Template talk:People of Khorasan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Moving of the page[edit]

Someone moved the page to "Persian scholars from Khorasan" without any prior discussion and without giving any reason. I undid the move for the following reasons:

  • Some of the scholars in the list are not "Persian" by ethnicity. For example Ali Qushji might not have been Persian but rather from Turkic origin, Ahmad ibn Hanbal although born in Merv might have been from Arab ancestry, Ali-Shir Nava'i and Goharshad were not Persian either but Uzbek. We have to accept the fact the demography of Khorasan was very diverse and multi-ethnic, and not all scholars who lived in Khorasan were necessarily Persian.
  • Khorasan is already known as to be part of Persia or Greater Iran, and it automatically conveys the message of the Persian-originality of most of the scholars. So in one way it is just repetitive and "useless" to mention "Persian" in the title.
  • The objective of the template is to display a list of well-known scholars who made significant contributions to the history of Science in the world and who were from the same region i.e. Khorasan. We are focusing on the "region" and not on their ethnicity stock. There is already plenty of Category pages for Iranian and Persian personalities.

Thank you for discussing your concerns first, before any attempt to move the page. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The removal of some scholars was done by an IP, which I undid it. But this can not be related to the template name; Have a look to Persianate society, scholars such as Ali Shir Navai and Gowharshad Banu are considered Persianated people. also see talk page of Ali Qushji about his Persian origin. The proper name for this template is Persian Scholars of Khorasan, to keep its consequence with other regional cultural points of greater Iran. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please respect the wikipedia guidelines. We haven't reached any agreement yet, and you already moved back the page. If you keep continuing this game of moving the page over and over, I will be obliged to report it to the WP:ANI since I don't have plenty of time to keep an eye on this article.
As to the main point, the fact that Ali Sher Nava'i and Gowharshad Begum were Persianized cannot be a justification to change the title. Saying "Persian scholars" conveys a message that all of these scholars were of "Persian ethnicity", which is not valid. And how do you explain the Persianateness of Ahmad ibn Hanbal? He was born in Merv, and certainly qualifies to be reported in the list, but is of Arab origin. Besides what difference does it make? Khorasan is quite well-known for being a Persianized region despite the multiplicity of its ethnic groups. Cabolitæ (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Some points by Cobalitae are good, however these were rectified.

  • Goharshaad and Ali Sher Navai were removed as well as Ahmad ibn Hanbal. The fact is adding these three will not change the fact that the rest of these sholars were Persians. However they were removed as they can be in a separate template for Uzbeks from Khorasan.
  • Old Khorasan as a birthplace for new literary Persian and also Persian Sufism cannot give a sense that it is separate from the greater Persian culture. One cannot separate these scholars from their Persian culture/language and environment.
  • Ali Qushji can be put in a footnote that (some say Persian others something else). Same with couple of others that might comeup.
  • Persian does not necessarily mean confined to the modern borders of Iran. In actuality, there are people from Iran who are not Persians (like Turkmens or Arabs..). Iranian in the ethnic sense though means speakers of Indo-Iranian languages. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Please be partial and stop pushing your nationalistic sentiments here. We are focusing on a historical cultural region, NOT ON ETHNICITY. Whether they were Persians or not is not the main point of this template. The template serves as a tool to navigate the list of scholars who came from the same region (i.e. Khorasan), without considering their ethnic background. What you are saying is totally discriminatory and prejudicial. There are already several categories for Iranian and Persian people, scientists and philosophers. But this template should remain focused on the region, disregard of the ethnic backgrounds.
I am myself a Persian, but I cannot accept to impose my own POV and to deny the truth and the reality. Most of the empires and dynasties in Khorasan who made significant contribution in the development of the region, both economically and culturally, were non-Persians: e.g. Ghaznavids, Seljuqs and Timurids.
So what you are trying to impose here is your POV and nationalistic sentiments which have no place in wikipedia. Cabolitæ (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I am going to revert back your move. If there was again such attempt, I will have to report this to the Administrator's Noticeboard for this nationalistic POV pushing. Now you choose. Cabolitæ (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The boundries of Khorasan is not definable and also many ethnics such as Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kyrkiz, Chinese, Mongolians, Kazakh and ... were living in it. If we want to include all the scholars of different ethnics, there will be thousands of name. The aim of this template is to represent the Persians (or better to say Persianized scholars) to form a cultural uniformity between them. There must be different templates for other goals if needed, then we only need to discuss about scholars themselves, whether he/she is suitable to be included here or not. User Cabolitae, you were the first who removed the page without any agreement; now instead of threatening in each of your comment about reporting, and considering your opposite idea as selfish ideas, it's better to focus on our topic, and if you think it's better to report someone, just do it; there is not need to mentioning here. It will be useful if you have a fast look to Wikipedia:Navigation templates, here I am only writting a sentence of it:
The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?
Do you think someone who is reading Ferdowsi's article, is interested to read next about Mahmud al-Kashgari? for sure no; --Aliwiki (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The boundaries of Khorasan are well-known, at least if not specifically but in a broader sense as which cities it covered. The title of the template clearly indicates its message "of KHORASAN", which may cover any other ethnic in addition to the Persians. If you want to have a template uniquely dedicated to the Persians, then why don't you make one? And you will have a wider list of Persian scholars, you don't need to stick to only one region (i.e. Khorasan) to demonstrate the Persion scholars. Why would you like to bound it to only Khorasan? Make a new template of Persian scholars, because Persians were not limited to only Khorasan. To help you out in this case, I have added the template in several categories: Iranian scholars, Persian philosophers, Iranian scientists, Persian astronomers, Persian mathematicians, Medieval Persian physicians, Persian poets, Persian spiritual writers, Persian writers, Iranian Sufis, and Persian geographers. (the list appears at the bottom of the template's article) You can choose the most well-known scholars and put them in a template, and leave this templates which focuses on a historical and cultural region as it is. The new template will serve the objective of what you determined "to represent the Persians (or better to say Persianized scholars) to form a cultural uniformity between them"; if you focus only on Khoarasan, you won't be able to get this.
I wasn't the first one to move the page. This template was created in a very basic form very long ago by another member, who was neither Iranian nor Afghan - I guess,- and I developed the template without even changing the title or moving it. Last week one of the users moved it to "Persians scholars from Khorasan" without even discussing the move first, which is completely in contradiction with wikipedia guidelines. As to reporting, I will, if such POV pushing continues; don't worry. I was just making sure to let the users (first you, then User:Khodabandeh) know how the procedures works (discuss first your move) in case you are not familiar with wikipedia.
Again, I am repeating my point. By changing the title of this template to "Persian scholars of Khoarasan" you will contradict what you said (to represent the Persians (or better to say Persianized scholars) to form a cultural uniformity between them) because you will focus on a tiny portion of Persian scholars, why to let others go. Make a general template if you want to focus on the "Persian" scholars solely, and don't try to change this template for what it was created. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Dusti-Aziz, first I am really thankful to you for adding this template to those articles. Second, here we don't decide according to what we like, we are deciding only according to Wiki guides. See Wikipedia:Navigation templates; it is written: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?. The reason that I don't make Persian scholars template is again mentioned there (see here). Also one may ask why not have a template with the title Scholars of Pamir, scholars of Central Asia or ... instead of scholars of Khorasan. By choosing this title, hundreds of scholars names should be included here, which in most cases don't have relation with eachother. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately you only see the "ethnicity" of a scholar as the common factor for the navigation, but you have to consider the fact that most of the readers do not share the same vision as you. The common factor among the scholars in the template is the historical and cultural region to which they belong to (i.e. Khorasan). Both in the scientific development and in Islamic sciences, Khorasan has been widely known as an important region of origin for a significant number of scientists ans scholars. It makes a perfect sense to focus on the region.
If you still don't agree, we can ask for the opinion of uninvolved parties (non-Persian, non-Iranian, and non-Afghan members) in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. It will make the discussion short and easy. If you agree, I will tag this page to request for the comments of others. Cabolitæ (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have two comments. One) I think it would be good if Cobalitae stops refering to other users as ethno-centeric and thinks they have "ethnicity" in mind. two) No the issue is not about "ethnic" concepts that you are accusing other users of, the fact is that Khorasan as a "cultural concept" is anachronistic and non-existent. The fact is, Khorasan is not a separate component of the larger Iranian culture. It doesn't matter if these are mentioned in the template, the fact is users do not see them. Wether it is in Shiraz, Isfahan, Tabriz (it was speaking Persian dialects at one time), Tus, Herat, Balkh, Bukhara.. these scholars were part of one cultural concept which was the Perso-Islamic culture. We cannot break them up into regions. This was a ploy of the USSR at one time, even trying to separate the terms "Tajiki, Dari, and Persian", where-as the name of the language is "Parsi-ye Dari". The template is pretty wide. For example is Gawhar Shad Begum an scholar? No she isn't. Is Bayhaqi or even Ali Sher Nava'i and Nizam al-Mulk scholars? No they do not qualify, they are not scholars in the traditional sense of the word scholars. Avicenna and Biruni are scholars, but how related is Avicenna to say Gawhar Shad? How about Attar and Rudaki and the poets? Are they scholars? No they are poets. What is the precedence for such a template? Have you seen a template with "Scholars of NY" or "Scholars of East Germany"? How about "Scholars of Western Arabic world"? This template is a) confusing b) anachronistic as such a cultural concept did not exist separate from the wider Perso-Islamic world c) It breaks the connection of the Perso-Islamic world. I suggest two options: a) delete it. b) change it to notable firgures of the Perso-Islamic World (which means getting rid of the minor scholars). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal to move the page to "Persian scholars..." is obviously motivated by ethnic and nationalistic feelings, and what you wrote in your emails to me, they're obviously ethnically prejudicial. As I told you in the email, by changing the title to "Persian scholars of Khorasan", you will incite and provoke this ethnic tension, which wikipedia is not the right place for. In a short period of time, you will notice other templates under the name of "Turkic scholars", "Uzbek scholars", etc.
The word "scholar" is used in a broader sense and the individuals in the template have been classified as Scientists, Philosophers, Islamic scholars, Poets & Artists, and Political figures. Gowharshad, Ali Sher Nava'i and Nizam ul-Mulk are all important political figures; if you are not aware of their contribution in the cultural area, then i suggest you do a bit of research before calling them "minor scholars". All your other reasons and comparisons are null and have no value in here.
If you feel that this template does not qualify the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, you are free to report this page to the deletion process. Cabolitæ (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

First you cannot divulge private contents of e-mail (which can get you banned in Wikipedia). I expected better respect here than this though from you. Why the lack of manners and respect? And the main concern of my email was disection of a large continous cultural unit into smaller entities based on undefined borders (there was no concept of territorial nation-affiliation in the time of Ferdowsi). Second, no it is not because of nationalistic feeling, rather it is to be accurate and also to ensure that some region does not come up with its own particular anachronistic concept from the greater Perso-Islamic world. I have been contributing since at least 2005, and I know how some non-Western entity tried to disect the Perso-Islamic world into distinct entities with no connections with each. You can look at the discussion in Khwarizmi to see how back my contribution goes. Third, there is no problem with a "Uzbek Scholar" template or even "Turkic Scholars". It does not "provoke ethnic tensions". For example Ulugh Beg and Ali Sher Navai can be in such a template. Fourth, please provide a logical response instead of making accusations. The word scholar cannot contain contain someone like Gowharshaad. How is she a "scholar". Or how is supporting artists make you an scholar? So is queen Elizabeth a scholar? What about the Saudi King? Are they scholars for building mosques? Can you explain that logically? How does a political figure with zero writing become a scholar? How is that comparison null and void? If I commision an excellent for several paintings, does that make me a scholar? The only good thing is that Khorasan today is a non-ethnic concept, so one can use it as a region without giving it any sort of modern-nation state concept. Supporting mosque building does not make you a scholar. Pretty much, by this broad category, anyone who was anyone in Khorasan was a scholar. There is enough poets from Khorasan to fill up 10x this template. Anyhow, I am not going to argue this issue more for now, as your only response seems to be that anyone who opposes the template must be doing so for nefarious reasons. Where-as the fact that these scholars were part of the Perso-Islamic world (not just an important region of it), is a well known historical fact. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You can choose any other word - as you find appropriate - to replace the word "scholar"; any other word which can cover the scientists, Islamic scholars, poets, artists, political figures and historians, once at a time. You can replace it as you'd like. The discussion is not on the word "scholar", please don't deviate the point. And neither have I stated any disconnection between these individuals/scholars and the Persian civilisation. I have been very clear that all of these scholar were Persianized or Persianate personalities who each and every of them contributed significantly to the Persian culture. On the contrary, it is you who is limiting the scope of the template with a very constraining definition (biasing all the philosophy of the template on being Persian by ethnicity !!) and trying to exclude other significant personalities from the template.
And thank you for clarifying the point I was making in the beginning: "Khorasan today is a non-ethnic concept, so one can use it as a region without giving it any sort of modern-nation state concept." So yes, Khorasan's development is not the sole product of Persians uniquely. It was a multi-ethnic territory in which non-Persian (but Persianate !!) people also made significant contributions. You cannot just selfishly deny and ignore others' contributions. The scientific, literary and cultural contributions of Ghaznavids, Seljuks and Timurids are enough to explain this issue.
It's good that you're an old member. And I am sure you have witnessed the ethnic tensions raised in many articles. You come up with making it "Persian scholars of Khorasan", and tomorrow another Uzbek member comes and opposes it, and an edit war begins. Why to provoke such a tension, while there is no need for such a thing?! And by the way, I did not disclose the contents of your email, but I was trying to remind you that your approach is not ethnically un-biased. If there have ever been any lack of respect (although I am sure I have never insulted or disrespected you), my apologizes, but you can't take someone's disagreement or opposition to your view as a lack of respect. Cabolitæ (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to re-examine history. The Ghaznavids, Seljuqids, Timurids did not create science, literature or culture. They simply ruled that land which was mainly administered by Persian Viziers. Their whole empire was run by Iranians in its daily day to day affair. They simply had a royal position and were the head of the military. If they personally made any contributions, it was in the military domain, not in the domain of culture or art (which they did not create but only supported). If I support an artist in creating an art, it does not mean I created the art! It was the actual scholars and not dynasties that made the contributions. It is not the fault of Persians that these dyansties became Iranicized or were actually run by Iranian administrators. The second point is that, with the exception of Navai here, there is no other Uzbek scholar. And even in terms of Navai, half of his work is Persian but he was obviously a Turk. So how is that a contribution of many ethnic groups when 95% of the names are Persians? The third issue is that of Wikipedia.. If an Uzbek member comes and opposes the move, why should that effect Wikipedia policy? He should have a template for Uzbek scholars. I do not have too much opposition here simply because Khorasan is not the name of any country or modern political state. If such a country ever comes to existence, then the template should be deleted immediately. However, I believe the template should be moved to "Persian scholars of the Islamic civilization". And then remove Navai, Gowhardshaad and etc. The reason is simple: 1) One cannot make Khorasan a separate region say from Raay (Raazi was from there), Isfahan, Hamadan (Avicenna spent his life there).. 2) The template in reality is not "multi-ethnic", since 95% of the scholars are Persian. Anyhow, I am not going to argue these points for now, the main reason being that Khorasan is not an ethnic concept today. If it was the name of a country, it would actually be wrong to use this template. Khuda Negahdar. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of some scholars[edit]

Some personalities and scholars were removed from the list without giving any reason. I re-added them.

For the sources, check the relevant articles, you will find reliable references. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Abu Hanfia was Persian (noted in his article), the other three were not from Khorasan. Goharshad and Alisher Navai were already removed from the template. The rest of them are Persian scholars and notablemen. The overwhelming majority of the scholars mentioned are Persian, the only ones that were not Ali Sher Navai, Goharshad and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (no one knows his origin) were removed. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And what was the point of removing Ali Sher Nava'i and Gowharshan Begum? Just because they were not Persians? It is completely selfishly ethno-centric behaviour to remove anyone who was not a Persian from the list. Cabolitæ (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)