[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Zenata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The line as follows: "They claimed an Arab (South Arabian) origin, for what most historians regard as political reasons, but this claim is not widely accepted."

Has continued to create contravercy simply because people on both sides of the fence are confused on symantics or rather the words used. The zenata tribal confederation has claimed "yemeni" background and not Arab. This causes some to think Arab & Yemeni are synonomus, so why not use either or. That is an incorrect assumption. Arab denotes speaking Arabic, while the zenata have never claimed to be decendents of Arabs rather they claim to be decendents of Yemeni tribes that did not speak Arabic, rather they spoke an ancient south arabian non-arabic language. It is from ignorance that people continue to use unsubstantiated claims. The problem is that it creates 2 large factions, rather "schools of thought" and both originate in a misinterpreted misunderstood claim.

I had read the page on "Arabization" where wikipedia got it correct for once. It states that Zenata tribes claimed Yemeni origin from pre-islamic times. Yet when one goes to wiki's Zenata page the claim gets flipped to Arab rather then Yemeni. If one delves into history one finds the Yemeni people were non-Arabic speaking "south arabian" tribes up until its Islamization. So even by this one can accertain that the Zenata as well as many other berber (Imazighen) tribes claim to be of Yemeni origin does not conflict with the assumption that they are not Arab. These facts are confused by neo-Arabs and neo-Imazighen who refuse to delve deeper into the matter. Furthermore one can not deny the recent dna tests which place the greatest resemblence between Yemeni, Berber, Fulani & Ethiopian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazighe (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zenata are berber go to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenata it's very good explain.--Great11 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Hazm tell the berber are from Yemen and Ibn Khaldun said berber are from Canaan (Bible). --70.55.52.96 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@70.55.52.96 that is a myth said by ibn al kalbi and was spread by Arab scholars here is the thing al magrizi denied that and also ibn al khaldun it is a myth based of the need to stop berber resistance in North Africa. especially after Berber Revolt 165.16.20.30 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:COI issue

[edit]

@User-gebruiker: With regard to this revert:

1) The so-called book you're referring to is not WP:RS. This is reason enough to exclude anything attributed to it from the encyclopedia. 2) More important is the fact that you didn't answer the question that I asked you. So here it is again: did you just happen to find the image less than 10 minutes after the unknown author uploaded it or are you related to him? M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: With regard to this revert:
Answer to 1): I am really confused right now? You did not even give an argument for why it is not a credible source. I will file a complaint against you because you flag something as not a reliable source while I even gave you the ISBN number of the book. It is a history book for crying out loud! The author whom I know personally has uploaded a digital version of the map so it can be used for educational purposes. I find your behavior very obstructive for Wikipedia Users to upload new information and unique material (FROM CREDIBLE SOURCES). I am waiting for your reason for why the book is not a credible source. You are creating the impression as if the book does not exist and is a made up thing while I gave you the ISBN so you could check it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User-gebruiker (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's because I expected you to read the WP:RS article, especially the part that says: reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
The ISBN means nothing with regard to how reliable a source is. Any self-publisher can either buy or get one for free.
What is the expertise of the unknown author? This is important, because if we're going to cite him alongside the likes of Daftary, Halm and Kennedy (like you did in the Fatimids article), then he better be a scholar.
Has the book been self published? Stichting Tasmim (the so-called publisher) published a single book (the one you cited).
The author whom I know personally Maybe that's what's clouding your judgement. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

[edit]

Hi Gawawius, please make sure you review and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy of Wikipedia. All significant information should be supported by reliable sources that verify it. See this help page if you need guidance on how to add citations to those sources (or see Wikipedia:Citing sources for the full policy). If there isn't room to add appropriate citations within the infobox for the information you tried to add here, I strongly recommend you write out that information in prose in the body of the article and add the citations there, after which the infobox can be updated to reflect the new information if necessary. For example, you can add a section about "Religion" and simply state briefly the relevant major and minor religions, with supporting citations. Do the same for any other subtopics. If you need further help, feel free to ask here. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

[edit]

@Jake106meme: first, I suggest you refrain from edit warring. Second, please start by adding the claim about their origin to the article's body first, then we'll decide whether such a major claim is properly sourced and belongs in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no support for a Laguatan origin in any reliable sources I can see and I doubt that any such ancient origin can be asserted with certainty in this case. So I recommend keeping it out of the article altogether unless someone can actually produce clear reliable sources in support of this.
(And note: Jake106meme has repeatedly added WP:OR across many other articles and they recently agreed to my request that they bring their future suggestions to talk pages first ([1]), which they evidently haven't done.) R Prazeres (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres source say in words. "passing through the Mediterranean coast. Once again, the diffusion of these elements of civilization was the work of Lybico-Berber nomads, the Zenetes Botr, successors and perhaps also descendants of Garamantes, who also exercised supervision over the sedentary people." 165.16.20.30 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres Translation from Google translate 165.16.20.30 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is almost certainly another sock of an editor violating multiple blocks (an SPI has already been opened). Even if I'm wrong about the IP, it takes more than a vague and passing mention in an vaguely-cited source to support a potentially WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. Any editor who isn't violating a block is free to discuss this with clear reliable sources and in line with Wikipedia's core content policies. R Prazeres (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres the book is reliable enough to have its own page in Wikipedia 165.16.20.30 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zenata&oldid=1228234158"