Talk:Qays–Yaman rivalry

Split and redirect or rename?

@Al Ameer son: i notice that this article is basically ovelapping with Qais article and Banu Kalb article. I guess than unless we rename it there is no reason to keep it (maybe to Qays and Yaman conflict?). What do you think?GreyShark (dibra) 04:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I've been wanting to tackle this article for a while now because of its importance to Levantine history. I agree it should be renamed to "Qays-Yaman conflict". The Qays and Yaman coalitions, which at the local level were quite fluid, could have separate articles or be dealt with in a Background section in this article. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "conflict" would however be appropriate for such a long period. Maybe "Qays-Yaman tribal divide"?GreyShark (dibra) 05:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Greyshark. Sorry for the delayed response. I'm currently working on a draft to supplant this article, see User:Al Ameer son/Qays and Yaman. I'm not in favor of "tribal divide" because: (1. there's also a significant socio-political and even economic aspect to the Qays–Yaman phenomenon; (2. it wasn't limited to Arab tribes after its main Umayyad phase; 3.) I haven't seen that exact term used in the sources I've read so far. Before going much further in this discussion, I'd rather wait until I move the draft to mainspace (few days) so we could better gauge the subject and determine the most common phrasing modern sources use to describe it. Afterward, we should also invite more user/project input. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Is your draft article aiming to replace Qays and Yaman tribes, or be an additional one?GreyShark (dibra) 07:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Replace. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Ok, I've mostly replaced this article with the draft I was working on. The article is still missing a lot of info about the intermittent Qays-Yaman feuds in Muslim Spain, and the "Post-Umayyad" and "Ottoman era" sections are bare-bones, though I intend to expand those sections in the coming days. I also rewrote the Banu Kalb article and will work on Qays soon. Now, with a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon, I think we can better discuss what the best title for this article should be. There are a number of possible names, including "Qays–Yaman feud", "Qays–Yaman rivalry", "Qays–Yaman conflict" or simply "Qays and Yaman", among others. I've seen the simple "Qays and Yaman" used frequently in sources and I've seen the first name (... feud[ing]) used a lot as well. I invite Cplakidas to join this discussion because he has good familiarity with the early Islamic period. Invite others as you see fit and I'll post a link to this discussion at the relevant wikiprojects. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi to both. I agree with Al Ameer's comments above re the title. For me, either "Qays and Yaman" or "Qays and Yaman rivalry" would be the best titles. I am very glad to see work being done here, this article was a weak spot on an issue that was of rather fundamental importance for the early Muslim world. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Good. Will take a look later on. I also owe you a deeper insight into the Qays-Yaman War of the 890s.GreyShark (dibra) 22:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cplakidas. @Greyshark09: I look forward to more information about the feud during the 890s. I've been busy lately, but still hope to further expand this article sooner than later. In the meantime, any objection to renaming this: "Qays and Yaman"? Seems to be the simplest and most common phrasing. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved the article to "Qays–Yaman rivalry". Cplakidas and I support this title and Greyshark has not objected. "Rivalry" seems to be used more often than "feud", but not much more, and is more descriptive than the simpler "Qays and Yaman". --Al Ameer (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Abu Gosh

It says the residents are of mixed stock - Circassian, Turkmen and other. However, it is widely cited that one of the origins in Ingush, rather than Circassian. Some even say Abu Gosh is a corruption of "Abu Ingush" [1].GreyShark (dibra) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Greyshark. Just to be clear, the statement "some of the factions' leading families, such as the Abu Ghosh, were not ethnic Arabs, but of Circassian, Kurdish or Turkmen stock" isn't implying that the Abu Ghosh clan specifically is of mixed stock, but that a number clans who took part in the Qays-Yaman feuding in Palestine were not Arab but of Circassian, Kurdish or Turkmen stock, including the Abu Ghosh. As for the Abu Ghosh specifically, it is traditionally held that they had Circassian/North Caucasian roots. The Ingush (also North Caucasian) claim is interesting and apparently true according to your source. I don't know if its necessary to mention that in this article, but I have no strong objection to it. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's settle for North Caucasian, which includes both Circassian and Ingush, and thus is most probably covering both feasible options. It is indeed less relevant for this article.GreyShark (dibra) 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert to recover

A lot of changes have been made to the referencing and content of this article, almost all causing errors in references due to undefined references. To recover, I've tried repairing them but it's just too much of a mess. So, I've reverted the changes to the last stable version. I'll mark undefined references that still exist for repair. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Thank you for clearing the mess, should have done it myself but slipped up. I am currently working on changes to the article in my own user space for now. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Happy to help. I'm not completely sure things are any better. In particular, maybe there are salvageable references from the history of the article that I didn't sort out. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)