Talk:Al-Marwani

General note

Note for reviewers and editors: aside from any issues with the content itself, all of the topic here so far either is, or should be, covered at Umayyad dynasty and Umayyad Caliphate, two long-standing articles with plenty of editors to help. Especially as the Marwanids include most of the Umayyad dynasty to begin with, this scope of this topic really overlaps with most of the scope of the existing Umayyad dynasty article. I would encourage the creator, Andalusi97 to add any new material to existing articles first. I don't see the need to have this content fork/split unless there has been a discussion and consensus about this at Talk:Umayyad dynasty. R Prazeres (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The article covers branches that are not mentioned in those articles like surviving non dynastic members in Al-Andalus and members in Palestine and Egypt that use the name Al-Marwani and that are not related to the Almarwani family from modern day Saudi Arabia. This article aims to clarify the difference between the two families and to amplify coverage specific to Marwanids that were not dynastic or ruling members of the Umayyad family. Andalusi97 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Also it mentions the current region of those descendants today including Egypt (Marawana village) and Tahboub and Al Zaro Al Marwani families in Jordan and Palestine. These families are well documented. Also there are families in Yemen itself using the last name Al-Marwani Al Omawi and they are not related to the Almarwani Yemenite tribe, that is of bigger size. I encourage the community to publish this article to differentiate and avoid misinformation regarding this two important families. Andalusi97 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding to this. There is another Wikipedia article called Marwanids that refers to the Kurdish family that ruled parts of Mesopotamia during the Middle Ages. This Kurdish dynasty has descendants today that use the same Al-Marwani name in modern day Iraq. Having a different article specific to the Umayyad clan, helps differentiate between these families using the same family name, as I have mentioned before. Andalusi97 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Everything you just mentioned can be covered at Umayyad dynasty. There is no reason for a separate article doing the same work as that article. Some aspects, like the branch in al-Andalus, are already covered there. You have not even tried to add new material to existing articles yet; please start by doing that first, then start a new discussion at the talk page there if you still think the material should be moved to a new article.

Also, the fact that an unrelated Kurdish dynasty with the same name exists is not relevant. It's the contents, not the titles, of articles that are important. If a topic is already covered by an article, then any related names/titles should quite simply redirect there. R Prazeres (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

PS: And to be clear, if you also need help with anything, you can ask questions at the talk page there, where many editors already edit and watch changes. Whereas this new article is unlikely to get much attention, which will make it more difficult to improve. R Prazeres (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully defer with that opinion. Andalusi97 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion, it's how Wikipedia (or any efficient encyclopedia, for that matter) is structured. Wikipedia also works by consensus. This advice is intended as friendly: as a new editor, I recommend you take feedback seriously, as it will help your contributions be accepted in the long run. Other editors may still disagree with me and agree with you: you can find out by opening a discussion at the relevant main article, like I suggested above. R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and help. Thanks a lot. Andalusi97 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the title and substance of the draft article, making more specific to the Al-Marwani family in reference to its non dynastic members in contrast to the Marwanid Umayyad dynasty. Similarly there is a Wikipedia article from the Al-Ayoubi family and one for the Ayyubid dynasty, which the Al-Ayoubi is descended from. I have included the reference of the main articles in different sections of the draft, I have included as main articles the articles of the Umayyad Caliphate and the Umayyad Dynasty when talking about the origins of the Al-Marwani family and also when speaking briefly of Marwan I, I have included his article as main article. I have also made other edits and added more specific information about non dynastic members and descendants of the family, both medieval and modern. Andalusi97 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the slight delay in reply. I think this change is interesting and might be alright; at the least, it opens up the topic to cover more constructive ground. However, the main potential problem is ensuring that the new material for this expanded scope is accurately verified by reliable sources. This is to ensure verifiability but also to avoid original research. Make sure you're familiar with those policies. ("Original research", in short, means adding facts or conclusions that you think are correct but that can't be verified independently in a reliable source.)

Looking quickly at the draft now, there are two problems you should fix at minimum:

• There are sections that have no citations, but all information must be accompanied by citations. (Even if the information is also found elsewhere on Wikipedia, it must still be supported by citations here. If you copied information from elsewhere, make sure you copy the citations also.)
• The citations to Kennedy 2004, Cobb 2001, Donner 2014, and Madelung 1997 are missing their full bibliographical template in the "bibliography" section. Make sure you add these so that the sources are fully identified. (For example, the Bosworth 1991 citation is fully provided and when you click on "Bosworth 1991" in the citation it links to the full reference below; this is what you want to have for the other citations too in this format.)

I hope this helps! R Prazeres (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Abd al-Rahman III receives the envoy from Otto I.png (discussion)
• Caliph Al-Walid I receiving the Byzantine envoys.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Article title

@Andalusi97: At our earlier discussion here (which, unusually, seems to be stranded on the old draft talk page for some unclear reason, I'll see if I can find out why), we agreed to keep this article about the Marwani family, not about the Umayyad dynasty (even if the dynasty is still mentioned as part of the historical background). Please revert the page move to "Marwanid dynasty" and return it to the earlier name "Al-Marwani family". Otherwise, this last page move either changes the scope of the article or is confusing to English readers. ("Al-Marwani family" is also clearer than "Banu Marwan", as most non-Arabic speakers won't recognize the meaning of "Banu" in the name.)

PS: Also, you should exercise a bit more restraint when it comes to moving articles in general. You've moved this one 4 times over the last month and another article Al-Marwani Mosque twice recently too, which makes it a little hard for other editors to keep track. If you're having trouble finding the right name or spelling, I suggest you open a discussion and invite some editors to comment on what the best name should be. For already-established articles, you should preferably follow the procedures explained at WP:RM. This will get you a clearer answer and help establish consensus for the future. R Prazeres (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you look at the references from Tabari where they are clearly referred as Marwanids or Marwanid dynasty? I did not put those references there for nothing. The scope remains the same. Umayyad dynasty is a broad term for all the family descended from Umayya. I am an Arab genealogist, I know my craft. Banu Umayya is divided into multiple clans not only Banu Abu Sufyan or Banu Marwan. The Marwanid dynasty as been referred as such for centuries, I invite you to review the references. Thanks. Andalusi97 (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Also the transliteration says 'Sons of Marwan' in meaning, I fee even an elementary student would understand that is what the name means. Andalusi97 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I won't revert, I stick to true academic references. They are there to be reviewed and to be read. Andalusi97 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Also on top there is a tag that says "For the main dynasty, see Umayyad dynasty". I don't know how anyone who is smart enough would be confused. Andalusi97 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, that explanation is insufficient and misses the point. This is an issue of clarity and overlap between articles. Moreover, Wikipedia works by consensus and we had already agreed on this for those clear reasons. I had told you that any attempt to split the Umayyad dynasty topic into another article needed discussion there first. I am now stating to you again directly that this change is opposed. By unilaterally changing the title without discussion and refusing to reverse this, you are ignoring both consensus and existing articles. Moreover, the text of the current article is still clearly about the family and the family name anyways, so the title and the opening lines of the lead are quite simply misleading and confusing. Please change it back, or I will. R Prazeres (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading. Because how they are misleading when the title is backed by academic references? It's unfair what you are saying. Andalusi97 (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia actions should also be backed by academic references. If you take a look at the references in this articles they are too many. Again, your biased opinion is unfair. Andalusi97 (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And even if I wanted to revert it back, I don't know how to revert the move to Banu Marwan, which would be the most correct name per the reference apart from Marwanids. Andalusi97 (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. Andalusi97 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the move, thank you for doing that. As for the question of using "Banu Marwan" versus "Al-Marwani family" as the title, that is not the main issue I was worried about above. My suggestion is that English readers will recognize the nature of the topic more easily if it is called "Al-Marwani family", but I intended this as a minor point and "Banu Marwan" still works fine so long as the article remains clear about its topic.

As for my original point, I will try to re-explain this one more time. This is not a question of the title's relation to "academic references", because I am not denying the existence of the term "Marwanid dynasty". I am saying that the "Marwanid dynasty" clearly denotes a specific historical topic and that there are already two dedicated articles for this (Umayyad dynasty and Umayyad Caliphate, regardless of the fact that they are titled "Umayyad"), as I explained earlier. The topic of this article, as we had agreed previously, is the wider family/clan and its whole history, going well beyond their years in power during earlier centuries (which should only be summarized here, with the rest of the details reserved for the other main articles mentioned). Therefore, changing the name to "Marwanid dynasty" is both inadequate for the actual content of the article and inappropriate because it implies a major overlap with existing articles, and if anyone wants to do this then they need to discuss it with other editors and obtain a consensus.

In the future, I recommend you wait a moment before responding and re-read my comments to understand what I wrote. As I said above, the objections you made did not make much sense with the points I was making. Also, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and respect that guideline. Accusing me of "biased opinion" was very much uncalled-for, especially when my comments were about the general functionality of articles within Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for that, I take that back. I understood your point later and that is why I reverted back the tittle to Banu Marwan. Thanks for the explanation. Andalusi97 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, I hope things are clearer now. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I do think Marwanids is still valid for the family as well. Banu Ali are called Alids in Wikipedia, and Banu Husayn are called Husaynids, same for Hasanids, and those are tribal groupings, not related to states or dynasties per se, although certain dynasties claim descent from them. As long as the name doesn’t imply “the dynasty” as in Marwanid dynasty, then should be good in my opinion. Both Banu/Bani Marwan and Marwanids are ok in my opinion. Andalusi97 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Even if it can technically be used in a broader sense, "Marwanids" usually refers to the dynasty. Banu/Bani Marwan is therefore still better in that regard, because it refers to the clan/family generally. Hasanids and Alids does not cause that same confusion because there is no political dynasty commonly known by that name (Husaynids is debatable, as it comes down to a question of which topic is the primary topic).

In any case, if you want to propose a move at this point, please use the process outlined at WP:RM (specifically WP:RM#CM). Unilateral page moves are only OK if there is no change of disageement. I see that you have also moved to disambiguation page, and this will need to be reverted per MOS:DABPAGENAME. R Prazeres (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If the issue is confusion, you can make the title to say Marwanids (tribe) or Marwanids (clan) instead of just 'Marwanids'. Andalusi97 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, yes, changing it to "Marwanids (tribe)" or "Marwanids (clan)" is not a bad idea. It should work fine for clarity and scope. If you prefer either one of those titles, then we can go ahead and move the name to that. R Prazeres (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyways my recommendation for the Umayyad Dynasty or Banu Umayya article is to add a section talking about the Marwanids in a summarized way and adding the Bani Marwan article cited there as main article for more details about the family today and branches etc. Realistically speaking in the Arab history the Marwanids were rarely called Umayyad, they were always called Marwanids, even the Syrian tv show about Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan is called Faris Bani Marwan (the knight of the Marwanids). The Shia use the term Bani Marwan to attack the Umayyads in general and this is attested in multiple sources even used today by modern Shia. Out of respect for history and its references, I think the term Marwanids or Banu Marwan should have a summarized sub section under the Umayyad Dynasty main article. Andalusi97 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the cited references in the intro paragraph. There are a lot of citations. Any suggestions for the best way to place them? Should they go after the cited item or at the very end of the paragraph? Andalusi97 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean the long series of consecutive citations? It depends on what purpose they serve. Ideally, for clarity, each citation should go after the specific statement that it verifies. Placing them at the end of the paragraph is best done if the entire paragraph is supported by each of those citations (roughly speaking; it doesn't have to be perfect).

If you're just looking for ways to condense them into one footnote (again, if that's appropriate for the function that they serve), then there are ways to do that too. It should be explained at WP:CITEBUNDLE, but if you need help doing so, let me know and I can try to find time to do it. R Prazeres (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes if you can condense them into footnotes so they don't look like a long line of numbers that would be perfect and much appreciated. I would only have it done on the first paragraphs. Citations in the different sections are good. Andalusi97 (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do that in the next five minutes. If it's not a problem, try to hold off making edits in the meantime (to avoid accidentally editing conflicting versions of the article). I'll write another comment shortly to confirm that I've finished. R Prazeres (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it's done (). And I don't see any citation error messages so I think there should be no issue. In case it's relevant: keep in mind that the new bundled footnotes exist as their own single citations, so if you want to cite any of the specific sources inside them in a new location, you just need to re-cite them in a new footnote at that location. There are other citation formats that can be used as well which can offer different options (such as shortened footnotes), but those require more work to set up. R Prazeres (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, everything looks good. Andalusi97 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Propose deletion, relocating some parts to Umayyad dynasty article

@Andalusi97: This article has fundamental issues, not least original research and synthesis. There is no need or justification for this article and the best way forward here is deletion, with few parts preserved by relocation to the Umayyad dynasty article or, for material about specific modern families who meet WP's notability criteria and where there are supportive reliable sources, by creation of separate articles.

The scope of this article should have been, in theory, the Marwanid ruling family, i.e. the branch of the Umayyad dynasty that ruled the Umayyad Caliphate for most of its existence, from 684 to 750, and then the Emirate/Caliphate in Islamic Spain from 756 to 1031. That is all. Even with this scope, it is a mistake for us to have a separate article from the Umayyad dynasty. The other ruling branch of the dynasty, the Sufyanids, only ruled from 661 to 684 and it is much more useful and practical for interested readers to track both ruling branches in the same article--there is no need to have multiple articles about the Umayyad clan (in addition to the Umayyad Caliphate and Caliphate of Cordoba articles). This is a fork situation.

The premise that we need an article to cover the 'Marwanid' descent group after 1031 is flimsy. After 1031, the historical Marwanids were no longer a ruling family anywhere and did not play a known role in any other medieval polities, even as members of an aristrocracy. At most, scattered surviving descendants who recieved a passing mention in various sources over the centuries can warrant a spot in the Umayyad dynasty article in a section titled 'Descendants' or perhaps 'Remnants' or we can confine it all to a footnote. There is not nearly enough support in credible, reliable (and certainly not scholarly) sources for an encyclopedic article connecting the Umayyad family that last ruled 1,000 years ago to the assortment of families that may or may not claim or possess lineage from them in modern times. The sourcing in the article is poor, especially for the 'Modern history' section--most of the sources would not be considered RS for any article on WP, not least one about a historical subject (examples of such unreliable sources include Howiyya.com, Facebook, self-published blogs, family websites, individuals' personal claims, local news articles), some of which do not even support the material they are citing. Many other sources, especially the old Arabic primary sources, are almost all unverifiable without links (and are primary sources in any case). Solid, secondary scholary sources are cited in some parts, but in several cases they are being misrepresented, examples including:

Citation 12: Kennedy (no page number): evidently the whole book is being cited and only vaguely/partially supports what it is being cited.

Citation 13: "The Muslim Faculty", not sure if this qualifies as an RS but in any case it does not support the claim that "in contemporary times, the clan has produced a considerable number of politicians, merchants, scholars and religious leaders, mostly in Jordan and Palestine" or the claim that the Umayyads historically promoted the Maliki school of Sunni Islam. At most, the source is saying this may have started under one of the Umayyad rulers of Spain in the 9th century.

Citation 74: Khalidi, p. 165 is about the depopulated Palestinian village of Jaba near Haifa and does not mention anything whatsoever about Umayyads or Marwanids.

Citation 77: Rafeq, 208-211 does not mention anything remotely related to the Marwanids and in the entire work neither they nor the Umayyads, much less their descendants are even mentioned).

Citation 104: Dictionnaire des villes does not support the many claims made in the cited passage (it literally mentions the name of the village Mohammed el-Marawneh as part of a general index of Egyptian villages, nothing about its history or population).

Citation 121: Rafeq, p. 210, n. 3 mentions nothing at all related to what it is being cited.

Unless I am missing something, this is pretty egregious. Note that I was only able to verify the above because they were either English-language sources with urls for me to verify or, in the case of Rafeq, Kennedy and Khalidi, I happen to possess those books. I could not verify the numerous references to Arabic-language books without urls but the above pattern with the English sources does not bode well for these either (and as I mentioned above they are nearly all medieval primary sources). Numerous sentences and whole passages throughout the article are not supported by any citations. The list of issues can go on: the Genealogy section goes into the weeds, with three out of the five paragraphs not mentioning the Marwanids or Umayyads specifically but rather the Adnanites (not to mention that serious, modern scholars of Islamic history take the ancient Arab geneaologies with a huge grain of salt and most consider them a legendary aspect of the Arab geneaological tradition, which is a subject that could use its own article). The gallery of images of modern individuals is excessive for an encyclopedic article and more appropriate for a family history site.

Proposal

I am inclined to formally nominate this article for deletion but it might be more productive if we do the following:

1. Create a section called 'Descendants' in the Umayyad dynasty article. Relocate there (with attribution) snippets about the Banu al-Hakam of the Hejaz and the Middle or Upper Egyptian villages/clans that claim descent from Marwan II's son. If there are sources considered reliable by wikipedia's standards which directly support that any of the other families or tribes (the Tahbub, Zaro, etc.) claim descent from the Umayyads, then these families could be listed there as well.
2. If any of the families or tribes are notable enough (according to wp:notability criteria), you can create separate articles about them where you have not already done so.
3. Redirect this page to the disambiguation page Marwanids.

--Al Ameer (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Andalusi97: Do you agree or have any thoughts about my proposal? If you agree, I will immediately move ahead and we can discuss further changes at Talk:Umayyad dynasty. If not, we can discuss this in a formal nomination for deletion.

On a second read of the article, I am more convinced than before that this was largely an exercise in original research with a reckless use of ChatGPT or another LLM to assist with its composition. Out of good faith, I am assuming this is what led to substantial swathes of the text being completely detached from, or misrepresenting, many of the sources cited. Normally, this is would be a sanctionable offense resulting in at least a temporary block from editing but since you are relatively new and appear to genuinely seek improvement of the space, I would take this as a courtesy warning that original research is prohibited and we have strict rules on using LLMs so this not repeated in the future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the content here myself in any detail, so I appreciate Al Ameer looking into this. Browsing the article briefly now, I see a lot of primary sources (which are a problem per WP:OR), multiple citations to non-reliable sources such as non-scholarly websites (a problem per WP:RS), and significant parts that have no citations. Sadly, the concerns raised in this thread so far are essentially the same ones I originally expressed when this article was first drafted (see first discussion above) and which I hoped could be avoided. If we cut the problematic areas of the article, it seems likely there wouldn't be enough that is independently and directly verifiable, and therefore it is indeed better to delete and redistribute any remaining material of sufficient quality (if any) to other articles. (This is also why, as I originally suggested, it's almost always a better idea to add material to existing articles first and then see if it's actually worth creating a new article.) R Prazeres (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Proceed with your proposal on relocating the content to main article of Umayyads. Andalusi97 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I saw your change in the main article and it looks good. But you did not mention the Banu Al-Hakam of Hejaz and the Tahboub Marwani of Palestine. Andalusi97 (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I am struggling with these and the others. What reliable source(s), per WP's definition of reliability, supports the Tahbub family claiming descent from the Umayyads? We cannot accept personal family websites, or Howiyya.com, Facebook and the like as RS, especially for extraordinary claims. At the Tahboub Al-Marwani article, you used Walid Khalidi's All That Remains as the source, but as I pointed out above, there is nothing there even remotely supporting this claim. As for the Al Hakam, can you provide url links for us to verify that the two offline Arabic sources you used support the claim of descent? Umar Rida Kahhala is reliable but we need to verify if his work is supporting this claim. I could not find anything about the other author "ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Asimi". Considering the multiple violations with the sources as outlined above, these claims need to be verified before we copy them over to the other article. I was able to do this with the 'Marawna' tribe in Egypt because the link to the news website Khalf El Hadath and the book by al-Lami were accessible (either of those sources were ideal, but acceptable I think). Al Ameer (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I will look into it. I have also deleted the modern history section from the Al-Marwani article. I don’t think deleting is completely necessary. Maybe the article could be trimmed way more. Ayyubid dynasty has a main article and Al-Ayoubi has a different article. I believe fixing the sources is still needed but I don’t believe deleting the article is necessary and I think if those controversial sections of the article are trimmed, the article should be good. There are far worse articles in the space with even no sources listed. That’s my opinion. Andalusi97 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

For Banu Al-Hakam these are the references provided to me by members of the clan:

(1) نيل المنى - تأليف جار الله القرشي الهاشمي

(2) معجم القبائل القديمة والحديثة تأليف عمر رضا كحاله

(3) حسن القرى في اودية ام القرى ص - 268- تأليف جارالله القرشي الهاشمي

(4) بحث الأستاذ غازي الشريف عن وادي نخلة الشامية

I need to further confirm that. Andalusi97 (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Tahboub, I have access to family records from the Palestinian-Jordanian family of the late Hajj Khalil Omar Tahboub Al-Marwani. I am not sure if family records are viable to be used as sources. Andalusi97 (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It is necessary, Andalusi, and we are spending too much time cleaning up this mess. As R Prazeres pointed out, after we remove the problematic content (i.e. the original research and sythesis, the unsourced, poorly sourced or falsely sourced content about the 'modern' Marwanis), we would be essentially left with a fork about the medieval Marwanid ruling dynasty that is redundant to our Umayyad dynasty article and, in fact, much less informative. You are correct that there's worse similar articles out there and some of these should be deleted or gutted but we cannot accept this article simply because other stuff exists. Unfortunately, such articles sometimes slip through the cracks because there's not enough editors or enough time to pay proper attention to the problem.

Do you have access to any of those sources you listed about the Banu Al Hakam (I could not find one thing about this tribe in English language sources)? If you get a link or copy of any of these materials that you can share for verification (assuming they are reliable sources), then I would not object to including a reference to them in the Umayyads article. Same with the Tahbub, et al. Pending that, I do not think there's anything left to discuss and I will be proceeding with redirecting this article to Umayyad dynasty. If you like, we can transfer this discussion over to Talk:Umayyad dynasty and carry on there once you have some verifiable sources to present. Al Ameer (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the page has been redirected to Umayyad dynasty. However, as I noted in the edit summary, it may ultimately be better still to delete this title instead of redirecting it this way. "Al-Marwani" is really a surname that is not necessarily related to the Umayyad dynasty. At the most, it may be best to redirect it to Marwanids (disambiguation).

@Andalusi97: If and when you can present reliable sources that are verifiable to support the claim that these other (notable) families and tribes are descendants of the Umayyads or claim to be descendants, then you can add these to the appropriate place in Umayyad dynasty in a brief mention and any further discussion of these should be held at Talk:Umayyad dynasty. Al Ameer (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)