Talk:Shammar

Much should be moved to Tayy

Much of the first half of the article should be moved to Tayy. Slackerlawstudent 19:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Shammar

add this pic to the article

The picture was taken in 1925 of man from Shammar tribe with Asiatic Cheetah ( Fahd Sayyad or Fahd Alrabi)..bedouin use this animal for hunt.

Calendar eras

I believe it would be appropriate to use the Common Era indicators CE and BCE in this article instead of the Anno Domini AD and BC. It would also be appropriate to include Islamic calendar dates, where appropriate, along with Julian/Gregorian dates. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Calendars - "Dates can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendars is provided, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both Islamic and Julian calendars." If no one objects in a reasonable time, I will conver the date to CE/BCE. -- Donald Albury 13:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Revamp

Just to explain my recent edits. The article seemed to be much more about Tayy than Shammar, even though they are two different tribes with two different histories. Also, there's no evidence linking the two tribes because Shammar's arrival in north Arabia is relatively recent and well-known. I also removed some repititions and some unencyclopedic language. There are a couple of good English language sources mentioned at the bottom of the article; maybe we should use those to improve what we already have here. -- Slacker (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG

I have been working on completing the article first then moving the stuff to Tayy. I wish you would have copied the stuff that is relevant to Tayy in in Tayy article, instead you seemed to have deleted it. I must say I am broken hearted. I have been collecting these lines in the time line you deleted so easily from different sources and I doubt I can trace my steps. If you did copy the stuff you deleted please let me know. Your comment about Tayy and Shammar being two different tribes was more of a reason to keep the time line together because it places both tribes in the Shammar Mountains, which would tip us of to which of the 12 tribes of Tayy became the three branches of Shammar. I love what you have done with the article. It is easier to read but I feel like you cut my hair too short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.18.13 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to despair my friend. We can work something out. I'm glad to see someone else who likes to work on these types of articles. All the previous text is still safe and sound in the article history, and you can revert it all if you like. If you need help accessing the previous versions of the article, let me know. I don't know about the timeline; my opinion is that any relevant info provided by the timeline should eventually be incorporated into the article text anyway, and the rest of the timeline deleted, but like I said we can eventually agree on the best mode of presentation. Right now our focus should be on gathering sources. If you have sources that try to deduce which parts of Shammar are originally from Tayy, it would be great if you can list them here so we could use them. -- Slacker (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

I've linked key words to their relivant Wikipedia articles and cleaned up some of the wording to make it more straight-forward and less confusing. I've also removed the unsourced statement that Adiyy ibn Hatim was revered by the Shia after being told no such character is revered (or even known) in mainstream Shia Islam by several UK-based Shia scholars that I managed to get in contact with through some family friends. I don't have any written sourcesfor that, and I am not too sure about their credentials, but they did seem to generally know what they were talking about and were respected by the family.

Another problem is on the timeline, I am pretty sure Shamar Mahon has very little to do with the Arabian tribe except for sharing the first name. On that same matter, the name Shammar derives from the king Shammar Yahri'sh, and I see no connection to this iconic forefather of the tribe anywhere here, so can someone please add that connection - a Wikipedia Article on him already exists.

Peace. SaSH (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline clarifications please

• 1815: punctuation needed to show who they rebel against and who puts it down.
• March 1901: "1200 Shammaris lost 400 under Abdul Aziz Almutab Alrashid defeat an invasion of Hayel against the Emir of Kuwait over 64000 men and lost 9000" completely garbled; needs punctuation to give meaning.
• 1910: "Ajumaima against Saud Abdulaziz bin Rasheed Shammar defeats Alruoula and Unizah". Should this be 2 sentences? Else what does it mean?
• March 1910: What does "Alsadoun on 4000" mean?
• 1921: What is the "1299+622" about?
• 1921: "Arwa Battle Utaiba and Shammar Utaiba is defeated" needs punctuation to clarify meaning.

--Stfg (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Shammar in Syria

The comment against Swazzo's recent edit, removing the Shammar in Syria section, claimed that the janes360.com citation was outdated. Is there a more recent source available? That report is dated "January 2016" which does not seem so old, compared to other sources used in this article. Batternut (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As I have been stated in my first edit summery, the source is in fact outdated considering it concerns al-Sanadid; a group whose formation was to 'fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. ISIL has been defeated and lost all of its territories in Syria (as well as in Iraq)[1][2][3][4], thus that nearly 2-year-old source is outdated and irrelevant now. Swazzo (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Tell me, how does "The current leader of the Syrian Shammar is Sheikh Humaydi Daham al-Hadi" fail the Wikipedia:Relevance essay you mention? Whether or not ISIS or Al-Sanadid Forces are still around is actually irrelevant because notability is not temporary - read the guideline at WP:NOTTEMPORARY.

Btw, your first edit summary here was blank. That edit was bold, that's fine, I reverted, now we discuss, per WP:BRD. Batternut (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Humaydi, his son, and the 2-year-old given citation are exclusively related to al-Sanadid and ISIS. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article WP:NOTEWORTHY. Including that information/citation presently is irrelevant and WP:OFFTOPIC "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information" (though an essay and an explanatory supplement, they apply to content within an article and are an accepted source of opinion and advice). Swazzo (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The identity of the Syrian Shammar leader will always relevant and WP:DUE, come war or peace, rain or shine. Batternut (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, him, his son and the source are exclusively related to al-Sanadid, thus to ISIS, and are practically synonymous with the group. Swazzo (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The article says "Sheikh Humaydi Daham al-Hadi, leader of the Shammar in Syria, told IHS Jane's ...". The article is about the Syrian civil war, yes, but the statement identifying Humaydi as "leader of the Shammar in Syria" stands whether the civil war is over or not. Perhaps you prefer these sources:

• opendemocracy.net's quote "As co-president of Cizire canton, she (Yusuf) shares her post with the Arab leader of the Shammar tribe, Hamidi Daham al-Hadi, who joked in 2014, ‘I didn’t ask to share power with a woman,’ ...
• Hawar News's "Head of Defense and Self-Protection in Kobani canton Ismet Sheikh Hasan welcomed Shomar tribe head and sheikh Hamidi Daham al-Hadi Co-Governor in Cizîre canton and noted that the sheikh’s visit has gave them more spirits."

We could consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, to help us find a resolution to our disagreement... Batternut (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary; the two sources also concern al-Sanadid, ISIS, and the Syrian civil war. Why, you ask? because both Humaydi and his son are synonymous with these topics in the media, as I have alluded to in the discussion above. Might I suggest you read that carefully, because WP:IDHT appears to be your case. Swazzo (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would you imagine that the identity of the leader of Shammar in Syria is not pertinent, war or otherwise? Batternut (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This question has been asked and answered multiple times. As I've already said, read the discussion above carefully (and slowly if you will), ad nauseam. Swazzo (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Swazzo: The only policy-based answer you have provided is WP:OFFTOPIC, with the claim that he is only related to the al-Sanadid Forces and the battle against ISIS is over. This answer has absolutely no merit, because

1. his position of leader of Shammar in Syria is not an al-Sanadid role - you are confusing him with his son;
2. the battle with ISIS is obviously not over and al-Sanadid Forces still exist (though your argument here is totally spurious anyway);
3. he is also co-governor of Jazira canton, which makes him a very significant Shammar leader within Syria.

Batternut (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

To quote WP:OFFTOPIC again, "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information".

1. his relation and synonymousness with al-Sanadid is a non-negotiable fact and is demonstrated by the sources that you have presented.
2. I never mentioned the 'battle with ISIS', instead ISIS's territories and position in Syria (where al-Sanadid operate).
3. perfect! instead of interminably arguing here, I would suggest that you add further information about him in Jazira canton where, you know, he is not "irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant)".

Swazzo (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's examine your responses:

1. synonymousness with al-Sanadid is a non-negotiable fact .., (is that argument by assertion?!); your justification ...is demonstrated by the sources that you have presented seems fatally flawed - al-Sanadid are not mentioned in the opendemocracy link above.
2. the whole al-Sanadid/ISIS business is a red herring, the question is, is he (or was he once if not now) "leader of the Shammar in Syria" / "Shomar tribe head" as the above reliable sources say? Answer the real question please! Red herring response = no merit.
3. additions to the Jazira canton article (where he is covered), is not relevant here, no merit.

Do you have some better arguments? Batternut (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I find you asking that quite ironic:

1. no worries, let me rephrase that: his relation and synonymousness with the al-Sanadid, ISIS, and the Syrian civil war (already discussed in great detail above but i suppose you chose to take that particular statement word for word, not a great argument tactic).
2. it is definitely not a red herring when all of the sources that you have presented and almost all other sources have al-Sanadid/ISIS/Syrian civil war as their main topic of discussion with some reliable sources even stating that the al-Sanadid are "led by Sheikh Humaydi Daham al-Hadi"[5], making it perfectly clear that he will "fit more closely" with these topics WP:OFFTOPIC.
3. it is you who remarked his role in the Jazira canton, I only suggested that you add further information on him there instead of pointlessly arguing here.

Overall, your entire argument is of WP:IDHT. Swazzo (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Re your "all of the sources that you have presented" - please re-read my comment 6 lines above that (re opendemocracy). A perfect demo of IDHT! Batternut (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rephrase that too: all of the sources that you have presented and almost all other sources have either al-Sanadid, ISIS, or the Syrian civil war as their main topic of discussion. With Rojava fitting into the Syrian civil war. Swazzo (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, without ISIS and the civil war much less news would have come from the region. But how does that diminish al-Hadi's role? In times of crisis leadership typically becomes more significant than usual, not less. Batternut (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I know very little about this topic, but I'm hoping you can educate me, and in the process figure this thing out. From what I see, the question is about a statement that only has one source going back to 2016, and whether that statement is still relevant today. If I look at the linked article (Humaydi Daham al-Hadi), it makes the same claim, and has several sources. So either the sources are correct, and this statement should stay, or the sources are incorrect, and this statement (and the linked article) should be deleted. If I'm missing something more complex than that, let me know, but are the sources correct? Bradv 03:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Swazzo: Do you have believe that the sources are incorrect? You haven't yet claimed so, as far as I can tell. Batternut (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If you've actually read the discussion above you'll see that the argument was never really about the accuracy of the sources or the statement of Humaydi, but instead their relevance in the current time. Swazzo (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bradv: What do you make, if anything, of Swazzo's comment above? Batternut (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I would not have commented if I had not read the discussion. I think you should try to find a compromise statement that works for both of you, rather than edit warring over your preferred version. Bradv 15:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to Batternut's comment, apologies for the misunderstanding. Swazzo (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Swazzo: Is there any statement regarding al-Hadi's role among the Shammar that you would accept? Batternut (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Swazzo - while you are editing now, perhaps you'd like to continue this conversation? Your last revert comment was "under discussion in talk"... Batternut (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Since al-Hadi is synonymous with the al-Sanadid, ISIS, and the Syrian civil war considering all the the sources that you have presented have these issues as their main topic of discussion, and since we have reliable sources referring to him as the leader of al-Sanadid,[6] it is best to consider "placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic." WP:OFFTOPIC. Swazzo (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bradv: Have you considered the WP:OFFTOPIC argument? Note that WP:OFFTOPIC, as mentioned at the top of that page, is neither policy nor guideline. (Sorry to drag you back again Bradv...) Batternut (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone!

WP:OFFTOPIC discusses digressions of an article into a side subject. Swazzo's argument that the sources being cited are off-topic seems a misapplication of the Stay on topic guideline. The main subject of the sources is indeed other than the Shammar tribe, but they do contain useful passages related to the Shammar tribe. I don't think "Stay on topic" should make sources inadmissible in this way. Batternut (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: I moved the text to the timeline section. As for al-Hadi, issue has been explained ad nauseam. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That piece of text is unrelated to the naming the current leader of the Syrian Shammar which most of this discussion has been about. Thanks for adding it to the timeline though. Batternut (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swazzo: I have re-added the disputed naming of Sheikh Humaydi Daham al-Hadi as leader of the Shammar tribe, with some adjustments and extra references - I hope that, with the existence of the Syrian Shammar already established, it can now clearly be seen as "on topic". Batternut (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Shoehorning the statement by adding similar information is not a good idea. Please respect this discussion and how long it has been going for and do not simply do that. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The content Swazzo has just deleted today is clearly totally on-topic, completely directly related to the Shammar tribe. This deletion is nothing more than censorship. Batternut (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I deleted (by accident) was a source, which I have now restored. Other than that, I only moved the information to the timeline section and removed the shoehorned statement this discussion has been all about. As for the censorship conviction, I suggest you rigorously re-read this discussion. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your reasons for removing the statement "The current leader of the Syrian Shammar is Sheikh Humaydi Daham al-Hadi." fail to convince! The statement is clearly on-topic. You cite WP:OFFTOPIC, saying the sources relate just to al-Sanadid. Explain please - how does wp:offtopic prevent reliable sources from being cited just because the main subject of the source is something else? Batternut (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I will give my opinion on this and hopefully it will help. I'd like to say that I'm well informed on this area. What Swazzo is saying about the sources and Humaydi al-Hadi being WP:OFFTOPIC and irrelevant at the time is right. Humaydi does "fit more closely" with the Syrian civil war and its militias per the cited sources. He is almost never mentioned in an article or source unless they are strictly about that.. so why shouldn't we do the same? There is also no source that references him as the current leader of the Syrian Shammar in 2018, all the sources are several years old. I'd also like to remind Batternut that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, WP:VNOTSUFF.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.235.157.155 (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No 2018 sources is not so surprising, only 9 days into the year. There is this (in Arabic) from August 2017 (machine translated here), with "زعيم عشيرة شمر" (Leader of the Shamar clan) under his photo. You must be well informed of Wikipedia's policies, my anonymous friend - consider creating yourself an account ;-) Batternut (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As per IP comment. Batternut also seems to ignore WP:OFFTOPIC. Swazzo (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swazzo found to be a sockpuppet - his edits WP:BANREVERTed. Batternut (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)