Talk:Zayyanid dynasty

[Untitled]
please check the spelling Salem and Said aren't interchangeable, and each descendant wasn't just either son or brother there were other relations who managed to take the sultanate.

Move

 * "Abdelwadid dynasty" 0
 * "Abd Al Wadid dynasty" -Llc 46
 * "Ziyyanid dynasty" -Llc 0
 * "Zayyanid dynasty" -Llc 32
 * Zayyanids -Llc 128

Takabeg (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How about that "Abd Al Wadids"-Lcc 523.
 * "Abd Al Wadids" -Llc 127 under same condition Takabeg (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the same condition "Zayyanids" -Llc] 404 results vs 523 for Abdalwadids Tachfin (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All the combined spellings of Abdelwadid are far more popular, and this is the name they have been reported under by Ibn Khaldun and other contemporary historians, and it was the original name of the article for 4 years or more untill somebody moved it last year. So I don't understand why you accuse me of OR. Tachfin (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2nd thing: The reason i'm adding History of Morocco is because the Abdalwadids controlled Oujda, Sijilmasa, Tafilalet at their height.


 * 3rd thing: Marinids did succeed the Abdelwadids in many territories in eastern Morocco, the Saharan Ksours then they conquered them all together. Having Marinid as successors is far more relevant than having Spain just because it occupied the port of Oran...
 * Last thing: please assume good faith Abdalwadid is the correct name for the article and was before it was recently moved. All other serious Wikipedias use it, I'm not doing this to suit my taste and frankly don't really care which name is used at the end Tachfin (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think Abd al-Wadids or Abd al-Wadid dynasty can be accepted. (But your favorite "Abdelwadid dynasty" cannot be accepted.)

"Abd al-Wadid dynasty" -Llc 46

Anyway I recommend you use Requested moves Takabeg (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for me I read all the different spellings the same way (how you place the dash/space, capitalize the "al" or "Abd el" vs "Abd al" doesn't concern me at all). They are mentioned all around in ancient manuscript with the this name. I don't think I care enough, at this point, to start a rm that wouldn't get attention a side from you and me :D. A part from that, the article needs more accuracy, there is an extended account of them in Ibn Khadldun writings. Tachfin (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Zayyanid is a Kutama clan
The Fedora team is out in force today, so leaving this here.

"Yaghmurasan ben Ziyan ben Thabet ben Mohamed ben Zegraz ben Tiddugues"

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Histoire_des_Berb%C3%A8res_et_des_dynasties/H3RBAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

https://archive.org/details/Al-bayanAl-mughrib

Thabet is a Kutama clan, descended from Tiddgues.

"A fraction of the Ketama tribe inhabit the mountain located between Collo and Gonstantine. This tribe is called the Beni-Thabet of the name of the governing family" - Ibn Khaldun, Histoire des Berberes et des Dynasties

Tiddugues (Tîdghast/Tîdghas) itself is a fraction of the Oulhaça (Ulhas/Uîhas/Ulhasa/Oulhassa/Oulhassî) tribe.

The tribal descendance is as follows: (Nafzaouî -> Oulhassî -> Tîdghas -> Kutama -> Thabet -> Zayyan), with Ourfeddjouma/Zerdjouma also being from Tidghas. (Ibn Khaldun Kitab Al-Ibar & https://archive.org/details/Al-bayanAl-mughrib)

The claim that they are a Zenata dynasty by the following:

Zenata  dynasty

Is complete ignorance with no sources for these claims presented in these books, and is just an assumption.

The literal retards here can't even click on the links and read the "secondary sources" to see where they are sourcing their information from, utter ignorance.

View them below and read them.

https://i.imgur.com/4QSIb9c.png

Where are the primary sources in your secondary sources you literal imbeciles? They need to have sourced this information from the ancient texts, which I have provided and can provide more, going back 600-1400, not these secondary sources with zero primary source reference garbage that you claim overrules the information in the primary sources that ARE PROVIDED.

Disgusting ignorance and lack of care for facts, logic or reason.

KabylePerson (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * All I see is your very bad interpretation of ancient text (no page numbers of course) and persistent personal attacks. Literally the first ancient source that you cited contradicts your baseless assertion by saying: "Beni-Abd-el-Ouad, dynastie zenatienne" on page 420. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)