User talk:LouisAragon

OUPThis user has access to Oxford University Press through The Wikipedia Library.

This user has access to Cambridge University Press resources through The Wikipedia Library.

This user has access to JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library.

Your complaint about edit warring at Azerbaijan

Do you agree with this opinion that the matter is now resolved? EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't. Similar to the Azerbaijan page where he has been edit-warring against numerous users and ruining any consensus-building with this trigger finger action, right now (@ the edit-warring noticeboard) he's trying to make it seem as if "everything has already been settled" and "I didn't do anything wrong". User:Rye-96 clearly expressed with his last message on Talk:Azerbaijan that he's not satisfied yet. Neither am I. Even if you'd look as an uninvolved editor at the talk page, its impossible to misinterpret it as something that has been "already settled". But I dont think Brandmeister mistook it all by "accident".

As you correctly stated, Ed; "you can't assume that the mere passage of time awards consensus. You need to have actual people saying 'I agree'." Unfortunately, this is an ever recurring problem with Brandmeister. He tries to make others kow-tow by hitting that undo/edit button constantly (even though, for example right now, its literally 4v1), and by making editorial threats during the conversations (i.e., in his own words: "I will likely remove that particular part."). In my books, this is pretty much textbook behaviour of someone who can't edit neutrally. Someone who is only interested in pushing his POV as much as he can. Interestingly, Brandmeister makes tons of small edits on very obscure pages. However, when it concerns AA2 pages, he often resorts to plain tendentious editing. That's just something I noticed. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nader shah

Yes, turcoman is the english translation of the word turkman so that's why turocman and turkman are the same things, but there is putting link of turkmens which are not turcoman neither turkman.

What about Nader Shah, I didn't read that book, my friend said me about it that what it says. So if it says 'Nadir's native language could not be "Turki or Eastern Turkish". As an Afshar he surely spoke a southern Turcoman dialect, similar to that of all the Afshars scattered throughout Persia,i.e. in usual parlance, " the Turkish of Azarbayjan." The Afshars were certainly an Oghuz, and not a Mongol tribe.' then we can say that Nader's native language was Azerbaijani Turkic, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadiqiBeg (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, thats WP:OR. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to help in Discussion

Please help us in this Discussion. Shahin (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerns

Others share a concern. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I just made a SPI. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Needing a good laugh?

Read this discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Safavid Georgia

Hi. I was looking for a GAN to assess and was considering Safavid Georgia. But I had a concern which I ran past a wiser and more experienced editor. See below.

A query... the big issue is that in the long list of "Safavid valis, khans, and vassals" there is only one reference. I would have expected at least one per line. What would your view be?

I have worked, well and cheerfully, with the editor on a couple of other articles and am wary of suggesting that they need a further 47 references when I know that I am shaky on the rules around lists. Your view would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with lists - I have written only one that I can remember. I tend to find that they unnecessarily break the flow of articles when included in the main text like this one. It might be best if the list can be split out to a separate article: List of Safavid valis, khans, and vassals, or similar, and linked from the main article. In terms of referencing I have seen it done a few different ways: sometimes each line is referenced with a footnote in a separate "reference" column; sometimes each column header is referenced to a single source and sometimes a note at the bottom of the table gives the reference for the whole lot. I think if it is retained in the article each of the sub lists would need at least some form of this referencing for verifiability.

I flag this up for your information. Make of it what you will. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Excuse me for the belated response. Hey! I'm planning to make a few adjustments to the article in the near future, to enhance the overal EV (see the article talk page). I will then add a reference to the lists as well. Thanks alot for raising this up, appreciate it. Would you still be willing to review the article when I'm done making those fixes? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon. Of course. It is a topic which interests me and I only reluctantly didn't assess it before. Frankly, I chickened out from decided whether to bounce or not an otherwise quality article on the list reference issue. Give me a shout when you think that the references are sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I keep looking at this GAN, and then looking at the list. A suggestion, put the list of rulers into a separate, list class, article and reference to it. You can then work on referencing it at your own speed while leaving the main article in proper GAN shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hey. Sure thing. Any title suggestion? Perhaps "List of Safavid governors and vassals of Georgia"? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That would do. I might be inclined to make it "List of Safavid governors of Safavid Georgia"; it's a bit snappier and only an expert would understand the distinction. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I just don't want people to think I'm claiming figures, who effectively ruled Georgia as Safavid vassals / recognized Safavid overlordship (such as David X of Kartli), as actual "governors" (such as Rostom of Kartli). Given the complexity of this era in Georgian-Iranian history, I think "List of Safavid governors and vassals of Georgia" would be more correct, contextually at least. That does cause a problem, though, and I agree with you on that; it doesn't look neat at all. Ok, lets put it this way; if you believe that it won't cause any issues to the common reader, I'll go with your suggestion ("List of Safavid governors of Safavid Georgia"). Lemme know, and I'll implement it straight away. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Louis, somehow I missed your ping. As is often the case you are trying to balance technical precision - which is rarely simple - against something easily graspable by the average reader. This is an encyclopedia, so we can assume a reasonable level of comprehension as "average". To your original suggestion I said "That would do". Reflecting, I still think that it would, but am still inclined to go for the shorter option: "List of governors of Safavid Georgia". But I don't think that there is a *right* answer. ALT3 "List of rulers of Safavid Georgia"? (A "vassal of Georgia" sounds like a dependency, not a ruler.)

On the basis that you are definitely moving the rulers out of the article I will open an assessment on the GAN and start work. But if the rulers don't go I will have to fail it. Is that ok? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User Frasfras17

Hi, user Frasfras17 is communicating in Arabic with user Ehsan iq who is now blocked here : User:Frasfras17. Ehsan iq vandalized the Iran-Iraq war article by changing the outcome of the war a few weaks ago, therefore he got a block. It seems that Frasfras17, Ehsan iq, Nabataeus and many others are a group of Arab nationalists and are here to massively Arabize Wikipedia articles related to medieval Islam. Of course this would not be the first time ... Please note the repetitive blancking of his talk page after speaking with Ehsan iq ... Farawahar (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

LMFAO, please lessen your obsession with me a little bit, it's not good for your health. Stalking my edits seems like your new full-time job. Anyway, If you bothered to use google translate, which I am sure you did, you would see that the said user is asking for my social media address, since he likes my edits. It is not my fault I have a lot of fans here. Oh, and I blank my talk page regularly regardless of its contents, another fail of Farawahar. Frasfras17 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

first of all, let me thank you warmly for confirming in public that the users blocked for vandalism are “your fans” it shows the quality of your “contributions” on Wikipedia.

Second, you should take a look here, it should be instructive for you ...

Third, if you have anything to add, i would suggest you use my talk page instead of spamming here.

Farawahar (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Mosul (1745)

Do you have any information on this battle? Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 7 goes into some detail concerning Nader's war against the Ottoman Empire. Nothing is mentioned concerning a battle at Mosul in 1745. There is a siege in 1743 in which Nader's forces took heavy losses in a defeat, though. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

And I found no mention of it in The Global Chronology of Conflict, Vol. II either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: We arrived, at last.

Wasn't able to find anything about a military operation in 1745 vis-a-vis Mosul. Tons of books/material out there about the 1743 siege, though. Conclusion; should probably be AFD'd. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, LouisAragon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Replied. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Morteza Mirza Afshar (Nassrollah Mirza)

Care to check the sources for this article? I am finding nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: at last...; source #1 mentions absolutely nothing about this topic/figure. Source #2 does mention Nassrollah several times, but not in relation to the supposed "Battle of Mosul of 1745".

I think it should be rewritten entirely. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Nowruz article

Hello Dear, can you tell me why you reverted my edits in Nowruz article? Serchia (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits weren't neutral, nor was your edit summary congruent with the edits you made. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about these changes?

Your thoughts?[1] The article has become a list of red links and confusing info. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Not sure. Yeah, the red links look annoying and there's some vague info as well. On the other hands, the article is supposed to be a list, so I guess it'll figure itself out in the future. You can either revert him (while assuming WP:GF) or just leave it be. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

any help

Hi. if you wanna any kind of help in editing or contribution in wiki, you can tell me in my page. i have couple years experience in persian wiki. --Dandamayev (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dandamayev: You read and write Persian, right? Could you perhaps find and upload pictures/paintings/etc for our extensive list of individuals within Category:Safavid generals and Category:People of the Safavid Empire? I believe there are way more options to be found if one were to search in Persian rather than English.

If you could do that, that would be great! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I should talk with my friends. it will be long-term process. let me see what i can do for this. thanks. --Dandamayev (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

finding photo/painting is a little hard, because iranian people are less contribute in persian wiki and they uploaded few picture at all. i will be long term process, you should wait for it. --Dandamayev (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, keep me up to date! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Western Asia

The False States listed all have one State that does not Recognize them, therefore, they should be Separated. 70.29.115.79 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:DUE, WP:POV and WP:TENDENTIOUS. One country not recognizing Armenia or a few not recognizing Israel means absolute jack. The utter vast majority of the world does recognize them as sovereign states. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, etc. on the other hand, remain unrecognized by the vast majority of the world. Putting Armenia and Israel in the same boat as South Ossetia/North Cyprus etc is nothing but disruptive editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

New sources

Just saw you have added two Iranica articles to Scythian languages and Massagetae. It would be good if you use their content for expanding both articles. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I definitely will when time allows! How you doing btw? Feels as if we didn't talk properly for quite some time. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm good, thanks. And you? Well, I think I should send you more links to the articles which need improvement. Interested? --Wario-Man (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:

- Aight, good to hear :) Yeah same, just extremely busyyy.

- Yeah sure, go ahead! I will add them to my watchlist. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Sasanian Empire Navbox

Hi. I have created this navbox: Template:Sasanian Empire Feel free to improve it. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Another thing. This is ...th time this user changes Iranian origin of an ancient group.[2] The cited source clearly says "an east Iranian tribe established".[3] As I remember, he did similar edits on Massagetae too. He's an admin. A pov-pusher (or careless) admin is the new to me. --Wario-Man (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

- Good job! Another proper template!

- Wow, thats weird indeed. Looks like a blunt removal of well sourced content. He should bring his concerns to the talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Look at this and this one. Last thing: I will create two other navboxes: Achaemenids and Safavids since they have enough entries and they were important dynasties too. --Wario-Man (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you remove Brenda Shaffer's ridiculous claims?

Salam dadash. Azerbaijanis & Iranian Azerbaijanis data is wrong. Brenda Shaffer is a paid author and her works are not legit. For instance she claims Mashhad has a large Turkmen population and the protests in Karaj is result of Azeri! Read the linked thread please. You and other wikipedia members should not promote her and her works. mer30 & khodafez. 94.176.82.251 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment

Hey, thanks for reply. I have started a new section. Would you please comment there too? Talk:Scythians#New_lead_section --Wario-Man (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Shams al-Din Isfahani

I did a minor bit of copy-editing. You might check it and see what you think. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Looks good, thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

some help

Hi. do you desire to extend Mohsen Amiraslani with international news agency websites ? --Dandamayev (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Karnal and Nader's invasion of the Mughal Empire

Hi, you reverted my erroneous edits of the above articles and i thank you for that. Actually, i've read the rest of the sources i cited, but i wanted to add content without OR, that's why i decided to rewrite what the source stated without any additional interpretation of it and clearly, i was wrong doing so. Thank you again for your help. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: You're welcome, but its not your fault; Iranica just did a horrible job at explaining what happened in detail. When I read that Iranica article myself long ago, I got confused as well. Axworthy, a specialist on Nader Shah, gives a much better and more thorough explanation regarding the matter. When in doubt, its better to consult his sources.
I noticed many of your edits throughout Wiki btw; keep up the good work! - LouisAragon (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice about Axworthy, i'll remember it. As to your nice comment about my contributions, coming from a veteran user, i really appreciate it. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Shahnameh

Hi Louis, what's your opinion about this edit : [4] ? Thank you for your valuable time. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Odd. I don't get why this article needs to be an exception when there are literally thousands of articles (i.e. Russian, Byzantine, German, etc.) where foreign sources/further reading links/etc. are added. WP:GF assumed, but looks rather WP:POINTy to me. Now if he wanted to remove the links on the basis that not every "random" title/link about the topic should be added, I would have concured. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this is also what i thought, but i wanted to have a reliable third party opinion. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just reinstated his edit. Turns out those titles were added to numerous articles by a single purpose account. Promotional effort. But the argument that they should be removed because "they aren't written in English" is incorrect (WP:FURTHER). - LouisAragon (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. But since i endorse your edit, i don't think that we have an edit conflict here. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Safavid Georgia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Safavid Georgia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Safavid Georgia

The article Safavid Georgia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Safavid Georgia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Louis. Any idea when you will be able to start addressing my queries on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: This coming Tuesday/Wednesday, in all likelihood (unfortunately busy af). Is that ok with you? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LouisAragon. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, no. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Seleucus Nicator

Louis, on what basis did you think it a good idea to change the article on Seleucus Nicator as you did? Previously there was

"and established the Seleucid Empire in the eastern regions conquered by Alexander, including modern-day Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. "

And somehow you thought better to revert to

"over much of the territory in the Near East which Alexander had conquered."

Very odd. The whole point of my edit was that using the term "Near East" is completely misleading here, and glosses over the fact that the Macedonian conquests extended far beyond what we would call the "Near East". Do you dispute that the Seleucid Empire incorporated territories that are now to be found in modern day Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan? What were you thinking of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hconscious (talk • contribs) 12:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I believe its kinda WP:UNDUE weight for that article. The Seleucids lost control over South/Central Asia very quickly. The core of the empire, i.e. the territory it ruled for most of its existence, was the Near East (Syria/Iran/Iraq/Turkey). We define the Roman Empire (a GA-class article) the same way; an empire which ruled large amounts of territory around the Mediterranean Sea. Regardless of brief and short-lived conquests outside of that region. So mentioning it as "and established the Seleucid Empire in the eastern regions conquered by Alexander, including modern-day Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.", makes it sound as if "Afghanistan and Pakistan" were also core regions of the empire, which is verifiably wrong.

Furthermore, the maximum extent of the Seleucids is already mentioned on the Seleucid Empire article.

Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Care to take a look?

https://rg.ru/2009/02/09/migrant.html

Used as a source here. What is odd, I am not seeing 1.5 million Muslims anywhere. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: They used the specific Russian word "полтора" (i.e. poltora), which literally translates as "1,5". So yeah it does say 1,5 million. Dat edit summary tho... - LouisAragon (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

So it does say 1.5 Muslims? As for the edit summary, what do you expect from some insecure IP? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Nope, not a word about Muslims in the entire article. The 1.5 million is in reference to foreign/guest workers, but the article doesn't mention a word about ethnicity/religion, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Aksai Chin

Hi LouisAragon, somebody added apparently Persian sources to the Aksai Chin article. Can you check if they are sound? It would also be useful if you can give an English translation of the titles and publishers. Thanks, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Hey, hope everything's going well. Unfortunately, I don't read Persian; perhaps Wikaviani and/or Rye-96 could help you out. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, i just reverted the edit. The first source was a panislamic organisation and the second ... a forum in Persian ! Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. What Wikaviani said.
Since 2013, some user on the Persian Wikipedia has renamed the Persian article with a spelling that would recommend that etymology, using a poem by Nezami (ز هندوستان شد به تبت زمین؛ ز تبت درآمد به اقصای چین, "From India, he [Alexander] went to Tibet; from Tibet, he entered further China [aqsā-ye Čin]") as his source to claim that Aksai Chin is a Persian term. But I couldn't find anything (else?) to support that.
—Rye-96 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah Rye-96, let alone the fact that the "sources" he quoted in the article are completely unreliables, not sure why he did so, mani parsa is an experienced user with more than 6500 edits and who joined 14 years ago ... Best Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Agree
—Rye-96 (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sock on Regions of Europe

Thanks Louis, keep up all your good efforts across the site. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Edin Balgarin: You're welcome! Too many "people" who import their IRL grievances into this place. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

CU or not

Hello Louis. I think your wording here might be too enthusiastic, calling it a CU blocked sock. I issued the block per an SPI complaint (based on behavior + a possilikely) and I'm not a checkuser. If it's a real checkuser block it will say so in the block notice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, will adjust it. Was in a hurry. Thanks for letting me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I notice you added some more information to the Satt 2 sock case. Thank you. It turns out that User:Studiawschodnie has been globally locked by User:Ruslik0 per this edit at meta but I haven't found out what the behavior was. The block reason given was 'Cross wiki abuse'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you read this?

Persian wars of Constantius II.

If you are interested see here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Old news

I'm puzzled by this edit--that information is not in the source, and even if it were, such a broad statement needs much stronger verification than that. Fortunately the text is no longer in the article. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Review guidelines of Steward of Wikipedia

You literally accused me of pushing narratives when I was acting as a steward by fixing misquotes on a page. now you erase any mention of your past Negative actions on your Page. This is highly unethical. You should at least keep it and learn to have a discussion. Not ignore people that you consistently accuse and abuse since my first interaction with you. Jamaas9 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. You made the first change.[5] I reverted you,[6] but you simply reinstated your own edit.[7] When I reverted you again,[8] you simply reinstated it again.[9] That's textbook edit-warring on your part, regardless of whether its on a talk page or not. When someone reverts you, the general rule is to "explain" your edit and to stop reverting. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I am also referencing the Rumi talk page. You need to monitor what you say and how you speak to other editors especially as they are uncovering severe violations such as a misquote that Significantly alter the meaning the message for a specific benefit while hurting others (who happen to have documented abuse. I am not writing great wrongs by uncovering how these biases impact this website as that page discusses changing Wikipedia to serve a social function IRL. I just want it to say the truth and be factual as it directly benefits Wikipedia and this entire project. In the same vein, very biased or incorrect articles ultimately damage this website’s credability and trust. It’s about making sure this website is a good resource and is factual. My post history indicates that as I have no issue changing articles even if it “hurts my people or makes our history seem less important” such as removing famous scholars who are sometimes mistakenly considered one of my people. Two very different things. This website isn’t a tool for either perpetuation or directly fixing great wrongs. If the truth happens to help an oppressed group — good, it’s the truth! Ideally, that’s what is suppose to happen with advanced societies with an educated population. )

Ultimately, incorrect or incorrectly cited information damages tha the credibility of the entire website, including every editor. Furthermore, attacking someone for reporting and trying to fix those mistakes is a severe violation of several policies at Wikipedia. I advise you to apologize if you make that mistake again, as it was duly noted on my part and you failed to even acknowledge your mistake (which would have been the most appropriate way to respond to maintain a positive working relationship). Later, you stated several things such as my actions are “nuts” while stating clear opinions as facts (Afghanistan is a both a majority Pashtun country and a Pashtun concept). Basic understanding of the country (like the fact that the Lingua Franca is notPashto but Persian makes your claims appear very weak and also ultimately promoting a very specific POV which is not our role. We write neutrally, source information, and ensure our sources are accurate, reliable, and referenced correctly. Thanks and kind regards.

Jamaas9 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies to all Persians.  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Buaidh: Lel, no worries mate. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Safavid Georgia

The article Safavid Georgia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Safavid Georgia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Maria and Bogdan Kalinowski

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Oh, you're right. Damn, seems I went through it a bit too fast. Thanks. Do I need to review another one now? Cause I already added that article as "reviewed by me" to my own DYK. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess not. Plenty of QPQs are pulled and re-reviewed by someone else. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Aight. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Joohnny braavoo1's leftovers

I removed some of his leftovers from List of Turkic dynasties and countries. Could you take a look at that article? It's still a mess. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Iranian languages

Mr. LouisAragon, Thanks for your massage. You wrote me: "The edit you made to Iranian languages, did not appear constructive and has been reverted." I added the first paragraph of "New Iranian Languages: Overview" (By Gernot L. Windfuhr). It is the first article of the Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum (Second part: New Iranian Languages). It is the best description of New Iranian Languages. I can't understand why it has been reverted!

I also added and edited some of the Tatic words. Tatic words of that table published 2 years ago on the Persian Wikipedia (On the page of زبان‌های ایرانی). Then they all copied to Eng Wikipedia from Persian wikipedia. Some days ago I added some new Tatic words on the Eng Wikipedia (Firstly new Tatic words published on the Persian Wiki). Source of the new Tatic words is "From Astara to Fuman: Comparison words from dialects of different languages Talysh and Tatic (A book by Zia Toroghdar)" which published 7 months ago in Rasht. --Mohammad.MSV (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your message Mohammad.MSV. I reverted you primarily for the Windfuhr material;
1) You didn't add a page number 2) You didn't use an edit summary 3) the source, though of course reliable, is pretty outdated IMHO; some 30 years have passed, which in the field of linguistics, is a long time. Especially in this modern-day world 4) much of the information you added is irrelevant to the lede. The led already lists the major Iranian languages while the infobox lists the regions they're native to.

Regarding the Tatic words; you're free to re-add them. My main concern was the lede/the Windfuhr addition. Please don't forget to cite Toroghdar's book to the article when you're going to re-add the Tatic words. You can add it at the bottom of the page, in the "bibliography" section). Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very thankful for your guidance. You tought me a lot, especially about old linguistic references. I re-added Tatic words with Toroghdar's book in the bibliography. Thanks. Mohammad.MSV (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello (about Achaemenid)

I did a study on Wikipedia and found out that the Georgian Bagrationi dynasty is a descendant of the Achaemenids. Achaemenids fled to the Pontic Kingdom (Mithridatic dynasty). After Mithridates VI, the descendants of the Achaemenids reigned in the Bosporus. Nana of Iberia is the daughter of the last king of this dynasty Tiberius Julius Theothors. All Chosroids are descendants of Nana and hence Achaemenid, respectively. The younger branch of Chosorids - Guaramids is ancestral to Bagrationi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.85.55 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@91.246.85.55: Thanks for your comment. There's definitely one thing you're right about, and that is that the Bagratid dynasty (both the Georgian and Armenian ones) were indeed of ultimate Iranian origin. The Bagratids descended from the Orontids, whom themselves were of Iranian, possibly Achaemenid, origin.

• "BAGRATIDS, possibly the most important princely dynasty of Caucasia (Bagratuni in Armenia, Bagrationi in Georgia), attaining to the kingly status in the ninth century and retaining it in Georgia to the nineteenth. Like the House of Artsruni they were an offshoot of the Orontids, Achaemenian satraps and, later, kings of Armenia (ca. 400-ca. 200 B.C.) (...)" -- Toumanoff, C. (1988). "BAGRATIDS" Encyclopedia Iranica. Vol. III, Fasc. 4, pp. 419-422
• "Tigran (Tigranes) II was the most distinguished member of the so-called Artašēsid/Artaxiad dynasty, which has now been identified as a branch of the earlier Eruandid dynasty of Iranian origin attested as ruling in Armenia from at least the 5th century B.C.E" -- Garsoian, N. (2005). "TIGRAN II". Encyclopaedia Iranica.
• "(...) Except for the occasional princes imposed by the Romans, none of whom succeeded in consolidating himself on the throne, all the dynasties to rule pre-Islamic Armenia were of Iranian stock." -- Garsoian, Nina (2004). "ARMENO-IRANIAN RELATIONS in the pre-Islamic period". Encyclopaedia Iranica.
• "The eponym's praeonemen Orontes is as Iranian as the dynasty itself, derived from the Avestan auraund/aurvant ('mighty,' 'hero') and related to the Pehlevi arvand." -- Cyril Toumanoff (Georgetown University Press, 1963; Studies in Christian Caucasian History, part III. The Orontids of Armenia. ). p. 278
• "The eponym's praeonemen Orontes is as Iranian as the dynasty itself, derived from the Avestan auraund/aurvant ('mighty,' 'hero') and related to the Pehlevi arvand." -- Toumanoff, Cyril (1959). "INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN CAUCASIAN HISTORY (The Formative Centuries (IVth-VIIIth))". 15: 27.
• "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin, originally administered the territory as satraps and later as independent kings." -- Allsen, Thomas T. (2011). The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812201079. p. 37.;
• "The Commagene kings claimed to be descended from the Orontids, a powerful Iranian family that had ruled the area during the Achaemenid period. They were related to the Achaemenids who had built a kingdom (...)" -- Sartre, Maurice (2005). The Middle East Under Rome. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674016835. p. 23
• ""Iranian culture deeply influenced Armenia, and Iranian dynasties ruled Armenia during several important periods, including the Orontids (c. sixth century – c. early second century BCE) and Arsacids (54–428 CE)." -- Babaie, Sussan.; Grigor, Talinn. Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis. (2015). I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1848857513. p. 80

Quite a few of these articles within this scope (i.e. Achaemenid/Armenian/Georgian) are still quite a mess and haven't received a proper expansion since they were created on Wikipedia many years ago.

Having said all that, there were a few important issues regarding your edit, hence I had to revert it. First of all, the content you added was unsourced. Wikipedia is written by using reliable sources. Especially with the standards we adhere to anno 2018. Secondly, the Orontid dynasty, the Bagrationi dynasty, and the Bagratuni dynasty contain little to no information about their established Iranian origins. So it'd have to get fixed/added on those articles first. Second, there's some controversy regarding the "Iranianness" of the Orontids. Yeah, they were of Iranian origins, but sources are somewhat indecisive as to whether they were of plain Iranian origin or of Achaemenid Iranian origin. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not referring to orontids, I mean they did not know. Just Bagratids come from guaramids that are descendants of chosroids that are descendants of the Bosporan kings who are descendants of the kings of Pontus, who definitely are descendants of the Achaemenids.

Your GA nomination of Sceriman family

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sceriman family you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KAVEBEAR -- KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sceriman family

The article Sceriman family you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sceriman family for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KAVEBEAR -- KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Safavid Georgia

On 24 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Safavid Georgia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to a 17th-century missionary in Safavid Georgia, the literate Georgians in the province preferred to read Georgian versions of Persian works rather than religious texts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Safavid Georgia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Safavid Georgia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Casliber 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Timur

I didn't change the short description - I imported it as it was from Wikidata. Feel free to correct it if you think there's an error. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about this?

@HistoryofIran, Kansas Bear, and Wikaviani:

• [10], [11], [12]
• [13], [14] --Wario-Man (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, sounds like POV editing to me. As far i can see this user edited the article quite significantly without providing a single source. Also, his rationale about the Persian language in Balkh during the first century CE is quite strange. He claims that the language of the city was Bactrian while it was at that time under Parthian rule (Persian was one of the languages of the Parthian empire, not Bactrian). Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Those diffs are just the tip of the iceberg, as we both know. He's a long-term WP:NOTHERE "editor" who has managed to evade proper scrutiny due to making few edits with irregular time intervals on low-profile topics. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion

Hello LouisAragon, I have a question: If I do nominate an image for deletion, users can undo my nomination's tag after 1 day? Please check it: "1" and "2". Linguistically, I blieve it is a misleading map with a lot of errors. It is the first time that I see a map shows 3 different Iranian languages as 1 language. For example, Izady's maps (Gulf 2000 Project of Columbia university) are reliable, but they aren't free to uploading on Wiki: "Iranian langaues". According to Izady's map, Tati language of Iran and Tat language of Caucasus are 2 different Iranian languages (You know about Iranian languages better than me). Please guide me. Thank you so much. Mohammad.MSV (talk) 13:32, 03 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mohammad.MSV Thanks for your message. Yes, those languages belong to different sub-branches within the Iranian language group. I believe having a map showing only Tati and Tati would be beneficial to the project, as people often confuse them. However, it should be made clear that they are really different languages located in different areas of Western Asia/Caucasus. Regarding the revert itself; it seems you were reverted by two IP's operated by one person (they both geolocate to the same spot in Iran and are within the exame same IP range[15]-[16]). Not sure why, but it seems as if he wants to prevent you from deleting it. You are obviously entitled to re-list it for deletion, as the IP is just being plain disruptive. If he returns, simply open a talk page section at the Admin noticeboard of Commons. They'll deal with him.

Having said that, based on my experience, it can be pretty difficult to delete images on Commons, regardless of how verifiably wrong the image in question may or may not be. If nominating for deletion doesn't happen to work out, you'd be better off, 1) either fixing the map yourself, i.e. upload a new version on the same file, guys at the Graphics Lab can help you 2) or upload a new correct map as different file. Btw, regarding Izady; though he has the right credentials, quite a few people refrain from using his sources as he isn't considered to be neutral regarding many key topics of the region. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am thankful to you . Your guidance helps me a lot. I nominated map for deletion for the second time. If you agree with me, your comment can help my request. Thanks agian. Mohammad.MSV (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Iase Tushi

On 9 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iase Tushi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Samec'niero, written by Iase Tushi, contains one of earliest examples of a Georgian–Persian dictionary, and is the earliest Georgian manuscript so far discovered in Iran? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iase Tushi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Iase Tushi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Badr Shirvani

On 13 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Badr Shirvani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Badr Shirvani, a Persian poet from Shirvan in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan, received patronage from numerous rulers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Badr Shirvani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Badr Shirvani), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job with Badr Shirvani! Very interesting article. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@MX: Thanks! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple of questions

Hi, LouisAragon. I've got a couple of questions based on your question on imam Shamil's page:

"Thanks IP. ArseneKoumyk; GF assumed; are you seriously using 19th century (i.e. non-RS) soruces in order claim famous non-Kumyk figures as Kumyks? His Avar origin is well established, per the reliable sources.)"

The questions are not about the article about Shamil, but rather general:

1) russian wiki uses non-RS and contemporary with events and personalities sources, uses widely. what's the rule on the English wikipedia? are contemporary factual resources not allowed at all? are there some precisely describing the matter precedents and instructions.

2) related question: as you see I preferred to add contemporary source first and only after your remark I used modern researches. should it be always a research? can it be a supporting research in addition to a contemporaty source?

thanks in advance --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arsenekoumyk:

Thanks for your message. I'm aware of the large-scale RS issues on the Russian wiki. I'm not sure to what degree their guidelines and accepted "standards" differ from the ones on Eng.Wiki, but you can use contemporary sources here as well. However, one needs to bear in mind that they need to be attributed appropriately, and they are always inferior to modern-day scholarly sources. Gazikumukhs/Shamil are topics in Caucasian history, so scholars with credentials in Islamic/Iranian/Russian/Caucasian studies would fit. Post-WWII/1960s sources are generally considered to be "modern" sources. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Btw, related to the same topic; I noticed you have a tendency to use questionable Russian-language sources which mention stuff that isn't covered anywhere in English language sources. For example, I wasn't able to find any source in English mentioning Shamil as Kumyk or being of Kumyk descent. The overwhelming number of reliable English-language sources simply consider him to be an Avar;

• "Another role model, Imam Shamil (1797-1871), an Avar politician and religious leader of the Muslim tribes of the Northern Caucasus (...)" -- Ahmed Akbar (2007) Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization p. 283
• "(...) in 1834, Imam Shamil, an Avar Muslim leader, declared independence (...)" -- Olson, et al. (1994) Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires p. 58

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon, thanks for the reply!

first point. Shamil was definitely Avar in perspective, although nothing is known about his self-identity: most heroes of the Caucasian War considered and posed as being beyond ethnicity in order to unite all the Muslims of the region. the fact stated is about his ancestry, like great-grandfather or a step further. he knew perfectly both languages as well as his kids as Kumyk was a lingua-franca in Dagestan, nevertheless, no doubt he was Avar from our point of view, being born and grown in Avar communities.

secondly regarding "questionable Russian-language sources". I strongly believe that in "near-Russian" and if may be said so "CIS" topics Russian historiography is much stronger, most sources are in Russian, Persian, Turkic, Arabic, Armenian, Georgian, and Russian scholars were the best in analyzing all those together. I also believe that methodology of Russian historical science is stronger in general, even though Western scientific approach is better in presenting the material. And to be more precise, majority of English language sources related to, for example, Caucasian War, are just trimmed "copy-pastes" or best case extractions (compilations without profound research) from some popular Russian sources that somehow dragged attention. Here are examples related to just this topic:

Caucasian War and Imamate of Shamil. by Pokrovskiy — the best piece on the Caucasian War, not available in English

Diary of Colonel Runovsky, who was a bailiff at Shamil during his stay in Kaluga from 1859 to 1862, not available in English

Also there are a great layer of Caucasian researches based on Vladikavkaz, Nalchik and Dagestan state archives, and thousands of 19th century documents from the same archives, which contain all the actual information and which, I presume, never will be available in English, and upon which all those Russian "quesionable sourcers" are based. In conclusion, I'd say that any English language sources are only a 0.1% of the actual info and studies, containing only major and popular facts.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

a few more facts present only in Russian language that can widen your perception:

• personal guard of Shamil (murtaziqat) almost entirely consisted of Kumyks
• vice-imam (deputy Imam) was Kumyk

second pretender on Imam's post Tashew-hajji who lost the election by 1 vote, mudir of Shamil (manager of naibs) was Kumyk

Dagestanian mounted devision who was the best in fighting Shamil almost entirely consisted of Avars due to despotic and harsh policies of his (in Runovsky's diary the words of Shamil himself about him killing lots of mountaineers (Chechen and Avar mostly) for "bad character" are given.)

Many Cossacks fought with Shamil againsts tsar, not for tsar.

Shamhal's militia (Russia's ally) too was 3/4 Avar, but never actually gathered in entirety to fight Shamil.

There were 3 rebellions in Shamkhalate to support Shamil (usually Shamkhalate presented as Shamil's enemy.

So, the topic is incredibly deeper, intricate and much more complicated than it's ever be present in English language. Only if you don't translate all related to it, of course :). From my personal view, Shamil (be he of any ancestry and of any ethnicity) made Caucasus completely lost to Russia after 300 years of resistance (since successful for Caucasus Surkhai and Soltan-Mahmud wars against Russia), led to 60-70% decrease in population due to death and muhajeership, i.e. demographical catastrophe which couldn't ever be restored, and he strengthened sufism which decelerated educational development of the region. from the other view of mine also, he planted a new strong seed of resistance which hasn't died yet. so even his personality and heritage is ambiguous. --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arsenekoumyk: With all due respect, but you're getting off-topic and tl;dr-ish. Go with what the reliable sources state. What are the precise credentials of the authors you added? This is Eng.Wiki. If the claim can't be supported by English language sources, and only by Russian language sources, you know something's wrong. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon it's directly on-topic 200%, answering your questions, I see now your position as a wikipedia editor is biased and you accept only superficial and narrow view. OK then, I don't mind you wishisg people to know only 0.1% of the topic though please direct me to the rules which forbid using solid non-english sources. --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Arsenekoumyk: I should've been more clear. You're obviously allowed to use non-English sources. Its just that English sources are preferred. Just make sure that they are up to date and RS.
PS: I'm well aware of the fact that there are still tons of sources in Russian, Persian, Turkic, Arabic dealing with Caucasus history and peoples, which still haven't been translated/edited into English. However, times are changing. For example, peer-reviewed journal Iran and the Caucasus (published by BRILL) has published many of these Persian/Russian/Arabic sources into English, with attribution from modern-day scholars.[17]-[18] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

LouisAragon great then, hope the caucasian archives are also digitized some day and are accessible from anywhere. thanks for the help.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Arsenekoumyk: You're welcome. Thanks to always helpful colleagues at WP:REX, I recently got a number of these issues (Iran and the Caucasus) in my possession, including one that deals with a report of various Daghestani leaders in which they pledge support to crown prince Abbas Mirza.[19] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Juhurim

Your rationale for deletion there was accurate but the material was valuable. If you get a chance, could you try to find RS that support it? I will post any I find too. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked user's leftovers

• Freedom Wolfs (talk · contribs)

Too many infected articles; false etymology and other disruptive changes. Have time for them? --Wario-Man (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah, unfortunately, there are many leftovers. I'll get to it later. Thanks for remembering me. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Arabic language in Iran in the history

Hello LouisAragon,

You deleted in the article: "List of countries where Arabic is an official language" this passage:

"In the history, Arabic was the official language (in the territory which form nowadays the state of Iran) during the time when this region was a part of the Umayyad Caliphate between 661 and 750 and later when it belonged to the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) until the rule of Ya'qub ibn al-Layth (the founder of the Saffarid dynasty (861–1003)). Ya'qub (840–879) replaced the Arabic language and introduced the Persian language as the official language of the new founded Saffarid Empire."

and you wrote: "Rv epic POV pushing, trying to present Arabic as the "original" language of Iran that was removed after Persian was "introduced"."

First of all, I did not - try to present Arabic as the "original" language of Iran that was removed after Persian was "introduced".

I think I did an accidentally mistake in this passage and I am sorry for my mistake.

Secondly, the first sentence of this passage is correct: "In the history, Arabic was the official language (in the territory which form nowadays the state of Iran) during the time when this region was a part of the Umayyad Caliphate between 661 and 750 and later when it belonged to the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) until the rule of Ya'qub ibn al-Layth (the founder of the Saffarid dynasty (861–1003))."

I think you agree that this sentence is right.

I see that I did a mistake in the next sentence: "Ya'qub (840–879) replaced the Arabic language and introduced the Persian language as the official language of the new founded Saffarid Empire."

In fact, Ya'qub replaced the Arabic language as an official language in this region.

The mistake was in the second part of this sentence:

"and introduced the Persian language as the official language of the new founded Saffarid Empire."

I think my mistake was that I used the word "introduced". Ya'qub didn`t introduced the Persian language in this region. The Persian language was spoken in this region for centuries before the birth of Ya'qub. However, Ya'qub gave the Persian language the status of an official language in the new founded Saffarid Empire. That`s why I wrote: "He introduced the Persian language as the official language ..."

Maybe it is more accurate to write:

"Ya'qub (840–879) replaced the Arabic language and reintroduced the Persian language as the official language of the new founded Saffarid Empire after the Persian language was replaced by Arabic under the rule of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan."

What is your opinion concerning this matter?

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your constructive and useful contribution to this encyclopedia. You're a precious editor. i learned a lot from you and this is a mark of my gratitude. Thanks. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Thank you! Much appreciated. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Check this out

Professor Valdimir Dmitriev. Luckily for you most of his works are in Russian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Wowie, thanks! - LouisAragon (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Mustafa khan of Shirvan

Hi, may you please elaborate that, umm, how a khan of a khanate who ruled for 28 years is not a royalty? As for sources, this article was going to be edited further and I was going to add several sources - most importantly Adolf Berge's "Acts collected by the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission" (http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/1754-akty-sobrannye-kavkazskoy-arheograficheskoy-komissiey-v-12-ti-t-tiflis-1866-1904).Cavidaga (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cavidaga:

• "...how a khan of a khanate who ruled for 28 years is not a royalty?"

Unsourced WP:OR.

• "most importantly Adolf Berge's (...)"

Outdated / non-RS, like the two other references you added to the article.

- LouisAragon (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You mean Mustafa khan's rule in Shirvan Khanate is doubtful? And about non-reliableness of Berge, you realize "Acts, collected by the Archaeographical Commission at the Directorate of the Viceroy of the Caucasus" is canonical, 10 volume archive documents right? (2 volumes added later) So books in Azerbaijani and Russian do not count as references?Cavidaga (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "You mean Mustafa khan's rule in Shirvan Khanate is doubtful" That's not what LouisAragon said. as to the reliability of your source, please check this.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood me. The fact that he held sway as Khan of Shirvan doesn't make him a "royal". I know its common practise in non-RS sources that deal with the Caucasus to elevate local rulers and governors to near-imperial level, but this is incorrect as none of the actual reliable sources mention this.

• "(...) is canonical, 10 volume archive documents right?"

It doesn't matter whether Berge's archive documents consitute 10 or 10.000 volumes; its severely outdated, and thus non-RS, and thus against policy.

• "So books in Azerbaijani and Russian do not count as references?"

Azerbaijani and Tsarist/Soviet Russian sources are mostly packed with agenda-loaded propaganda, refuted/debunked by leading scholars in the West. Here's an example.[20] The same thing goes for many Armenian and Georgian sources of the Soviet era. They should all be avoided.

- LouisAragon (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: thanks for clarification. But most reliable work on Shirvan Khanate is now Naila Bayramova's "Şamaxı xanlığı" (2009) and Babakhan Niyazli's "Şamaxı xanlığı" (2014). These are not translated to English yet and only available in Azerbaijani, as it mainly concerns Azerbaijanis and there is lack of interest in Shirvan Khanate era in Western historiography. They are neither Soviet era books. What should I do then, only keep English ones? And free of agenda since propaganda only occurs in Azerbaijan if it has something to do with Armenian history - and Shirvan Khanate doesn't really touch that period.

Azerbaijani state propaganda doesn't only target Armenia. It concerns Iran just as much, if not more. Armenia's issue with Azerbaijan stems from the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, but Iran's beef with Azerbaijan, concerns the entire country, as Azerbaijan was part of Iran until the 19th century. How come all Iranian figures born in what is present-day Azerbaijani soil are still dubbed as "Azerbaijani" by Azerbaijani sources? How come Azerbaijani sources still nullify and deny Azerbaijans massive historic/cultural/ethnic ties with Iran? And yes, this includes modern-day (i.e. post-Soviet) sources. The Shirvan Khanate is indeed mostly unrelated to Armenian history, but it is very much part of Iranian history. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and there is a modern major work in English about the Shirvan Khanate, by a renowned historian who specializes in Caucasus/Iranian history;

• Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust. ISBN 978-1909724808
  

I have it in my possession. I will use it later to expand more articles related to the khanate. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Petty feelings like nationalism is not really my concern here. But I can explain it to you why people do that way - because we denote ethnicity, rather than being subject of some other country. Take Mustafa khan, who responded Fatali Shah's demand of submission telling his emissary "Tell your master that I also have a shah's feather." (In Russian: Скажи своему господину, что шахское перо есть и у меня [21]). It's true that Azerbaijani official historiography largely avoids Iranian cultural relationship, but it's also true that Iran was never a Western style nation-state. It was a feudal state ruled by a monarch who supported by and appointed bunch of petty khans and tribal leaders. You can call an ethnic Basque a Spanish, but you can't call a 1768 born guy "a Iranian". Azerbaijani language is different than Persian language, Azerbaijani state is independent state. Khanates had official status' in both Russian and Afsharid/Successive dynasties. They were ultimate power in their respective domains as petty landlords. That's why we talk about Nader Shah's assassination when we begin history of khanates. No any Azerbaijani source denies when these khans submitted to shahs or tzars. However this freedom of changing allegiance to whomever they want denote there was some sort of local suzerainty. I understand if you have any type of nationalism, but you should not let it touch Wiki. Cavidaga (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Every single article I have written is based on reliable sources. You should do so as well. Yet here you are, trying to defend 19th-century sources / Azerbaijani propaganda references, and inventing more self-interpreted WP:OR. Use proper sources, and nobody will object. Its really simple. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Sea#Historical names and etymology

Hi Louis, I noticed some apparently unreferenced statements and I've marked them with {{citation needed}} templates. Feel free to remove these if necessary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 22:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijani subjects

Hello LouisAragon, I had hoped that you might be able to shed some light on a series of articles about Azerbaijani subjects that I'm trying to review when I noticed above that you have already engaged with their author. I have number of concerns about their contributions. Do you think you might be able to assist in a WP:NPP-style review? Thanks, --Vexations (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: Sure, I'd be glad to help. Go ahead :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The specific article I have concerns about is Javad khan Shirvanski, but the same author also created Hasan Beg Rumlu, Juerbiesu and Bars Bek. There's quite a bit of material that looks unsourced to me. Can it be supported by the existing sources? Vexations (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vexations: Yeah I'm aware of the WP:RS / WP:VER issues in relation to some of his articles, including Javad Khan Shirvanski, which relies basically entirely on 19th century sources (i.e. outdated) and non-RS links. I rewrote Hasan Beg Rumlu just a few days ago, but there are more problematic ones out there. Juerbiesu is indeed a big no-no as well.
There are good English sources available that deal with Javad Khan of Shirvan (i.e. Javad Khan Shirvanski), but some of the additional material can probably only be found in Russian sources, as usual with 19th century figures who served in the Russian ranks. I might rewrite it myself later on. Thank you for being attentive. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi my friend!

Everything l wrote is correct according to many sources, why are you reverting it back all the time, l am an assyrian historian and feel insulted by you doing this!

I want to discuss this with you here?

Update: I have sources now that says what l wrote and edited there, check them out:)

//Nemrud91

Merge "Assyria" with "assyrian homeland"

Hi louisaragon, l want your support to merge assyria with assyrian homeland because as l am assyrian l just dont understand why there is two assyria? There should be one, and assyrian homeland is assyria, also, if we would get autonomy or country in the future then assyrian homeland would be rewritten as our country, that is also one of the reasons l want assyrias history to be rewritten with assyrian homeland, assyria article should be removed.

What do you think about this suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSITES

Look at this main archive and how he used an old revision of a WP article for his agenda. Of course that old revision is his own product (sockpuppet Radosfrester).[22] The other involved accounts seem his sockpuppets on that forum. Just changed writing style and tone. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah. PS: That forum seems to be a hub for all kinds of wackos. No police, no referees, no judges; free play basically. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Map of the Achaemenid Empire

The map you removed [23].

The same map reworked to match the Oxford Atlas of World History 2002 p.42 (West portion) and p.43 (East portion), Philip's Atlas of World History (1999) and The Times Atlas of World History, p.79 (1989)

Hi LouisAragon. I am no mapmaker, but I can Photoshop (a bit) an existing map. Let me also say I have no special interest in the Achaemenids, only a marginal historical curiosity. As a Wikipedian, I am a bit puzzled that no established map on the Achaemenid Empire seems to exist in this Encyclopedia yet.
I saw you removed an apparently nice map from the Achaemenid Empire article [24], with the following Edit summary: "Remv incorrect map; 1) Crete was never part of the empire 2) Macedon is omitted 3) easternmost border is incorrect 4) northern Black Sea is omitted".
I decided to check, and I found a reputable source that anyone can also check on the Internet: it is the 2002 Oxford Atlas of World History p.42 (West portion of the Achaemenid Empire) and p.43 (East portion). A similar map is also available at Philip's Atlas of World History (1999). I also checked The Times Atlas of World History, p.79 (1989), which is not visible on Internet, but I found was essentially identical to the Oxford map regarding the maximum extent of the Empire.
Comparing these Atlases to the map you removed, my findings are:

• The conquests in North Africa are larger than what the previous map showed.
• You're right on Crete, so I colored it out of the Achaemenid Empire.
• The eastern border was a bit fuzzy, so I followed the Atlases exactly in marking clearly the Jhelum river and the Indus as the eastern boundary of the Achaemenid Empire (The Times Atlas of World History actually goes a bit beyond to the Chenab river).
• The previous map was precisely OK regarding the extent of Achaemenid territory into Macedon.
• The Atlases do not mention any Achaemenid territories on the "northern Black Sea".
• I discovered (to my surprise) that, according to the Atlases, Achaemenid territory did not quite reach the Aral sea, so I removed that portion.
• I added a few important names which were in the Atlases but not in the original map.
  

I'll put the new map in, and reference it clearly to the above Atlases, with working links so that anybody can check, anytime... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• "I am a bit puzzled that no established map on the Achaemenid Empire seems to exist in this Encyclopedia yet"

There is. Its this map, created in 2015, based on numerous WP:RS sources and maps, after a lengthy discussion.

I just mentioned a few of the fallacies in relation to that map. There's a whole lot more left to say. Paeonia (kingdom) was also omitted, for example. The Achaemenids never held that amount of territory in the east. The vast majority WP:RS sources make this clear. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The map you are proposing is artificially compressed on the eastern side and elongated vertically.

Your map re-stretched to match the landmasses according to a regular flat projection.

Hi LouisAragon. The map you are proposing (attached) is unfortunately rather low quality and hardly usable (no names, no geographical features...).
Second, your map does not follow a regular flat projection. It's been skewed, especially on the eastern side, so that eastern territories look smaller (!!). I'm attaching what your map actually looks like when re-stretched so that continental outlines match those of a standard flat projection.
Third, the claimed sources for your map also seem both less reputable and less recent (an old map, an Internet unsourced map, and two scholarly books without maps) than the ones I am putting forward (Oxford World Atlas of History (2002), The Times World Atlas of History (1989), Philip's Atlas of World History (1999)).
Regarding the northern Black Sea, the Achaemenids did campaign there, but did not hold the territory, which is, I guess, the reason why it doesn't count as an Achaemenid territory on the reputable maps I've seen and referenced. Regarding India, all my recent, referenced maps put the Achaemenid territory at least as far as the Jhelum, sometimes beyond (The Times Atlas of World History), going beyond the Indus probably because the region of Taxila is generally held as Achaemenid in character.
I don't attempt synthesis of various sources, I don't skew maps, I just take established, recent, highly RS maps and try to make a Wikipedia map that is consistent with that. If you see some mistakes in the map I modified, I can try to correct it (my technical skills allowing!), but your request will have to be consistent with the three major map sources I have put forward... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am not overly concerned about the eastern border extending up to Chenab, because I think it is quite plausible that Taxila would have submitted to Darius I. However, I am concerned that you put "India" to the north and "Sattagydia" to the south. Callieri has mentioned Bannu being part of Sattagydia. And, Eggermont has clearly specified Hindush as the lower Indus valley from the conjunction of the Indus and the Chenab down to the coast-line of the Indus delta. So, these need to be corrected. I also suggest that you omit the problematic term "India" (which was never used in this sense, as far as I know), and label it "Hindush". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yeah, good point, the Sattagydia/India thing is another issue.

Lets go through all maps we have, one by one (instead of relying on just one or two), per WP:NPOV and WP:VER:

• The University of Texas map is pretty old (1923-ish), but its still being used by many modern scholars.
• This map by Reed College.[25] (you can find it here[26]) Does include the northern Black Sea.
• Another map found on the website of Reed College[27]
• 1948 map by the University of Chicago (does include the northern Black Sea, Thrace-Macedonia, etc)[28]
• "Modern" map by Ian Mladjov (professor at Green State University)[29]-[30]
• General map of World History (Oxford)[31]

Its interesting to note that even though Paeonia (kingdom) had been conquered by the Achaemenids (according to all "regular" sources)[32] none of the the maps seem to include it?

I would like to have more opinions. @Kansas Bear:, @Khirurg:, @PericlesofAthens:, @Cplakidas:, @Attar-Aram syria:, @Rye-96:, @Wikaviani:, @Dr.K.: Gentlemen, would you please review the maps listed above by me, and tell which borders, in your opinion, we should draw/use? "Pataliputra" wants to create a new standard baseline map for the Achaemenid Empire, and I guess 2015 is already a long time ago. Macedon and Thrace are no-brainers, but I'm more concerned about Paeonia, the northern Black Sea, and the border in the East along the Indus. Thanks much, - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll just add a few sources to the maps above:

• Philip's Atlas of World History (1999)
• Oxford Atlas of World History 2002 p.42 (West portion) and p.43 (East portion)
• Atlas of Empires: The World's Great Powers from Ancient Times to Today (2018)
• For those who have the book: The Times Atlas of World History, p.79 (1989) has boundaries identical with Oxford
• The Persian Achaemenid Empire by Ian Mladjov, Michigan University [33]
• Satrapies of the Achaemenid Persian Empire by Ian Mladjov, Michigan University [34]

Looking forward to comments पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What these diverse maps make clear is that there is no such thing called the "authentic map" of the Achaemenid empire. The evidence is meagre, the scholars have to fill in the dots, and different scholars do it differently.

I would vote to go with the Oxford Atlas, as it is from a reputable publisher, up to date and edited by a historian who isn't selling his own theories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And, going with Oxford Atlas also means not labelling the regions on which there is no consensus, such as Sattagydia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र, please note that the river you are marking as the boundary in India is not Jhelum. It is Chenab, flowing south of the Kashmir valley. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, you're probably right. We can also adjust that easily (I'll have to draw a river which was not in the initial map I started from).पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Then, it appears that the river shown as the extreme eastern limit of the Achaemenid Empire on all the recent, authoritative Atlases (Oxford Atlas of World History 2002, Philip's Atlas of World History (1999) and The Times Atlas of World History, p.79 (1989)) is also actually the Chenab river (a bit father east than even the Jhelum). The map I have been proposing () is faithful to these Atlases, so there's no need to correct it, we'll just add the name "Chenab" on the eastern limit if we have to. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I do not think there can be a standard map from an atlas for an ancient empire. The knowledge about those states changes with the discovery of a new coin, inscription, or other artifact. I think the 2015 map is suitable, but should be edited to reflect the knowledge presented by modern scholars regarding the borders of Iran back then.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Attar-Aram syria. The 2015 map seems to be widely used in numerous reliable sources and could be updated according to any recent discovery on the borders of the Empire. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I understand the issue. It seems that, as Attar-Aram syria said, a standardised map from an atlas for an ancient empire simply can't exist. I don't feel in the situation of such knowledge - apart of the Egyptian satrapy and a bit of Alexandros' invasion - for giving an opinion on the subject. But if I had to, I guess I'd stick on the updated 2015 map. Khruner (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I do not see any overwhelming evidence which would indicate any need to make a change to the map. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Summary and proposal

Achaemenid Empire (standard cylindrical projection), territories identical with the 2015 map, except for the north of the Black Sea.

About everybody here seems to like the 2015 map, but with "updates according to any recent discovery". So I am proposing an updated 2015 map with the following characteristics:

• The new map here proposed uses the standard ("cylindrical") projection that is generally prefered for this kind of map. Practically, it is just the original 2015 map stretched to match the continental contours of a standard flat map. Until now, the 2015 map was using a Robinson projection, which is not at all recommended for maps of portions of the world as "the shapes of the continents are wrong" and can form a "very weird projection" see "Notice". In effect the eastern territories were totally deformed and the map was compressed along the East-West axis by about 35%.
• I added a geographical map in the background, with a degree of transparency, in order to give cartographic/ terrain context.
• I removed the territories north of the Black Sea because so far only one map has been shown that marks the contours of these territories as Achaemenid, and the map in question is only an un-attributed, poorly drawn, non-published map, that happens to be hosted on the website of Reed College [35]. All the other maps at most go to the Danube, which I have used as the limit here.

I trust this would be an improvement compared to the 2015 map, but still retaining its original character. Some fine finishing is still required, which I will do if there is some interest. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging participants for comments on this proposal. @Kansas Bear:, @Khirurg:, @PericlesofAthens:, @Cplakidas:, @Attar-Aram syria:, @Rye-96:, @Wikaviani:, @Dr.K.:, @Kautilya3:, @Khruner:, @LouisAragon:

Comment: @पाटलिपुत्र: Well, it looks like you have already used the 2016/2018 map on several articles, such as here.
I, too, wouldn't want the 2015 map that is used on the Achaemenid Empire article to be replaced with that one.
But yes, you can update the 2016/2018 map with your proposal.
—Rye-96 (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: @पाटलिपुत्र: I would have to agree with Rye-96. Please update the map you have inserted on several articles (when you have time of course) but don't replace the 2015 map on the Achaemenid Empire article. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I am a bit bothered by the fact that your preferred 2015 map is poorly sourced and projectionally inaccurate, something which none of the users who responded to your pings seem ready to acknowledge. Most concerning of all, no proper source has ever been given for the delineation of Achaemenid territory north of the Black Sea (I don't think your unique, un-attributed, poorly drawn, non-published map, that happens to be hosted on the website of Reed College can be considered a proper source by any standards [36]). These inaccuracies seem rather obvious, so it's a bit sad that no improvement can be made at this point. Under such conditions, I guess widening the audience and filing an official RfC would be the proper way to go, which I might do one day when I have more time. Thanks, पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Naturally, you're free to request a RfC. Until then, we can't really have this incorrect map (western part of the AE) linger forth on numerous satrapy-related articles. Are you willing to fix the western borders per our comments? You can exclude the territory to the north of the Danube. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon. What you call an "incorrect map" has its boundaries sourced precisely from Philip's Atlas of World History (1999), the Oxford Atlas of World History 2002 p.42 (for the West portion) and the The Times Atlas of World History, p.79 (1989), so you'll understand I'd rather be on the safe side and follow these highly reputable sources. But if you have better sources which show decisively that Oxford and the Times are wrong, I'm all ears.... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Erivan (1804)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Erivan (1804) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Erivan (1804)

The article Siege of Erivan (1804) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Erivan (1804) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Sufiyan

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Battle of Sufiyan has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thanks a lot! Looks neat. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fake Sasanid prince?

Raidashir?? I am not finding anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Nice find, another fairy tale. Just nominated it for deletion; feel free to leave a comment when you have time.[37] - LouisAragon (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Photolab

Hello, LouisAragon. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

PawełMM (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LouisAragon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, LouisAragon. I hope you're not too dissatisfied with how earlier changes by me at Category:Iranian peoples turned out. If problems still persist feel free to fix them or contact me about what issues need to be solved.

While investigating recent activities by Tirgil34 i came across an excellent investigation carried out by you earlier this year regarding sockpuppetry by पाटलिपुत्र. Tirgil34 and पाटलिपुत्र make similar edits at Xionites,[38][39][40] Kujula Kadphises[41][42] and Mihirakula,[43][44] add obscure Tamga images from a book by the Kazakh Turkologist Yury Zuev,[45][46] and engage in similar selective honesty when caught socking.[47][48][49][50] Could पाटलिपुत्र be another Tirgil34 sock? Because of your success at investigating both Tirgil34 and पाटलिपुत्र, your insight in this matter could be of great help. Regards. Krakkos (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Krakkos. No relation at all, don't even know who this is. Not even the same country per User:Bbb23, who already closed your frivolous request [51]. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

These are the same type of denials as earlier.[52][53][54] Unfortunately, it appears that the case was closed without the behavioral evidence being reviewed. A quick look at the above diffs will reveal the obvious truth. Krakkos (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र is deceptively trying to use this notification as justification for a block. Krakkos (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

POV?

I found this. Click on cited sources and compare with text. Both sources are paid-to-view and I think they're misrepresented or shouldn't be in the lead section per WP:WEIGHT. @Wikaviani: What do you think about it? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This is blatant POV pushing by a disruptive editor who has been already warned by Doug Weller for the same kind of misconduct. The source does not say that this system may have originated in "south east Arabia", it just says that some scholars think its Persian origin is not indisputable. I would suggest to remove this WP:UNDUE sentence from the article and to post a final warning on the user's talk page (better late than never ...). Good catch man ! Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

One source is a paid-to-view article and I don't have access to full version of it but still the abstract does not support the cited text on article. Another problem is the other source is just a link to a page about that book, no quote no page number. And this diff makes it more dubious. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Wario-Man: "The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system" could be obtained by creating a free account in Jstor, which give you limited papers to view per month (5 in total). You could subscribe for unlimited papers. That said, I read the paper just now, 23 pages, and Tikriti statement is not misrepresented.

Tikriti goes into details on how this "misconception" of an Iranian origin of the Falaj system was accepted by prominent western scholars (such as J.C Wilkinson) at face value under the influence of ancient sources (Sargon's Annals, Arabic sources, Polybius). He goes to say; "Although his book is interesting, I would criticize Wilkinson for his complete acceptance of the hypothesis of a Persian origin of the aflaj" without taking into consideration that thousands of aflaj exists in Oman from the bronze age while, despite extensive investigations in Iran, there's no evidence that the falaj was known before the fifth century BC.. He further adds that the Persian dominantion of eastern Arabia is the reason "why this system, as well as other cultural features, have been attributed to Iran rather than to Arabia". He say that "archaeological evidence support this..and we believe therefore that the system was transferred to Iran from the western pediment of the Hajar mountains".

I think the next statement should be deleted and added to the first, with minor alteration, maybe giving the author's name, as I am not sure what this means;" A pre-Archemaed Empire Arabian origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook.". Maybe also include their perspectives and arguments. You could ask him to provide direct quote, since I wasn't able to access the second source. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: Hi, fyi, i reverted the controversial edit, since such a claim sounds quite exceptional and as such, requires multiple high quality sources and a consensus on the article talk page. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not fringe theory, neither exceptional claim (the source from personal search is widely used as a reference by many archaeological specialists). Quick search on the origin of the Qanat system would give sufficient result that its dating is problematic. (for instance in "Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Otes" evidence suggests an Arabian origin of the system). It's far from exceptional, my opinion is that we remove the origin from the lead and we add it in the body since the origin is contested (central Asian origin of the system is argued, maybe I will include it in the article). Nabataeus (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: If it is allowed to remove our discussion to the said talk page, it would be nice. As to give the issue more needed attention. Continuing the matter, I accessed the chapter of "the Underground Aqueducts HandBook" labelled Aqueducts in Saudi Arabia and it states the following:

• "These observations refute the generally accepted historical trajectory of qanāt technology, which states that qanāt irrigation systems were first invented in Iran in the eighth century BC (English 1968; Lightfoot 2000), from where these was transferred to Arabia and the rest of the Middle East during the period of the Achaemenid Empire (538–332 BC). In fact, the observation from the UAE and Oman suggest an inverse trajectory of qanāt diffusion, from Peninsular Arabia to Persia."

Ascribing the origin of the system to Iran or the Persians without including the various hypothesis is just wrong and uncyclopedic as it gives an illusion that the matter is settled, when in fact, from a quick research, it gave the opposite view. Its origin couldn't be more problematic. In Boucharlat (2016) view: "the hypothesis of radial diffusion from a unique center does not match with the archaeological evidence. The qanāt and falaj may well be a polycentric invention at different periods in different geographical contexts, especially for the first period, the first millennium BC.” Boucharlat finally concludes schematically that “the first generation of shafts-and-gallery aqueducts was very likely polycentric during varied periods of the first millennium BC. Much later the second generation might have been actually implemented in Iran around the middle of the first millennium AD and was soon spread elsewhere.". That's fairly reasonable and more probable. The article need a serious re-writing to be honest. Nabataeus (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. An editor is adding some ?"Archemaed Empire"? and other information in the lead of the article? So since this isn't POV pushing, per Wikipedia:LEAD, where is this information in the article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not discussing his conduct, frankly, neither his spellings ability. The contested origin of the Qanat system should be removed from the lead and added in the body: being of Arabian origin is not fringe theory, multiple authoritative sources support this hypothesis as other hypothesis such as central Asian. Nabataeus (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, if this isn't POV pushing, why hasn't this information been moved to the body of the article? I'm not interested in your opinion of this subject, frankly, or your interpretation of Wikipedia:POV. As for this particular editor's spelling, Wikipedia:Competence is required, "the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Kansas, who said that I am throwing opinions left and right, and where did I disproved/approved that he was POV? so you could have a take on my interpretation? I am trying to resolve the issue before I make some edits. The supported Arabian hypothesis shouldn't be arbitrarily removed, and that's not an opinion. Nabataeus (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

WARD : "Apparently originating in pre-Achaemenid Persia, tunnel-wells spread to Egypt, the Levant, and Arabia in Achaemenid times (550-331 B.C.).".

Britannica : "The development of qanāts probably began about 2,500 or 3,000 years ago in Iran, and the technology spread eastward to Afghanistan and westward to Egypt.

LIGHTFOOT : "These subterranean, gravity‐driven filtration galleries, known generically as qanats, were transplanted across the Peninsula first by Persians, and later by others who borrowed their technology." and later : "This collation offers evidence of three distinct pathways of diffusion of qanat technology from Persia across Arabia, and discusses the current use and future of qanats throughout the region."

LIGHTFOOT (again) : page 217, a map represents Iran as being tthe area of origin of Qanats.

As far as i can see, an overwhelming amount of sources support the Iranian origin of this system. Only few sources are supporting an Arabian peninsula origin and they are often based on the sole Tikriti source. This is the precise definition of a fringe theory on Wikipedia : "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.".

As to moving this discussion to the article's talk page, LouisAragon can feel free to make the move. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

When Wilkinson wrote his book for example, no pre-Islamic aflaj was academically known. Only, relatively recently, that new data came to light as a result of extensive systematical archaeological diggings that challenged the old hypothesis. And no, the other two sources don't reference Takiriti for their claim of Arabian origin. The guy is literally one of the prominent scholars of south east Arabian studies in that field!

"More qanāts have been excavated in Southeast Arabia since the last 30 years than in any other region of the world. The origin of this technology is still debated'... (Groundwater management in Southeast Arabia from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age: a critical reassessment - Julien Charbonnier). In his paper Julien stated that:"In this paper, I aim to take a step back from the controversy about the origin of falaj technology" the issue is not simply Arabian origin, the system origin itself is disputed, stating that it was invented in Iran while you ignore the counterargument is simply wrong and definitely goes against WP:NPOV. Nabataeus (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

My concerns: Is Falaj system = Qanat? Or it's just a similar system? The reliability of cited source and its work? Plus since there is only one source about this Falaj system, it should be moved from lead to the body of article. Mentioning the author of that paper and his view in the lead is not neutral. Better to discuss this stuff on Talk:Qanat. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Qanat, Aflaj (plural of falaj), Kariz, generally are the same (see the alternative names in the article). Underground Aqueducts. As for the source, let's put it this way; you can't make a paper on south east Arabian agriculture history/installation/ or the aflaj system in general without referencing him. Surely the Journal of Arabian studies would be enough, however to get a perspective, in Boucharlat paper he write the following; " The definitive evidence for such an early date for the falaj in the UAE is due to the painstaking fieldwork of W. Y. al.Tikriti from 1983 until now". There are three sources so far that support an Arabian origin and one source consider it "disputed" and "controversial", while Boucharlat believe Iranian origin of the system don't withstand archaeological evidence, and instead he believe it to be polycentric invention occured in multiple regions.

It should be moved from the lead and added to the body as for example; "The origin of the Qanat technology is still disputed and controversial (Julien). The majority of scholars consider it an Iranian invention, while others dispute the hypothesis and argue for South-East Arabian development. Boucharlat in the other hand etc.". Something similar. Nabataeus (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I copy this discussion to article talk page. Please continue it there. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LouisAragon. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 17:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 17:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for the reminder, just sent you a mail! - LouisAragon (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

help

hi. in this article List of ancient Iranian peoples. can you use # instead of * .

with *

article = ambigousSabitada (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sabitada: Thanks for your message. Personally, I don't think thats a good idea, for the reason I added in my edit summary: "(...) while that was a completely good faith edit, I'm afraid assigning "numbers" to dynasties/entities/states is only going to attract more edit-wars and sockpuppets ("muh, why is my country listed at number #3" for example)."[55] Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Another

I think we're dealing with another WP:BATTLEGROUND case.[56],[57] Seems after removals of his ethno-centrist edits, he has targeted some specific articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah I'm well aware. You might be interested in this.[58] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

[59] --Wario-Man (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hydra

seems to have grown another head. Unsure how to deal with this.--Calthinus (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: It seems this different "head" has resurfaced more than once in recent history.[60] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Russo-Iranian treaty of 1717

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Russo-Iranian treaty of 1717 has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hey pal, what login was I supposed to use again to login in JSTOR? My Wikipedia username and its code? Or perhaps my time has expired and I have to apply again? Forgot how it works lel. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Yo! Actually I just activated my JSTOR account as we speak (received authorization a few days ago). Apparently, you gotta use your email address linked to Wiki + your specific JSTOR password (the password you created when you activated your JSTOR account). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It works now, but, I can only view 6 articles per month? I don't recall that's how it's supposed to work? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are only able to view 6 articles per month, it means you're using a regular (i.e. "free") JSTOR account and not your Wiki JSTOR account which is supposed to grant you unlimited access. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it works now, thanks mate! --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sampsonia

Keep at it - I think if you keep working hard for the next few days, this FAC can pass. Hope all is well, and you should be proud of the work you've put into this article. ceranthor 19:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I appreciate it. I'm doing well, thanks for asking, what about you? Do you have any plans for Christmas? Its nearing! ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Architecture

Seriously, what is this?! Sounds like an original research and does not make any senses for some linked articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Yeah, nice one. Another "remnant" from Wikipedia's days of glory. Back when you could write about any bullshit hoax you had in your mind, and could "cover" it with about anything you could lay your hands on. Should be AfD'd.
Happy holidays btw! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello LouisAragon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Dreamy Jazz: Thank your for your message. Happy holidays to you as well! Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Teresa Sampsonia

Hello:

I've gone through Teresa Sampsonia very carefully and I think I have fixed any issues a reviewer might have with the text.

I decided to set up the epitaph as a block quote because I think it looks better visually this way. I decided the best way to handle the translation was in brackets in smaller text. I'm not sure if this will be acceptable or not. It certainly looks better overall.

Do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I hope the rest of the FA review goes smoothly for you.

Happy holidays,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Wow. You did an awesome job there. Absolutely splendid. Thanks alot!!
Yeah, I hope we finish the rest of the review ASAP. Its been open for too long really. Haha
Happy holidays to you as well, TT. If you ever need help, please don't hesitate.
Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Hello. I want to ask your advice about that can my source be used on this[1] page?