Talk:Hashemites

Proposal to move current page to Hashemites of Jordan

The Hashemite main page should lead directly to the current disambiguation,instead of going to the Jordan recent branch.

• Banu Hashem tribe
• Hashemites of Jordan (current dynasty)
• Hashemites of Iran (current Ayatollah)
• Hashemites of Morocco (current dynasty)
• Hashemite dynasties (historic)

This will reduce the current confusion we see on the talk page Tiwahi (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Do historians

Do historians recognize Hashemite claims of descent from Mohammed? How do Muslims who aren't Hashemites feel about these claims? With all the recent talk of reestablishing Caliphates, why does no one ever talk about the royal family of Jordan? If they are really direct descendants of Mohammed then doesn't Abdullah have a strong claim to be the true Caliph? The Secretary of Funk (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hashemites never claimed something HASHEMITES ARE descendent of Muhammad,only people who dont have knownledge about Arab history,will say such crazyness,Muslim who aren't Hashemites in fact don't care about it,they accept it because it is the true and they have a hight esteem for being from the familly of Muhammad but no more.

You have to understand thatthe Hashemites are Sunni Muslim,and in the Sunna,the caliphate can be ruled by anyone who have knowledge ! it's not about a clan or origin,but about KNOWLEDGE,Justice and a lot of good things that make a GOOD man. after Muhammad there were 3 caliph who ain't from the familly of Muhammad,and also Muslim believe that the caliphate will be back with a man called Muhammad al-Mahdi,we are waiting him.

You have to understand that everythings wich is related to Islam,Arabs or Muhammad in Wikipedia is TRUE because if it wasn't people like me,would change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiane2k6 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sofiane2k6 , The Secretary of Funk , we do DNA-testing of them, and at least 80% of those claiming Hashimi descent are not related to each other patrilineally. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yemen

Are the Imams of Yemen really Hashemites? The Hashemites are Sunni, the Imams are Shia, so this doesn't seem very likely. Hejaz, Jordan, Iraq (for a while), Syria (for a while), and the connection to Morocco are all well known Hashemite states. Are there any sources for the supposed Hashemite rule of Yemen? MayerG (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@MayerG , I'll not provide sources at the moment, but the specific branch of Islam has no relation to the Hashimi descent. Moreover, Shias have a higher focus on the Hashemites than the Sunnis do. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

error in lineage

1182 - 1905 is a VERY long time to live, let alone be Emir. Could someone please correct the diagram ? Thanks very much ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.213.174 (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Misleading name.

This article is mostly focused only on the descendants of Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca. So, the name is misleading. Don't know if there can be an article on Hashemites that can provide any quantity of information unrelated to the Ahl al-Bayt. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

House of Hashim or Hashemites

Should this article be renamed into House of Hashim to be on par with ex: House of Thani, House of Saud, House of Windsor, House of Bourbon..? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not consistent. I can find at least four articles to not use "house of" in their names, such as Bosonids, Rurik dynasty, Robertians, Angevin kings of England, etc. No need to change this article name to enforce any illusory consistency. It just isn't there. --Jayron32 18:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

House of Hashim could refer either to the Banu Hashim as a whole or to this particular dynasty. In my opinion Hashemites is also ambiguous, but less so than House of Hashim because "Hashemite", a particular transcription of the Arabic Hashimi, is widely used to refer to the Jordanian royal family. However I would be in favor of renaming to a more precise title - Hashemite royal family, perhaps? A similar case is the article on the Moroccan royal family, which is titled Alaouite dynasty. The spelling "Alaouite" is commonly used to refer to the Moroccan royal family, but it is simply the French transcription of the Arabic word Alawi, which is much more ambiguous. Axiom292 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This article about what exactly?

Okay, so article should serve one subject. If this article is about the Hashimite royal family in Jordon we will stick to it.. I think we have to create another article about Hashimites in general. Most of Hashimites live Tehama not in Jordon BTW.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hashimites

Some sources (like Teitelbaum 2001) speak of the "Hashimites", and since Hashimites (rightly) redirects here, it should probably be included in bold ("also spelled Hashimites"). From MOS:BOLDREDIRECT: Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

However, if it doesn't appear there is nothing to bold. So the question is whether it should appear. The only truly correct name is the Arabic, and it is nearly always the case that different transliteration rules produce different versions in English letters. Sometimes there are many versions. These are not different names but just different renditions of the same name. In my opinion, redirects are the correct way to handle this, rather than complicating the article lead by adding variations. There is no strict rule about this. Maybe someone else will comment. Zero^talk 02:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, redirects are generally the best way to handle this. Not sure why I thought it more relevant in this case. I guess that I've gone through so many "also spelled as" cases lately that I was starting to assume that we always need to do this. But I think I may have been wrong with this one. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)