Talk:Rawadid dynasty

kurdish-> kurdicized

After the edit I saw this article which states that "Rawadid were of Arab origin" then "Kuricized". But they have been taken as kurdish in the lead and other articles. This is illogical. One does not name any "Hellenized identity" as "Hellenic" or similar issues.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Rawadids" -Llc 4
• "Rawadid dynasty" -Llc 1

Takabeg (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The first form of the tribes name written down was Revend, a wellknown Kurdish name. But there are theories on however this name originally was Rawadiya, an arabic name, therefore, some schoolars say there is a possibility that the RULERS of the tribe were arabs, not the whole tribe. Anyways, removed "kurdicized" --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved to Rawadid dynasty. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Rawadid → Rawadids – When a family etc name is formed by adding the "-id" suffix to its founder's name, the plural form is used. Here "Rawadid" means "descendant of Rawad", and referring to the dynasty as a whole, and not to any single member of it, it is clear that it should be in the plural. It is always either the "X-id dynasty/family/empire" or simply "the X-ids". Constantine ✍ 13:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Rawadid dynasty work? If so that would be better; this formula is much the most common at Category:Muslim dynasties, and eg Ilkhanid redirects to Ilkhanate. Whatever the name the lead needs a clearer start defining the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am definitely OK with "dynasty" as well. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Rawadid dynasty then. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2012 (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.

Vandalism

Rawadid dynasty with its surroundings.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.57.241 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Rawadid dynasty - neutral map version without surroundings.

I object to an outrage vandalism of User:Taron Saharyan who deleted referenced map from this article, without even trying to offer explanation for such action. Map is clearly referenced, here are its references:

• http://azerbaijans.com/uploads/revadissss.jpg
• http://www.azerbaijan.az/portal/History/HistoricalMaps/images/hist_map_12_e.jpg

Now, User:Taron Saharyan, can you at least try to explain what you consider wrong with this map and its references? 109.121.57.241 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Куда исчез Сюникское царство, где Двинский и Гохтнский эмираты, где Анийское царство?--Taron Saharyan (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

While I understand Russian, this is English Wikipedia, so we should speak in English. So, you basically claim that this map is incorrect because it does not show some other states? So, what exactly is your claim here? Do you claim that states of Rawadids, Shaddadids and Nakhchivan Shahlig did not existed? Or you claim that they had different borders? Map uses Azeri sources, but Wikipedia policy is NEUTRALITY and presentation of ALL opinions about the subject. So, if (your) Armenian sources claiming that state borders were different in that time period then proper implementation of Wikipedia policy would be usage of two maps in the article - one based on Azeri sources and another one based on Armenian sources. There is no Wikipedia policy that supports deletion of a map simply because you dislike viewpoint presented in it. 109.121.57.241 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is now neutral map version. User:Taron Saharyan did not disputed borders of Rawadid state, but rather borders in surrounding areas. The new map version now depicts only Rawadid state, but not surrounding states, whose borders seems to be disputed by User:Taron Saharyan. However, these borders are not a subject of this article. 109.121.34.254 (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rawadid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C4/COM-0544.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/kfzhouy/Chron/Chron5e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616105117/http://www.hostkingdom.net/iran.html to http://www.hostkingdom.net/iran.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ethicity in lede

Most sources do indicate they originated as Arabs in the 8th century and became Kurdicized by the 10th century. Currently there's double emphasis on "originally Arab descent", once in the first line and then again in the first line of the second paragraph. As it stands now, the dynasty as mentioned in the article are the ones from the latter iteration. The first mention of conquest notes 979, and the list of rulers are all from the 10th century onward. Of course, that itself can be remedied and we should add some more background origins into the article.

I think the lede can be simplified without anyone thinking there's undue weight being put on one side or another. Would simply referring to them in the opening line as "of Kurdish-Arab descent" be acceptable? I'm also trimming the other redundancies in the lede which are already noted in the first paragraph of body, i.e, the name variants and duplicate sourcing. DA1 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Since "Kurdish-Arab" is also objected to, the best option is to leave that ethnic emphasis (of one or the other) out from the first line, and let readers read their identity chronology in the second line. DA1 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

typo

"Kurdish dynasty." written. ' . ' It should be ' , ' instead of ' . 88.243.199.207 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ChaharMenar

@HistoryofIran: In the official website of the Imamzadehs of Iran, quoting the book of Hafez Hossein Karbalaei (Rozat Aljinan and Jannat Aljinan), the tombs of Abu Mansur Wahsudan and Abu Nasr Mamlan II are mentioned next to the tomb of Ali ibn Mojahed (in ChaharMenar). This issue has been mentioned in other sources such as ISNA. --Elmju (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

None of those are academic scholarly sites. And who is Hafez Hossein Karbalaei? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia of the Islamic world and Wiki Noor, etc., it is explained about Rozat Aljinan and Hafez Hossein Karbalaei. This historical book has also been republished. --Elmju (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: It is mentioned at the bottom of this website that it belongs to the Organization of Endowments and Charity of Iran and is an official website. Rozat Aljinan is also a historical book, and in some reliable encyclopedias, the name of this book and its author are mentioned. --Elmju (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Organization of Endowments and Charity of Iran and an official website =/= academic scholarly site. Regardless, based on your previous comment, I guess it seems reasonable enough to have them. Re-adding them now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)