia Felix or Happy Arabia since Yemen was very wealthy and civilized , I wonder why did they call it Arabia if they were not Arabs?"
wp:or and personal analysis
"I do not think that Arab people do not know there origins but you know, funny."
personal experiences and genealogical/origin myths are not sources
"I have been studying Yemeni history for a long time and visited Yemen and all people I met said that these ancient Kingdoms were Arabs, Yemeni people know there history well and I do not think there is need for foreign sources to talk about there history, I do not know how to prove that I visited Yemen but you can visit the country when the war ends and ask the people, historians......"
Thanks for proving my point, that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.
Do you have any sources for the claim that "Sabaean Kingdom, Kingdom of Ma'in, Kingdom of Awsan, Kingdom of Hadramawt, Gerrha, Kingdom of Qataban, Himyarite Kingdom" were arab kingdoms ? Who was even talking about Qahtan and Adnan? Qahtanites are not even in this template! You're just red herring!

-Aṭlas (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


OMG, please I can not go further in this discussion. I'm not mentioning my opinions, when the Yemeni people themselves say that these ancient kingdoms were arab, and Arabs say they are originally from Yemen, you can not come and tell them that you arabs do not know your history, it is in there traditions and culture, you can not come and say you are wrong, your traditions are wrong, you are a bunch of idiots, this what Arab and Yemenis know and believe , of course they know there history and origins more than you. I just do not understand you, this is there history imagine going to Yemen and say to the that there ancient kingdoms were not arab, they would reject that completely. As I mentioned above a lot of major Arab Tribes and dynasties who immigrated from Yemen, but you are so stubborn and reject that and I do not know the reasons. About Arabia Felix part, the Greeks would call it Yemen Felix instead if they were not arabs, right? Yemen was rarely occupied by invaders, it was only ruled for short period under the Persians and Ethiopians, so basically DNA of Yemeni people would not change much from ancient times to modern times, I do not think that ancient people in yemen just died, since no genocide happened on them or natural disaster that might wipe out these people, the people from ancient times remained and migrated to the north. <--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Ehsan iq

I see zero sources. Only assertions and forum-like bogus. Looking at the compelling evidence (cross article edit-warring, inserting unsourced content across numerous articles, cluttering talk pages with self-interpreted commentary), its safe to say you're not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I see this vast list is being crowbarred in again based purely on the incorrect assertion that this is the "original" version. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Dear LouisAragon, please stop making edit war on me, it is funny how you accuse me of war editing while I did not even delete any of your edits, actually this is the first time I see this user. Any way I hope that you will explain your edits.Fofo235 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock, see SPI Ehsan iq

Just noting that another Admin blocked Fofo235 for editwarring. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New Additions[edit]

Why they shouldn't be added? @Pinkbeast: Do you have any reasons to not add them to the list? MWahaiibii (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Since they were removed by many editors before your lengthy block for personal attacks, how about you make an argument for inclusion first, and we see if anyone agrees with you? Failing that, obviously they should stay out since your position is unsupported. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
These additions were not the one removed by editors, but they got caught in the middle of the edit war. There's not a single doubt about these states being Arab, nevertheless go on @Pinkbeast: with your inclusion argument and we will see how many agrees. MWahaiibii (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
He can add Emirate of Tbilisi and Oman proper to the template. Nothing's wrong with them. Sockmaster Ehsan iq has made this template and its talk page into a mess. So just don't restore his edits or previously discussed wrong entries and changes. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: Anything you would like to add, before i include them again? MWahaiibii (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of Nekor[edit]

@Wario-Man: Hello, its founded by Salih I ibn Mansur Arab immigrant through a caliphate grant, so ruling dynasty is of Arab origin. I cant see why you think it shouldn't be included? MWahaiibii (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a stub article which only cites one source and the citation isn't clear/proper (page number or quote). The referenced text: "It is widely accepted that he was an immigrant from Yemen. Ya'qubi, after visiting the kingdom in the 9th century, denied this and asserted that Ibn Mansur was instead a Berber of the Nafzawah tribe." The rest of your comment is WP:OR (not supported by any source). I have clarified this before. You can't add entries based on your personal analysis or POV. If that dynasty was Arab, find some reliable sources, expand main article Kingdom of Nekor, and if other editors accept your changes (stable revision), then add it to this template. @Kansas Bear: Your thoughts on this one? --Wario-Man (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly did i include WP:OR in my comment? According to the source given in its footnote, the majority of the historians believed Nekor was founded and ruled by a Yemeni dynasty, except Ya'qubi who believed they were of Berber Nafzawah tribe. And its widely accepted that they were Arabs by both modern and pre modern authors. Therefore according to the available sources there are a possibility of them being Arab in origin, hence it can be used in both Arab or Berber related templates or topics until an explicit reliable source is provided that favors one of the two. MWahaiibii (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, the Wheatley source actually says Ya'qubi was citing local opinion, which according to Wikipedia, we should not present as fact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It's been 15 hours since the last reply, i'm afraid i will have to add them back. MWahaiibii (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Give Wario-Man and Kansas Bear a reasonable chance to complete their discussion first. There is no hurry. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern Pinkbeast. See my post on Wario-Man's talk page. As for whether its an "Arab" state, it was of Arab origins since it founder was Arab, as for the the Kingdom being "Arab", Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century, page 243, states the family intermingled with the local population. So I am unconvinced of the "Arabness" of this particular Kingdom. Is there anything concerning the language or the culture of this Kingdom? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Our main concern is whether the ruling dynasty is Arab or not. We are not interested in the demographic of the state and it is obviously of local Berbers at this early period. The Banu Salih dynasty which ruled Nekor falls under the "Arab dynasties" of the template, and they appear to be the sole rulers of this kingdom, also the native name of it is Arabic, "إمارة بني صالح" which translates literally to The Emirate of Banu Salih. MWahaiibii (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • "Our main concern is whether the ruling dynasty is Arab or not."
Which you have not proven. The founder was Arab, but the source I presented indicates they were intermarrying with the local population, which were not Arabs. Their founder was Arab, but to call the entire dynasty Arab would be original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Kansas Bear's point and that's my concern too. We have already mentioned some similar cases in previous discussion on this talk page. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Edessa/Osroene vs Abgarids?[edit]

Certainly, the ruling dynasty of Osroene/Edessa was of (Nabataean) Arab origin. However, was their polity (i.e. Edessa/Osroene) "Arab" as well?:

  • "At Edessa, the Abgarid dynasty was Arab. Arab cults are attested at Hatra (the eagle god Nasr) and at Edessa (the twins Monimos and Azizos). Nevertheless, the cultural setting was fundamentally Aramaic, i.e. Syriac. Edessene Aramaic, with its individual script, established itself in all upper Syria and upper Mesopotamia as far as Hatra and Assur in the course of the second century, although the oldest inscription dates from A.D. 6. A remarkable flourishing of Syriac culture at Edessa in the Severan period in the heyday of Bardaisan. It would hence be absurd to regard Edessa as solely an Arab city, for its culture owed very little to the nomadic Arabs of the region." -- Sartre, Maurice (2005). "The Arabs and the desert peoples". In Bowman, Alan K.; Garnsey, Peter; Cameron, Averil. The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 12, The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337. Cambridge University Press. p. 500

Perhaps we should swap "Osroene" with "Abgarid dynasty"? - LouisAragon (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)