Talk:Zanj Rebellion

Comments

I deleted "or Negro Rebellion". The word "negro" wasn't introduced until 1545 AD so it could not have been called the Negro Rebellion before the word "Negro" was introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othelllo (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I deleted an ambiguous sentence about how the "slaves' treatment increased after the rebellion." I assume a language barrier was the cause of the unclearness. Whoever posted it, please clarify and resubmit.

I erased a quote saying that the revolt eventually 'failed and replaced it with 'subsided'.. If the revolt lasted for over 14 years and they even built their own capital then obviously it was n't a failed revolt, choose your words more carefully, who ever wrote this.Taharqa 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

al-Mahdi: laqab employed by 'Ali bin Muhammad

Perhaps we should add that 'Ali bin Muhammad chose and used a very strong laqab: al-Mahdi (one may see his coins for the documentary confirmation) as well as, perhaps, amir al-mu'minin? --Yevlem (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Peak propinquity

"Moktara, the Elect City, which at its peak was within 70 miles of Baghdad" Eh? Is this to suggest the distance often changed, between the two capitals? Jim.henderson 04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Recipe/Antecedents

I changed the name of the first section from "recipe" to "antecedents". It looked like vandalism to me and I couldn´t find any meaning to the word "recipe" that would make sense in this context, but I might be mistaken since English is not my native language.

500,000 slaves.

"It grew to involve over 500,000 slaves and free men who were imported from across the Muslim empire and claimed over "tens of thousands of lives in lower Iraq""

The citation for that claim is a dead link. --HakimPhilo (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Someone found out a working link, however as far as I read I found no mention of 500,000 slaves. Can someone quote the specific passage if it exists? Thanks. --HakimPhilo (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2015 (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:

• اهوار العراق 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Zenj rebellion

I have replace the background detail With more accurate information that illustrates the true nature of what was taking place during those time. The current wiki for zenj doesn’t display the appropriate history The Eradicator of falsehood (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Great write-up!!!! Better information here than is publicly available elsewhere. Appreciate the maps showing the canals. That is important for understanding this conflict, particularly the final siege. Only quibble, is the Nahrs are not annotated so the reader does not have any reference for those... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdman93 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The work is overly reliant on Noldeke and Popovic, while minimizing the biases of Al-Tabari and Masudi. Tabari's biases put Noldeke in the unenviable position of making suppositions that are illogical, and Noldeke willingly flies blind through significant elements of his conjectures. The historiography section does acknowledge Shaban's work, but gives it short shrift. His framework, given Goldziher's position on the makeup of the respective Arab and Persian populations in this period, makes more sense. Noldeke's writings (without footnotes and clear sourcing) bring al-Tabari's biases to the English-speaking community without logic or context. Popovic has read Goldziher, but ignores him when it is convenient and without providing a rationale. This article suffers, through no fault of the author, from the tyranny of the mob...a flawed consensus stands because it the consensus. #CirclesUnbroken --Temple3 (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring, removal/alteration of sourced info, and addition of non-WP:RS

@Piyamaradus: Hello, could you please address the concerns I made as well as explain the reasoning behind these changes? You reverted me twice without any form of explanation. I would like to remind you of WP:CONSENSUS once more. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I'm not sure how to address your concerns because I'm not sure where your concerns were addressed. If you can link them or tell me where to find them, then I'd be happy to address them.

In the meantime, I'll explain some of my concerns with this page:

1) Sources are being incorrectly summarized or blatantly misquoted.

2) The page portrays the primary roles of slaves as plantation workers even though this is directly contrary to all primary sources of the time and wholly inconsistent with slavery in the Islamic world.

3) Non-Zanj rebels are not being listed as the primary actors in this rebellion even though the Arabic sources clearly state that the rebellion was not started by Zanj peoples, but rather that the Zanj were recruited into the rebellion.

4) Not all of the Zanj were slaves, many were freemen who chose to live in Iraq, and the Arabic sources make this clear.

5) The page does not reflect the fact that individuals of slave descent led significant households in Baghdad and Samarra, the capitals of the Abbasid caliphate, the second great empire of the Muslim world. Elite singers (qiyan), properly considered courtesans, and officers (quwwad), men of non-Arab racial descent serving as commanders of the Abbasid caliphate’s slave military, played prominent roles in society and politics. Both groups achieved significant social mobility and the established extensive, independent households.

6) The page does not address the historical role that the marshlands in southern Iraq have played in rebellions against sovereigns.

I'd be happy to link the sources in Arabic to substantiate my claims if you'd like. Piyamaradus (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

1) Please demonstrate how, this article was expanded by one our best users, I highly doubt they would do that and not stick to what the sources they used says.

2) Unless you have strong evidence (i.e. WP:RS) to demonstrate that (which you haven't so far, sites like Reuters are not WP:RS) then that does not help with anything, as all the sources are of high quality, and we only follow WP:RS, not the opinions of users.

3) Again, we simply follow what WP:RS says, read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:PST.

4) Same as 3).

5) Feel free to demonstrate that, but with WP:RS and without altering/removing sourced info.

6) Same as 5).

Please revert yourself and reach WP:CONSENSUS first. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Without weighing in specifically on the recent changes, just from a brief look at this page, I am getting the impression that there is still plenty of room for improvement. I've already spotted some things in the lead not present in the body, and other possible weight issues in the lead. Sources that I've found online that potentially offer useful summaries that could be used to remodel some elements include this and this. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but aren’t those two links just news articles? We should rely on academic entries by historians. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

One is a JSTOR daily piece that defers to scholarship; the other is a feature by Adam Ali, a period specialist, but mainly they're just good examples of what other vaguely wiki-length overviews of the Zanj rebellion look like. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, The first link you provided is to an article written by a student of sociology who has not read the Arabic primary sources or secondary sources. He has also misstated what other scholars have said in his article. I wouldn't consider it trustworthy.

However, the second link you provided is to an article written by an Assistant Professor of Arabic Language at the University of Toronto. He specializes in Medieval Islamic warfare. He can read, and has read, the primary and secondary sources. His article is very good.

Again, to HistoryofIran, I am restating that the sources on the Zanj Rebellion page are being misquoted. For example, these sources support what Adam Ali and I are both stating:

Talhami, Ghada Hashem. “The Zanj Rebellion Reconsidered.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (1977), pp.443-461.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/216737

Abstract: Western historians of the medieval East African coast have developed their own version of the past: that there existed an important commercial relationship, notably slave trade, between Africa and the Middle East from the eighth century on. One of the main arguments was the Zanj (East African) rebellion of Basrah, Iraq, from 869 to 883. This article shows that the slaves were merely one among several oppressed classes who participated in the rebellion, which was not an attack on the institution of slavery but on social inequality. Consequently, the conclusion of this article is that intensive commercial relationships developed in this time.

Al-Ṭabarī. The History of al-Ṭabarī = Tārīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk. 40 vols. (State University of New York Press, 1985-?. Vol 36.)

The Arabic word Ghulam (plural Ghilman) is subjectively being translated as "slave" in this English translation instead of soldier, mercenary, or guard, which is how it is understood today. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghilman Aside from that mistranslation, it is a very good source.

This is the index of all of al-Tabari's volumes. Word search "Zanj" and you will find each time he mentions Zanj generals, mercenaries, and soldiers.

In short, it is very clear that very few scholars are actually reading the primary or secondary sources. It is also clear that scholars are being persistently misquoted or mistranslated.

Lastly, to HistoryofIran, the link I posted to a Guardian news article was simply to support that Marsh Arab uprisings had happened within Saddam Hussein's rule, a scholarly link was not required to support that statement. That said, other scholar sources were linked to support that statement. Piyamaradus (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In short, HistoryofIran, you are wrong and out of line for undoing all of my edits, claiming that I posted no scholarly sources to support my claims, and erasing the quotes I posted by scholars including M. A. Shaban (published by Cambridge University Press), who explains that the Zanj Rebellion was not a slave rebellion but rather an Arab rebellion supported by East African immigrants in Iraq:

It was not a slave revolt. It was a "zanj", i.e. a Negro, revolt. To equate Negro with slave is a reflection of nineteenth-century racial theories; it could only apply to the American South before the Civil War...On the contrary, some of the people who were working in the salt marshes were among the first to fight against the revolt. Of course, there were a few runaway slaves who joined the rebels, but this still does not make it a slave revolt. The vast majority of the rebels were Arabs of the Persian Gulf supported by free East Africans who had made their homes in the region.

Piyamaradus (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Piyamaradus: You addressed zero of my concerns. I expect you to do that soon, without making remarks like "you are wrong and out of line for undoing all of my edits". If you truly think I am like that, then report me to WP:ANI, though we all know how that is going to end - let's focus on the comment, and not the user. Moreover, as I said previously we rely on WP:RS. Not the opinions of users (you), that includes their personal deductions/research on primary sources. Sources are allowed to disagree with each other, but that does not mean choosing one over the other, with certain exceptions of course (WP:UNDUE).

We can take it one by one if you want, starting with your first claim:

"Sources are being incorrectly summarized or blatantly misquoted.

Pretty serious accusation toward the one who expanded this article (Ro4444, unfortunately not active anymore). Randomly quoting an abstract does not demonstrate anything. If you want to demonstrate it, compare the info he added with the cited page of the source.

As for your recent comment:

"the link I posted to a Guardian news article was simply to support that Marsh Arab uprisings had happened within Saddam Hussein's rule, a scholarly link was not required to support that statement."

That so? What is this then: "The history of Marsh Arab rebellions against rulers in what is today the country of Iraq has a long history that stretches back to Sumerian times and continues into the 1990s."

"claiming that I posted no scholarly sources to support my claims, and erasing the quotes I posted by scholars including M. A. Shaban (published by Cambridge University Press), who explains that the Zanj Rebellion was not a slave rebellion but rather an Arab rebellion supported by East African immigrants in Iraq"

Please don't misquote me, this is what I said "addition of non-WP:RS such as Reuters.". Feel free to add sources by Shaban, but please be honest about your sources, you added four (!) non-WP:RS Random site News site BioScience Random website. Again, please take some time to read WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. On historical topics (unless very recent) we use academic sources written by historians, not environmentalists, not journalists, not bloggers, not scientists. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I ask again; can you please revert yourself per WP:CONSENSUS? The current state of the article is a mess, beforehand it had GA potential, not much anymore. For example, the lede is full of quotes now.. not how you write a lede. The quality of the article shouldn't be sacrificed so you can make a point. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

References