Talk:Azd

More information Proposed changes (lead and 'Lineage of Azd' section), Azd الأزد ...

Proposed changes (lead and 'Lineage of Azd' section)

Azd الأزد Arab tribe Banner of the Azd from the Battle of Siffin Ethnicity Arab Nisba Al-Azdi Location Arabian Peninsula Descended from al-Azd (disputed): b. al-Ghawth b. Nabt b. Malik b. Zayd b. Kahlan b. Saba' Religion Islam lead The Azd or Al-Azd (Arabic: ٱلْأَزْد) is one of the largest Arab tribes, prior to the 2nd century, Azd settled in South Arabia, of whom part migrated to the north, after the breach of the Maʾrib dam in the 2 or 3rd century AD, most of the tribe left the area amd moved to other parts of Arabia.[1][2] The tradition of AZD migration finds support in the Geography of Claudius Ptolemy, which locates a tribe called the Kassanitai south of the Kinaidokolpitai and the river Baitios (probably the wādī Bisha).[3][4][5] The most important tribes of Azd: (Aus and Khazraj, Bariq, Ghassan, Khuza'a and Daws).[6][7] Lineage of Azd (Father of the tribe) In the genealogical system: al-Azd b. al-Ghawth b. Nabt b. Malik b. Zayd b. Kahlan b. Saba b. Yashjub b. Ya'rub b. Qahtan.[8][9][10] Group of Azd from Bani Qahtan, the genealogists disagree about the pedigree of Qahțān [himself]. Some trace him back to Ismā'īl b. Ibrāhīm , saying that his [name] was Qahţăn b . al - Hamaysa ' b . Tayman b . Nabt b . Ismā'īl b. Ibrāhīm. Wahb ibn Munabbih[11] and Hishām b. Muhammad al-Kalbi held this genealogy ( as true ). Hisham ibn al-Kalbi quoted his father as saying that he had been contemporaneous with [older] scholars and genealogists who traced Qahțān's pedigree in this way. Other [genealogists] argue that the [name] was Qahţăn b. Faligh b. 'Abir b. Shalakh.[12] In genealogical poetry by Hassan Ibn Thabit Al-Azdi mentioned Azd b. Ghawth b. Zayd (Nabt) b. Malik b. Zayd b. Kahlan b. Saba'[13](Arabic: الأزد بن الغَوثِ بنِ زَيدِ بنِ بن مالك بن زيد بن كهلان ) in his poem while complimenting his ancestors gradually:[14] مَن يَكُ عَنّا مَعشَرَ الأَسدِ سائِلاً  فَنَحنُ بَنو الغَوثِ بنِ زَيدِ بنِ مالِكِ لِزَيدِ اِبنِ كَهلانَ الَّذي نالَ عِزُّهُ  قَديماً ذَرارِيَّ النُجومِ الشَوابِكِ Another poem by Hasan ibn Thabit: وَنَحنُ أُناسٌ أَصلُنا الأَزدُ مِنهُمُ  نُضاراً نَبَتنا في الفُروعِ النَواضِرِ وَنَحنُ بَنو الغَوثِ بنِ نَبتِ بنِ مالِكٍ  بنِ زَيدِ بنِ كَهلانَ وَأَهلُ المَفاخِرِ يَمانونَ تَدعونا سَبا فَنُجيبَها  إِلى الجَوهَرِ المَكنونِ خَيرِ الجَواهِرِ However, there is much poetry falsely attributed to Hassan b thabit, and the fact these lines are so unmoored from authorship suggests they may have been written much later.[15] References [1] Historical Dictionary of the Bedouins - Muhammad Suwaed‏ - Page 31 [2] The Bombay Quarterly Magazine and Review - Volume three - Page 422 [3] Rome in Egypt's Eastern Desert: Volume Two — Hélène Cuvigny — Page 403 Archived 2022-06-20 at the Wayback Machine [4] Cuvigny, Hélène; Robin, Christian - "Des Kinaidokolpites dans un ostracon grec du désert oriental (Égypte) - Page 704–706 [5] The Origins of the Islamic State - Biladuri‏ - Page 32 [6] Arabs in the Early Islamic Empire - Brian Ulrich‏ - Page 30 [7] Arabs in the Early Islamic Empire - Brian Ulrich‏ - Page 37 [8] Encyclopedia of Sahih Al-Bukhari - Muhammad-Bin-Isma`il Al-Bukhari‏ - Page 2988 [9] A History of the Arabs in the Sudan - H. A. MacMichael‏‏ -Page 199 [10] The History of al-Tabari - Vol. 39 - Page 93 [11] الإيناس بعلم الأنساب - المغربي - ج١ - الصفحة 41. Archived 2020-11-07 at the Wayback Machine [12] The History of al-Tabari - Vol. 39 - Page 130 [13] The History of al-Tabari - Vol.4 - Page 132 [14] ديوان حسان بن ثابت الأنصاري - حسان - الصفحة 182. [15] Arabs in the Early Islamic Empire - Ulrich Brian Ulrich‏ - Page 32

Close

looks to all source, the article now with out really source. I dont know, why back the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.49.36.59 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi 94.49.36.59. You're right that the article is currently in a very poor state. However, it's not clear from your comment why your proposed changes would be better than the current revision. In particular, they appear to be equally poorly sourced, and even worse than the current revision when it comes to clarity. It would be better if someone who masters English and has access to reliable sources would take a look at this article. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi again 94.49.36.59. It appears that already in November 2020 there were a lot of disruptive edits to this article, so I restored the 23 October 2020‎ revision, which looks substantially different from the one you objected to ( now vs before). How does it look now? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@DrunkenBedouin, You undid my changes based on, what you claimed, “conflicting opinion”, there is no conflicting opinion, all what I said is based on cited facts, hence I’ve reverted what you undid as there is nothing to discuss about, it is a South Arabian tribe based on the cited sources, and clearly not “West Arabian” as that does not make any sense, Al Bahah and Bisha are all in the geographical area of South Arabia, and based on how old the tribe is, saying “South Arabian” is more percise to the subject as it is literally from there. About the genetic history section, you can yourself look at the quoted part of the cited research and see that the previous state of the section was false, and hence I’ve changed that to be more correct and more accurate based on the inserted citation. |MK| 📝 09:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @the MK, the cited sources do not support your claim; I'm aware of this since I'm the one who came up with the citations. In fact, non of the sources mention Azd being from the South, if your claim is that it's because Azd is in Al Bahah and "Al Bahah is southern", then that goes against the Wikipedia original research policy. Regards. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research? What are you talking about. With that logic saying Saudi Arabia is in the arabian peninsula would be original research. Even though saying southern is right, I would like to remind you that on top of that it is a South Arabian tribe, it is also of kahlanite origins, which makes Azd a south arabian tribe of kahlanite origins (which means of south arabian origins). |MK| 📝 09:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, here is the quoted part of the research: The most populated Arab branch (and the oldest identified branch of J-Z640) J-BY74 as well as both a basal branch of J-Z2293 and a subclade of the J-Z2293, J-ZS1380, include multiple individuals who self-report their ancestry as belonging to tribal groups which form part of the al 'Azd tribes. Considering the origins of the 'Azd tribes, Ulrich (35) based on several ESA inscriptions from the 3rd Century CE, identifies two 'Azd tribal "kingdoms" which existed in southwestern Arabia north of Yemen during the third and fourth century AD. |MK| 📝 09:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi again @the MK, the anthropolgical and genetic section refers to the origin of the genetic haplogroup associated with Azd, not the geographic domain of their kingdoms. Also, "southwest" linguistically refers to the direction that lies halfway between south and west on a compass, so again, that's a dual misinterpretation. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm, so south (down), and west (left) of the Arabian Peninsula, means that it is in western south arabia and South West Arabia. |MK| 📝 09:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, southwest does not necessarily mean that it is in both west & southern Arabia, but rather in midway in between. For the definition, refer to Oxford's dictionary. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And by the way, you said West Arabian which is completely inaccurate, if you want accuracy, say West south arabian. |MK| 📝 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

southwest Arabian, would serve to be an accurate description to the Azdite kingdoms, since that's the context in which "southwest" is mentioned, not the tribe itself, since the tribe itself is predominantly in Al-Bahah and Bishah, none of which are explicitly "south Arabian." DrunkenBedouin (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No offense but I don’t think you know where South Arabia is, please do research on its location so that you can have more clarity on the subject. |MK| 📝 09:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What I know bears no affect on the stance of your edits being original research in violation to Wikipedia's policy. The South Arabia page itself needs additional citations for verification. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop throwing OR around, my edits absolutely aren't OR I can guarantee you that, and South Arabian is the most accurate description based on its age and where it lies geographically. Do you think West Arabian is correct then? |MK| 📝 09:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What you think is the most accurate description is a result of your own subjective original research, in contradiction to my citations. According to the sources, southwestern mountains of Saudi Arabia are accurate. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is no OR in this, stop throwing it around. Where do the southwest mountains of Saudi Arabia lie then? South Arabia, and Azd existed well before Saudi Arabia, hence South Arabia would be more suitable. |MK| 📝 10:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What I or you think bears no affect on the condition of the page, since that falls under the category of original research, which goes against the policy of Wikipeida. If you believe the sources are incorrect, then you can come up with secondary sources refuting it directly, until then, southwest Saudi Arabia is the only valid geographic location offered by the sources I came up with. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not what I think, it is where the tribe is, I don’t know why you are persistent on calling it OR even if it isn’t. |MK| 📝 10:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Where the tribe is is in southwest Saudi Arabia, Al Baha, and Bisha, as explicitly mentioned in citation 3: The political map of Arabia and the Middle East in the 3rd century AD revealed by a Sabaean inscription - a view from the South. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm so the Sabaean text from thousand of years ago said that the tribe is in “southwest Saudi Arabia”, sounds about right. The text mentioned South Arabian places which makes it South Arabian to be precise. |MK| 📝 10:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi again,

The Sabaic inscriptions in the source do not exclusively mention tribes in South Arabian regions, they mention Arabian tribes in different areas such as Tanukh in Mesopotamia, Ma'd in Najd, and Azd in Hejaz. It does dedicate a section to tribes in South Arabia in Figure 1: A political map of South Arabia in the mid-3rd century AD (© J. Schiettecatte, 2015), but the figure doe not include Azd. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact, Al Bahah and Bisha are not in Hejaz. |MK| 📝 10:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You're purposely ignoring the fact that ciation 2 directly refutes your claim by not including Azd in its South Arabian tribes figure. I'll leave the rest of the matter for the admins to deal with. I'll entertain this one last time, this is an article mentioning Al Baha being in Hejaz and another mentioning Bisha being in Hejaz.

Best, DrunkenBedouin (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, whatever you’ve inserted is absolutely incorrect geographically with all due respect, al Bahah and Bisha are all parts of the Greater Yemen region in the arabian peninsula, which is mostly South Arabia which neighbors Hijaz. |MK| 📝 11:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No source, no opinion.

Good luck, DrunkenBedouin (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Not reliable source, not correct. |MK| 📝 11:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You can lookup the region “South Arabia” yourself and see where it starts and where it ends |MK| 📝 11:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The first one you’ve mentioned is a tourist-promotion website, the second one is talking about the Wadi Bishah and not Bishah itself. |MK| 📝 11:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@DrunkenBedouin keeps disruptively reverting my edits and adding “West Arabian tribe” to the lede, even though the citations cite it from Al Bahah or Bisha, all of which are in South Arabian or even southwest arabian, this all makes it a South Arabian tribe based on the geographical area it lies on, and based on its age. |MK| 📝 10:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been asked to participate in this discussion through the feedback request service. I have given a warning to DrunkenBedouin (talk · contribs) and The MK (talk · contribs) on their talk pages for edit warring. Both are in violation of the three revert rule. I have also requested temporary extended confirmed protection to prevent further edit warring.

On the subject of the content in question, I do not have access to most of the references given in the article and I do not understand Arabic. Can someone point to a reliable source which mentions the Azd tribe being from either south Arabia, west Arabia or southwest Arabia (in any language, it doesn't have to be English)? If not, I'd suggest removing the qualifier entirely and go with just "Arabia" or just the named locations given in sources (e.g. The MK mentions Al Bahah or Bisha, are these named in a source?).

What is important here, as in every Wikipedia article, is how reliable sources report this. If no reliable sources give a qualified location (i.e. none of them say South, West or Southwest), there should be no qualifier in the article. If reliable sources disagree, in my opinion both should be included, like this:

X is a Y from direction A^[1] or direction B^[2] Z.

If reliable sources agree, that is what we should go with. Adam Black ^{t • c} 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Al Bahah and Bisha are mentioned in citation 3 on the page about Az in english. |MK| 📝 12:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant “Azd in english” |MK| 📝 12:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Al Bahah and Bisha are all parts of the geographical area South Arabia where Azd is from. Saying South Arabia is more precise due to its age, and its origins to Kahlan as mentioned in the article. |MK| 📝 12:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey,

the sources that are relevant to the issue of geography, citation 2 through 4, are all in English. I'm gonna give a breakdown of each:

• citation 2: "The land of Asdān would thus have extended west of Bīsha, in the south-western heights of

Saudi Arabia, straddling the regions of al-Bāḥa and ʿAsīr."

• citation 3: "The land of Azd extended west of Bīsha, in the south-western heights of Saudi Arabia."
• citation 4: Also mention Azd being in Al Baha & Wadi Bisha but I don't have access to the book at the moment.

While there is consensus that the tribes inhabit southwest Saudi Arabia, the other editor wants to make an additional insertion that Al Bahah & Wadi Bisha are both greater Yemeni towns, citing his own original research. The two towns are in southwest Saudi Arabia and are classified in the Hejaz region as per sources given and additional scholarly works regarding the tribes in the area reaffirm the claim that it's Hejazi; tribes like Zahran in Al Bahah are mentioned in a Hejazi context in anthropological sources: Ahmed Abdul Ghafur Attar, a Saudi poet and linguist, said in an article that the language of the Hejaz, especially that which is spoken in Belad Ghamdi and Zahran, is close to the Classical Language. ^[1] Faisal Ghori (Arabic: فيصل غوري), a famous scholar of Arabic literature, in his book Qabayil Al- Hejaz (Hejazi tribes) wrote: "We can say is that there are some tribes in Arabia whose language today much closer to the classical Arabic language. The tribes of Belad Ghamid and Zahran are a good example of this."

It's evident that the other editor is on a mission to claim whatever he can to be Yemeni in any context he pleases without presenting sources, DrunkenBedouin (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you read my discussion with the other editor to grasp his and my point of view.

Best, DrunkenBedouin (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. |MK| 📝 12:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you do know that the arabian peninsula is split up into regions correct? there is hejaz, Najd, Yemen and so on, well what is that Al Bahah and Bishah are parts of the Yemen region, (which is also called Greater Yemen), as per geography and Al Bahah and Bishah are also parts of South Arabia, per geography. Also Wadi Bisha is different to Bisha, it extends to other regions other than Bisha itself. |MK| 📝 12:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

False, Figure 1: A political map of South Arabia in the mid-3rd century AD (© J. Schiettecatte, 2015), which comes from the same source mentioning the tribe being in southwest Saudi Arabia, shows a map of the tribes of South Arabia, which do not include Asd/Azd. Moreover, scholarly works and govermental geographic classifications alike mention them being in Hejaz.^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

`` DrunkenBedouin (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And your claim to my intentions in “trying to make anything Yemeni in any context” is not true at all, I didn’t say Yemen in the article at all about the origins of the tribe, but I said South arabia, Which includes parts of Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. If you’re talking about the genetic origins section, I literally just copy pasted what was in the citations without any intervention of mine, if that wasent in the citation I wouldn’t have put it, please don’t throw accusations around. |MK| 📝 12:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t WP:PA. |MK| 📝 12:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

again @the MK, the anthropolgical and genetic section refers to the origin of the genetic haplogroup associated with Azd, not the geographic domain of their kingdoms, which is the part you copy-pasted. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to make an insertion to greater Yemen but rather South Arabia which is where the tribe is from. I used greater Yemen as an example. |MK| 📝 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to change the lead to something along the lines of:

The Azd (Arabic: أَزْد), or Al-Azd (Arabic: ٱلْأَزْد), is an ancient Arabian tribe of Kahlanite origin. The lands of Azd occupied an area west of Bisha in what is today Saudi Arabia.

This is only a suggestion of the format the lead might take based on my limited reading of the sources and your arguments. As you are both more familiar with the subject, you are better placed to decide the exact wording. More specificity is better than a vague geographical description (south Arabia, west Arabia and southwest Arabia are large, loosely defined geographic regions).

As you are both blocked from editing this page at the moment, I can make the change once you agree upon it.

The MK's initial request above only mentioned the lead. I will take a look at the rest of the content being disputed in the Anthropological and Genetic Background now. Adam Black ^{t • c} 12:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The citations also explicitly mention Al Baha, I suggest it is added. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, completely neutral. |MK| 📝 13:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As a last note, the Kahlanite claim is as most secondary sources affirm legendary oral tradition that has no place in the header, while the geographic presence is a claim supported by numerous primary and secondary sources. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we should still include it, as it is the most suggested origin, if you don’t agree, how about “that is said to come from Kahlanite origins” instead. |MK| 📝 13:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe we should add a Yemeni Folklore sub-section in the land of Azd section which gives insight on this claim and view. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As I said, it’s the most suggested origin, which makes it notable enough to include it in the lede. |MK| 📝 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps then,

The Azd (Arabic: أَزْد), or Al-Azd (Arabic: ٱلْأَزْد), is an ancient Arabian tribe said to be of Kahlanite origin. The lands of Azd occupied an area west of Bisha and Al Bahah in what is today Saudi Arabia.

I'm not familiar with the geography of the Arabian peninsula, though, and so I don't know whether another wording would be more appropriate than saying "an area west of Bisha and Al Bahah". Adam Black ^{t • c} 13:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Just about right. |MK| 📝 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Kahlanite citation mentions the Kahltanite claim as an account of oral tradition, not based on the author's actual position. I believe it deserves a Folklore sub-section in the land of Azd section, rather than being in the header. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:N |MK| 📝 13:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can actually do both, and in the Yemeni Folklore section, we expand on what is meant by “said to be of Kahlanite orgigins” |MK| 📝 13:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

origins* |MK| 📝 13:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Inserting folklore in the header side-by-side with non-dubious anthropological accounts is misleading. I affirm the importance of moving this to a Folklore sub-section. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That is how a lede works, it’s a brief summary, then we expand on it later in the article. (Btw there are sources that mention Azd being of Kahlanite origins, suchas this, just saying.) |MK| 📝 13:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

These mention Azd being of Kahlanite on several sources. Hence it is notable enough to include it in lede, and it might not even be folklore at this point. |MK| 📝 13:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead shouldn't briefly intertwine folklore with authentic anthropological acocunts. The author you cite, Strenziok mentions the claim as an indepedent primary source report, not as his opinion> As such it reads: "Hence the later reports that the Azd were a tribe in Yaman, of whom part migrated to the north and part to the east, after the breach of the Maʾrib dam. One cannot, however, prove any basic relationship between these two tribes of the same name. In the genealogical system (al-Azd b. al-G̲h̲awt̲h̲ b. Nabt b. Mālik b. Zayd b. Kahlān." DrunkenBedouin (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You’ve just seen one of the references. About the lede, I would like to say it again, it is notable enough to insert it there, and then expand on it. and the quote you have cited doesn’t say folklore at all, and you’ve cut the sentence, there was clearly more information. |MK| 📝 13:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the entire quote from your only link of your only cited material. Don't get me wrong I'm not claiming it isn't notable, I'm claiming that it should be mentioned in a Yemeni Folklore sub-section rather than the header as it is an account of Arabian oral tradition. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Well let us consult @Adam Black GB as he knows more about what’s suitable for the lede an what’s not than both of us, hence Adam Black GB, do you think it’s suitable to put “said to be of Kahlanite origin” and then expand on the subject later in the article, due to it being notable because it is the most suggested origin for Azd? |MK| 📝 13:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the current proposal by @Adam Black GB, just to point out that a lot of these references mention South Arabia. |MK| 📝 13:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. One of my cats chewed through the ADSL cable for my broadband and it's taken me a while to find a spare.

As there is clearly some contention about whether to include the Kahlanite claim, perhaps it would be best to remove it for the moment. Once it is more thoroughly expanded upon in the body of the article, it can be added back in.

The lead should be a brief summation of the article. One or two paragraphs would be about average for an article of this length. At the moment, the lead is quite short comparatively so it can be expanded upon later.

I am going to go ahead and change the lead to the following, for now:

The Azd (Arabic: أَزْد), or Al-Azd (Arabic: ٱلْأَزْد), is an ancient Arabian tribe. The lands of Azd occupied an area west of Bisha and Al Bahah in what is today Saudi Arabia.

Adam Black ^{t • c} 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it, I understand the trouble. So from what I understand is that that’s what the lead is going to be and later on we can add the “said of being of Kahlanite origin”? |MK| 📝 15:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Kahlanite claim is, as secondary sources claim, folklore that shouldn't be in the lead. But all in all, that's that and done. Another note is the genetic and anthropology section citation, that I added since it said this about the haplogroup: "Based on the geographic dispersal, evidenced by the GIS analysis (Figure 3), the most likely area in which J-Z640 originated in is the Levant. This corresponds with other studies researching J-P58, an ancestral SNP to J-Z640 [25].The most likely alternative based on the GIS analysis was the Arabian Peninsula."

Otherwise I see this result as satisfactory, especially considering your dire kitten condition.

Best, DrunkenBedouin (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There is still a possibility to add it after there has been significant expanding on the subject in the article with good sources. |MK| 📝 15:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That is what Adam Black meant from what I understood. |MK| 📝 15:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Also @Adam Black GB, please read that quote in the citation stated in the genetic history section and make your own decision on what to put based on that research paper, as that area is also a part of the discussion. |MK| 📝 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the full quote: “The most populated Arab branch (and the oldest identified branch of J-Z640) J-BY74 as well as both a basal branch of J-Z2293 and a subclade of the J-Z2293, J-ZS1380, include multiple individuals who self-report their ancestry as belonging to tribal groups which form part of the al 'Azd tribes. Considering the origins of the 'Azd tribes, Ulrich (35) based on several ESA inscriptions from the 3rd Century CE, identifies two 'Azd tribal "kingdoms" which existed in southwestern Arabia north of Yemen during the third and fourth century AD.” |MK| 📝 16:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The anthropolgical and genetic section refers to the origin of the genetic haplogroup associated with Azd, not the geographic domain of their kingdoms. DrunkenBedouin (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that he reviews the whole section in the research paper by Adam Black himself. |MK| 📝 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment (summoned by feedback request bot). I think that Adam Black, above, has done a great job of identifying and implementing a suitable consensus solution. This particular issue having been addressed, I would strongly advise the involved editors to move on to other matters. -- Visviva (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• I've removed the RFC tag since everyone seems to think the issue is resolved, and this does not require a formal closure. Will also quickly note that WP:30 would probably be easier for future disputes only involving two editors. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)