Talk:Qahtanite

Saba & Himyar
The Qahtanis indeed formed Saba

Yom 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nabteans?
Why are they in the Qahtan article. (I didn't want to edit, until I figure out if there is a reason for including them in the Qahtan article. They are unrelated, even if they came from the South it was from a Pre Qahtan Semitic Migration, Just like the rest of the Semites. Qahtan mainly remained in South Arabia until the Kahlan migrations in the 3rd century. Any migrations before the 3rd century are minor and were assimilated to the North Semitic culutres. The early Semitic migrations of the 3rd Mellenia were before Qahtan existed. Which according to Arab geneology was Seperated 40 generation from Ismail and 80 generations from Adnan so thats around the 23rd century BC. --Skatewalk 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nabateans comes from Qidar--Alameer 10:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still not sure about removing the nabateans, because:

Although Qidar was not Adnani (He was still came after Ismail). Ismail lived among the Qahtani tribe Jurhum. Eventualy Ismail's lineage became the cheifs of Jurhum.

The Question is, Did Qidar go to the North by himself or as a leader of a portion of Jurhum?

If he went to the North as a leader of Jurhum, doesn't that make them Qahtani? And I read alot about teh Nabateans, no one knew their true origin. All we know is that they spoke North Arabic derived of Aramiac.(at that time the whole neareast spoke Aramiac at variant dialects so the language is not agood indicator, other than its gradual shift into Arabic (Migration influence?)--Skatewalk 09:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiction
This article is more fiction than fact!--Xevorim (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. If you don't like biblical history then just leave. Akmal94 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Arab?
This article uses the terms "Arab" and "Arabic". However, Yemen was not Arabic-speaking until like 11th century CE. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Qahtanite. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090807201759/http://thearabhistory.com:80/qahtan.htm to http://thearabhistory.com/qahtan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim removed for inaccuracy
The sentence was removed "Genetic distinctions between the historically nomadic people of the Northern/Central Arabian peninsula and the sedentary people of the South are attributed to the early Islamic conquests." The source attached to it makes no claim or indication that the advent of Islam attributed to the genetic distinction between north or central and south Arabians. CaliphoShah (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Qahtanites are descendents of Ishmael?
The article says that Qahtanites are sons of Ishmael but that's not true Qahtanites are older than Ishmael if you checked Jurhum you would see that it's a Qahtanite tribe which Ishmael married from and Ishmael's descendents are the Hashemites and Ishmaelites not Qahtanites. SharabSalam (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References and sources aren't working(Fake)
I will remove this part since references and sources dont work "but Joktan had 13 sons and Qahtan had 24 sons. So with this point Qahtan was another descendant of Ishmael and not the Joktan of the Hebrew Bible.[4][5]"

Also for inaccuracy since second Jurhum is descended from Qahtan and Ishmael married from them SharabSalam (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it fake? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr Emir of Wikipedia... First the sources aren't working and the source from encyclopedia doesn't exist you can check them.. second the conclusion is that because Qahtan had more sons than Joktan therefore Qahtan isn't Joktan and because of that Qahtan is descended from Ishmeal is an irrelevant conclusion made up by the editor who wrote it and the biblical narrative is worthless in Arab history while the article is talking about an Arabian semi-legendary character, thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the sources aren't working? And we should not engage in WP:OR. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The links do not work and I see that there is a source from Maalouf, Tony. Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line. Kregel Academic. p. 45. I have checked that source and it does not say that "Qahtan isn't Joktan because Joktan has less sons than Qahtan and therefore Qahtan is descended from Ishmeal" and yes it says that Qahtan is descended from Ishmeal but that first statement isn't included in the source. Other thing that when I have time I am going to add a contrary information from other reliable sources that Qahtan isn't descended from Ishmael since Ishmael himself married from a Qahtanite women from the second Jurhum tribe,. There are numerous of sources that says the same so I think what Tony Maalouf wrote is just his opinion and it does not reflect the opinion of the vaste majority of historians. I think the statement should be rephrased in a way that shows that its not the pupolar believe and it's most likely to not be true as I mentioned why... SharabSalam (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the links don't work? Reference 4 is offline, there is no requirement for references to be online. I have tagged reference 5 as a deadlink. You said you have read reference 4. Could you please provide a picture of page 45, perhaps you are reading a different edition? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The book is in Google for free and I am going to presume good faith and not to think that the editor who added that statement made it offline for a reason, anyway, the author isn't even well-known and his name suggest that he is an Arab I have done a research about his biography and I found none about him, my point is that the statement that is in this article obviously shows that what "Mr. Tony" said is a fact and its acceptable by many historians while it's not and it contradicts what many historians believe so I suggest rephrase it in order to make Wikipedia more accurate. Thank you. SharabSalam (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That link you provided says "This view is largely based on the claim of Muslim Arab historians that their oldest ancestor is Qahtan, whom they identify as the biblical Joktan (Gen. 10:25-26). Montgomery finds it difficult to reconcile Joktan with Qahtan based on etymology." The editor who did added the statement probably didn't link to it online as they might have read the book in person, and linking to a book online is not required. Mr Tony is not the author Mr Maalouf is. I will add the link to Google Books in the citation though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@ it seems that what I said went through your head the editor said "Early Islamic historians identified Qahtan with the Yoqtan (Joktan) son of Eber Of the Hebrew Bible(Gen. 10:25-29), but Joktan had 13 sons and Qahtan had 24 sons. So with this point Qahtan was another descendant of Ishmael and not the Joktan of the Hebrew Bible.[4][5]" First he said that because Qahtan has more sons than Joktan then Joktan isn't Qahtan which is not what is written in the source. Second he gave an impression that this claim is the truth and he didn't say its just a claim based on one reference and he didn't mention who told that claim which is "Montgomery" and I think that Mr.Tony was referring to David Montgomery. The reason why thats important to be mentioned is not insult many historians who disagree with that claim and even Arabs who disagree with that claim so again I suggest to reform that statement and to make it obvious that its just a claim as they mention that Qahtan is Joktan is also a claim by "Early Islamic historians" even though I have seen many modern historians claiming that Qahtan is Joktan and BTW the author name is Tony Maalouf this is why I said he is an Arab because Maalouf is an Arab family surname and he isn't even well-known in the Arab world as a person rather than a Historian SharabSalam (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Even that claim by Mr.Tony Maalouf contradicts the story of Ishmael son of Abraham who married from the second Jurhum tribe which is a Qahtanite tribe so how come Qahtanites are the descendents of Ishmael while Ishmael himself married from a Qahtanite tribe?! I think thats worth mentioning and as I said I am going to add that with several sources and references SharabSalam (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding informed that references sources, but we don't remove WP:DEADLINKs we keep them. I have restored it because of that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Location
Hi, can someone please explain what the template parameter of location refers to? Does it refer to where the tribe is originally from or where the tribe is located? SharabSalam (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Gianluca Paolo Parolin

 * Well first of all stop assuming bad faith. Secondly Gianluca Paolo Parolin is not a historian. I have tried to search for any other source for this tweak information and I couldn't except from unreliable sources. Also it is giving to much attention athough it's his opinion and that I believe is against WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It needs more sources. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you to desist from such personal attacks since i don't assume bad faith here, but your removal sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and edit-warring is not the solution. The source is from a respected University and other editors have agreed to keep it in the article. Your removal is by no means consensual : . ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT sounds like assuming bad faith and accusing of assusming a bad faith is not a persnol attack. I really don't know how you interpreted it like a personal attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The author, Gianluca P. Parolin, is a Professor at the Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies :, this seems to make him reliable for the claim that you removed without any consensus, since other editors reverted you already for the same edit you made months ago. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Again he is not a historian or a genealogist should not be given due weight. It needs more sources. I have seen many instances in Wikipedia where some information gets deleted because the authors are not specialist in the subject that he/she commenting on. His comment oppose many historians.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link from a historian who's challenging his view ? ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  23:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All of Arab historians like Al-Tabari and Ibn Hisham. they are historians and he is not a historian and came to demolish what they said also you didnt address the undue weight problem. I have tried to fix in 2018 but got reverted for no valid reason--SharabSalam (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cannot read or write Arabic, therefore, your source is not available to me. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, those sources you're talking about are severely outdated. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They are Arab historians and has made a lot of contributions which without them no Historian can come up with something about Arab history except from an archaeologist. What he (a non-historian) suggesting is against their contributions and remember he is not a historian nor an archaeologist nor a genealogist also he based his comment on some opinions that were also given by Arab historians who has not even highlighted it or presented it as a fact but as an opinion by some and has condemned it. Currently I am outside and I cant give a English versions of the books I am citing but I will do when I have time but anyone who knows much about this subject will know this. Also this is like the 4th or 5th reply of yours and yet you have not addressed the WP:UNDUE problem.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the source that says modern historiography please comment on this.. This is a minority view it's given due weight and per WP:UNDUE we should not give minority views so much attention. Pinkbeast obviously knows nothing about the subject and is not interested in a discussion. Also the term "Modern historiography" doesn't exist as a subject I pretty sure anyone who has studied history would be able to know that if "modern historiography" exist then it should not base it's conclusion on a fictional story(Qays and Yaman) which is basically a repeated story of the story of Saul son of Kish(Qays in Arabic). A "modern historiography" would take genetical differences into consideration there are a lot of genetic differences between the Adnanite tribes and Qahtanite tribes. This section name is totally misleading. Please Doug Weller comment on this issue. I am unable to edit in these articles because I get unjustified reverts. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very hard to reply to something so incoherent, but "Modern historiography" is just an expression used to describe the material. There is no particular reason you would expect to find it in the source. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Bring a source that what Parolin said (who is not a historian nor genealogist) = """""modern historiography""""" otherwise this is your own original research --SharabSalam (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you labour under a fundamental confusion if you think every section heading, or any section heading, has to have a cite to agree with its description of the material therein. (That said, the cite does use the expression "contemporary historiography", so even your initial objection seems to make no sense.) Pinkbeast (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So now the term is "contemporary historiography" means "modern historiography" which proves what I said its not a subject so a section called modern historiography should not contain it. Why? Because per WP:UNDUE we should not give minority opinion more attention than it needs. Parolin is not a historian or a genealogist. And I hope you understand that "modern historiography" is not a subject to deserve a section but it even has variable terms like contemporary historiography which proves that "Modern historiography" doesn't exist as a subject but rather it would be misleading term to new comers who would think it is a subject (just like you).--SharabSalam (talk)
 * We simply made a whole section on something that is called by Parolin opinion as contemporary historiography and we changed it to Modern historiography. is this a NPOV? He has trashed all of other historians like Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir and others in this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep edit warring and saying that the source is not reliable while a veteran admin (Doug Weller) and several other users told you it is, you also keep saying that Parolin's view is a minority and cite some historians who died 1000 years ago, like Al-Tabari. Whatmodern reliable source do you have that supports what you're saying ? There is no undue claim in the article, in my opinion and you'll need sources to convince me that i'm wrong. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about expanding that section with other views? Searching on Google Books, I came across at least one modern historian who accepts the traditional distinction:
 * "Eschewing “dogmatic statements based on mere descriptive evidence and insufficient craniological evidence,” [‘Abbas ‘Ammar] rejected the loose use of terms such as “Arab” or “Semite,” especially when used to indicate homogeneous racial types.“ Instead, relying heavily on Arabic sources—notably, the work of Arab historians and genealogists—he concurred with their traditional distinction between the Southern Qahtanite and Northern Adnanite types, finding anthropometric corroboration for this classification."
 * Introducing other views would make a more informative section. Wiqi(55) 11:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is basically based on one opinion of someone who is not historian or genealogist and he we called his conclusion modern historiography even though it is based on a story(Qays and Yaman) that was attacked =by REAL historians (the story doesn't support his claim BTW). This is not WP:UNDUE when the whole section that is called modern historiography is based on someone opinion who is not even a historian? There genetical differences between Adnanites and Qahtanites (I am not talking about Hashemites)--SharabSalam (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So what should someone do if there is no reply wait seven days?,  SharabSalam (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess you can a) recognise there is no support for your position or b) get another block for edit warring. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)