Talk:Ayyubid dynasty

List of rulers

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)

Kurdish ancestry?

Is it really necessary to use the Columbia Encyclopedia for a reference to his Kurdish ancestry? That's just some other encyclopedia. They have the same sources we do and they don't go into any further detail. (In my mind it's not even the type of thing that needs a reference, apparently only Turks believe he wasn't Kurdish...) Adam Bishop 16:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All Ayyubid sultans had Arabic names, and the last one ,Turanshah, had a Turkish name. What are the references saying Ayyubid dynasty was a Kurdish dynasty? Are there any written document from that era proving that? Without any reference, anything written here can't go beyond being a point of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.75.178.78 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Asir who was a historian at the same time of Ayyubid dynasty confirms that this family were of kurdish origin.About names majority of muslims had arabic names, and Turanshah is persian name which composed of two persian word Turan and Shah and actually this names Turanshah, Gilanshah and Kermanshah ,Iranshah were common in Iran at era, It just reamins one question why a kurdish tribal leader chose such a name for his son because kurdish names were different.Another point is that uncle of salaheddin was Shirkuh which is a classical kurdish name and even nowadays are used between kurds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.107.53.148 (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true, "Shirkoh" is not a kurdish name, but an iranian name as origin! Another error in your claims, Turanshah is not persian. Turan is a turkish word and shah means ruler, so it is a combined word. I was searching on google and i could not find a single proof that "Shirkoh" is used as a kurdish name nowadays. Despite that, Saladins family was mixed, there were turks, kurds and arabs. Can you show me some sources that Saladin spoke about his kurdish origin? Saladin not even spoke kurdish, but arabian language. So what makes him kurdish, if he even didnt lived the kurdish kulture? I could not see one single convincing source for the claims in the article. --LACongress 07:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what do you mean?Kurdish is an Iraniac language and that is clear that kurdish names must have Iranic language root.But some kurdish names (although have clear meaning in other Iranic languages)are specific just to Kurds names like Barzan,Rezgar,Hiwa,Hemen,...and Shirkuh.Shirkuh is a very well known kurdish name between kurds.

And everybody knows Turan is a classical Iranian geographical name and has no root in any turkish language. TuranShah is a persian name,thats completely clear.About your claim that there is no source to prove that he spoke Kurdish is very strange,so can we claim that because there is no document to prove that malikshah to be turk, just because

there is no source to prove that he spoke Turkic.By this logic origin of majority of turkic rulers became doubtful,Anyway do you like Kasravi or not?if you do,please check the book Shahryaran e Gomnam , in that he proves the origin of Ayubid dynasty.(Kasravi was an azeri from tabriz and he din't like kurds at all) If you do not like kasravi,ok check Ibn Asir, because it is the main source that all historian refer to it and prove that that family is kurdish origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.104.96 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shirkoh is an iranian name, not kurdish! Kurds are not iranians genetically as you can read yourself on wikipedia in the kurds-article! Only because you speak an iranian language doesnt make you somekind of iranian people!

Vasili Nikitine quoting Vladimir Minorsky says “Very early in the Arab historiography the word kurd became a synonyme for nomad”[4].The anthropologist Van Bruinessen says “Medieval arab geographers used the term ‘Kurd’ (in its arabic plural form ‘Akrad’) ::::to denote all nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes that were neither Arab nor Turkish”[5].

[4] Nikitine Basile, 1956/1975, Les Kurdes, étude sociologique et historique, Librairie Klincksiek, Paris, p. 9.

[5] Van Bruinessen Martin, 1999, Agha, Shaykh and State. The social and political structures of Kurdistan, New Jersey, Zed Books ::::Ltd, p. 111. --LACongress 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1)Shirkuh is a kuridish name, and kurdish language is a branch of Iranic languages.

2)Iranian has two meaning,citizens of country of Iran which has nothing to do with linguistics and a linguistic classification which kurdish is a branch of this language family so kurds are Iranic people in the second meaning and some of kurds are citizens of Iran by the first meaning.

3)ethnicity has nothing to do with genetics, this was fabricated by panturks and has no scientific base,those who speaking an Iranic language are part of Iranic people(in linguistical meaning).

4)If those nomads were not Arab or Turk,so they were Iranics,and in Iran there are only three major iranic nomadic group, Kurds,Lurs,Baluches.No baluch or lUrs were in northwestern Iran at that time, so Saladdin family were of kurdish origin.

5)Firdowsi who lived 150 years before Saladdin in his book shahnameh wrote a chapter about origin of kurds(kingdom of Zahhak),in the end of it he says

konun kord azAn tokhme dArad nezhad-------------kaz Abad nAyad bedel barsh Yad.

this completely proves that at least in his time, kurds were considered as a seperate ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.104.96 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On the Saladin Wikipedia Page the kurdish nationalist like to bring sources from Minorsky. See what Minorsky says (Studies in Caucasian History, pp. 114-16, 123, 128-30), says that the Rawadya Kurds are connected to the descendants of the Arab general Rawwad Azd, who was governor of Tabrz ca. 200/815. These men, having become Kurdicized (means assimilated), emerge in the late fourth/tenth century as the paramount clan among the powerful Hadobanya tribe in Azerbaijan, whence one branch moved to take up residence in the district of Dvin at some point in the eleventh century. The kurdish ultranationalists claim he is kurdish, but Saladin never said that he is kurdish. His ancestory came from Iran --LACongress 05:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

first if you accept what monorisky has said then you answered yoursel, because you mentioned kurdicized,you know actualy majority of Turks are Turkicized too, and this is clear for majority of nations, so they were kurd when migrated to egypt,

But what Minorisly had said is not true,and you just mention a very famous error that was prevailed in one hundred years ago,and has been completely discussed until now, Saladdin was from ravadi tribe which was a branch of Hadzbani confedration a very famous kurdish tribe(Ibn Asir, Tarikh e Ravandi,...both books are available in markets and Ibn Asir also has been translated in Persian) ravadi kurds were never in Azarbaijan, they just were in Aran and Armenia, but not in Azarbaijan.they founded two dynasty (except Ayuubian) Shaddadian one in Ganjeh in Aran and the other in Ani in Armenia.

Rawwad was an arab man who came to Azarbaijan and found a dynasty named as Rawwadi and then his sons founded Sheybanian and Ahmadilian in azarbaijan. these people were not assimilated and ruled azarbaijan until the time of Saljuqs and also served saljuq kings.

These families were completely different even their spell is different. Kurdish one is Ravadi and Arabic one was Rawwadi,which is a "sighe ye mobalaghe"

for a proof of that there is a poem of Qatran e Tabrizi which says:

yeki be gohar ShaddAd o zu be gohar bish ----- yeki be tokhme rawwado zu be molk afzun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.104.96 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Shirkoh" is not a kurdish name, but an iranian name as origin
I replied to this ridiculous comment on the talk page of Shrikuh. SohrabeDelavar 14:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On the Saladin Wikipedia Page the kurdish nationalist like to bring sources from Minorsky. See what Minorsky says (Studies in Caucasian History, pp. 114-16, 123, 128-30), says that the Rawadya Kurds are connected to the descendants of the Arab general Rawwad Azd, who was governor of Tabrz ca. 200/815. These men, having become Kurdicized (means assimilated), emerge in the late fourth/tenth century as the paramount clan among the powerful Hadobanya tribe in Azerbaijan, whence one branch moved to take up residence in the district of Dvin at some point in the eleventh century. The kurdish ultranationalists claim he is kurdish, but Saladin never said that he is kurdish. His ancestory came from Iran --LACongress 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

first if you accept what monorisky has said then you answered yoursel, because you mentioned kurdicized,you know actualy majority of Turks are Turkicized too, and this is clear for majority of nations, so they were kurd when migrated to egypt,

But what Minorisly had said is not true,and you just mention a very famous error that was prevailed in one hundred years ago,and has been completely discussed until now, Saladdin was from ravadi tribe which was a branch of Hadzbani confedration a very famous kurdish tribe(Ibn Asir, Tarikh e Ravandi,...both books are available in markets and Ibn Asir also has been translated in Persian) ravadi kurds were never in Azarbaijan, they just were in Aran and Armenia, but not in Azarbaijan.they founded two dynasty (except Ayuubian) Shaddadian one in Ganjeh in Aran and the other in Ani in Armenia.

Rawwad was an arab man who came to Azarbaijan and found a dynasty named as Rawwadi and then his sons founded Sheybanian and Ahmadilian in azarbaijan. these people were not assimilated and ruled azarbaijan until the time of Saljuqs and also served saljuq kings.

These families were completely different even their spell is different. Kurdish one is Ravadi and Arabic one was Rawwadi,which is a "sighe ye mobalaghe"

for a proof of that there is a poem of Qatran e Tabrizi which says:

yeki be gohar ShaddAd o zu be gohar bish ----- yeki be tokhme rawwado zu be molk afzun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.104.96 (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag

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)

Maybe, but probably not (as with everything else in that movie). Adam Bishop 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

AYYUBIDS WAS A TURKISH STATE

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)

Saladin was a Kurd , everybody knows. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

There Should be a Template for Arab Empire, and Ayyubid dynasty part of it, sorry to dissapoint my fellow friends Kurds but this Dynasty had nothing to do with Kurds other then Salahdin being born their, he grew up in Syria and lived his entire life as an Arab rather then Kurd, i doubt he even knew how to speak Kurdish, anyway, this article needs to be fixed to be included as an Arab Dynasty rather then a Kurdish one, i mean, for gods sake Kurdistan wasnt even part of the country's boundries... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 12:39, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

as for saladin being turkish... it really made me read the entire post, i found it enything but true, i found it ammusing tho, if anyones interested to know...

anyways, Saladin is more of an Arab then a turk, he is a Kurd, but that doesnt neccesary mean that the Ayyubid Empire was a Kurdish one, its capital was Cairo, and had no control over northern Iraq, Iraq or north western Iran... it didnt include the Kurdish homeland as we know it today, or as they knew it back then... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 12:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

NOTE:Makes no sense to say arab dynasty of Kurdish origin, mutually exclusice ethnicities, have amended — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.235.2 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mongols

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)

grammar fix

I just brushed up a little grammar mistake I spotted. Not much, but 'every little helps'. --Huss4in (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! We could use as much help as possible. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayyubid dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial comments

Looks good. Plenty of references to reliable works, scope seems good. I'm not sure about ref #1, which ideally either needs to be tidied up with more details or replaced (I can't access it myself). At current #55 and #56 are duplicates, but it's not a widespread problem. (If you could find another map or two for different times, all the better.) It certainly looks like a good contender. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref #1 was removed because its presence is unnecessary. The fact they were ethnically Kurdish and Sunni Muslims by religion is covered in the Origins and Demographics section with other sources. The two duplicate refs pointed out were also taken care of. As for the maps, I will get two more for different time periods (one for after the loss of Yemen, the Hejaz, and parts of Mesopotamia in the 1240s and another for after the loss of Egypt.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Full review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   a) The position of Saladin is unclear in the lead. This sentence is an opportunity: "The Ayyubid family, under the brothers Ayyub and Shirkuh, originally served as soldiers for the Zengids until they gradually gained independence under Saladin." Who gained independence and from whom? I'd suggest saying "Ayyub's son" in there just to confirm.

I clarified. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. b) Good, other than above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All good. There are two references from one author with 106 years apart, but that's not a problem. The Google books links go to individual pages with things highlighted - ideally get rid of everything past, and including, the "&pg" in the url for just the book. That's a bonus anyway, but something to think about.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Well covered. Lots of information, but well sectioned.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No really contentious issues, but legacy is positive. Were there any negative consequences of Ayyubid infrastructure? They aren't mentioned if there are.

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "infrastructure". Do you mean were there any negative consequences of Ayyubid rule? If so, from what I have read, there were actually very few negatives, unlike the succeeding Mamluks, or preceding Fatimids, but I guess that's because they didn't rule for long (if you count out the Hama-based dynasty, the Ayyubids really ruled from 1171 to 1260, roughly 90 years.) There are some negatives, however, such as their general maltreatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt as compared to the Fatimids and the eventual neglect of Jerusalem because of its loss of strategic importance and civil strifes between the Ayyubid rulers—although the latter is already covered in the Jerusalem article and might be too specific to include in this article. Also, from a Shia standpoint, Ayyubid reign was quite negative as it was the Ayyubids who not only ended the Shia Fatimid Caliphate, but also systematically repressed Shia Islam by constructing dozens of Sunni madrasas and disabling the use of major Shia mosques for Friday prayers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not important for this review, as long as the general good/bad balance reflects sources, and I have no reason to be;lieve it doesn't. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   All conflict seems to have been sorted, particularly since recent additions.

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There is a temptation to not actually describe what the image is near the top of the article (in favour of "linking" text), but the captions are relevant at least, so it's not too much of a problem.

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am assuming that some paragraphs that only have a single reference at the end of them are totally covered in most cases by that reference (rather than solely the last sentence). Well written. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 18:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you assumed right. Any paragraphs with only one citation at the end means that the citation covers all the info in that paragraph. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All's good. I think it's not far from FA status, but I'm not an expert on the copyedit criteria required. All of the prose exceeds (and in many cases, well exceeds) the requirements of Good Article status. With your knowlege of the system, maybe you'd like to review another article yourself? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I might nominate it for FAC sometime in the next few months. FYI I added a map showing the Ayyubid state right before the Mongol invasion and I will upload one that shows gradual Ayyubid expansion and major cities at the time. I must admit I've never had an interest in reviewing article, but if I see one related to the Middle East (which I know more about) than I'll be happy to review it. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkicized bit

See page 27 for the full passage. If you are unable to do so, I'll provide it for you. The Ayyubids absolutely were Kurds. The article makes that clear as most, if not all, reliable sources agree that they were a Kurdish family. However, this does not mean they weren't "Turkicized" early on (before Saladin) which isn't surprising because of Turkic dominance (Seljuks, Zengids and Artukids) in that area before the rise of the Ayyubids. Anyhow, I used a load of sources in this article and none of them contest that they were Turkicized and all agree that they were obviously Kurds. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay but the book is not published by Western sources. For example Dvin is not in East Azerbaijan but in Armenia. So that shows the author lacks qualification as he does not know simple geography. Also: "The medieval historian Ibn Athir relates a passage from another commander: "...both you and Saladin are Kurds and you will not let power pass into the hands of..." Minorsky (1957).". And note google books

similarly [[1]]

Neither does Britannica mention such a thing: [[2]]

I also looked at Encyclopedia of Islam. Note it says: "AYYCBIDS. Name of the dynasty founded by Salah al-Din b. Ayyub, which, at the end of the 6th/i2th century and in the first half of the 7th/13th century, ruled Egypt, Muslim Syria-Palestine, the major part of Upper Mesopotamia, and the Yemen. The eponym of the family, Ayyub b. Shadh! b. Marwan, born in the village of Adjdanakan near Dvin (Dabll) in Armenia, belonged to the Rawwadi clan of the Kurdish tribe of the Hadhbani, and, at the beginning of the 6th/i2th century, had been in the service of the Shaddadid dynasty, likewise Kurdish, which had been installed in the government of this region by the Saldjulfid Sultan Alp Arslan in the middle of the preceding century. Gradually, however, all the Kurdish princes and lords were eliminated by the Turks."

As I said Vladimir Minorsky has an extensive article on the issue and medieval historian Ibn Athir has shown these were Kurds. Since major sources Minorsky, Encyclopedia of Islam and Britannica mention no such thing and since your source is not published in the West, and since it gets basic geography wrong, I believe it is WP:fringe and violages WP:weight. Thank you--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that a source wasn't published in "the West" has no bearing whatsoever on it being a reliable source. Is there a policy or guideline that says "if not published in Western countries, the source is not reliable"? Actually, it makes more sense for a source published in "the East" to have more info on the Ayyubids than western sources. Also, maybe in the Middle East, people referred to parts of ancient Armenia as eastern Azerbaijan? This possibly small geographical mistake shouldn't bring down the author who provides information that no other source used provides, namely the Ayyubid economy, education, and patronage in science and medicine. Secondly, again, no one is saying they're not Kurds. This is not about their ethnicity. Thirdly, Good or Featured Wikipedia articles almost always are longer and more detailed than Brittanica or other encyclopedias so just be cause Brittanica or EI don't mention it, it doesn't mean its not true. I never heard of Minorsky or came across anything authored by him when I wrote this article and even if he is famous for his expertise in the area, we're not going to put his view above others. Ali says Najm ad-Din and Shirkuh (fathers of the Ayyubids) served Muslim dynasties (Seljuks, then the Zengids) who happened to be Turkish/Turkic. Due to this presence, naturally, they would be greatly influenced by them. Your concern of undue weight doesn't apply because we've only restricted the Turkicized bit to a line in the body. Throughout the article, including the Origins section, it is made clear that the Ayyubids were Kurds. On another note, when I said see talk, that means let's discuss this issue before we make any changes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on the article. I believe however the sources should be of the highest quality. Britannica is not but the Encyclopedia of Islam is. The source should be WP:RS. Vladimir Minorsky was a top world orientalist and I think we have to work with WP:weight. Note you have a sentence which says Ayyubids even before taking power were Turkicized. If you look at the article's wikilink (Turkicized), we get: "Turkification (Turkish: Türkleştirme) is a term used to describe a process of cultural change in which something or someone who is not a Turk becomes one, voluntarily" The text you have has said: "The progenitor of the Ayyubid dynasty was Najm ad-Din Ayyub bin Shadhi. He belonged to a Kurdish tribe whose ancestors settled in northern Armenia and had become thoroughly Turkicized"

This sentence is self contradictory or unclear. When were they Turkicized? If Ayyubids were Kurds, then they rose much later than Shadhi whom your sentence claims was Turkicized. So I am not sure if you know the definition, but a person that is Turkicized is basically a Turk in language, culture and etc., except lineage. Much like Egyptians who were Arabicized although the majority are probably descendants of ancient Egyptians rather than Arabs of the Arabian peninsula. Going back to this article, I also refer you to the Iranica article on this issue as well: [3] I think both Encyclopedia of Islam and Iranica provide a good model to follow. Note a major contradiction with what the book you brought suggest:

“ level of his culture, the matter is equally ambiguous. The Ayyubids ruled a predominantly Arabic-speaking region, and many of their princes became very proficient in Arabic letters and in the religious sciences. However, we see many signs of a continuing connection with their homeland and with Iranian culture generally. Thus, it is clear that al-Malek al-ʿĀdel and his son al-Malek al-Moʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā (d. 624/1227) still spoke Kurdish or even New Persian. And al-Moʿaẓẓam’s particular interest in Iran is seen in his patronage of two works (in Arabic) by Fatḥ b. ʿAlī Bondārī (q.v.): one, a translation of the Šāh-nāma (ed. ʿA. Aʿẓam, Cairo, 1350/1931); the second, the standard abridgment of ʿEmād-al-dīn Kāteb Eṣfahānī’s history of the Saljuqs (ed. M. Th. Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides, Leiden, 1886-1902, II). Still, there is no evidence of any widespread translation movement among the Ayyubids, or of any general devotion to the Persian classics.

It is true, however, that the personal influence of Iranian scholars was very much felt in the religious sciences. Dominique Sourdel has shown that almost one-third of the madrasa professors in Aleppo between about A.D. 1150 and 1250 were of Kurdish or Iranian origin. The same figures would not hold for Damascus, let alone Egypt, but their presence in these places was far from negligible. However, most of these men had come to Syria not under the Kurdish Ayyubids but under the Turkish Zangids, particularly Nūr-al-dīn Maḥmūd, in the third quarter of the sixth/twelfth century (D. Sourdel, “Les professeurs de madrasa à Alep aux XIIe-XIIIe siècles d’après Ibn Šaddād,” Bulletin d’études orientales 13, 1949-51, pp. 85-115).

The most visible and distinctive Kurdish presence was in the army. This process too had begun long before the Ayyubid seizure of power, when the atābak ʿEmād-al-dīn Zangī had begun trying to control the Kurdish-dominated mountains north of Mosul in order to ensure regular access to Kurdish recruits. Though the Kurds were viewed with some disdain by Turkish troopers, they were adept at the same mode of warfare (mounted archery) and on a tactical if not social level were easily integrated into the regular Zangid forces. The policy of Kurdish recruitment was doubtless inspired by two problems: 1) That Syria and the Jazīra were unable to obtain many Turkish ḡolāms from Central Asia at this time, and thus could not rely on chiefly mamlūk forces; 2) while Turkman tribesmen were plentiful in this region, their primary loyalties were to their tribes, and they could not be subjected to regular discipline. In this light, Kurdish mercenaries might well seem relatively cheap and reliable.

In spite of the importance of Kurdish recruitment for the Zangid armies, one should not suppose that the Kurds were ever more than a minority of these forces. And though Kurdish troops become more visible than ever before in the reign of Ṣalāḥ-al-dīn, they certainly remained a minority, constituting at the highest possible estimate one-third of his forces. The Kurds in Ṣalāḥ-al-dīn’s armies were sometimes recruited and placed as individuals, but they are more commonly found as members of tribally organized units, of which the sources name four: the Hakkārīya (certainly the largest and most powerful), the Mehrānīya, the Ḥomaydīya, and the Zarzārīya (see, e.g., Abū Šāma, Ketāb al-Rawżatayn II, pp. 144, 179). After Ṣalāḥ-al-dīn’s death, however, such tribal units are rarely recorded, and Kurdish soldiers appear either as individuals or under the collective appellation “al-Akrād.” After Ṣalāḥ-al-dīn, in fact, the Kurds seem to have become a far less prominent part of the Ayyubid military establishment; their amirs are less often members of the political elite, which becomes increasingly Turkish.

In the last two decades of Ayyubid history, however, the Kurds re-emerged as a major political and military force. This was due chiefly to two new Kurdish migrations into Syria (in which both groups appear to carry names of regional origin rather than tribal names). The first of these were the Qaymarīya, who arrived in the train of the Khwarazmian marauders who swept through Syria in 642-43/1244-46; from them were drawn several of the most prominent amirs under al-Nāṣer Yūsof, and they remained a significant force under the Mamluk sultan Rokn-al-dīn Baybars (r. 658/1260-676/1277). The second group was the Šahrazūrīya, fleeing before the Mongols in 657/1259. Though numerous (3,000 mounted warriors), the Šahrazūrīya could not be integrated into the regular forces of al-Nāṣer; they were simply an element in the vast human debris thrown up by the Mongol invasion. In the final analysis, then, the Ayyubids did make a considerable use of Kurdish troops, as had their Turkish predecessors and rivals (the Zangids and Artuqids), but we cannot say that theirs was a Kurdish army.

”

This is much more detailed article from a very highly respected scholar. It contradicts the Turkicized bit. Because it shows Ayyubids spoke Kurdish (thus not Turkicized), had a large contingent of Kurdish troops and etc. I have also mentioned Vladimir Minorsky. If you want an example of Turkicized dynasty, that is the [{Safavids]]. But the Ayyubids were Kurdish in culture and ethnicity and did not adopt Turkish language and became Turkish voluntarily as the article Turkicized mentions. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Note also the Iranica article is written by Stephen Humphreys who is a top expert on the Ayyubids[4]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good research. Listen, how about you add some of the above info to that part of the Origins section (not much more, perhaps a passage-full) with those references. Its important we have it in the article. I'll keep the "Turkicized" bit out for now. I'll check if Ali uses a citation for it so that we could not only insert the above info, but reinsert the Turkicized bit (and more accurately say "Such-and-such, however, says they were influenced by the Turkish/Turkic soldiers that they served, rather than becoming 'Turks'" or something along those lines.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll try to add a sentence or just modify something. Thanks for your work on this article. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish?

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)

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)

Cherry picking

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)

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)

Saladin wasn't Sultan until 1174

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)

According to Will Durant, "...the Fatimid dynasty came to a quiet end. Saladin made himself governor instead of vizier, and acknowledged Nur-ud-din as his soveriegn." --"The Age of Faith" by Will Durant, p.311. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Arabic source

As per Al Ameer son's edit[5] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Name change

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)

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)

Language

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)

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)

Religion

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)

Alarming cuts

Al Ameer son
Taken from Mimihitam's talk page after the latter removed this from their talk page.
Hi Mimihitam. I see you've been making a bunch of changes to the Ayyubid dynasty article. It's good to see people engaging with these topics, but I'm concerned that several of your edits were pretty hasty and quite destructive as a result. From what I can see:

You deleted a statement about the Arabized culture of the Ayyubid court with the rationale that is was "completely irrelevant to the article" and unsourced, despite that fact that the sentence credited this view to a scholar whose work is cited in a linked source in the article (just not in this sentence). A quick check would have shown that the deleted text correctly presented this view. Some experience with the article would reveal that we regularly have to deal with partisan vandals claiming that Ayyubids, especially Saladin, had a wholly Kurdish or wholly Arab identity. So this text is very relevant and easily sourced.

You deleted a bunch of text on education as being "not in source", when in fact every statement is supported by the two sources given.

You deleted a sourced sentence about the Ayyubid conquest of the Hadramaut as being irrelevant to the Syria and Lebanon section (correct) rather than just relocate the information to the Arabian peninsula section.

You deleted a sentence about the North African campaign that the Ayyubids carried out at the same time as fighting the Third Crusade.

Some of your other small changes were beneficial, but the sheer amount of sourced and relevant information you have deleted in the process is alarming. This article has been carefully honed over time by many dedicated editors including Al Ameer son and Kansas Bear. I'd really like to get your explanation for why you felt these cuts were appropriate, and hopefully a commitment to be much more careful with future edits. Many thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

My response:

1. "According to Yasser Tabbaa, an anthropologist specializing in medieval Islamic culture, the Ayyubid rulers who reigned in the late 12th-century were far removed from their Kurdish origins, and unlike their Seljuq predecessors and their Mamluk successors, they were firmly "Arabized." The citation is completely irrelevant (why would you cite the profile of an anthropologist? Should I start citing the profile of a random biologist in an article about evolution?), and as you can see, the sentence is not sourced, unless you are claiming that it is contained in Angold 2006. Now you have added a proper citation, so it's completely good to be in the article, but please notice that previously the citation was completely absent, and you can't expect all new readers to know that that sentence used to be properly cited before someone decided to put a random link to a biography.
2. Read carefully before you start accusing me as being "destructive". The only part that I deleted there was "When Saladin restored Sunni orthodoxy in Egypt, 10 madrasas were established during his reign, and an additional 25 during the entire Ayyubid period of rule. Each of their locations had religious, political, and economic significance, in particular those in al-Fustat." I have read Yeomans p. 111, and it's not there at all. Leaving that sentence would also not be consistent with the last sentence in the paragraph: "About 26 schools were built in Egypt, Jerusalem and Damascus by high-ranking government officials, and unusual for the time, commoners also founded in Egypt about 18 schools, including two medical institutions." I also restructured the paragraph in accordance with the flow of the source.
3. The fact remains that it is irrelevant to the section, you can move it as you please, but I did not do it because I noticed there is a chronological flow from top to bottom.
4. Is that campaign PART of the Third Crusades? The USA was fighting Japan at the same time while they were fighting Nazi Germany, does not mean we should just put random info on USA attacking Guadalcanal in an article about the Western Front? Mimihitam (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To voice Rupert Clayton's concerns, this paragraph:

• "When Saladin restored Sunni orthodoxy in Egypt, 10 madrasas were established during his reign, and an additional 25 during the entire Ayyubid period of rule. Each of their locations had religious, political, and economic significance, in particular those in al-Fustat. Most of the schools were dedicated to the Shafi'i denomination, but others belonged to the Maliki and Hanafi madhabs. The madrasas built near the tomb of Imam al-Shafi'i were located adjacent to the important centers of pilgrimage and were a major focus of Sunni devotion."
  

I see no reason to remove this entire paragraph despite the source being unviewable. The information is neither speculation nor outlandish. The removal of the reference, being unverifiable, would have been more appropriate and tagging the paragraph.

• Saladin in Egypt, Yaacov Lēv, page 124, "Saladin and the other Ayyubid rulers of Egypt did not compete with their Fatimid predecessors by founding mosques but instead they established law colleges. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mimihitam: For the record, the source Yeomans 2006, p. 111 states the following:

The Citadel dramatically embodies the defensive priorities of the era, but for Salah al-Din, safeguarding the stronghold of faith was just as important. For this reason, when Sunni orthodoxy was restored to Egypt, ten madrasas were established during his reign and twenty-five in total during the whole Ayyubid period...

This information is relevant because it helps illustrate one of the key legacies left by the Ayyubids until this day, i.e. the vigorous restoration of Egypt’s Sunni Muslim orientation after a long period in which Ismaili Shi’a Islam was the official state religion under the Fatimids. Mimihitam’s goodfaith edits are appreciated as are any efforts to raise the standards of this article—it could use a good copyedit. However, I’d be more careful to avoid mass removal of content and especially more careful not to claim content is unsourced since all material removed on that basis has actually been supported by the sources. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I have rechecked the Yeomans source and restored the education section in accordance with the original version. That part is indeed my mistake, and I would like to truly apologize for the disruption. Mimihitam (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mimihitam: No problem, thanks for double checking and restoring the information. As I said, the article could use a good copyedit. I look forward to your improvements but to just bear in mind the concerns raised here. Hopefully, there will be a drive for this article to achieve A or FA status in the future. Cheers, —Al Ameer (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Well I've read the whole article and I think it's quite ready for FA nomination. The only remaining question for me would be the map. The map in the article is very well sourced, but this one seems to be more consistent with the content (since it is explicitly written that the Ayyubids conquered Kairouan). Which one is more accurate? Mimihitam (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well I see there's been some discussion on here while I was away working on the day job. ;-) I'm glad to see that tempers have calmed a little and material has been restored to the article. Just to be clear, I did not (and do not) accuse @Mimihitam: of bad faith, just being a little too quick to cut well-sourced and generally non-controversial material. We've all make poor editing choices at times. I'm just asking for some more care in future. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rupert Clayton: Agreed. Looks like all has been sorted.

@Mimihitam: I don’t think it’s quite FAC ready yet, but getting there. The Ayyubid map and that of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) were created by @Ro4444: based on significant research and reliable sources. We previously discussed the situation of Kairouan and Tripolitania and he ultimately leaned towards including them in the map. It’s been a while but I’d like to hear Ro’s thoughts. The alternative map to me is not a viable choice. It would be better to have a modified version of the current map that shows the full extent of Ayyubid holdings in North Africa —Al Ameer (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Hey Al Ameer! Sorry for not following up on this until now. I've uploaded a new version of the map which hopefully does a better job at demonstrating the westward expansion of the Ayyubids. I'm also open to further changes if necessary. Feel free to let me know. Thanks, Ro4444 (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ro4444: Good to hear from you Ro. Thanks for making those modifications. What’s your opinion about Qaraqush’s control of Qayrawan by 1188 and including this in the map? See Lev p. 101: In 1175-76 and 1187-88, Qaraqush continued his raids in North Africa which culminated with the conquest of Qayrawan and brought the Ayyubids into conflict with the Almohades.” Qaraqush here is presented as an “emir of Taqi al-Din”, himself an Ayyubid prince subordinate to Saladin. —Al Ameer (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: No problem. Seems reasonable to add Qayrawan as well; al-Maqrizi's claim there is backed by Amar Baadj's statement that "by 582/1186 Qaraqush...controlled Cyrenaica, Fezzan, Tripolitania, and all of Ifriqiya save for the ports of Tunis and al-Mahdiya, the last bastions of Almohad rule in the east." I just updated the map accordingly. Ro4444 (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Ayyubids are Arabs

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)

Who do you mean by Masoudi? If you mean Ali bin Hossein Masoudi, who lived two hundred years before Saladin? 5.53.40.12 (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Kurdish identity overrides family origin

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)

I just want to note I had a great laugh from the nonsense written by the Arab/Turkish nationalist who wrote the piece titled "Ayyubids are Arabs". Thank you for the laugh! 2001:1C03:708:C100:CDAA:1D54:219C:75A7 (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayyubid Political choice of words

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)

@Egapempleh: 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)

Describing Saladin's empire

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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Roj emblem.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ayyubids were KURDS – this is not up for discussion. Lets end this this Arab/Turkish historic revisionism once and for all.

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)

Anoter note: why is the Ayyubid Dynasty removed from the Kurdish portal? There used to be a sidebar at the top-right of the page with a Kurdish sun and below it other subjects related to Kurdish people and history. Why was it removed? And will someone please include it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:A594:1:E089:E683:5605:3235 (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We can not use the primary sources which you provided. Per policy on Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources:

• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
• "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." Dimadick (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources I provided are actually exactly what you want; secondary sources based on primary sources. The primary source being Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, a close friend of Saladin, and the secondary source being R. Stephen Humphrey's "From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260". Are you telling me the experiences and words of someone who witnessed Saladin, and a neutral (non-Arab, non-Kurd, non-Turkish) researcher of note's analysis (secondary source) of the main and oldest biography (the primary source) are not accepted, but a single Arab source that destructs the Ayyubid's Kurdishness is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:A594:1:8415:BDE9:5A52:28CA (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, the secondary source is From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260" by R. Stephen Humphreys. Which is based on the primary source Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad, who is the greatest authority on Saladin/Ayyubids. Almost everything we know about Saladin comes from the biography he wrote in that period. If these sources are not accepted, than you can pretty much delete most wiki's relating Saladin/Ayyubids because most secondary sources are based on Ibn Shaddad's works, an authority in the field

I fully expect the ridiculous part about the Ayyubids having been "firmly Arabized" to be removed because it could not be farther from the truth per the authoritative sources provided

2A02:A458:A594:1:2DD8:4364:B99D:4D4 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:A594:1:8415:BDE9:5A52:28CA (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is some additional information and sources that prove Arabs and Arab culture/identity had VERY LITTLE to do with Saladin and the Ayyubid Dynasty in general:

From Boris James. Saladin et les Kurdes; Perception d’un groupe au temps des Croisades. Hors Série II,2006, Etudes Kurdes. halshs-02059445":

• Though both numerous in the army, difference between Kurds & Turk(men) at the time was that Kurds were mostly in autonomous tribal groups, while Turk(men) were Mamluks (slave soldiers)
• Further difference is that Turk(men) during the time were mostly limited to military roles, while Kurds at this time had high positions in the urban sphere as well
• Some Ayyubids showed Iranic inclinations, there are Iranic names (even Turan-Shah is Iranic, not Turkic!), Newroz is mentioned to have been celebrated, the first translation to Arabic of the Shahnama was commissioned by an Ayyubid
• The Principality of Hasankeyf was, of course, Ayyubid, and their Kurdish identity is frequently cited in the chronicles
• Saladin did not really seem to respect the Caliph of Baghdad, nor the people of Egypt
• Saladin in Arabic folklore was associated with the Kurds, not Arabs
• Arab nationalists appropriated the figure of Saladin mostly as a reaction of the founding of Israel, which is ironic, since Saladin let the Jews back into Jerusalem
• The Ayyubid Empire was also known as Dawlat al-Akrad (State of the Kurds), their Mamluk successors as Dawlat al-Atrak (State of the Turks)

And to summarize my previous points which I backed with secondary sources:

• Saladin's rise to power was on the strength of his Kurdish ethnicity/Kurdish ethnic consciousness among the Kurds
• Saladin most trusted counselors and bravest warriors were Kurds
• Saladin removed local Turkish and Arab rulers and replaced them with Kurds, and not just from his own family (like the Hakkari Kurds)
• Yazidi Kurds were an important component of Saladin's (muslim) army, which shows an ethnic bond stronger than religion. The Yazidi's were ambassadors of the Ayyubid Dynasty. Yazidi Kurds took part in the liberation of Jerusalem.
• Turkish racism towards Kurds was prevalent at that time; Saladin himself was taunted by Turks because of his origins.
• Even the late late Ayyubids heavily relied on Kurdish troops, which is evidence of their continued favoritism towards their own kin after supposedly having been "firmly Arabized"

Please tell me again how the single most authoritative source on Saladin's life, namely one of his companions who wrote the first biography on Saladin and other Ayyubid works, and multiple reliable and accredited impartial (non-Arabic, non-Turkish, non-Kurdish) secondary sources are overridden by a single (nationalist) Arab source? This is blatant appropriation and historic revisionism and Wikipedia is tolerating it!

2A02:A458:A594:1:5844:624D:240A:A78A (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You do realize Ayyubid Sultans denied any kurdish ancestry? Jasmkssnksskskskskz (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

R. S. Humphreys in the Encyclopedia Iranica

@Al Ameer son: Hey what do you think about Humphreys statement in the Ayyubids entry in Iranica?[6] 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.

"The Ayyubids traced their ancestry back to Šāḏī, a notable of the Kurdo-Armenian town of Dvin (Ar. Dabīl) in the first quarter of the sixth/twelfth century. Ebn Ḵallekān [Beirut, I, pp. 255-56, tr. de Slane, p. 243] identifies him as belonging “to one of the most eminent and respectable families of Duwîn” (men ahl Dowīn wa men abnāʾ aʿyānehā wa’l-moʿtabarīn behā). Šāḏī’s father is commonly called Marwān, but nothing whatever is known about him. It does seem clear, however, that Šāḏī was a member of the Rawādīya section of the powerful Haḏbānīya tribe, and that the Rawādīya were the dominant Kurdish group in the Dvin district. It is quite evident that the progenitor of the Ayyubids was no simple pastoralist, but a member of the sedentary political-military elite of a marginal but very complex region. Once the Ayyubids were ensconced in power, some of them sponsored genealogies showing that they were not Kurds, but rather of noble Arab descent, stemming from the Morra b. ʿAwf—or even from the Banū Omayya: On one level, such genealogies are obviously fictions. However, Minorsky (Studies in Caucasian History, pp. 114-16, 123, 128-30) argues that the Rawādīya Kurds should perhaps be connected to the descendants of the Arab general Rawwād Azdī, who was governor of Tabrīz ca. 200/815. These men, having become Kurdicized, emerge in the late fourth/tenth century as the paramount clan among the powerful Haḏbānīya tribe in Azerbaijan, whence one branch moved to take up residence in the district of Dvin at some point in the eleventh century. If Minorsky’s speculations are sound, then the fictitious Arab genealogies of the Ayyubids not only contain a kernel of truth but preserve an authentic folk memory."

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: 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)

Thank you for your response. I can agree with that. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

A user (D4rkeRR9) 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)

I agree, and moved back. There was a sultanate, but this covers more than that. nableezy - 21:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Arabic

Rawadiya were Arabic origin not kurdish . Also dynasty were Turkized people. Add this Tursenian (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC) <--- CU blocked sock of User:HistoryOfTurkic

Area of the Empire

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)

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)

‏The Ayyubids denied Kurdish ancestry!

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)

So why are Iranian names such as Shadi, Turanshah, Iranshah, etc. among them? 5.53.40.12 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of Sources

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)

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)

Year of foundation

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

? Artaxius58 34 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sovereign State

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)

Yes, it should be 1171 in the "Sovereign State" Section Mihrdat21 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

@176.216.90.225: Please respond, or I will revert the change. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sultans

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)

1249-1250 Should Be Al Magnificent Turanshah Instead of Shajar al-durr ArtaXerxes58 (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Magnificent = Muazzam ArtaXerxes58 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"Common languages" in infobox

I should have noticed this earlier when I made this revert, but this edit made me realize it: the "Common languages" section of the infobox is listing languages according to what the cited sources say Saladin spoke, but this article is not about Saladin so these sources are not actually verifying what's supposed to be there. The list is probably misleading and/or incomplete as a result. Do we have sources relating instead to the status of languages in the relevant territories at the time? R Prazeres (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this covers the dynasty, I would stick with the language(s) spoken by the members of that dynasty. Also, the IP that made the change needs to get consensus since this is a GA article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on the IP edit of course. But for the infobox, that's not what the cited sources there address. Aside from Arabic, it's not clear whether Kurdish continued to be spoken regularly after Saladin. (The relevant section on "Religion, ethnicity and language" cites varying views on this, but more about ethnicity than language.) The infobox as presented, and arguably the article as a whole, is also as much about the state and society generally of the period rather than strictly the dynasty in a narrow sense, so "Common languages" in this context doesn't come across as meaning the language of just the rulers or of individual rulers. For the sake of context and clarity (and direct verifiability), this should be improved I think. R Prazeres (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I self reverted and restored Turkish to the infobox, since it is referenced in the article. As for your concern, I am not sure there is anything that could give us the information you are seeking(ie. Aside from Arabic, it's not clear whether Kurdish continued to be spoken regularly after Saladin.). I think we should source any language spoken by a member of this dynasty. If academic source(s) state X language was no longer spoken by this dynasty then we can state that. The only thing that might be comparable would be numismatics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I concede we might not find what we need in sources, so I'm not opposed to leaving it as is. I had a quick look at general references and haven't found anything helpful, but I'll keep an eye out. It might, at most, be appropriate in the long term to leave a short note next to Kurdish and Turkish languages in the infobox, clarifying in what context they were spoken (e.g. "army", "early rulers" or something like that). Consider this a note for prospective future edits I guess. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This raises a broader issue concerning the article: is it about the dynasty, as the title implies, or the Ayyubid state? I believe there is more than sufficient information to warrant separate articles, with this one continuing to be mainly about the state and a new one concerning the dynasty/family itself. This question should be dealt with in a separate thread, but as far as language is concerned, if we are speaking of the Ayyubid state: Arabic was the language of government, religion (at least of Islam) and high culture, as well as the Ayyubid rulers; Kurdish was the mother tongue of at least the first generation of Ayyubids, a good part of their forces, and of course in Kurdish-speaking regions in Anatolia/Upper Mesopotamia under Ayyubid suzerainty; Turkish was the language of many and later most of the core troops of the state; besides these, there were other communities across the empire which continued to use their own spoken, written, or liturgical languages—but to what degree all these languages should be listed in the infobox should probably be limited to the most common. Al Ameer (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Forgot about this comment, so in case it's pertinent for the future: From my perspective, the article simply covers both the dynasty and the state, both for practical purposes and because that's how the topic is treated in reliable references (i.e. scholars don't usually write separately about the state organized around the dynasty and the dynasty ruling the state). As long as things are clear with in-article context, I don't think there's any tension in having the scope defined as such.

I would personally oppose having separate articles, for that reason and for practical reasons like the difficulty of deciding how to split the scope and manage overlap. I've seen similar splits created long ago in similar topics (e.g. Emirate of Granada vs Nasrid dynasty), and I actually think they make things worse, because they make it more awkward to decide which article to edit or link in which context (because there's so much topic overlap), they sometimes have titles that aren't really the WP:COMMONNAME in the sources (because we're forced to find a second title somewhere), and they force readers to look in two places for information they would elsewhere get in one place. R Prazeres (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@R Prazeres:@Kansas Bear: Excuse the late response. I am not opposed to splitting, but am fine with the way it is and has been. However, with regard to the topic of this thread, if this article is about the state as much as it is the dynasty, than the 'common languages' parameter needs to be modified. Right now, it implies that Arabic was limited to being a spoken language of the Ayyubid dynasts and the language in which they composed poetry. This should be amended to the more relevant 'government, high culture, urban populations'. Kurdish was spoken by at least the first generation of dynasts and by the Ayyubids' Kurdish troops, Turkish spoken by their Turkic troops and mamluks, and other languages by different minority groups. Or, to keep it simple, just scrap all the specifics and have it as 'Arabic, Kurdish, Turkish' in that order. Al Ameer (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that (per my initial comments above). It would also ensure some continuity of information between the Fatimid Caliphate and Mamluk Sultanate articles, which offer that kind of information. I think as Kansas Bear expressed, we just need sources that provide the details. Thanks! R Prazeres (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That can be arranged. It would be sourced in the article body, of course, not the infobox. Al Ameer (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Great! R Prazeres (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Turkish added to infobox

Ahh shit here we go again.I alright said link of book [[7]].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)

It(Turkish) is already sourced within the article, and I restored Turkish to the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 5.229.101.196 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Conceptual fairness and naming

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)

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)

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)

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)

Add an important note

Hello, can i add a note in fist line? For example i wanna write " Known as Kurdish Empire" Like Redirect in this article. Thanks. Tessla (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no evidence that "Kurdish Empire" is a common name for the Ayyubids in reliable sources. Please review Wikipedia's main content policies: verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Flag

I've removed the yellow rectangle from the infobox which is captioned as "Banner of the Ayyubid dynasty". Respectfully to everyone, this is essentially WP:OR or WP:UNDUE. After looking at this again, we know that the Ayyubids had yellow as a dynastic colour, per the source cited at the file description ([8]), but that's it. I haven't found anything else about it so far. As we don't know what their banners looked like beyond that, a blank yellow rectangle is unlikely to have much else in common with any real flag or banner that they may have used, so this dips into WP:OR as it tells readers this is the real historical banner. Even as a symbolic representation, it's not helpful here: it doesn't summarize anything in the article and this is not what the infobox is meant for, whereas the map image is a more helpful lead image. It also leads to yellow rectangles being unduly added all over Wikipedia whenever the Ayyubids are mentioned in an infobox. If we have reliable sources stating directly that the flag was literally a blank yellow field, we can revisit this. Otherwise, I hope there will be agreement on this. R Prazeres (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)