Talk:Najahid dynasty

Usage of non English sources..

Neither i or the other user could have full access to reliable English sources regarding this Dynasty. But i do have full access to a reliable Arabic source. I think it should be used until someone gain full access to an English source discussing this dynasty history. The book it titled "الحياة السياسية ومظاهر الحضارة في اليمن في عهد الدويلات المستقلة" - "Political life and aspects of Civilization in Yemen during the reign of independent states"--يوسف حسين (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

See both WP:NONENG and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Middayexpress (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I did and i am not making any exceptional claims. --يوسف حسين (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You call this a source? You used them multiple times in the article. Until you have a source that can be verified, please do not revert the page. This book titled "الحياة السياسية ومظاهر الحضارة في اليمن في عهد الدويلات المستقلة" can be found for free on PDF format on the internet. The usage of WP:NONENG is definitely justified --يوسف حسين (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Major Changes Need Talk Page

I have looked at both versions, one looks like an Wikipedia entry, the other does not. Wholesale changes removing a whole series of ref is a massive change requiring Talk Page.--Inayity (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no series of ref. This is not a reference. Your revert is disruptive and a continuation of a personal matter. Do not spend your time here backing your friend up.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

i added a template for now. because there are serious problems with it and its sources.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from discussing this editor and discuss exclusively the quality of this article and how to make it better. Also WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL I suggest you brush up on--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing the article quality and i know that [1] is unverified source.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Then focus on discussing it. And the issues around IT--Inayity (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag Misrepresentations Logic

There is a tag that has been placed on this article. per WP:TAGGING there needs to be a reason. If someone has not got there way and decides to throw random tags on the article that is considered WP:DISRUPTPOINT--Inayity (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, really! The reason i added the tag is because non of the sources could be verified for accuracy--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Verify Details

I have not looked deep at this, because it is not 100% my field. But See A history of the Ziyadids through their coinage (203—442/818—1050) ref for details of the founder etc which may or may not differ from sources given. At a quick glance, The very first source does not seem to reflect the first sentence in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and i added something about that. The Najahid dynasty may have been founded around 1047-1050 not 1022. but you reverted my edit.--يوسف حسين (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your attitude across wikipedia does not build confidence, and I think you have to review that. There is a way to get your edits get respect and attention, and there is a way that makes people just revert you. I think we do need to check the ref as some do not pan out. And I am very hardcore on misuse of ref. If you edit point by point, as opposed to making drastic changes it might be better. --Inayity (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for proving that you reverted my edit on personal grounds. I don't need my behavior to be evaluated by you--يوسف حسين (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia rules that is not classified as personal. Your edits were wholesale un discussed changes which introduced Arabic sources, totally ruining the page, and stopping others to contribute to the improvement(as we are doing now) And Yes, other editors can review the behavior of another edit when it affects Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

yes it is. It has not been proved that i was engaged in disruptive editing and the source you just used actually supports my edit. I did not stop anyone from editing you did stop me and accused me of disruptive editing. --يوسف حسين (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have Ref in English for the first line of the lead? Let us start there. Do you have a RS for the First ruler? That is all we need to do. And please no Arabic sources. --Inayity (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

i did look up English source and i could not find many. I did manage to find some about. al-Hussein bin Salama who ruled zabid in the name of the Ziyadid until his death. that's all i could find. --يوسف حسين (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

there is this and it discusses them briefly particularly their slave origin and the racial impact they left on the Tihama population. There aren't many sources about this dynasty so the usage of Arabic sources (partly at least) is a must. --يوسف حسين (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you must use an Arabic Source can you fully translate it into English? Feel free to insert the source point-by-point. --Inayity (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

i will try to translate it but i found this english source it's titled Yaman its early mediaeval history. it's basically a translation of a history written by a medieval Yemeni historian called 'Ummara al-hakami.--يوسف حسين (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Single source

I do realize that the article is dependent on one source almost entirely. But if you look at the source that was used before, it says that "The best historical source for an understanding of the dynasty is ʿUmāra" which is the source i am using. --يوسف حسين (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not a problem, tags are not only for us, they are for everyone reading the page and there to make readers aware of issues and make future editors come and resolve issues.--Inayity (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Errors

The cited phrase by Kay doesn't say that the Tihama were Afro-Arabs "contrary to the Yemeni population in the highlands". It says that "he warned the army that the Arabs of Tihama beget children by black concubines and that black skin was common to both slave and free". Also, Al-Mutanabbi's poem on the "mutilated Negro" was actually penned as an allusion to the Prime Minister of Egypt, Abu al-Misk Kafur al-Ikshidi, who had ruled 100 earlier in the tenth century. None of this material on the "rise of the Sulayhids" is relevant here, though, as it does not pertain to the Najahid dynasty. Middayexpress (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes i quoted that. the Sulayhids are native of the highlands and al-Mukarram Ahmed ordered his troops not to randomly kill Arabs of Tihama because they share the same skin color of their slaves. Meaning, The highland population is ethnically different than that of Tihama. If they were not different 'Umara wouldn't have mentioned and emphasized that their black skin is shared by slaves and free alike. If They were not different, there would be no reason for 'Umara's emphasis. Regarding al-Mutanabi poem, i know that he meant Kafur al-Ikshidi of Egypt, nevertheless, al-Sulayhi cited the poem when he rejected an invitation by a native of Zabid. It is absolutely relevant and explains why the people of Zabid supported this house of Najah. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perspective and contradictions

The dynasty's narrative was told from a completely inappropriate perspective; first, that of the Ziyadid dynasty, and then that of the Sulayhid dynasty. It needs to be recounted in the active voice, with the Najahid dynasty as the protagonist since that is the actual topic of the page. The rest is WP:OFFTOPIC. Additionally, there were also a number of contradictions. Among these: 1) what territory the Najahids actually controlled (the part of the Tihama within Yemen vs. just the town of Zabid), 2) how widely recognized locally was the Najahids' authority (acknowledged vs. unacknowledged), and 3) how was Najah actually killed (poisoned by a concubine vs. killed by Ali al-Sulayhi's men). This needs to be ironed out here first. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1) As mentioned, Najah did not inherit the geographical limits of his Ziyadid masters. The Banu Ma'an ruled Aden, Ibn Tarf ruled Jizan and only Zabid and its dependencies was under his possession.

2) They were not recognized by the tribal elements in the highlands and Hadramwat. I think i mentioned that clearly.

3) Well, there are different sources regarding Najah's death, one says that he was killed by a concubine sent by Al-Sulayhi and others states that he was killed once Al-Sulayhi conquered Zabid.

4) It is not off topic. The Sulayhids held Zabid for the most part. --يوسف حسين (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is not on Zabid or the Sulayhids. It's on the Najahid dynasty; so whatever pedestrians the Sulayhid ruler may have encountered on his journeys are irrelevant. As for the rest, the previous links indicated that the Najahids controlled all of the Tihama area in Yemen, their authority was locally aknowledged, and Najah was killed by a concubine. Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i am afraid that's not true. I don't know what links you are talking about but several dynasties were ruling cities along the Tihama strip at the time of Najah. Those were the Banu Ma'an of Aden,Ibn Tarf in Jizan, Ibn Haram in Haly and that's just in the Yemeni Tihama. The only significance the Najahid held was the fact that they were recognized by the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad. Please do not just say stuff because you want them to be true. Nobody in the Highlands recognized Najah as a sovereign. Before the rise of the Sulayhids, the northern highlands were ruled by Zaydi Imams and Hamdani chieftains. I am sorry to disappoint you. As for Ali al-Sulayhi and Zabid, the article is not about them of course but it does involve them. After all, the Najahid ruled Zabid and al-Sulayhi displaced them before they manged to kill him. Farhad Daftary mentions that Najah was killed once al-Sulayhi seized Zabid. There is another tale that he was killed by a concubine sent by Ali al-Sulayhi, i have no problem with adding that to the article but do not be so sure please. The reason i mentioned Ali al-sulayhi encounter with that black notable is to put emphasis on the ethnic element of the struggle between the two dynasties. The Sulayhids did not really try to win over the people of Zabid and resorted to military power to subjugate them, while it's clear that the Najahids did not go through hard times in this regard because they shared ethnic and historical links with Zabid's inhabitants.--يوسف حسين (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about Francine Stone (1985) for #1. You already appear to be aware that Najah was reportedly poisoned by a concubine. Regarding #2, Henry Cassels Kay does not mention tribal elements not recognizing the Najahids. What he does actually say is that Najah was a King, both in the Kutbah and the official douments. He also ruled over Tihama and exercised control over most of the highland population as well [2]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What of Francine Stone? Omara obviously contradicts himself because he wrote a list of clans ruling the highlands and other parts of tihama at the time of Najah. Ali Al-Sulayhi who is a native of Jabal Haraz, was ruling Sana'a (highlands) from 1040 at least. Ibn Tarf and al-Harami was ruling Haly. --يوسف حسين (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What about The rulers were former slaves from the Jazali group of Ethiopia.

My problem with yusuf editing is it is makes drastic changes at a rate that others cannot contribute. This is now deleted from the lead. Just b/c there is an issue with a ref does not mean we delete or TOTALLY re-write the lead without agreement. This has to stop if this article is to progress in a stable way.--Inayity (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not deleted it. It is mentioned in the Background section that Najah belonged to the tribe of "Jazal". --يوسف حسين (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kendite/يوسف حسين moved that material out of the lede into the body. He also again removed the fact that the Najahids both controlled the Tihama area in Yemen (not just the town of Zabid), and engaged in seasonal taxing of the region's population. Additionally, he added synthesis attempting to tie the Al-Akhdam Yemenis with the Abyssinians via the Najahids. This is actually a link that he has been trying to make for some time (c.f. [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

According to some sources there is a link, but the nature of the link is what we are probably debating. It gets tricky when you start discussing "look like", or even say they "do not look like." B/c as someone who has been North, South, East and West of Ethiopia and seen Dinka, Mursi, Surma, Oromo, on and on, you realize even within Oromo or Amhara characterizations do not stick--even between two brothers.--Inayity (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither link actually mentions the Najahids. It's just another instance of synthesis. Middayexpress (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to do anything Middayexpress , They are presumably of Abyssinian origin either fully or partly. I just stated what's in the source that the slaves came from Ethiopia and than became rulers of Zabid, and once they lost their sovereignty, they retained some sort of distinct ethnic identity within Yemeni society. They were still called 'Abid (slaves) as late as the 16th century at least. It is believed that the slaves during the Rasulid and Tahiride era (13th-16th century) were decedents of the same slaves who had been brought by the Ziyadid dynasty (9th-11th century). The Najahid themselves brought tens of thousands of slaves (of their own ethnicity) to inhabit the region. When Jayyash built the district of Hays (10-20 minutes from Zabid), he brought ethiopian slaves (his own ethnic group as stated in the sources) to inhabit it. --يوسف حسين (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The links don't even mention the Najahids. Your assertion that "it is difficult to establish some link between them and al-Akhdam (servants) or "Hujur" in southern Yemen however, Yemenis believe them to be of Abyssinian or other African origin" is soapboxing and a conclusion that you reached on your own. Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what am i promoting here Middayexpress'. That was not my assertion, it was Inyayati's links. R.B. Serjeant in his 1966 study wrote that Of course the African elements in Arabia were derived from various territories and different races, and it would be hard to distinguish nowadays whence exactly the population of the Tihamah is drawn. The other references clearly link the 'abid (slaves) to the Najahid. --يوسف حسين (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to do something b/c your edit habits show that. Regardless of truth vs not-truth what I am interested in is the process. I added something back to the LEAD you move it, did i agree to that, did Middayexpress agree to it? So who told you to move it? Do not make any radical changes to the article without agreement is that not clear by now? It is not only what you edit but how you are editing that is problematic.--Inayity (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Who are you to TELL ME to move it or not? That's was not a radical change i added that they were Jazali in the background section apparently this word is so important to you guys instead of simply saying Ethiopian or Abyssinian. I will add it back to the lead but will remove it from the background section.--يوسف حسين (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I put it back in the lead but here is the thing, "Jazal" is not a very well known term of ethnic group and there is no wiki article about them. So i think the lead should just mention they were Abyssinians, any other details should be in another section.--يوسف حسين (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I will ans who I am to tell you what to do. WP:5P maybe you should review your account and see you keep bumping into the same problem. I however, have no such history. B/c what is missing is an understanding of how we edit an article as a group. Review WP:OWN b/c who are you to move my edits without a discussion? to constantly over and over again delete my ref which I researched and added? Who are you to remove ref I add, who exactly are YOU is the debate that is going on.And you should also at least understand basic WP:LEAD It should exist in the lead and in detail in the body! The way you edit with such arrogance I would have thought you knew that by now.--Inayity (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Good for you but i really don't need to learn anything from someone who believes that BBC is racist. OK? I am Yousef and edit articles here just like everyone in this cite. Speaking of WP:OWN, i have no problem with your edit just take sometime and read what i have to say for a change. --يوسف حسين (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did BBC come from, is that a reference we are using? I think your statement testifies that Nairobi we have a problem. Is there even an "O" in Arabic? Yusuf? And surveys of the conscious Muslim and African world would show that most people with Arabic/African names have a distrust of BBC, you seem to be in the minority. --Inayity (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

well i believe BBC is an English news network. Whatever man --يوسف حسين (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe a little bit more research is in order. BBC = UK = hegemony. But i will leave that convo for a WP:FORUM--Inayity (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. are we good on this article now? --يوسف حسين (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity, please see above. Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)