Talk:Ayyubid dynasty

Name section

The section lacks credible scholarly citations to substantiate its claims, with many references being unreliable or not directly supporting the content. Its addition appears biased, seemingly intended to counter similar content previously added to the Mamluk dynasty page. This section was first introduced here [1]. In line with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality, the section should be removed until it can be properly sourced. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The section cites a reliable source that supports the statements to a reasonable extent; it quite clearly mentions Arabic sources referring to the state as al-dawlat al-akrad ("state/dynasty of the Kurds"); see the first cited source (Bajalan & Karimi 2017) at the cited pages, 19-21 and 31 ([2]). If this is omitting other perspectives or other facts, then the latter would need to be demonstrated with additional reliable sources and the most likely solution would be to add them to the same section alongside the current material.

There's a clutter of citations for the last statement of the section/paragraph that is more concerning:

• The first French source (Cahen 1940, p.68) and the second English source (Radpey 2023, p.134) only mention a specific historical source, al-Khazraji's Taʾrīkh al-Dawlat al-Akrād wal-Atrāk, which by itself is maybe not strictly support for the genreral statement (though reasonable when combined with the source above); a better use of these might be to simply mention al-Khazraji's book explicitly inline, as an example of what the previous cited source above discusses.
• Assuming this is the full text of the second French source cited (James 2007), I'm not sure what part of the text was intended to be relevant (page numbers not provided) as I don't see anything supportive at a glance. Some clarification is needed.
• There are several other citations in what I assume is Arabic whose content and reliability I can't evaluate. Some are links to websites without specifying authors and publishers. Web pages are rarely reliable unless they're simply hosting the content of published reliable sources, but I can't tell if that's the case here at the moment.

The solution would be to clarify some of the issues and revise this part of the paragraph accordingly. Template:U might be able to help as the editor who added this. R Prazeres (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, R Prazeres and thanks for notifying me! First of all as you said, the first source (Bajalan & Karimi 2017) is a WP:RS.

• While the French source (Cahen 1940, p.68) and the second English source (Radpey 2023, p.134) are indeed only citing one primary source as a proof, that's al-Khazraji's Taʾrīkh al-Dawlat al-Akrād wal-Atrāk.
• While the Arabic sources are mainly primary sources which I would remove, because when I added these citations I wasn't aware of wiki policy of not accepting primary sources.
• On the other hand, other recent scholors have mentioned that Ayyubids were indeed called as Dawlat al-Akrād ("state/dynasty of the Kurds"); van den Bent, J. M. C. (2020). Mongols in Mamluk eyes: Representing ethnic others in the medieval Middle East. P. 27.
• it's also stated here in (Pohl and Kramer 2021, p. 40) as a Kurdish kingdom. in Empires and Communities in the Post-Roman and Islamic World, C. 400-1000 CE

Jackhanma69 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've moved the van den Bent citation further down the article to the "Name" section as it's most relevant there rather than below ([3]); I hope that's ok. I think it would still be a good idea to be more precise about Cahen and Radpey's citations by mentioning al-Khazraji's book explicitly, thus making the purpose of citations clear but also providing a notable example of the sources being alluded to in this section; what do you think of this? R Prazeres (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

feel free on what to do. but keep in, al-Khazraji isn't the only primary source stated by more recent scholors and historians (as Cahen and Radpey only used his source only). While if you look at Bajalan & Karimi 2017 (see p.21), Al-Khazraji wasn't the only one at that time calling the Ayyubids as "Kurdish Regime" there was also Al-Maqrizi and others. Jackhanma69 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Mentioning al-Khazraji as an example is also useful because he's contemporary with the Ayyubids (whereas Maqrizi wrote at a somewhat later period under the Mamluks). R Prazeres (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Why is there even a "Name" section here? If medieval and modern scholars used different names, that can be noted in the history section. No need for a standalone label. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. A section about the name (or about etymology, historiography, etc) is both common and useful; we have it at Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire, Empire of Japan, and (as you've seen) Mamluk Sultanate, among others. The entire article is a history topic, that doesn't mean we lump everything into the "History" section; otherwise, you could do the same for economy, military, architecture, etc, which obviously would make it far less useful to readers. R Prazeres (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The examples you provided are not particularly strong, except for the Mamluk Sultanate, which I also suggested be included under the "History" section. You are advocating for a historical name to have its own separate section, even though contemporary scholars often use a different term. Additionally, it's important to note that etymology refers to the origin and derivation of a name. For instance, "Mamluk" is derived from the Arabic term for former slaves. It's part of history and should be under the history section. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It's also present in Sasanian Empire, it's for clarification; modern scholors use the term "Sasanian Empire", while the Sasanian sources referred to the empire as "Eranshahr". Jackhanma69 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Origins

Hi Remsense

The excerpt I included regarding the origins is properly cited and reflects a valid interpretation from Kasravi. Please refrain from removing it, as it represents a legitimate scholarly perspective. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It's valid speculation of the kind scholars make—which you're juxtaposing with far better cited material establishing a far more clearly supported position. As written, the addition suggests a debate where there is none. See WP:STRUCTURE. Remsense 🌈 论 14:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

What I added was a well-cited scholarly perspective, specifically quoting Kasravi, and I made it clear that this was his interpretation, not a statement of fact. There is nothing against policy in including scholarly speculation, as long as it’s attributed and properly sourced. which it was.--Ozan33Ankara (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

In my view, it was very much presented in a manner that elevated idle speculation beyond the due weight given in the original source, as if trying to cast doubt or suggest an alternative to what the previous material said. Remsense 🌈 论 14:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You have probably noticed that this article is a good article, adding a speculation like the one you added is irrelevant if not disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but to clarify. I’m not attempting to cast doubt or elevate speculation beyond what the source itself presents. My intention is simply to highlight the views of other credible scholars, such as Kasravi and Minorsky. This is a normal and accepted practice on Wikipedia. Also, I’ve noticed that similarly dubious or less supported claims elsewhere on the page haven’t received the same level of scrutiny. If we're applying a standard, it should be consistent across the article. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Any claim of Arab origin is not taken seriously by reliable scholarship in general, and similar attempts to push a POV on this question has been rejected pretty clearly at Talk:Saladin (if not also elsewhere). At most, it is reasonable to mention later official Ayyubid propaganda that retroactively tried to reframe the dynasty's origins (if it's indeed notable and relevant to the scope of this period), but it must be presented with proper context as such, and not as Wikipedia accepting claims that are not accepted by reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, let me remind everyone that this topis is designated as contentious and disruptive behaviour here will be tolerated even less than usual. Ozan33Ankara, it's quite noticeable that all three of your contentions so far on this article relate specifically to mentions of Kurdish identity or language in this article, so edit-warring or deliberately absorbing editors' time with regard to every minor detail pertaining to this issue is not a good look. R Prazeres (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Mother tongue

Hi R Prazeres , I wanted to point out that the claim about the Ayyubid family's mother tongue being Kurdish is not supported by the cited source. Please make sure that all content complies with Wikipedia's policies. If there’s no reliable source explicitly stating this, it should not be presented as fact. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

See this. The statement needs improvement, not deletion. R Prazeres (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The current text in the article already mentions that the Ayyubids spoke Kurdish. However, the claim that Kurdish was their mother tongue is not supported by the cited source. It’s essential to represent what sources explicitly state and avoid introducing unsupported interpretations or promoting particular narratives. If you are unable to provide a reliable source that explicitly supports the claim that Kurdish was the Ayyubids' native tongue, then there is not reason to keep that line in the article. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi R Prazeres, have you had a chance to review the source in question?--Ozan33Ankara (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I already did, like I said. But now that I have a moment to clarify further: the source says that the Ayyubids came from a Kurdish tribe in the Kurdish(-Armenian) town of Dvin and that even later Ayyubid sultans still spoke Kurdish, aside from other sources saying Saladin spoke Kurdish. That implies rather clearly that Kurdish was a mother tongue of the clan when they were in their predominantly Kurdish homeland. That said, the statement could use some refining: either focused to be more about their origin in Dvin (which is mentioned above but is relevant to the section here) rather than on language, or find another citation to add about their linguistic background (which, evidently, is not particularly controversial). Again, deleting an otherwise logical statement is unnecessary.

I'll have a quick look at possible improvements if I can, but I'm going to be busy this week so I would encourage other editors to weigh in, propose their own improvements, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)