Talk:Zanj

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{ Ethnic groups }} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

African diaspora Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Middle Ages Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Africa may be able to help!

"According to other sources the heavily-Bantu Swahili peoples already had seafaring vessels with sailors and merchants trading with Arabia and Persia and as far east as India and China."

Checked 2 out of 3 sources that were linked for this statement that were available online and none of them actually say this. If it's true, find a source that actually verifies this... if it's not, delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.47.104 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no more of the "negroes" and "primitive" nonsense. This is the end of those kind of weasel wordings. If the Arabs found them to be "primitive" then let them speak themselves of it, and even then they have their opinions as well, which are not to be taken as god given facts. This whole word association of "black" and "negro" and "primitive" is over. It's a self-fulfilling stereotype and I'm not having it. Just put the quote in and describe WHY it's so relevant to do so. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever -- these are two very separate cases. I didn't add "negro" to this article, and I'm not defending it, and I don't care if it goes. But I did add "CONSIDERED culturally primitive" to the article, because it's the historical truth. In the book Race and Slavery in the Middle East, Bernard Lewis discusses at length an essay by Jahiz of Basra defending "the dark-skinned peoples, especially the Zanj, the Blacks of East Africa" against the slurs which he found to be very prevalent against them, such as "How is it that we have never seen a Zanjī who had the intelligence even of a woman or of a child?" Of course, Lewis discusses the possibility that even Jahiz of Basra's motives in writing this essay may have been more of a rhetorical maneuver in the Arab-Persian Shu`ubiyya debates, rather than out of a very deep or sincere concern for Blacks themselves... "CONSIDERED culturally primitive" is actually a rather charitable way of stating it -- some Arabs and Persians of the time were out-and-out racists (though not in the specific sense of 19th-century pseudo-biological ideology, which wasn't invented until much later). AnonMoos 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero sources for this, and in Arabic zanj doesnt mean black, this is a Eurocentric superimposition. Black is not a race and has no meaning zanj is about people from a place called Africa, black, Arabs are black, Indians are black. I have added the sources, Ethiopians where usually called Zanj, it 100% didnt mean black or Negro. Already one user has given a warning about this, i am giving a 2nd--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is most definitely not "zero sourced"! Of course, Zanj originally was probably an African placename (without any old etymological meaning within Arabic), and the ordinary word for "black" in Arabic is aswad أسود, not Zanj. NEVERTHELESS, in medieval and modern Arabic and Persian, derivatives of the word Zanj have been used to refer to black people (not the color black in general, just black people) in a range of uses. So in the standard modern Arabic-English dictionary, the "

Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic

", Zunūj زنوج is defined as "Negroes", Zinji/Zanji زنجي is defined as "Negro (adj. and n.)", while Zanjiya/Zinjiyah زنجية is defined as "membership in the black race; nature or character of the Negroid race". In any other good Arabic dictionary, you'll find pretty much the same thing.

So while it may not have been its earliest original meaning, I'm afraid that as a non-geographical term, "Zanj" does indeed mean "black" in the context of the Arabic language. AnonMoos 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt mean black in the Arabic language, this is a serious POV, the sources claim across the board the same thing, there is no non-geographic term, African is a non-geographical term, African American, African is the ethnic group of people who are descended from the indigenious people of Africa. African-Caribbean. Black is not a term which is accurate in any terms in a discussion about the facts of these people, esp in history. What you are doing is is extremely anachronistic, and assuming a POV created in the 18th century was valid in Arabia. Even today Zanj doesnt mean people from the Congo, thats like saying Ethiopia means black, or Semitic means Jew. an black is a historical perjorative term in any event see black people for the critic. black history in the UK includeds Jewish and Indian history it is not an academic term for an ethnic group--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Who are you to claim that you know more about the Arabic language than is contained in standard scholarly reference sources? I would demand that you produce some credentials and specific documentation to back up such an extraordinary claim. For now, I'll start by asking whether you can use an Arabic dictionary arranged by

triliteral

root consonants?

2) The Arabs didn't know anything about Congo until centuries after Muhammad. During his time, and the immediately succeeding period, the Arabs knew about nubah النوبة, which was reached by going to Egypt and sailing up the Nile; they knew about ħabaš الحبش, which was reached by crossing the straights from Yemen to the horn of Africa; and they knew about zanj زنج, which was reached by sailing south along the African coast from the horn -- and those were pretty much the three major regions accessible to them. At that time, the Arabs considered the inhabitants of Zanj to be the most exotic and different of the black groups known to them, so Zanj came to be used as a word for "black" (of people, not of the color in general). AnonMoos 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they considered them as East African people, as black wasnt the word used. If they wanted to call them black they knew that word, read the Arabic sources when they wanted to say someone was black they didnt say Zanj they used the word for black. The sources for the def are in the article donot vandalise with your racism and generalization and limited comprehension of dif bwt black and African, or East African. again Zanj was never used for people from the congo.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're producing many semi-comprehensible convoluted ranting tirades and polemics, but you're not displaying any particular ability to confront and deal with the rather basic linguistic facts connected with the word Zanj and its derivatives and related forms in the Arabic language. Simply dismissing the standard scholarly Arabic-English dictionary out of hand is not going to cut it. AnonMoos 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic word Zanj doesn’t mean black because an English interpretation by some old racist said so, the speakers of the Arabic language used Zanj to refer to a specific group of people from East Africa. They were not called black historically. Does Ethiopian mean black as well? Habasha? by this argument then people in the Congo are habasha, or Zanj. Seek sources from history, a dictionary is a poor case for the historical identify of the zanj when all the cited sources and i gave three say East African, which is far more academic and specific than some loose colloquial term "black" which i might add is a social construction and not a racial ethnic group. Indians are black so is it speaking about them as well? Tamils are black. Your issue has been identified by Zaph i would appreciate this be enough on this word. Your opinion is invalid as you have contradicted the sources, this is not an Arab -English dictionary of terms, it is an encyclopedia, i have little time so excuse the mistakes. Please read black people it is a non-specific and hence academically inaccurate in the context of this article.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End your vandalism and POV

Negroid and all these terms are not academic and citing the dictonary of english to Arabic is not valid. If you quote some racist document written by Europeans and their perception it will always come up shallow. even you definition from a dictonary makes no sense in academic application, who is this black race.(there is no black race; black in color, black eyes, black teeth?) who r the Negros?(negro means black in Spanish) see the other users comments, adding content from a racist dictonary is bad taste, considering it is a Eurocentric translation of the word, to fit European perceptions about race. Again the term Zanj would not have been used to discuss South Africans or people in the congo.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- the Arabic-English dictionary is not a biological treatise or an anthropological essay, but it contains quite a bit more knowledge of the meanings of Arabic words than you seem to possess, and if you're saying that Arabic words do not have meanings which all the standard linguistic scholarly reference works say that they DO in fact have, then you would seem to be the one pushing "POV" vandalism... AnonMoos 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed and the sources say East Africa, If you have noticed i have placed many sources, not one but many, end your poor POV NOW! As the above user or xuser has noted you seem to have an serious agenda which is not valid here.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Zanj" may have associations with the ancient name for the same region, Azania. (During the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, nationalists often referred to South Africa as "Azania", intending to eventually rename the country, but in the event this name was less favoured than simple retention of the previous name, South Africa, after the abolition of everything agrues my case.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lost in translation

Arabic= East African, then East African means black. this is a superimposition not a translation. See more in linguistics, But East Africa doesnt = black, it is a imposed understanding and simplification of a word to fit in with limited lingusitics and racial generalization by Europeans. so Bantu=black, Somali=black, Konso=black, Wolf=black, Indian=black, Punjabi=black. imagine another language saying television and telephone is the same because they have a narrow appreciation of the difference?--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, would you stop adding things in the middle of things? Put new comments at the bottom of the page, unless they're a very specific reply to previous comments. AnonMoos 02:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When they called Bilal the black Ethiopian they knew black from Ethiopian, Zanj from Ethiopian and Zanj from blackness of color. Now if you read Troutman you will understand that Arabs had many classifications for people you lump together as black. So Zanj cannot mean simply black because black has no academic meaning. The same sources you list as scholarly are filed with racism and regressive thinking, look up negro and see, the sentence is poorly constructed and make zero sense. What on Earth is a Negro? where is this black race from? this is not the 18th century you know, respect teh editing process and the ref given.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the dictonary says Columbus discovered the New World, does that make is correct. The content comes before the who, what is the point in quoting people and sources which are racist in nature, in the same place look up the definition of Black people and see the stink of racism at play, so the docturine of old is valid because it is popular and old? Do we still use negro? in any event Zanj means East African, not East Black, black, negro, nigers, coons or any other racial slur you wish to add.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab English Dictionary German author

This is a joke, look who wrote it : Hans Wehr (1909-1981), German arabist who was professor at University of Münster from 1957-1974. Wehr published the Arabisches Wörterbuch (1952), which was later published in an English edition as A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, edited by J. Milton Cowan. As part of this dictionary, Wehr created a transliteration scheme to represent the Arabic alphabet. The latest edition of the dictionary was published in 1995 and is Arabic-German only. Is he an antropologist? No, look clearly at him and ask what is his persassion this is an outdated source full of racial predjudice of the time, why dont we just quote darwin

• "…At some future period, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world."
  Descent of Man

• "Humanity is at its greatest perfection in the race of the whites." Kant wrote in his book Physical Geography

by the above discussion this material is valid today because it is old and white and used many many times.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have the patience or motivation to sort through all your different tangled tirades, but these are the highly-relevant facts:

1) Hans Wehr was not a genetic biologist and did not claim to be a genetic biologist, but had an extremely high degree of expertise in the area of Arabic lexicography (an area in which you appear to have no knowledge at all, and so are ill-equiped to try to refute him). Furthermore, your attempt at "oppositional research" against him is original research, and so does not belong on Wikipedia -- and it's quite pointless anyway, since all the other reasonably comprehensive Arabic dictionaries say basically the same thing as the Wehr dictionary does. For example, I have right here a separate dictionary by Maan Z. Medina which also defines Zunūj as "Negroes" -- and even if you were to turn up evidence that Maan Z. Medina beat his wife, that would do nothing to change the meaning of the word.

2) The early Arabs didn't know very much or care very much about the inhabitants of Congo, or about Tamils, but they knew about as much as they thought they needed to know about nubah, ħabaš, and zanj.

3) It is indisputable that according to all standard scholarly reference works, the word Zanj and its related forms in Arabic were used to refer to black people (not the general color black in the abstract, but black people). Your purely personal attempts to refute the standard scholarly reference works do not belong on Wikipedia. AnonMoos 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop your pov, if they were not black in color what was black about them see black people. black is a nonspecific term zanj was spefic African people per ref, not your pov. ur a disruptive editor who fails to follow procedure. 3 ref contradict you, why not just replace East Africa with Negro if your source is accurate, just put black Negro African. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, since you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever about the Arabic language, it might behoove you to adopt a little more humility with people who know a lot more about the Arabic language than you do. Otherwise, you have the "POV" of ill-informed ignorance. AnonMoos 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic speaker what does Halaqah mean? look at my sig what language is that? the script of the so-called zanji, and you cant make these statements, it is a poor reflection on you, one german person doesnt define Arabic-english esp. a German translator--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact form "Halaqah" does not appear in my Arabic dictionary, but somewhat similar forms derived from root ح ل ق refer to "shaving" or to "circles". If you thought that Halaqah meant "truth" in Arabic, then you're wrong -- it's Ħaqq حق which means "truth". If you can't use an Arabic dictionary (e.g. can't try to look up "Halaqah" yourself, but are dependent on what other people -- who may or may not be competent -- tell you it means), then your knowledge is strictly third-hand, and not too useful in the context of this discussion. AnonMoos 03:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is this a nice way to speak to someone? Please tell me what Halaqah means, y do you have to look it up. I didnt say Halakah, i said Halaqah. not your dictonary but what does it mean in every day Arabic: lingua franca (dont cheat now). I dont want to say things about you, i dont know you. But i am guessing you are not a native speaker because, people who spk Arabic know immd wht halaqah means. next time you go to class ask the teacher and it isnt a Kah it is a Qaf. and it has an ha : at the end, how do you insert the script. dam. sorry i cant get the fonts inserted.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I assume that you don't know Arabic, but in your discussions about the meaning word "Zanj" you haven't displayed any relevant Arabic-language skills so far. I looked up both

triliteral root ح ل ق and ه ل ق in my dictionary, and there wasn't any root ه ل ق , and the root ح ل ق is related to the concepts "shaving" and "circles", but does not have the exact form Halaqah listed as derived from it. These are the only Arabic letters which are commonly transcribed into English as "h", "l", and "q", so I'm not sure where else I should look for it. AnonMoos 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

well let me help you out, it has a ة at the end, Halaqah means circle you r correct(strict) but in common languages refers to a type of forum or debate, lets have a halaqah. when is the halaqah. i speak english and i dont know what indefinite clause means, doesnt mean i cant speak english. I dont know many linguistic terms 4 english let alone Arabia--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding black people is confusing it is a recent social construction, not a historical reality. It also is a broad def, and related to Negro, why do you insist? See the debate on the black people page about the def for this reason it is not accurate to say they were black, because they didnt have black skin, it is unclear what is making them black, the Arabic doesnt even mean black,--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, stripping away the semi-meaningless post-modernist deconstructionist social constructivist jargon term, I actually do fully agree with you that the word "race" as applied to broad groupings such as "Caucasian" or "black" is vague and ill-defined, and not scientifically valid. However, that has almost no relevance to this article. Regardless of the biological reality (whatever that may have been), the early Arabs had the concepts of "people of Nubah", "people of Ħabaš", and "people of Zanj" -- and the term "people of Zanj" was later often applied to Africans who were dark-skinned and/or felt by the Arabs to be rather culturally alien to the Arabs. Whether the Arab use of the word Zanj happened to be scientifically-valid according to the most recent scientific discoveries of 2006 is really pretty much irrelevant -- what's much more important is to honestly report what the Arabs meant by the term Zanj when the Arabs used the term Zanj. AnonMoos 02:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we are talking now, Zanj was used for Ethiopian people, and they were not that Darkskinned. The Zanj were also as some academics say from deep in Africa, they say the term became applied by default to "darker"Africans, either way we cannot use loose social terms when words have specific meanings, we cannot infer we should not infer, it is wrong academically to say what someone meant by a word by our Eurocentric imposed standards of race classification and let me add, you will notice that the world is moving away from these classificiation, these are old 18th century terms, see all the issues on black people the meaning itself changes from Brazil to USA, black people also means too much to too many people. It isnt academic and may confuse the reader.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "people of Nubah" was used to refer to those in the general southern Egypt / northern Sudan area, "people of Ħabaš", was used to refer to those in the general Ethiopia / Horn of Africa area, and "people of Zanj" was used to refer to those in the general Kenya/Tanzania area. Occasionally all three could be lumped together as Zanjis, but when the distinctions were made, people from Ethopia were not in fact called Zanjis. When the Arabs later became aware of further areas of Sub-Saharan Africa (beyond Kenya/Tanzania), the inhabitants of those areas could often be called Zanjis. AnonMoos 03:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

correct but it mainly meant East Africa, and there used this term for enslaved Ethiopians and enslaved TZ people. Bilal would have been called Zanji and he was habasha. It is very difficult to translate languages because some languages are more complex and things r lostin translation. bilinguial people who are native to both toungues know this. I had this debate about Munto in Kiswhahili, and Muzingi. Nub means gold in Nubian. so again it isnt a racial term but an association, like the word phonecian "red people"--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halaqah inflammatory header was: No source and constant reversion is vandalism

I have explained how wiki works you are not a native speaker of Arabic as per the above, but the main issue is the lack of refernces and the mistranslation of Zanj to land of the blacks, where in Zanj is the word land, and black. Bilad ul Sudan means "land of the blacks" you are distorting information, there is no valid Arabic contempoary source and your edits are a POV. You tone also violates wiki civil policy by ignoring debate , and using language to suggest you have more knowledge than someone else by calling them IGNORANT and NOT KNOWING NOTHING.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC) there is zero source for your edits, none of the edits have any refernces and hence are a violation of the principles of wikipedia, i have proved three sources, if you are a student of the language (see admission and proof above) then you should be respectful and not use wikipedia for a POV.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling my edits "vandalism" when you know very well that they're not "vandalism", and stop calling them "unsourced" when you know very well that I've given multiple sources on past occasions. This does nothing whatsoever to lay the groundwork for future constructive and mutually productive discussion. I'm taking my information from standard scholarly sources such as the

Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic

, and you haven't presented the slightest information which would challenge these standard scholarly sources in any relevant way.

If your Arabic is up to par, then please inform yourself by looking up the meanings of the words زنج and related words derived from the same

triliteral root ز ن ج in a suitable Arabic dictionary. If the state of your skills is such that you are not able to look things up in an Arabic dictionary in this way, then you probably shouldn't be trying to lay down the law on the meaning of Arabic words to others. Since you've apparently never bothered to take the step opf looking up the root in an Arabic dictionary (which would be extremely simple if you knew how), ignorance is one of the most plausible explanations which suggests itself for this behavior on your part. AnonMoos 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to read the CIVIl notice, Translate this for me Bilad ul Sudan, and dont look in that dictonary because it is very obvious you are a student of the language. Here is another thing to read, Reference, you have NONE. but you have altered mine, i am telling you i have informed admins of your attitude here, it is clear from the above your violations.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak English and i still dont know what a fragmented sentence means (just an example), i guess i cant speak english. P,s i know what the term means but i refuse to engage you in a show off discussion of knowledge of Arabic. Anyone can say anything without valid sources--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the one who is constantly calling my edits "vandalism" when you know very well that they're not "vandalism", and contantly calling them "unsourced" when you know very well that they're sourced (not to mention you calling me a racist bigot in the past, and your latest kick of claiming that I'm a student doing a homework assignment), you would appear to be the one who needs to consult

WP:CIVIL. Considering that looking up the words زنج , زنوج , and زنجي in an Arabic dictionary would greatly facilitate bringing this whole matter to a conclusion, your refusal to do so is rather strikingly unproductive and unconstructive -- or serves to cast doubt on your abilities to handle standard written Arabic. AnonMoos 21:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User AnonMoos has given no refernce inline refernces as per wiki policy. We are suppose to trust the contraversial content. I ask Where is the source in the article ZANJ, show me the source in the article Zanj, how manytimes until you understand this statement, you have zero source. And you have changed my sources, my sources r three and clear, including a book, where are yours. i even gave page numbers, where r yours? What page, where who said? you have mistranslated the Arabic of Zanj and mixed it up with Bilad ul Sudan. you have altered my 3 sources statements, none use the word black, they say East African--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying that when you know very well it isn't true. My primary source (as I've said repeatedly over and over and over again many many times) is the

Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (4th edition of 1994). AnonMoos 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

No source, the user doesnt understand you must add valid source, inline sources. You cant tell me some book says so, i am an editor not a reader. You are giving misinformation without evidence in the article of where it comes from. you have mangled or confused the def of zanj with Sudan, two different words. Sudan is a place (land of the Blacks) Zanj was a term for some East Africans, excluding groups like the Dinka, an many Sourthern Ethiopian poeple. Zanj doesn mean Black people as this term includes too many ethnic groups and Zanj was not inclusive of these groups.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't tell me what I am finding and not finding in the dictionary, when what you are saying is contradicted by the direct and immediate evidence of my own eyes. Root س و د (from which words meaning "black" in the sense of an abstract color are derived) is defined on page 513 of the dictionary, while root ز ن ج (whose historically-changing range of meanings I have adequately explained in past comments on this talk page above) is defined on pages 445-446 of the book. These entries are over 50 pages apart in the dictionary.

I'm perfectly happy to add a formal reference to the

Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic

in this article, but the process is not facilitated by you telling me things which I know are factually false.

And I was the one who told you several times above the information about the three-fold distinction of the early Arabs between nubah النوبة, ħabaš الحبش, and zanj زنج. Usually, the inhabitants of nubah and ħabaš were not called Zanjis by Arabs (though occasionally they were), but when other areas of Africa (beyond the northeast Nile and coastal areas) later came into the geographical horizon of the Arabs, the inhabitants of those areas were often called Zanjis or Zunūj. AnonMoos 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a talk page, the refernce need to be added in the article not on the talk page, do not change my content to match your single source. i have given three you have one, which is not an ethnic def, not a historical term, not a linguistic term. It is a translation for European people to understand Arabic. Please then define who these black people are, is Oprah Winfrey a Zanji? What about Bob Marley? because these are Black people now you have defined a defintion with a undefinable term which is a lay term. Also Australian people are called Black so add them as being Zanj. And the people of Fiji they are Zanji. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian aboriginals et al are only considered black in Australia. Most of the world uses black to describe people of sub-Saharan African ancestry. Remember anthropologists classified Australian aboriginals as Australoid not negroid (the Spanish word for black) Christmasgirl

[[1]] see the long debate, when you add an undefinable term to a def it doesnt give it clarity, it brings in these issues. this debate has not ended black is too complex a term, it isnt a race, it is too broad, it has too many definitions, it is too wide. nothing in the arabic points to the word black, it is what europeans assumed it meant, since they call any non-white people black.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre dispute, but in fact in Eastern Arabic usage, Zanj can and does mean black, generally referring to Africans. Europeans have nothing at all to do with this meaning.

It's worth noting that separately in the Maghreb a similar colour-'race' usage arose, but based off of Berber, and adopted into Maghrebine usage.

I would suggest removing the disputed if the above person has nothing more than ranting to do as there seems little controversial from a fact POV in the article.

collounsbury 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree & will remove "Disputed" 69.140.153.134 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the supposedly 3 references pointed to a blank page. I removed it. The remaining linked reference, Arab Slave Trade, actually mentioned 'black' as an issue. This was taken from that ref link to dispute the racial bias. Following is a DIRECT copy and paste from the linked ref:

"After the Zanj were finally crushed the victorious Abbasid general Muwaffaq dismissed all claims of their masters who sought their return. Instead, Muwaffaq recognised their strength and incorporated thousands of Zanj into his own government forces. The effects of this powerful rebellion would echo in the Arab world, dampening all attempts at mass labour enslavement until the 19 th Century when European markets where furnished with spices and coconuts from Arab controlled Zanzibar.

Arab and Turkish history is littered with furious African uprisings. One other notable battle echoes in Arab history until today and was referred to as “ the battle of the Blacks ” which occurred by loyal Fatimids against Saladin forces in Egypt in 1169."

Note that there is mention of "Black" in the last sentence and it is bolded, just as it is there on the page in the reference link about the Arab Slave Trade. Ironic, eh? This statement disputes the dispute! in that there was no mention of black, or was not important in the Arab world, AT THAT TIME. I dispute the dispute box. There are not 3 reference that dispute the mention of 'black' anywhere in the refs provided. There are more people that interpret otherwise. History should not change because it offends someone. In fact, this should be in the article to show that blacks where discriminated against for a very long time, not unlike the Jews. If you deny history, then one cannot learn. Plus the page is very unprofessional looking and it's poorly sourced. Again, the comparison to the Black people article is not the same at all. One is history the other on going and will never stop! Do not let this become like the Black people article, please and it's crazy debate. It's apples and oranges. Jeeny

Hey guys, remember while you're debating that the term in question here is how it was used in medieval times, not necessarily the Modern Standard Arabic definition, which may differ. While they are pretty close, MSA != Qur'anic Arabic or Medieval Arabic (or Medieval attempts to emulate Qur'anic Arabic, which are usually not as close as MSA to Qur'anic, actually). —

I also looked it up in a 19th-century dictionary of "classical" Arabic usage based largely on old manuscripts (not strictly confined to the medieval period, but including it), and it said pretty much the same thing, and in fact had a lengthy explanation of the Nubia/Abyssinia/Zanj contrast. Unfortunately, I didn't write the name of the dictionary down (this was several years before I was involved in Wikipedia; it wasn't the

lexicon, but a much shorter single-volume work). AnonMoos 07:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You may want to see this Jstor article, which may clarify (or confuse) things a bit. Apparently the term was used in multiple ways. Specifically, to refer to the Zanj coast of East Africa, but also to refer to blacks indiscriminately, including Nubians (I just skimmed it, so I didn't see if it included Habeshas) and also West Africans (people from Buldan as-Sudan). —

Ethiopia 10:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the issue is disruption. y keep inserting unsourced info into the article over and over again to a

WP:POINT, it is a violation to add content which is not stated in the 3 Sources i have given. None of them say Black, Zanj in Arabic is not BIlad-ul-Sudan. the editor is disruptive, and has been previously warned about the negative tone towards Africans (see mindset with Zaph above). So i suspect the need to insert the word black is not sincere but disruptive. I can google zanj and it general means East African. Lumping people into color races is not very accurate, see debate of what Black people thus the racist thinking that lumps African history is the issue. the word black is too broad and too problematic. You wouldnt say on the Masai page Masai are black, you say they are East african. And y add it? what does it bring to the topic--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Dude, it doesn't do anything to establish a positive tone for contructive collaboration and cooperation on the article if you say that something is "unsourced" when you're very well aware that's it's sourced, and in fact that I've given detailed page numbers, date of publication, edition number etc. info directly above. Furthermore, genetics is totally irrelevant. I fully agree that lumping people together into vague broad categories such as "Caucasian". "Black", "Oriental" or whatever has no real scientific validity according to the latest research -- but that's not what this article is about. This article is about how the early Arabs classified the inhabitants of Africa. The early Arabs knew nothing about genetics, and for the purposes of this article, it really doesn't matter whether the classifications which the Arabs set up have modern scientific validity. As I've explained multiple times before on this talk page above, the Arabs of ca. 6th century A.D. (before the rise of Islam) knew about Nubians, Abyssinians, and Zanjis. As their geographical knowledge grew after the 6th-century A.D., and they became aware of further areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, the meaning of "Zanji" also grew, until in some contexts it became a general word meaning "black" (of humans, not the abstract color) -- though in careful usage, Nubians and Abyssinians were still distinguished from Zanjis. It's a little messy, but human language usage is often messy -- and it's the truth. AnonMoos 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to confuse the issue, but terms like Oriental, Caucasian, and Black do have some scientific validity. For example some scientists claim people of sub-Saharan African ancestry are a broad racial group at the genetic level[2] Christmasgirl

Sudan, Habash, Nubian, (Tanwir al-Gabbash fi fasl al Sudan wa Habash) the Arabic text seperate the two, White people collapse eveyone. Here is another word Haratin and Bidan and Abid (which is used for Africans, but it doesnt mean black it means slave, so to translate it as black people is offesnsive and wrong). So what is the point of an academic encyclopedia that just says "blacks" for all of these term? all these different words which are used in specific ways. Even today in Egypt they dont say Sudan to mean Ethiopian, or Nubian to mean Uganda.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 11:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the ancient Arabs used the word zanj in ways very similar to how the word Black is used today. Just as people today use the word Black to describe someone of predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry, the Arabs used the word zanj to describe the peoples of what we now call Black Africa (at least the ones who were not half Arab like the Nubians and Ethiopians) Christmasgirl

Ethiopians and Nubians are not half Arabs. The higher degree of distinguishing for NE African populations is due to their proximity and historical interactions, not due to differing levels of admixtures. Most Arabians (excluding inner desert dwellers and those on the eastern coast) were well aware of who Ethiopians were, and later, with the spread of Islam to Egypt, became aware of the Nubians. East Africans south of the Horn of Africa, however, did not have as many interactions with Arabs, hence the lower degree of distinguishing between groups. —

Ethiopia 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Ethiopians are indeed half-Arab. This has been proven by dozens of DNA studies and is further confirmed by their craniofacial appearance and more importantly their use of the Afro-Asiatic languages. You can tell a lot about a people's genetic history by studying their language. Ethiopians were naturally the most caucasoid looking of the blacks which is why the Arabs chose them to interbreed with, and the more interbreeding that occured, the more they were seen by the Arabs as separate from the Blacks or Zanj as the Arabs called them Christmasgirl

I would advise that this silly debate end. Xmas girl your politics on this subject are poorly informed at best. See talk page on Black people YOM i would advise dont feed it. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My politics on the subject? What politics? Christmasgirl

If you in one breath say you dont understand then pls do add to the issue by adding original research. I told you to come here to show you the dispute around zanj, b4 that you didnt know what it meant. so pls dont under any circumstances revert my edits which are from 3 different and well respected sources. all limit the term to east Africa.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a dictonary
• Not a Battleground
• Undue weight to technical grammatical explanations —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 09:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply
  ]

That's nice. How does it affect the fact that every Arabic dictionary says that the word Zanj زنج does actually mean what you keep saying that it doesn't mean? AnonMoos 10:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leave it alone my arabic dictonary doesnt say that. Arabic-Amharic. or the Arabic-French. or the Arabic-Hausa. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 10:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. This is English language version of wikipedia so only Arab-English translations are relevant here. In a lexicographic analysis of the English language, philosophy professor Lansana Keita noted that the word "black", "negro", and "African race" are all defined in terms of one another and can be regarded as logically equivalent[3] The fact that the Arabs used the term zanj for all black Africans they were aware of, with the occasional exception of the heavily Arabized Ethiopians and Nubians (who are arguably multiracial instead of black[4]), makes it very useful to the English speaking reader to define zanj as black Christmasgirl

black is not an enclyopedic definition of a people, so lets not bring a controversial term into another controversial article. U r then imposing the subjectivity of a term Black people into this article. These terms like white people are unencyclopedic in historical context. Take a look at any African section. Black African is a offensive term. They are called Ethiopians, Malians, Fulani, Hausa. not one lumped race. Again, terms which are unclear, shouldnt be used as Indians are black and Arabs def didnt mean them. English speakers pollute history when they impose westernize terms on other peoples words. See Semantic drift.& u can agrue the other point with yourself as i have advised editors not to engage it as it is called trolling.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, all of that biological stuff is totally irrelevant to this article. I actually agree with you that broad vague terms like "black race"[sic], "Caucasian race"[sic], and "oriental race"[sic] have very little scientific validity according to modern research. Unfortunately, this hasno real bearing on article Zanj, which is about what Arabs thought about Africans, not what the scientific biological genetic reality may have been. If every Arabic-English dictionary says that the word Zanj زنج in some of its uses corresponds adequately closely to the English word "Black" (or in the case of Arabic-English dictionaries compiled during the first two-thirds of the 20th-century, to the English word Negro", the most commonly used English word at that time), then that's what we go by -- not your personal theories about biological genetics and social constructivism. AnonMoos 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I have websites that show Africans are genetically inferior to White people. what does it mean? i have tons of research showing the genetic relationship between Apes and Negroes. some half baked racist opinion isnt worthy of a reply. A pls not Blackness is a very US driven experience, see Black people so if all that debate is true then leave the term out of here.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an utter red herring. An encyclopedia should rightly note what usage is, and be clearly expressed. Black as a generic descriptor of dark-skinned generally (recently w/in 1000 yrs or so) sub-Saharan descended people is not "controversial" as such. Extending the mere phenotypic descriptor to assert conclusions about the nature of the people in question is controversial (and rightly so). Black in ordinary, common English usage is neither controversial nor particularly full of import, as such. (collounsbury 17:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No one (outside of a few Afrocentrics) considers Indians to be black anymore. That was just part of the black power movement where all dark skinned people were briefly calling themselves black in a few places, but for the most part the term black is only for Africans. This is even reflected in the U.S. census and U.S. law which only defines Africans South of North Africa as black (Indians are not considered black on any census). In fact even Nubians have a tough time being considered black by U.S. law[5] just as Nubians had a tough time being considered zanj. Yes it may be offensive to lump all the dark skinned peoples of Africa into a single category (especially the non-hybridized ones), but if that's what the Arabs did, that's what we must report. And the term used for dark-skinned peoples of specifically African ancestry is black. This is not nearly as offensive as alternative terms like negroid. Christmasgirl

I am warning you against your vandalism and original research. I dont care about if you and mr man above disagree. ur not the concensus. U dont need an agreement when sources are misquoted, or uncited content is added. read teh rules. I suggest you assume good faith and return my content. As you can agree with bad decisions but no where can you violate my sources, or add content which i have clearly argued against. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say observing this increasingly bizarre dialogue, I can only agree that Halaqa's argument is frankly incoherent. Historical and contemporary usage of Zanj seems to be fairly clearly along the lines of the modern English usage of black. One need not go as for as Xmasgirl's argument (as frankly it is not clear to me that one should say Arabs did X in a blanket sense, Arabic usage in the Gulf, Mesopotamia, etc. was and is not the same as in the Maghreb, to take the starkest contrast). That Halaqa is on some odd jihad against the word black as a "racial" descriptor is clear. That this little effort makes any sense in this context is not. Of course a coherent argument logically ordered would be nice, if only for the sheer novelty value.(collounsbury 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'd like to fill in some of the "citation needed" gaps with references to such works as "Race and Slavery in the Middle East" by Bernard Lewis (

Black is not a universially agreed term, this is not an American site, avoid these broad confusing terms to describe a ENTIRE African continent. Africa is diverse, I study African ethnic groups. My contributions to African history and ethnic groups is enourmous. I am a major content adder, i know this subject. Zanj is heavily debated in academic circles. It is a place, but one thing everyone agrees on it is not a general term for Black people. Black is a nice concept but not for defining a people. YOu dont say "the Masai are a black poeple that live in Africa" because that is not what Most Africans would say it is a American view of a people. Black African is an offesnive term if you didnt know, people say Sub-Saharan African, do not add out dated terms, when slightly better terms exist. Again this is an area i know very well i have the qualification to know the difference. As i have told you, the Amharic-Arabic Dic doesnt say this, the Hausa-Arabic Dict doesnt say this, The Spanish-Arabic dic doesnt say this. Do not represent a western mono-worldview. Unless u are saying the German Dic has supremacy over my sources and the Amharic-Arabic dic, and the Hausa-Arabic dictonary, not to mention the Wolof-Arabic dic.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 12:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

& please dont pretend i am halting the development of this article, i have to date created and developed most ethnic African group article on wiki, from Masai, Fulani to Nuer. And not to mention other zanj related issues.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocking the development of this article because for some bizarre personal reason of your own, you insist that the Arabic word Zanj زنج doesn't mean what every Arabic dictionary says that it does in fact mean. Unless you stop this pointless behavior, it's hard to see how things will improve greatly. AnonMoos 13:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No term is universally agreed upon, but Black when used in a racial or ethnic context is about as close to what the Arabs meant by Zanj as one can get. Your arguments are very incoherent and you've demonstrated no ability at all to look up words in Arab-English dictionaries, and yet you expect us to believe you know more about these languages than the people who actually wrote these dictionaries. Please stop blocking progress in this article as I am eager to see the additions AnonMoos would like to make Cognitiveelite 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East African however is not disputed. U can run on all day long, I speak Arabic, And no volume of people like you and your friend will change the facts, 3 sources do not say this. I looked it up in my Arabic English dic it didnt say this, nor in Wolof-Arabic dict. Wolf people speak Arabic much longer than Germans by the way. I developed these articles so end your riduclous claims i am blocking it when i added most of the content and references here, if you dont know the topic step back. strange no one else says this when i developed all the other ethnic group cats. And you suspecious support for your friend. I block original research and you adding terms which are hight controversial, I also developed the Black people page. Keep adding this content and i will keep removing it. Black African is an offensive term. reply 2 my arguments or dont reply at all. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might reply to your arguments if we could understand them. Can someone please translate the above paragraph into something coherent? Cognitiveelite 18:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I think I see something of a hint of an argument in Halaqah's incoherent ranting, even an argument I might be sympathetic to, but without coherence and clarity (and this endless incoherent edits, running off in various directions), I see no value-added. (collounsbury 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

How much of this content was added by me and Yom? So intresting observation. All of the nonsense about Land of the Blacks that the above user added has been deleted by another user as inaccurate. Funny isnt it. The same content that i disputed is now down to 2 words. Why dont you insert land of the blacks again? thats what u were fighting for last time? Where are the sources. Ohh, Guess what the only references in this article are the ones i have added. So how is developing this topic? Note i also developed Black people--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this page to discuss only this topic. ALl content which is directed to this user, which has nothing to do with Zanj can be deleted from this page. This is not a forum for exchange. Specifically discuss this topic,, the pending dispute. Follow the policy. If you make a comment, use the policy of wiki such as ^{[original research?]} etc, to validate your argument. If you continue to post forum like nonesense it will be stricked out. If you delete tags you will be blocked. And sockpuppets are not allowed on wiki, dont make me look you up.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 21:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A legal tag has been added. OR is when you use your opinion to suggest content without references to a source which says so. "Zanj means black because most people use the word black to mean Africa" OR. Tags cannot be removed until a dispute has been settled. P.sAfrican history is my job.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT VANALISE DISPUTE TAGS

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained at length on your talk page already, you added "dispute" tags twice before, but they accomplished nothing while they remained on the article for months, and so were eventually removed by individuals (not me) who saw no merits in your arguments (in fact, no one who has appeared at the article page, or on this talk page, has ever seemed to see any merit in your arguments, except possibly Jeeny). Therefore "dispute" tags about the same old points of contention are pretty much done and over with on this article, unless you can give some good reason why the expected outcome would be different than it was the last two times around. It's time to try something else, because it's become painfully obvious that "dispute" tags ain't working. AnonMoos 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I admire Halaqah's passion and dedication, I don't always agree. After I have done some research of my own and reading here I have come to the same consensus. Sorry, Halaqah. Just on the issue of the Zanj=black I've done some research and I even asked a person who speaks Arabic as native language (the owner of the store up the street from me) that it does, or did, at least during Medieval times referred to Zanji/Zanj as Black Africans. Arabs and Black Africans have intermixed and married many years ago. Also, before speaking to my friend, I read where it means black in Arabic (on this talk page, and other sites online) and in some Turkish language with a varied spelling. I do not think, in this case, anyway, that it is racist or derogatory. It is what it is, and of it's time. I believe it has encyclopedic value. Now the Black people page is another story. I really don't know if this is the issue, as it's so complicated and lots of words here, but it is my opinion based on the sources that I had available to me on the topic of Black vs Zanj. IMO it is not racist, it is not euro-centric nor prejudice in this article based on the times. --Jeeny 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

if it does mean this where is the source in the article? y dont my sources say this, y r my sources statements being changed 2 say something they dont.p.s ii hve a degree from soas, so it is not a hobby topic. zanj is a complex term, it doesnt even mean people it is a place. it is specific not general--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source is a very weighty and large book I have, titled, "The Chronicle of the World" (It's like news articles, as if happenings of the time were reported in a present day newspaper.) It doesn't have much about Zanj really, but I will quote what is written in the article of that era. I had to use a magnifying glass as this is a huge book and I'm not used to reading paper reference books anymore, plus I'm getting old. LOL. Here's the text:

"East Africa, c.750 . Over the past 20 years, Arabs and Persians have been taking control of coastal trade along the coast they call Zanj (black land) (from Somalia through Kenya and Zanzibar to southern Tanzania and Mozambique.)

West Africa, 750. Arabs from North Africa have begun crossing the Sahara in large numbers to trade in gold."

(end of text for that time period and the only reference with the word "Zanj.")

There may be more in there if I knew names or other pertinent info or key words to look up in the index, but am not prepared to study right now. The other "source" is only from a person's mouth. I know that is not scientific nor historical proof for I can not cite it from any scholarly work online. My friend, who is definitely not a scholar but a native speaker of Arabic and a Muslim from Iraq. He says he knows of some Persian history. He said that he thought that Zanj referred to their (Persia/Arab) history with the "black" people of Africa. He also said I was a bit weird, in other words.

Of course this can be considered as racist today, and it is, but that is not a good reason to keep certain references out. This is an encyclopedia, no censoring. People judged by differences and perceived superiority along with greed, etc. It's not nice, but it is part of history and a true testament of discrimination since the earliest of times. Not just by color of skin, but social cast, and privilage, etc. Just because history can be offensive doesn't mean wording should change, it should reflect the true intentions, thoughts and ways of the people then and now. Again, I'll say the Black people article is another thing all together (it just too broad and open to any and all opinion, not many facts at all.) Just my experience in the last few days. -- Jeeny 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

found the book online http://www.librarything.com/work/603789 Jeeny 05:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

^ "The African Diaspora in the Mediterranean Lands of Islam". "John Hunwick". Retrieved on 2004-10-01. ^ "Zanj Rebellion". "Owen 'Alik Shahadah". ^ a b "Hidden Iraq". "William Cobb".

now opinions and lay thinking is or, my added content is from three sources. wiki works on sources not feelings, or single sources. germanic tribes = white people is not a very encycolpedic way to discuss germanic people. yes they r white people, but germanic makes it a specific kind of white person.

please read jstor zanj it shows the complexity of the term, this article doesnt say black people. the issue is not all black people would be classified as zanj.

going deeper, rushton refers to the "habesha and zanj", now everyone knows ethiopian r black people so y do rushton and Arabs use two terms for one race? (if rushton is correct) a free ethiopian in Arabia would have been called Habaesha not Zanj according to rushton. i am not a lay person on this topic, and i am sick of African history being treated as some "any old thing they all black", see the above plethora of terms used to describe African people, most actually mean Slave. unless Slave = black people i fail to c the translation. this is the racism. zanj = slave = black people.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, you incoherent additions, and constant adding of new subject lines at best subtracts from your credibility. Specific objections to dubious authors and citations, e.g. Rushton are fine - although that has fuck all to do with the issue of glossing Zanj as Black. That gloss is as good as any translation gets. Yeah, it is not 100% exact in usage, but any rendition of meaning over time and over several languages is going to be inexact, such that only specialists will grasp the nuance. Now if there is specific language that is prejudicial as such to Africans / black Africans, and presented as essential (and I would say that perhaps the article overdraws, esp. in using Arab when usage may only really have been regional) then you might have a coherent objection. But your incoherent little jihad (and poor grasp of English usage and style) are hardly convincing in their present form. At best. (collounsbury 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• The slaves were mainly used to work on the massive
  Bedouins
  , Arab mercenaries, and others from the region joined ˤAlī's fight against the central government.

now take a look at the work i have done on wiki, developing pages from nada. Why some focus on my edits look at the current state of this page 5 months later. I have gone and come back and there is NO DEVELOPMENT. read the above and ask why dont you focus on that!--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- you seem to be repeating the same old tired nonsense that got your user account blocked before. Meanwhile, here's the first paragraph of the Encyclopaedia of Islam article "Zandj" by G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville:

"ZANDJ (A.), a term found in Arabic literature, but apparently of non-Arabic origin, denoting the peoples of Black Africa, and especially those with whom the Arabs came into contact through their voyages and trade in the Western part of the Indian Ocean and living in the eastern parts of Africa. For the territories in question, the term bilād al-Zandj was used."

And further down:

"The pharmacological writer Ibn al-Baytar says that black rhubarb is caled zandj from its colour, and not from its provenance, but zandj and zunūdj mostly mean 'black people' in Arabic literature."

One reason why this article doesn't get improved is that people know that sooner or later you'll be sure to come along and try to mess it up in accordance with your preconceived agenda.

P.S. Hebrew הלכה is not a valid linguistic cognate of Arabic words derived from triconsonantal root ح ل ق ... AnonMoos 02:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that`s what I call falsification of history. Over some period of time I have read first: The Zanj uprising against their arab/ muslim slave masters. Then second: The Zanj-uprising was supported by the Shia-muslims. And now third: The vast majority of the rebels were Arabs of the Persian Gulf supported by free East Africans.

Surely the next official muslim-version will be that the Zanj and Arabs fought against Western and Jewish slave-masters. 62.178.137.216 (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article just looks and sounds shoddy - it likely needs some cleaning up. I have looked up two of the sources and they are fake - will look up the others and then perhaps rewrite it entirely. Wanyonyi (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read kiswahali with difficulty (sw:Etimolojia ya Neno Zanzibar), but Zanguebar seem to be old european (via portuguese) word for zanj, it is not ? Vincnet (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ar relating to the city/island Zanzibar I presume, Zanzibar comes from the Persian word "Zangi-bar" (Zangi=Black and Bar=the Place of); later in the history the "g" sound was replaced by "z" sound due to the lack of the sound "g" in Arabic language of the invading Arabs. at least thats what Wikipedia and other sources say, I`ve also found an older etymology relating it to Portuguese ("stoned walled"), but when comparing it with the history of the place, and the little impact that the Portugues had, it doesnt seem that likely. Maybe they just used a somewhat similar sounding name for it. Besides it doesnt change on the subject of the Term Zanj beeing of Persian/Arabic origin.--77.117.250.236 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper IPA for this is Zunj OR Zinj --Prince jasim ali (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A source is quoted in the article: 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."

"All the talk about slaves rising against the wretched conditions of work in the salt marshes of Basra is a figment of the imagination and has no support in the sources. 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... Ah yes.-- 178.115.212.185 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per early historian and geographer like Yaqut al-Hamawi on his book made a distinction between Berber people of Maghreb and those of east Africa, he wrote in his book Mu'jam Al-Buldan [6], 173 quoted "Mogadishu is a city located on the outskirts of the land of Zinj, on the land of Berbirah south of Yemen, and these Berber are different from those of Maghreb, these people are black similar to Zanj and look like an intermediate race between Habesha and Zanj". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.44.160 (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the over-quotation template from contemporary descriptions, because that section had three quotes, of which at least two were necessary to give a full sense of the variety in use of the term. The template mainly appears to be a legacy of the debates over the identification of "Zanj" with "black" above; as these debates appear to have been resolved, the template no longer seems necessary nor consensual. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is written here about the etymology is kind of weird. These seem to be superficial sources written by Europeans with little knowledge. There is no doubt that Zanj is derived from the Persian word Zang, which literally means "rust", also in modern day Persian. I speak Persian. When you add an -i suffix, it becomes an adjective. So "Zangi" literally means "rusty". The Arabic language does not know the G sound which is why Arabs pronounce it Zanj instead of Zang. References to that etymology can be found in wiktionary, see: زنجي - Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AC%D9%8A), زنگی - Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C#Persian), زنگ - Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D9%86%DA%AF#Persian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.233.35.210 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is literally crap. The claims in it are absolute rubbish - this has to be one of those useless articles that give Wikipedia a very bad name. Not interested in arguments and lawyering and so on - anyone reading this should go to the Britannica and look up the equivalent article.

According to Dr. Felix Chami, archaeologist and professor at Dar es Salaam University in his co-edited book - Southern Africa and Swahili World, Zanj does not mean black. He says " Following my detailed discussion of the word Zanj in my co-edited book called Southern Africa and Swahili World (you can find it with African Books Collective)...it seems now the word Zanj or Azania or Zangion had nothing to do with the colour of people or even slavery the way the first one has been conceptualised. What is in those words is the word 'Za' or 'Zi' and ancient Bantu word for water-oceans or lakes, and another word 'nchi' or 'nji' another Bantu word meaning country or settlement respectively. The people of the coast of East Africa identified themselves with the 'Indian Ocean' which was then known as 'Za' and hence the people of the country or settlement of 'Za' and hence 'Zanchi' or 'Zanj'"...I am a Xhosa South African with ancestry going up East Africa to the nothern regions and I concur that Zanj refered to the coast and it's people because in the Xhosa and Zulu languages ZANSI/ZANTSI means coast and/or people of the coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaloParihu (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]