Talk:Ayyubid dynasty

message: Note: I tried to list the Ayyubid rulers in the shorter versions of their names, rather than the full versions.  In some cases, though, especially in the minor rulers at the end, I wasn't sure which name they would actually be known by, so I guessed based on the way the rulers I was more familiar with are named.
Also, I can't find a list of the Ayyubid rulers of the Jezireh (Northern Iraq).  Any help on that would be good.  john 04:57 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
Well, it's three years later, and still no list of Ayyubid rulers of the Jezireh.  Sigh. john k 14:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of rulers

message: Can we Assume the Saladin forces flag appeared on this movie as the real flag of Ayyubids ? has anyone seen the film ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but probably not (as with everything else in that movie). Adam Bishop 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Saladin is a Turkish warrior and statesman.
First the descriptin of nation changes often by time.
Sometimes the description of a nation means people that live in a country, sometimes means people that believe in same religeon, sometimes means people that has same origin, sometimes means people that has same culture.
In the time of Saladin, nation meant people that believe in same religion that is Islam.
The reality of Saladin was Turkish was accepted by the world untill 16. century but later 1-2 man said Saladin was Kurdish to create a nation in the region of the Middle East, but that was not real, that was only a form distorted of a thought. That thought was said after 350 years of Saladin was dead without a real prof.
If we need to examine the origin of Saladin then we have to make that with scientific eye.
Then we have to consider all the conditions and realities of that term.
Genetic come from father half and mother half. That means %50 from father, %50 from mother.
Saladin’s mother was Turkish, Saladin’ s father’s mother was Turkish, too. That was prooved by the scientific circle. And The wife of Saladin was Turkish, too.
That means if we dont know the origin of Saladin’s father’s father or if we know Saladin’s father father was Kurdish or Arabian, That never can’t change the reality of Saladin was Turkish. Saladin’s father’s mother was Turkish means Saladin’s father was half Turkish (%50) and Saladin’s mother was Turkish too means Saladin’s was carrying Turkish blood more than %75, and Saladin’s wife was Turkish too means Saladin’s sons were carrying Turkish blood more than %87,5 and that was very high level.
Those means Ayyubids were TURKISH, SALADIN WAS TURKISH.
   
Saladin accepted an eagle the symbol of his state, and eagle means the symbol of the Turkish states. Saladin was a commander of Seljuks that was a Turkish state, and Saladin speakt Turkish.
Saladin’ s brother’ s names was Tuğtekin, Şahinşah, Böri, Turanşah that is ancient Turkish names. Does a Kurdish family give the Turkish names to their children ? 
AS A RESULT, SALADIN WAS A TURKISH WARRIER AND STATESMAN.
SALADIN WAS TURKISH.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.20.198 (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saladin was a Kurd , everybody knows. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure where you get the notion that the names Turanshah and Shahanshah are Turkish. Shahanshah is an ancient Persian term meaning "king of kings," in use at least back to Sassanid times, and Turanshah combines the ancient Persian term for Central Asia (ancestral homeland of the Turks) with the ancient Persian word for "king."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.14.224 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AYYUBIDS WAS A TURKISH STATE 

message: This article needs a section on the Mongols, specifically the capture of Syria in 1260, a major turning point in the destruction of the dynasty. --Elonka 10:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongols

message: I just brushed up a little grammar mistake I spotted. Not much, but 'every little helps'.  --Huss4in (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! We could use as much help as possible. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: grammar fix

message: This is bullshit.Kurdish creating fake history.Cause this idiot peoples new nation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.7.76 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it has a reference and will be reverted. IF you can converse in a civil manner we can work towards a middle ground. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurdish? 

message: I would warn certain "new" editors against cherry picking when adding information. The Cambridge History of Iran source calls the Hahdbani Kurds(p 33) and Saladin a Kurd(p 33). --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all credible sources have acknowledged that Saladin was ethnically a Kurd. Only some medieval sources say he was Turkish. What people personally believe does not belong in an encyclopedia. If an edit war on this issue ensues, I think its best to implement a temporary (and limited lock). --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherry picking 

message: Saladin founded the Ayyubid dynasty(1171-1250) and AFTER Nur al-din's death in 1174, declared himself sultan. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1, by Jamie Stokes, p383.
Therefore, it was NOT Sultan Saladin founding the Ayyubid dypnasty, which is historically inaccurate, but Saladin as a chief advisor to Nur al-din. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saladin wasn't Sultan until 1174 

message: As per Al Ameer son's edit and summary "The source actually supports that specific material in the article", I would like to see the quote from Hourani's book, "A History of the Arab peoples", that supports the sentence, "Arabic was the language of high culture and of the urban population, but other native languages continued to be used in some rural communities throughout the Ayyubid territories".
Hourani's book page 96 states, "In the same way, while Arabic was the language of high culture and much of the urban population, other languages still survived from the period before the coming of the Muslim conquerors".
I see no connection to the Ayyubids, much less any mention of them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's the quote. And no, the source does not explicitly mention the Ayyubids, but rather the general Middle East and its urban population. When I said "specific material" I meant that the source supported the text on Arabic being the dominant language of high culture and the urban centers of the Middle East. The "Ayyubid territories" are simply included within the latter. I think we should keep the text, but replace the "Ayyubid territories" portion with the "Middle East" to avoid WP:OR. The book continues on to describe the various religions and Muslim sects that existed in the various regions controlled by the Ayyubids, i.e. the Nile Valley, Yemen and Syria. If we come by a source (might require some good digging) that specifically describes the Ayyubid territories, then we should replace the present text. We could also look for sources that specifically discuss Egypt, Syria, Jazira, Yemen, etc. during the 12th and 13th centuries. For instance, one of the sources used and just added (Goldshcmidt) states that Egypt's population was largely speaking Arabic by time the Ayyubids gained control. Until then, I think it's best to keep it the way it is (with some clarifications and corrections) just like the population figures which do not specifically describe the Ayyubid sultanate, but rather Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Transjordan and northern Mesopotamia. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I only removed the entire sentence since once this part is removed, "..but other native languages continued to be used in some rural communities throughout the Ayyubid territories", the rest of the sentence does not pertain to the Ayyubids. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the sentence to reflect the source better and I found some other relevant sources dealing with this matter as well. They do not directly discuss the Ayyubids, but rather 12th-century Egypt and Syria. I'll add some of the material later. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic source 

message: Should this article be renamed Ayyubid Sultanate? The Ayyubids were not just a dynasty, they established a sultanate recognized by the caliph and were thus a state similar to their successors, the Mamluk Sultanate. This article originally was just a list of Ayyubid sultans and emirs so the name "Ayyubid dynasty" made more sense back then. I moved this list years ago to List of Ayyubid rulers. The current article has since become about the Ayyubid state (its history, economy, government, culture, architectural legacy, etc) so wouldn't it be more logical to move this article to "Ayyubid Sultanate"? --Al Ameer (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen Humphreys makes a strong case in Appendix A of From Saladin to the Mongols that "Ayyubid sovereigns did not really care whether the caliph gave them this title [sultan] or not" as it "had little relevance to their political situation". Many Ayyubid princes called themselves "al-sultan" but as-Salih Ayyub appears to have been the first to seek formal appointment as sultan by the caliph as a means to assert his primacy over other Ayyubid princes. In that context, renaming the article to Ayyubid Sultanate would seem to lend authority to a name that wasn't actually used. Rupert Clayton (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Hey,
Ayyubid dynasty is muslim dynasty with kurdish origin! It's a muslim kurdish state in Medieval period! So, official language is kurdish, after that, (because many arabic tribes were in Middle-East and North Africa) arabic!--Titan971118 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ayyubids were of Kurdish ethnic origin, yes, but Kurdish was not the official language of the state, Arabic was. In fact, the second and third generation sultans and emirs did not speak Kurdish. There's a whole section in the article about languages that clarifies this matter. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: I'm surprised to see no mention of the Jewish population of Egypt, which was large, important and was until 1204 led by the philosopher and theologian Moses Maimonides, who was also chief physician to the court of the Vizier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not2late (talk • contribs) 09:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: Hello, it is quite misleading to state that the Ayyubids are Kurdish. There are tons of sources that state that they are Arabs. I am personally an Ayybuid and I belong to the family of Salahi, which is descendant of Saladin. We have never ever claimed to be Kurdish at all and we belong to the tribe of Banu Murrah, which is an Arab tribe. The only historian who states that he is Kurdish was Al-Masoudi, who himself was against the Arabs. Everyother historian states that he was Arab. Even the Ayybuids themselves stated they were not Kurdish. The rest of the Western historians claiming that he was Kurd is for propaganda use and publicize a non existing "Kurdistan". We are Arabs and we will always remain to be, this is what my grandfather has told us, this is what my ancestors have been telling each of their descendants, and this is what our family tree says. Ayyubids are of Banu Murrah and are Arabs. So please, as an Ayyubid, I find this quite disrespectful and misleading. We are not propaganda material. If this encyclopedia is trying to be authentic they should remove "Kurdish". Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:A14E:3FE4:C9A3:982D (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayyubids are Arabs 

message: Kurdish identity is related to the unique Kurdish nationalism, Kurdish core element seems to be a vague connection to Indo-Aryan Mittani with a Hurrian Substratum, otherwise they would have Persianized already, especially with the strong Iranian linguistic influence that started hitting Kurdistan as early as the 8th century BC & continued until the Sassanid empire.  In Addition to the obvious Iranian influx, some Semitic people got Kurdified (Israelites, Assyrians & later Arabian regional rulers) became Kurdified which makes them Kurds, just like the rest of the people who got Kurdified (also Turanids, Caucasian people & pretty much anybody who entered Kurdistan got Kurdified).  If it helps many Kurds eventually Arabized in Syria, Egypt & Yemen, should we go yank those people who identify as Arab today and claim they are Kurds? Egapempleh (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurdish identity overrides family origin

message: Replaced previous Ayyubid misleading political rhetoric, with neutral terms. 
Kharijites never existed in Yemen: the Mahdids were a fundamental militants Sunni but not Kharijite, Ayyubids had to label them as such to justify attacking a fellow Sunni dynasty. 
Shia Banu Karam tribe Al Karam Al Zurayi was the father of (Al-Abbas & Almsaod) a small family from the Yam branch of Hamdan, the two branches of the small family led a loose Hamdanid Confederacy, that was complemented at times & challenged at other times by the Hatim Hamdanid emirs of Sana'a.  The Ayyubid use of vague Shia instead of Ismaili is to avoid angering the still heavily Ismaili Egypt back home.  Egapempleh (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: that isn't the important point here however. What you did was change sourced text without checking the source. I hope it's obvious that if there is a source for the text than the text should represent the source. In fact, none of that was in the source and I've removed it. Please read WP:VERIFY - most new editors are unaware of our policies and think that they can add things that they know or have experienced, which they can't - see also WP:NOR. Thanks. 15:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayyubid Political choice of words

message: Within the intro and elsewhere, for most readers I think it would be more effective and educational to say something like this:
Saladin's large sultanate ultimately ranged from Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Sudan to Syria and northern Iraq, and it included western Arabia (for instance, Mecca and Medina) southward all the way to Yemen.
Dr.Bastedo (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing  Saladin's  empire 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello,
Will Wikipedia please do something about the blatant de-Kurdification of the Ayyubid Dynasty by contemporary Arab chauvinists and Turkish nationalists?
The section "culture and language" is very politicized, and it mainly serves to destruct the dynasty's Kurdishness, even though their Kurdishness has been firmly established for 900 years.
Some of the things included in that section to claim Arabization of the Ayyubids are:
"The Ayyubids had Arab surnames..."
So? Millions of Kurds today have Arab surnames, but DO NOT, and never have, identified as Arabs. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen, and I am astonished wikipedia allows these kinds of arguments in an important entry like this one.
Furthermore, the sole source cited to claim Arabization of the Ayyubids of the late 12th century (in other words; Saladin himself) is a single contemporary "expert", who just happens to be an Arab nationalist.
How are sources like this allowed on Wikipedia? These claims have major rammifications and are literally historic revisionism. To make such claims, multiple primary sources from that time must be a REQUIREMENT.
Here are some impartial primary and secondary sources that solidify the Ayyubid's Kurdishness. Including the "late 12th century Ayyubids", which that section claims to have been "properly Arabized". 
"Among the free-born amirs the Kurds would seem the most dependent on Saladin's success for the progress of their own fortunes. He too was a Kurd, after all, and under his aegis they might hope for borader opportunities in rank, estates, and political influence than they could outherwise expect in the predominantly Turkish dynastties of the age. Conversely his regime might well ave appeared to them a shield which could protect them against the ethnocentrism and racial prejudice of the Turks. 
That ethnic consciousness and friction did exist in Saladin's reign there can be no doubt; Saladin obtained the Fatimid vizierate partly on the strength of it. After Shirkuh's death, Saladin's close associate Diya' al-Din 'Isa al-Hakkari (a Kurd) visited the leaders of each faction contending for power to try to win them over to the election of Saladin, and to one Kurdish amir (Qutb al-Din Khusrau b. al-Talal) he used the following argument: "Verily, everybody is for Saladin except you and al-Yaruqi [a Turkmen amir from the north Syrian Yürük tribe]. What is needed now, above all, is an understanding between you and Saladin, especially because of his Kurdish origin, so that the command does not go from him to the Turks." 
It is worth noting that within a few months of Saladin's elevation, all the Turkish amirs had returned to Syria save those in the late Shirkuh's Asadiyya corps. There is more than this: Saladin was at least twice subjected to taunts about his origins by the Turkish soldiers of Mosul, and in one passage of his al-Barq al-Shami 'Imad al-Din indulges in a lenghty attack on the Kurdish troops of the Artukids. Treachery on the part of a group of Kurds among its defenders enabled Saladin to take Sinjar in 578/1182. 
Most indicative of all is the letter submitted to Saladin by his amirs as he was trying to prepare the defense of Jerusalem against the expected attack of Richard Coeur-de-Lion: "If you wish us to remain [here], then either you or one of your family should be present with us, so that we may rally together around him. Otherwise, the Kurds will not be subjected to the Turks, nor the Turks to the Kurds." 
If the Kurds expected Saladin's patronage and protection, they had no reason to be disappointed. That he recruited them in considerable numbers appears not only from the numerous Kurdish amirs who appear in the chronicles, but also from the fact that in his later armies at least (the period 583/1187-588/1192) there were independently organized contingents from four tribes – the Hakkaris, the Humaydis, the Zarzaris, and the Mihranis. Undoubtedly Saladin's relations with his Kurdish amirs were strengthened by common race and the broad role affairs which he gave them."
"From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260" by R. Stephen Humphreys.
Note that these are not Humphrey's opinions, but that all this information is based on primary sources from that time. This is how the Ayyubids thought and felt themselves. Their Kurdishness clearly played an important, in fact decisive, role in their lives. Were it not for their ethnic Kurdish consciousness, they would have never risen to power in the first place. Also note that these events are about the late 12th century, which the Arabs on here try to have Arabized.
In addition, here is another interesting source that proves the Ayyubids' ethnic consciousness. They had Yazidi Kurd (non-muslim Kurdish) allies and allowed those Kurds to spread their faith (again, a non-Islamic religion; a Kurdish religion) throughout the Kurdish Ayyubid Empire:
"Years later, Sheikh Hasan, the grandson of Sheikh ‘Adi’s nephew, expanded Yazidi influence throughout the Muslim world during the 13th century CE. According to Yazidi oral tradition, Hasan wrote the religious text Kitab al-Jilwa li-Arbab al-Khalwa, which put Sheikh ‘Adi’s ideas into written form. During Hasan’s reign, Yazidis served as soldiers in Saladin’s Muslim army during the Crusades and served as ambassadors to the Ayyubid Sultanate. Yazidism itself spread throughout the Kurdish community, and many converted. The Yazidis immigrated to large swathes of the Muslim world."
If the Ayyubids truly were "culturally Arabized", than explain their favouritism to Kurds and to Yazidism, which is a Kurdish religion – it couldn't get more Kurdish culture than that. 
Lastly, according to Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, a 12th century Kurdish scholar of great note, personal friend of Saladin, and a Kurd like Saladin, Saladin most trusted counsellors and bravest warriors were Kurds – he did not trust other ethnicities to this position. In fact, Arabs were moslty used as footsoldiers (not even cavalry) and there is very few evidence of Arabs having been given any kind of preferential treatment. In fact, most local Arab rulers were removed from leadership positions and replaced with Kurds.
I hope wikipedia will do something about the blatant historic revisionism on this page. These primary sources also prove that Turks were racists towards Saladin himself, so I hope this will quiet the Turkish nationalists with their incredible nonsense and pathetic attempts at appropriating Saladin. Your ancestors literally disrespected him, and you want to continue that tradition by stealing him from the Kurds? Weak.
2A02:A458:A594:1:E089:E683:5605:3235 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ayyubids were KURDS – this is not up for discussion. Lets end this this Arab/Turkish historic revisionism once and for all. 

message: Hey what do you think about Humphreys statement in the Ayyubids entry in Iranica? He states that according to Minorsky the family "might" have been Kurds of Arab origins. At the moment, the article does not fully reflect this, or do you think its WP:UNDUE weight? I'm not fully aware of the entire modern-day academic consensus i.e. narrative, other than that they are considered to be Muslims of Kurdish origins, so I thought I should contact you.
- LouisAragon (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The general consensus of reliable, secondary sources is that they were Kurds and the article must reflect that. That their ancestral group were the Rawadiya is also generally supported in the sources. The question is whether or not we note in this article about the Ayyubids a theory by a reliable, secondary source on the subject (Minorsky) that the Rawadiya were descendants of Arabs who had become Kurdicized over time. I do not believe it would be undue to mention succinctly Minorsky's theory about the Rawadiya, with attribution, and that some (which?) Ayyubids sponsored fictitious Arab genealogies, which may have contained a kernel of truth and possibly preserved an authentic folk memory—with attribution to Humphreys. Al Ameer (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your response. I can agree with that. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. S. Humphreys in the ''Encyclopedia Iranica'' 

message: A user () who has previously made multiple undiscussed page moves elsewhere (see Talk:Almoravid dynasty and other examples at Idrisid dynasty, French Protectorate in Morocco, and List of wars involving the State of Palestine, etc), has just moved this page without discussion. The term "sultanate" is not inaccurate for the state Saladin created, but I haven't worked on this page much so I'm not sure how well it matches the full topic as it is presented here. Either way, I would invite editors to express whether or not they approve of the name change. If not, it should be reverted. R Prazeres (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and moved back. There was a sultanate, but this covers more than that. nableezy - 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed page move 

message: Rawadiya were Arabic origin not kurdish . Also dynasty were Turkized people. Add this Tursenian (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: The article gives the area of the empire as 3,750,000 sq km in 1190 and 2,500,000 sq km in 1200. Thinking this unlikely, looking at the size of modern Egypt and Saudi Arabia compared to the map provided, I decided to use the borders shown in the map and sketch them out on Google Maps. Using those borders yields an area of a little over 1,600,000 sq km, less than half of the size the empire apparently was just 3 years earlier. I suspect those larger sizes must be including a great deal of empty desert over which the Ayubbids exercised no meaningful control. Certainly my sketching of the borders on Google Maps was rough, but not so rough as to account for a missing 2,150,000 sq km - approximately the size of modern Saudi Arabia. Interestingly the article that is the source for the area claims (http://jwsr.pitt.edu/ojs/jwsr/article/view/369/381, see Table 1, page 223) gives an area of 2 million square kilometres in 1190 - much closer to the result I got using the map in the article. Based on all this I am quite certain the Ayubbid Empire was never remotely close to 2.5 million, let alone 3.75 millon. I think a range of 1.5-2 million seems likely and given even the article's own source supports 2 million, I think it should be edited to reflect that figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7102:AD01:B508:F356:CE81:ECC1 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Turchin et al. estimate 2.0 million km2 in 1190 and Taagepera estimates 1.7 million km2 in 1200. The higher figures are the products of vandalism from the 212.237.120.0/23 IP range, which has since resulted in the page being semi-protected. TompaDompa (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of the Empire 

message: When it comes to the origins of the Ayyubids, whose better to ask than the Ayyubids themselves?
In his book Al-Fawaid, the Ayyubid prince of Damascus and Saladin's grandnephew Hassn bin Daud addressed his family's origins, According to Prince Hassan his father and grandfather before him both agreed that the Ayyubid dynasty is an Arab dynasty descended from Banu Murrah tribe. He further asserted that his entire family denies any Kurdish ancestry. Jasmkssnksskskskskz (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‏The Ayyubids denied Kurdish ancestry! 

message: In order to prove that he is Kurdish, 4 sources are included, and most of them are unqualified and unclear, Bosworth's book states that he is Turkified. Other sources proving that he is Kurdish should be included. 176.216.90.225 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they 'unqualified and unclear'? One of the sources is Iranica, which is a pretty major source. Please explain. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy of Sources 

message: The date of establishment is 1171, not 1174. Artaxius58 34 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of foundation 

message: It says that the state was founded in 1171, so how does it become a sovereign state from 1170 to 1260? should be corrected. ArtaXerxes58 (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not allowed to use multiple accounts, that is against the rules. Please edit from one account only. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please respond, or I will revert the change. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign State 

message: Shajar al-durr was a Mamluk Sultan, not an Ayyubid Mamluks were in Egypt for a very short time, then Ayyubid rule came again
Saladin 1174–1193
Al-Aziz 1193–1198
Al-Mansur 1198–1200
Al-Adil I 1200–1218
Al-Kamil 1218–1238
Al-Adil II 1238–1240
As-Salih Ayyub 1240–1249
Al-Muazzam Turanshah 1249-1250
Al-Ashraf Musa 1250-1254 ArtaXerxes58 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sultans 

message: Ahh shit here we go again.I alright said link of book [].Wiki common language in table say Kurdish spoke per France1998 in 84.page.But France 1998 page 84 say "Saladin,the great commander,was a Kurd who probably spoke Turkish to his commander".So Saladin was Kurdish but spoke Turkish.Ok?Could i add Turkish to table with France1998 refference?5.229.101.196 (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It(Turkish) is already sourced within the article, and I restored Turkish to the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 5.229.101.196 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish added to infobox 

message: I decided to employ free variation of roughly equal frequency, with attentiveness to section headings, in order to get a better NPOV presentation. Using only "Israel" or only "Palestine" has a political connotation and that decision brings a non-political article into a political domain. If you use free variation that accusation can't be levied and does a significant amount of work to bring back the NPOV and the fairness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.136 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about a historic period and state long before the existence of modern Israel, and scholarly sources use historical regional terms, including Palestine, for geographical references in this context, so that's what this article uses. Changing names/terms in an article for political reasons is not NPOV, it's disruptive, and repeatedly reinstating your edit after it's already been reverted is edit-warring. R Prazeres (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The scholarly sources often are politicized, and in any case the usage of a term in the English language heretofore also has political connotations and causes. Please think more deeply about the politics of your actions and your speech before you write Wikipedia articles with a point of view bias. Thank you. 128.135.98.232 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's neutral and not politicized to write "Israel", a word that wasn't in use under the Ayyubids? And it certainly wouldn't be anachronistic either, no? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceptual fairness and naming