Talk:Umayyad family tree

I propose that Umayyad family tree and Banu Umayya be merged into Umayyad dynasty (with one of the original articles moved to that namespace and the other merged into it). Until now, the topic of the Umayyad dynasty has been split among these articles and the Umayyad Caliphate article, which leads to some confusion and inconsistency: the family has a history that is both much earlier and continues considerably after the Damascus-based caliphate, and is worthy of its own article. The Banu Umayya are really notable only in so far as the Umayyad clan became an imperial dynasty, and the family trees at Umayyad family tree cover a) the Banu Umayya line up to Muawiya I and Marwan I, and then essentially the dynasty's rulers. Constantine ✍ 10:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanbircdq, Tarook97, and Al Ameer son: as the non-IP users mostly involved in creating/writing/expanding these articles, your input would be much appreciated. Constantine ✍ 10:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Just to be clear, are you proposing that we merge Banu Umayya and Umayyad family tree into the Umayyad Caliphate article? Umayyad dynasty is currently a redirect of Banu Umayya. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the opposite; I propose creating a common article out of Banu Umayya and Umayyad family tree at Umayyad dynasty, so that we don't mix the dynasty stuff into the Umayyad Caliphate article, as was the case hitherto. --Constantine ✍ 10:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: For the reasons you state—"the family has a history that is both much earlier and continues considerably after the Damascus-based caliphate"—I would think Banu Umayya is the better title for an article on the family. I agree with merging this article into that one. As for redirect targets, I am not sure. "Umayyad" redirects to the caliphate, so perhaps "Umayyad dynasty" should as well. If it redirects to Banu Umayya, then we need a hatnote there as well. "Umayyad dynasty" strikes me as ambiguous between the state (as in Chinese usage) and the family, but I could go either way. Srnec (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Constantine. I agree with Srnec that "Banu Umayya" would be the better title for the family. While currently there are many articles about individual clans of the Quraysh that would fail the notability test, the Banu Umayya, like the Banu Hashim and Banu Makhzum, warrants its own article even if it were to focus mainly on the clan's pre-Islamic history, its key interactions with the prophet Muhammad and its major role in Islamic history prior to their caliphate. "Umayyad dynasty" is more descriptive of the Umayyad state in my opinion and should be redirected to Umayyad Caliphate. As for the family tree, it certainly should not be an article in its own right and I see no problem redirecting it to "Banu Umayya" or "Umayyad Caliphate". Either way, I'd still add the Umayyad family tree as a thumbnail in the Umayyad Caliphate article just as we have family trees for the articles on the Hamdanids, Mirdasids, etc. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec:, @Al Ameer son: I have no problem with retaining "Banu Umayya" as the article title, if that is consensus; my proposal rested on WP:ENG and understandability for the average reader. On the "Umayyad dynasty" redirecting to the Caliphate, I strongly disagree: the Emirate and Caliphate of Cordoba in al-Andalus are equally part of the Umayyad dynasty's history, and an equally important chapter in Islamic and world history. That is why the conflation of the family with the caliphate, as it has existed until now, is wrong. Constantine ✍ 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Fair enough. I didn't taken the Umayyads of Spain into account. In that case, your proposal may be the soundest option, though I'm still a bit hesitant about changing the name from "Banu Umayya" to "Umayyad dynasty" because the former, as far as I've observed from various RS, focuses on the pre-dynastic period, while "dynasty" would focus on the Umayyad states in Damascus and indeed Cordoba. For now, maybe we can just redirect Umayyad dynasty and merge the family tree into "Banu Umayya" and deal with the best name for that article later as we expand it? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: ... the Emirate and Caliphate of Cordoba in al-Andalus are equally part of the Umayyad dynasty's history: if we're consistent with this argument, there would also be two "Ummayyad caliphates", the one based in Damascus and the one in Cordoba, but the Umayyad caliphate article is exclusively about the Damascus one. For some reason, I feel the caliphate in Damascus has some sort of primacy over other Umayyad states, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Banu Umayya, I agree that as a name it is more appropriate for the family's early history, but this could still (per the original proposal) be part of an "Umayyad dynasty" article. Your suggestion sounds good to me, however, let's wait a few days to see if there are more opinions. Constantine ✍ 21:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support After thinking about it, I agree that both those articles should redirect to "Umayyad dynasty", and that it's preferred over "Banu Umayya" due to redundancy and English-language preference. DA1 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merger. But I wonder if "dynasty" is appropriate if we're also talking about the pre-caliphate history? I prefer Banu Umayya, but wouldn't oppose either choice. HaEr48 (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is consensus for moving and merging to Umayyad dynasty. Unless any new opinions come, I will perform the move after the new year. Constantine ✍ 13:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]