Jump to content

Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz)

Sources for the name Piruz Nahavandi[edit]

Ronnnaldo7, none of the sources provided here qualify as reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia's standards. In articles of this type, reliable secondary sources are those published by reputable academic scholars who are specialized in the history of Islam.

The two Persian-language sources provided, i.e. the fiction work from ketab.com and Sabahy 2016 (a wp:self-published work of scholarship printed by on-demand press H&S Media) might qualify as WP:ABOUTSELF primary sources for a claim like "in modern Persian he is sometimes called Piruz Nahavandi (پیروز نهاوندی)", but nothing more.

However, because Wikipedia has been featuring this name for a very long time (this article was named Piruz Nahavandi from 2008 until 2021, and on fa.wiki there has been an article with this name since 2006), I would like to see some Persian-language sources dating from before 2006 that use the name Piruz Nahavandi, to be sure that we are not dealing with a case of WP:CIRCULAR (and eventually a case of citogenesis).

Additionally, it would be nice if you could provide a full citation including author name, date, title, publisher, and page number. Thanks for your efforts! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to search Google Books and Google Scholar with the terms "پیروز نهاوندی" or "Piruz Nahavandi" - there are plenty of books and scholarly sources with both terms that meet WP:RS.
Additionally, why are you persistently reverting my edits which state his Persian name along with the transliteration in the parenthesis of the lede: (Persian: پیروز نهاوندی, romanized: Piruz Nahâvandi; Arabic: أبو لؤلؤة فيروز, romanized: Abū Luʾluʾa Fīrūz, from Middle Persian: Pērōz) and changing it to the sole Arabic name: (Arabic: أبو لؤلؤة فيروز; from Middle Persian: Pērōz) ? As he is Persian, his Persian name should be in the lede's parenthesis, which is the norm across Wikipedia articles (e.g. Nikola Tesla). The Persian Wiki also has the title of the article by his common name: Piruz Nahavandi. Accordingly, this article could be renamed to Piruz Nahavandi per WP:COMMONNAME in the English language, but we can digress from this for now as there are sources online with both the Piruz Nahavandi name and the Abu Lu'lu'a name.
I understand that you have made many edits on this article and have it listed on your page, but please be mindful of WP:OWN. Thanks. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His likely original Middle Persian name as given by the RS cited in the article Pērōz is mentioned in the current lead sentence, so I'm not seeing your point about changing it to the sole Arabic name. This is about the fact that in Modern Persian works of fiction and self-published works he is sometimes named "Piruz Nahavandi", a name that is never used by historical primary sources or high-quality secondary sources on the topic, originating as it does in 20th-century or 21th-century Iranian literature. I'm not entirely sure whether this is wp:due to mention in the lead, though I'm inclined to think that it would be as long as it is made very clear that the name is modern in origin, and as long as it can be established that the name was in use by a significant amount of Persian-language sources published before 2006.
Now both the wp:onus to convince other editors that this is due for inclusion and the wp:burden to demonstrate the verifiability of the name's use in non-wp:circular (not relying on Wikipedia, so pre-2006) sources is in fact on you. But of course I'm willing to help. One thing that jumps out for me is that when I search for "پیروز نهاوندی" on Google Books as you suggested, (link) there are many (non-reliable) Persian-language sources using the name (see the bold highlights), but when I restrict the search to before 1 March 2006 (the creation date of the Wikipedia article), (link) all of a sudden no Persian-language sources nor bold highlights of the name show up. This strongly suggests that the name was not in use before 2006, and was in fact popularized by Wikipedia.
Searching Google Scholar for "پیروز نهاوندی" (link) yields nothing. But searching Google Scholar for "Piruz Nahavandi" (link) yields 14 (mostly non-reliable) sources, although again restricting the search to before 2006 (link) yields nothing (actually the name was not in use until 2016: link). Now interestingly, the first result in the non-time-restricted Google Scholar search for "Piruz Nahavandi" does yield Hiro 2019, which definitely is a reliable source in general, but Hiro clearly is not a historian of Islam and is not relying on historical primary sources, which makes him wp:unreliable in context (if he is not using primary sources he is technically not a secondary source), especially because he is very likely relying on Wikipedia and so using him would be wp:circular.
Yes, I wrote this article and have put a lot of time in it (can you believe that I put more time –a lot more time– in trying to reach consensus in discussions like this with other editors than in actually researching the RS and writing it to GA-level? ), yet this does not mean that I own the article. What it does mean though is that I care about using high-quality sourcing, and that I am curious to know everything there is to know about it. For example, I'm genuinely curious as to the origin of the name Piruz Nahavandi. I would like to know who first used it, in what context, and more generally what modern Iranians believe about him. But I have never found reliable secondary sources writing about this. Both I and other editors have been looking for such sources before (see e.g. this thread), but we were unsuccessful. If you would like to search further, that would be great, but please do remember that the burden to find high-quality sourcing and to discuss their use with other editors is on you. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly agree with your statement: "I'm inclined to think that it would be as long as it is made very clear that the name is modern in origin". This is why my latest edit of the article made note of the fact that he is known as Piruz Nahavandi in Modern Persian (also given the fact that surnames were not too common in those times). Also, I am fluent in both English and Persian, and Piruz Nahavandi is most certainly the commonly used name to refer to him in the modern Persian language - both before 2006 and after 2006 - hence the Persian Wiki's article title. I'll let you choose one of the many sources available on either Google Scholar, Google Journal, or other scholarly sites for the addition of 'Piruz Nahavandi' to the article as you are more experienced than I am. Keep in mind that there may be variations to 'Piruz', such as 'Pirouz', 'Piroz', etc. The Persian Wiki article also has references. As such, due to the sources, I strongly believe the modern Persian term should be added as such to the lede / Name section, and the distinction being made from Middle Persian to Modern Persian. Also, I'm curious to know, what is the reasoning behind your fixation with making sure the WP:RS has to be from before 2006? Your requirements don't conform to WP:RS, and you know well that asking for a digitized RS on a rogue topic like Piruz Nahavandi from strictly before 2006 is rare. Additionally, if the Hiro source you cited above is reliable in general, why are you moving the goalposts and, without proof, assuming the author is using Wiki to refer to him as Piruz Nahavandi, especially when there isn't a single mention of 'Piruz Nahavandi' in the current form of the article? The Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, and should therefore be used in the article. Furthermore, my point with you having only added the sole Arabic name (yes, I can see the Middle Persian name as well, but I’m referring to modern languages), is that the Modern Persian name currently isn't in the parenthesis, and this goes against the norm of Wikipedia articles as the article's subject is a Persian (e.g. Nikola Tesla's Serbian Cyrillic name is added in the parenthesis of the lede as he was a Serb, etc.). This is unfortunately just yet another example of the Arabization of Persian history as Peroz is Persian and Abu Lu’lu’a is of Arabic origin (& yes I saw your comment in the thread from 2021, but my point still stands). Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, we need a source from before 2006 because of serious concerns that post-2006 sources may be wp:circular (see the evidence I presented above, especially [1] vs [2] and [3] vs [4]). There is absolutely no requirement for sources to be digital or online. As I also explained, the wp:burden is upon you to present such a source. If you don't agree that wp:circularity or citogenesis is a concern here and that there is therefore no need for a pre-2006 source, we will need the input of other editors to see whether a consensus can be found. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's also seek the input of other editors as it seems you are the only one going against the guidelines of WP:RS by wanting a pre-2006 source, even though the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS as there is no evidence of Hiro having used Wikipedia to refer to the subject as 'Piruz Nahavandi' when there isn't a single reference to that name in the Wiki article. As the Hiro source is an example of RS, and you have, respectfully, thus far failed to present concrete evidence of it being otherwise (and no, your other sources listed do not show that the Hiro source is an example of circularity), then I will go ahead and rightfully WP:DOIT due to the aforementioned source being RS. I will add the Hiro RS and make note of the distinction between Middle Persian and Modern Persian as we discussed. Furthermore, you also haven't commented on my other questions & points regarding having the subject's language added in the parenthesis - I will add this in the parenthesis as is the norm across Wikipedia articles per my example above, and will include the Transliteration, which you previously incorrectly reverted when you did a full reversion (as opposed to partial), & I'll also make the distinction between Middle Persian and Modern Persian, as we've discussed. Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't agree with adding "Piruz Nahavandi" to the lead when I don't agree with adding it to the article at all for all the reasons mentioned above. Please also note that this article was named Piruz Nahavandi from 2008 until 2021, and that when Hiro 2019 was writing the article looked like this (except of course that the title was Piruz Nahavandi). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and since there is no consensus right now, these edits constitute edit warring. Please self-revert and seek other means to gain consensus.
We could ping other editors who have edited this page and ask for their opinion, or perhaps we can try WP:3O. But edit warring is not the way. Please reconsider. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you've said the following: "Of course I don't agree with adding 'Piruz Nahavandi' to the lead when I don't agree with adding it to the article at all for all the reasons mentioned above.", then we are at a stalemate here and you're not being fair and impartial towards the addition of the WP:RS. As, per your page, you focus on Arabic work, your lack of acceptance with the addition of the Persian language name is an example of WP:POV. The WP:ONUS is on you to prove that the RS is in fact an example of circularity, and to reach consensus amongst other editors. Thus far, you have failed to prove that the WP:RS is an example of circularity, and you have also failed to reach consensus on the matter as you are currently the only person disagreeing & not accepting the RS. The WP:DOIT rightfully stands per the WP:RS, and the edits do not constitute 3RR as I did not revert you and I added the latest content after having had discussions with you before adding the WP:RS per WP:DOIT. Furthermore, you may not agree with the addition of the Persian language name in the parenthesis, but that is the norm across English language Wikipedia articles and should stand per my example above, even if you, respectfully, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am all for the opinions of others and would be glad to bring others in, and hopefully they can be impartial and an abuse of power is not committed seeing as how you have more privileges here than I do. The fact of the matter is, the source is an example of WP:RS, the edit is rightful per WP:DOIT, and the onus is on you to prove that the RS is an example of circularity, and to reach consensus on the matter. Simply linking the Wiki article to that time period is not sufficient as proof, especially when the title of the article is the same as it was then. I've since used Citation bot to clean up the citation from Oxford University Press, along with the ISBN.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the dispute and discussion[edit]

WikiProject Islam and WikiProject Iran, as well as previous posters on this talk page AhmadLX, HistoryofIran, Iskandar323, Toddy1, and Wiqi55, have been notified of this discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary statement by Apaugasma[edit]

The dispute revolves around whether or not to add the name "Piruz Nahavandi" to the name section and lead of the article, as e.g. here.

Reliable sources from Caetani (1905–1926) to Ismail (2016) have for more than a century consistently referred to the subject of this article as "Abu Lu'lu'a" or "Abu Lu'lu'", and not once as "Piruz Nahavandi". Wikipedia has titled the article Piruz Nahavandi from 2008 until 2021 on en.wiki, and from 2006 until today at fa.wiki. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the first RS who referred to the subject as "Piruz Nahavandi" was written in 2019 (Hiro 2019). Some Persian-language writings (fiction, self-published scholarship) have been found using "Piruz Nahavandi", the earliest a self-published source from 2009. The Persian-language RS Ishkevari (1994–2020) does not use it. No sources at all apart from Wikipedia have been found using the name before 2009 (compare [5] to [6]); [7] to [8]).

Given all this, there is a reasonable suspicion that the name "Piruz Nahavandi" may not have been in wide use before 2006 and may have been popularized by Wikipedia. Hiro 2019 as the only RS is suspiciously late to the game. If, on the other hand, Persian-language sources did widely use it before 2006, it should be reasonably easy to find such pre-2006 sources. The concern that by including this name Wikipedia may engage in wp:circular reporting or citogenesis has sufficient weight to demand that some notable (if not necessarily reliable) pre-2006 sources should be cited. If such sources are found I agree with adding the name to the name section of the article, though preferably not as a mos:leadalt since it's hardly found in RS. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary statement by Ronnnaldo7[edit]

WP:RS can be found within Google Books, Google Scholar, and other scholarly sources with the terms "پیروز نهاوندی" or "Piruz Nahavandi" (as well as other iterations of the name 'Piruz' which include 'Pirouz', 'Piroz', etc.). Even when presented with the aforementioned RS, such as Hiro, for example, Apaugasma is stating the source must be from before 2006 due to circularity. This request goes against the requirements of WP:RS. Valid proof has not been shown yet regarding the Hiro source being an example of circularity, and I'm afraid we're reaching WP:OWN and possibly WP:POV on Apaugasma's side per the reasons in the discussions above, though to be fair, discussions have been fairly professional thus far. Also, as the norm across English language Wikipedia articles is to state the name of the subject in the subject's language in the parenthesis of the lead (e.g. Nikola Tesla's Serbian Cyrillic name is added in the parenthesis of the lead as he was a Serb, etc.), the modern Persian language name should therefore be added, and not just the Arabic name. My latest edit to the page added the WP:RS per WP:DOIT, and included the distinction between the Middle Persian and Persian names as we discussed above, and also included the transliterations. Also, the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject matter is often times Piruz Nahavandi in both Persian and English sources per above (hence the Persian Wiki's article title), but as the Arabic-origin version of Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz is presented in some sources as well, I will digress on the renaming of the article for now (renaming to Piruz Nahavandi per WP:COMMONNAME to be clear) - although, the sad reality is that this is just yet another example of the Arabization of Persian history as Peroz is Persian and Abu Lu’lu’a is of Arabic origin. To summarize, RS has been presented for the name "Piruz Nahavandi" and no concise proof of circularity has been shown to discredit the RS. Also, as is the norm across English Wikipedia leads, the Persian language name should at the very least be added in the parenthesis of the lead as the subject matter is a Persian, and my latest edit did so per the WP:RS while including the transliteration as well.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free discussion[edit]

  • Honestly I think the explanation in the name section is perfectly adequate. It doesn't appear to have much currency in English language scholarship and so is not really so prominent that it really warrants use as an alt name or really featuring in the lead at all. Not sure what the big deal is. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the dispute is not only about the lead, but about including the name at all (including in the name section). Before Ronnnaldo7's edits, the name section did not include it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is Hiro is university press and while I take your late to the game point on board, isn't it straying a bit close to OR to dismiss it in this manner? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's a bit of a policy vs editorial standoff. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Evaluating secondary and tertiary sources is emphatically not OR, but a core task of editors. It is not questioned here whether Hiro 2019's reasoning or interpretation of sources is valid, it is questioned whether he is reliable as a source for what he writes. In the wp:context sketched in my summary (and add that he is not a historian of Islam and so does not rely on primary sources, nor cites secondary sources), I would say no, though your mileage may vary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly fairly neutral in terms of local consensus for or against inclusion in the naming section. I can't find the part in the Google book as it stands. In truth, given that's it's just one source, you could almost claim WP:ECREE for this factoid given the extraordinary absence of other references to it in English language sources and your impression of circularity. It's very isolated. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The mention is on p. 8. It is indeed 'surprising' and 'exceptional' given the absence in all RS before 2019, and so in a sense WP:ECREE applies. Further, how to integrate this with wp:due weight? "Indian journalist Dilip Hiro calls him Piruz Nahavandi"? I don't think so. I would much rather cite several unreliable Persian-language sources and use them as wp:aboutself for "in modern Persian writings he is sometimes called Piruz Nahavandi". I just wish we could have some notable pre-2006 sources to establish that the name does not originate on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What, if any sources, was it originally introduced alongside? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean on Wikipedia in general (fa.wiki; en.wiki)? No sources as far as I can see. Or do you mean the recent reintroduction by Ronnnaldo7? They originally cited [9][10][11][12]. See the first post in this thread for my comments on these. I found Hiro 2019 by the way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is my latest edit (after also using Citation bot) which, yes, includes the Hiro WP:RS. The edit was made in the Name section of the article and the parenthesis of the lead as per above, and took into consideration our discussion regarding the discrepancy between Middle Persian and Modern Persian. Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ha! After perusing the Persian wiki page, a major breakthrough! Encyclopedia Iranica entry, in 1983, titled Abu Lulu'a![13], with multiple origin stories: "some claim that he was a Mazdean from Nehāvand, while others claim that he was Christian called Fērōz Naṣrānī." So this is a Persian POV encyclopedia that dares not weigh in on a definitive answer. So an answer to where the name comes from, and an interesting footnote. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate to spoil your enthusiasm, but this is Pellat (2011), used quite a lot in the article. Naṣrānī means 'the Christian'. We are mentioning the possible Christian origin, but it has nothing to do with the name Nahavandi ('the Nahavandian'). I remember I was also tricked by this the first time I read it, equally happy to finally have found the origin of the name. But unfortunately, it's not, unless it's some kind of mistake where someone misread Nasrani as Nahavandi. By the way, I also did some digging at fa.wiki, and it may be helpful to note that on fa.wiki it actually originally read "Firuz Nahavandi" in March 2006. It appears to have been first changed to "Piruz Nahavandi" in April 2008. Of course, no sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake again. But it says originally published in 1983. Do we know if it's actually changed? But on the name, it seems clear that the location "Nehāvand" is the origin of Nehāvandi, not "Nasrani". It's a typical geographical surname. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "Originally Published: December 15, 1983. Last Updated: July 19, 2011". The date tag in the article should be changed to 1983–2011. Yes, his possilikely origin in Nahavand is undoubtedly the basis for a name like "Nahavandi", the only question is: who coined it, and when? How notable is it outside of Wikipedia's 13 to 16-years promotion of it? It's the potential for citogenesis that is bugging me really. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I am fluent in both English and Persian, I can answer your question: "How notable is it outside of Wikipedia's 13 to 16-years promotion of it?". The common term in Persian is Piruz Nahavandi in speaking and in writing, both long before 2006 and after 2006. 'Firuz' is the Arabized version of 'Piruz' (as the Arabic alphabet lacks the letter 'P'). YouTube videos and Google searches of پیروز نهاوندی (Piruz Nahavandi) in Persian will show that as well; likewise the Google Books and Google Scholar sources above for پیروز نهاوندی. I honestly don't think anyone who speaks Persian would know who you're referring to if you say, in speaking, Abu Lu'lu'a or Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz as Piruz Nahavandi is the common name for him in Persian (they might even mistake it for Hajji Firuz if you say Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz); maybe on rare occasions would they know, but the name that is distinguishable in Persian is Piruz Nahavandi.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would very much like to believe you, but the way you go about it is not helpful. WP is based on reliable sources, and you are not one. Please cite a source from (long) before 2006 to back up your claim. It it's true it should be relatively easy. The fact that you know Persian (I don't) can really help here. As an aside, do you have any idea why Ishkevari (1994–2020) (direct link), the only Persian-language RS we know of on the subject, does not mention the common Persian name? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can search Google Books, Google Scholar, and other scholarly sources with the terms "پیروز نهاوندی" or "Piruz Nahavandi" yourself for the sources in writing. What I was mainly referring to in my previous comment was in speaking (hence the YouTube reference), which I understand would just be hearsay. In speaking in the Persian language, the common name for him is Piruz Nahavandi (پیروز نهاوندی), and I believe it would be hard for the average Persian speaker to decipher who Abu Lu'lu'a / Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz is if Piruz Nahavandi is not mentioned. As for your Ishkevari question, I don't have an answer for that, but Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar do show results for پیروز نهاوندی / Piruz Nahavandi / other iterations of the name 'Piruz' which include 'Pirouz', 'Piroz', etc.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've been doing a lot of digging and I think I've found the crux of the issue. I first searched Google Books for the Persianized form of his kunya "ابولؤلؤ" (Abū Luʾluʾ) before 2006 (link), and it turned up loads of pre-2006 mentions in Persian-language sources (among them a lot of scholarly, though probably not RS, sources at that). Doing the same for "پیروز نهاوندی" (Piruz Nahavandi) turns up absolutely nothing (link).
However, looking instead for "فیروز نهاوندی" (Firuz Nahavandi) before 2006 did turn up (link) just as many sources as "ابولؤلؤ" (Abū Luʾluʾ), perhaps of slightly lesser quality but seemingly still good enough for wp:aboutself. Remember that fa.wiki also originally had "Firuz Nahavandi" in March 2006, which was changed to "Piruz Nahavandi" in April 2008. It's that 'f' to 'p' change in spelling which obscured this form of the name from view, only appearing as it does in extremely low-quality post-2008 sources.
I think all we need now is to pick the best available sources at (non-time-restricted) Google Books and cite these in the article. I think there are enough of them to add to the name section something like:

In modern Persian-language sources he is sometimes referred to by the non-historical name Fīrūz Nahāvandī (فیروز نهاوندی).[1]

1. ^ [Citing some sources taken from the Google Books link above.] More recently, the form Pīrūz Nahāvandī (پیروز نهاوندی) has also become popular, for example on the Persian-language Wikipedia.
and change the lead sentence to something like:

Abū Luʾluʾa Fīrūz (Arabic: أبو لؤلؤة فیروز, from Middle Persian: Pērōz), also known in modern Persian-language sources as Abū Luʾluʾ (ابولؤلؤ) or Fīrūz Nahāvandī (فیروز نهاوندی), was a Sasanian Persian slave who assassinated Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644), the second Islamic caliph, in November 644.

All we need now is an editor who knows Persian and who can pick out the best available sources for us to cite. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that last bit, I added some sources myself. If someone who knows Persian would provide transliterations and/or add publishers, locations, etc. where missing, or would just provide better sources with fuller bibliographical records, that would of course still be helpful! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An end to the saga then! Well done Apaugasma for your hard, earnest work. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Apaugasma: Why did you remove the Hiro WP:RS from the article? I've restored the RS on the article, and moved your sentence regarding his Piruz Nahavandi name from inside the citation to the article itself per the RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it per the rough consensus above that Hiro 2019 is isolated and suspect for circularity. Personally I also believe that the combination of "Firuz Nahavandi" occurring very widely in pre-2008 sources [14] and "Piruz Nahavandi" being completely absent from them [15] tends to show that the name was popularized by Wikipedia (hence too the citation of the Persian Wikipedia). Btw the source you added here [16] does not seem to contain the name "Piruz Nahavandi"? In any case, I reverted it for the time being because there is no consensus for these edits at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are the only person here claiming it is an example of circularity, and you've now reverted both myself and another editor. We're going in circles here. Please provide valid proof of circularity, otherwise, the Hiro source is clearly a WP:RS as we've discussed. Furthermore, you're reporting me for edit warring, though my edits are not reverts and include the addition of the sources and content that we've discussed. You again are edit warring by reverting the edits and are in clear violation of WP:3RR, so I have no choice but to report you as well. You must seek WP:Consensus on the circularity, and the WP:Onus is on you to do so. Also, you previously stated the Hiro source is an RS, but are now going against the discussions and the consensus. A reminder that you do not own the article, regardless of your edit history on the page. Please stop edit warring and use this talk page. Iskandar323's neutral version should be restored until this is resolved.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just corrected a citation alignment issue; I don't have a version. I would actually say that Apaugasma has gone out of their way to research and properly source the Persian name (with an "f"); you, on the other hand, just appear to be unduly fixated on a minor variant spelling of almost zero consequence and based on a single source. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue at hand is that the "single source" is an example of WP:RS (also, I've mentioned other sources on Google Scholar, Google Journal, etc.). Apaugasma agreed that the Hiro source is an RS, and then reverted edits for the umpteenth time before falsely claiming that there is rough consensus to back their claims.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certainly in agreement that the lead doesn't need clogging with marginal alt names—WP:ALTNAME being the generally instructive guideline here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I believe my previous edit cleaned it up fairly well per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, but was reverted by Apaugasma. There's also no need to add the sentence that Apaugasma added, "also known in modern Persian-language sources as Abu Lu'lu'", as the subject is commonly known as Piruz Nahavandi in the Persian-language per the WP:CommonName on the Persian Wiki and the English-language Hiro WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More than half of the sources used in the article use the Persianized Abu Lu'lu' and variants (see my !vote in the RM below). The sources using "Piruz Nahavandi" are indeed marginal (a work of fiction, some WP:SPS, and the journalist Dilip Hiro, all post the first appearance of that name on fa.wiki in 2008). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I told you above, Abu Lu'lu' is an Arabic-origin term. Even if it is used in Persian sources (which I do see it is), it is still of Arabic origin and not of Persian origin. Therefore, your current version in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE isn't ideal and I suggest my version of the parenthesis in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE (whether with your preferred Firuz or my preferred Piruz per the Hiro source & Persian Wiki), which includes the Middle Persian, Modern Persian, and Arabic forms as we discussed above. Another option that aligns closer to your edit is to bring the Piruz Nahavandi sentence out of the citation and into the Name section itself per WP:Clarify. As stated below, I'm going to WP:JUSTDROPIT as there is no win in this for me, but I strongly believe the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, you even admitted that it's an RS, and there has been no valid proof of WP:Circular for the Hiro source. I do commend you, however, for taking the time to research and bring forth the various sources we've discussed above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Apaugasma: Following up with my comment above, I believe the last suggestion I noted might be best & you might agree upon, and we could put this all to rest - bringing the following Piruz Nahavandi sentence that you've added out of the citation and into the Name section itself per WP:Clarify: "More recently, the form Pīrūz Nahāvandī (پیروز نهاوندی) has also become popular, for example on the Persian-language Wikipedia.". That will be all from me as I've made my points by now and would like to wrap it up.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly believe that moving it to the main text would be wp:undue, partly because of the low quality of the sources and the circularity concerns, and partly because it would just take up too much space in proportion to the other content of the section. The name section should for the most part deal with what multiple RS report. One sentence about a non-historical name only or almost only occurring in non-RS is enough: expanding upon that would produce an undue focus on this issue. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Toddy1: I can see that you've reverted and removed the RS that we've discussed here. I understand you've noted WP:BRD, but please read the talk page discussions here to become familiar with the situation. The Hiro 2019 source is a WP:RS that is called into question here by Apaugasma. Apaugasma claims, without proof, that it is an example of WP:Circular. However, both myself and another user - Iskandar323 - have added/allowed it on the article. Apaugasma is the only user claiming it is circular, has not provided any proof or reached WP:Consensus on the matter, and has gone back on their word of admitting the Hiro source is an RS. Apaugasma continues to revert my different RS-added edits while claiming I'm the one edit warring, even though my edits have differentiation per our talk page discussions and are not reverts unlike theirs. Apaugasma falsely claimed that there is rough consensus when they are the only one arguing against the source, and persistently reverted edits/removed the WP:RS: 1 2.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see above and don't present my views on behalf of me. I was simply indifferent to undoing your pickling of the lead ahead of a probable page move and need to edit it again. One English language source (this is en.wiki) does not an alt name make. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ronnnaldo7: You were edit-warring and you knew it. You need consensus for your bold edits. As far as I can see, your account is the only account in favour of your changes. On this talk page, you have repeatedly argued that Persian-language Wikipedia is a reliable source for the subject's name. The generally-rejected argument that Islamic bookshops selling a book was an endorsement of the book was much more sensible than that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apaugasma persistently reverted my good-faith edits: 1, 2, 3, and they're not being reprimanded for edit warring or for their personal attacks towards me? My edits were in WP:GoodFaith and WP:Bold in attempting to resolve the WP:ALTNAME based on MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE per the English-language WP:RS, and yet we now have the cluttered Apaugasma version that you've reverted to without even verifying or reading through the discussions here. The issue at hand is Apaugasma agreed that the Hiro source is an RS, and then reverted edits for the umpteenth time before falsely claiming that there is rough consensus. Also, you clearly haven't read through the discussions if you believe my argument is that the Persian-language Wiki is a reliable source - which you also admitted to not having done so. My argument here is that the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, and Apaugasma has made undue claims of WP:Circular without presenting a shred of evidence or gaining consensus, and is persistently reverting my WP:GoodFaith & different (non-revert) edits. Apaugasma is the only one claiming it is circular. Furthermore, what the heck does this have to do with your tangent example of Islamic bookshops?...--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ronnnaldo7: We all accept that your bold edits were made in good faith. But, as explained above, the sources that support Piruz Nahavandi all seem to have been published after that name appeared in Persian-language Wikipedia in 2008. Statements in sources that were based on Wikipedia are not considered by Wikipedia to be supported by reliable sources. I can empathise with your feeling of disappointment, and your wish that it was not true. Take a few months break from this, and then try and find sources from the 1990s or earlier and see what they say. (By the way The bookshop endorsement story is quite interesting; Apaugasma and I were both involved in it. I think you would enjoy reading it. Maybe it would give you some insights.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I appreciate your attempts to mediate, this is the crux of my issue. Both you and Apaugasma have been editing together, both this page and other pages, and I feel that you are siding with Apaugasma as a result and without clearly taking a look at the discussions here - hence why I previously mentioned the importance for impartiality in my earlier discussions here so that there wouldn't be an abuse of power / WP:POV. I'm going to WP:JUSTDROPIT now as there is no win in this for me, but I strongly believe the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, Apaugasma even admitted that it's an RS, and there has been no valid proof of WP:Circular for the Hiro source. That is all from me; I've spent far too long discussing this and I'll be moving on from this now.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ronnnaldo7, since you've made it clear on your user talk that you prefer to discuss behavior here, I'll post this on the article talk for once. Toddy1 and I took opposing sides in the ANI about that editor pushing religious sources, and your wp:aspersions about abuse of power need to stop. As for the edit to my user page, you should know that it is emphatically not about you but about my whole experience on WP. Yes, I believe that editors pushing ethnic or religious talking points with whatever bad sourcing they can find should simply not be editing Wikipedia and should be indef blocked at sight (I think Toddy1 strongly disagrees there), and yes I believe that includes you, but this is all just my tiny minority belief about WP (hence why it's on my user page), based on experiences with countless other users, and not in any way directed at you personally. I realize that it does come over that way, for which I'm sorry. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ronnnaldo7: If you want to use the "familiarity with the situation" argument, please check this first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title review[edit]

I'm not convinced that the title of this page really needs to be anything other than the kunya: Abu Lu'lu'a. It appears that the main scholar who uses the current title used on the article is Madelung, but he's just one scholar. The kunya alone seems amply precise, concise and aligns with more sources overall, so why the complexity that we currently have instead? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of my reasoning when I proposed and eventually made the move was that by naming it Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz the 'Firuz' part, (the Arabicized form of) his original Middle Persian name, would remain highly visible. Quite a few sources do mention that his given name was Firuz, so it's at least verifiable.
To be entirely honest, I would have simply named it Abu Lu'lu'a without second thought if I had not feared that it would lead to accusations of Arabization of Persian history as Peroz is Persian and Abu Lu’lu’a is of Arabic origin, as eventually did happen recently. As I've said before, if someone would open a wp:rm to move to Abu Lu'lu'a I would probably support. It is undoubtedly the wp:commonname. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, it appears I'm a broken clock. I thought we'd had a similar discussion, but not the exact same one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, "Piruz Nahavandi" is also presented in the English language and Persian language sources per WP:COMMONNAME. The Persian Wiki also has the article title based on the common name of Piruz Nahavandi.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common name means that it is the most common name in English language sources, which it definitely isn't. It's rare compared to Abu Lulu'a. It may or may not be an example of the "Arabization of history" as you say, but editorially overruling that here would be WP:RGW. He lived and died in an Arab empire performing a famous assassination, so it's not surprising that his name has the greatest historical currency and prevalence in Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with WP:RGW. Let's stick to the facts here - the point is, as per above, there are scholarly sources, both in English and in Persian, with both Piruz Nahavandi and Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz. The common name in the Persian language is most certainly Piruz Nahavandi (hence the Persian Wiki's article title), and both the former and latter names are used in scholarly English language sources and in search engine sources (e.g. Google).--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz → Abu Lu'lu'a – Per the above discussions of the page title. "Abu Lu'lu'a" is an unambiguous title for the subject and the WP:COMMONNAME apparent in English language scholarship. The appellation of Firuz after this name is something that only comes from a handful of sources by comparison, and was partly done as a form of compromise (an offering to Iranian readers) in the hope of warding off naming disputes. It was unsuccessful in the latter, while the overarching naming confusion has now been conclusively resolved. Since compromise, while sometimes necessary, is not really a policy or guidleline, it seems like this unnecessary addition (which adds no precision, but does detract from concision and muddies the common name) can be dispensed with. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among the sources used in the article, Abu Lu'lu'a and variants are used by Caetani (1905–1926) vol. V, p. 216, El-Hibri (2010) p. 108, Levi Della Vida & Bonner (1960–2007), Madelung (1997) p. 75, and Pellat (1983–2011). Abu Lu'lu' and variants are used by Algar (1990), Calmard (1996) p. 161, Ishkevari & Nejad (2008), Ismail (2016) p. 92, Johnson (1994) p. 127, Mavani (2016) p. 137, Stewart (1996) p. 47, and Torab (2007) p. 194. Among those, Calmard (1996) p. 161, Madelung (1997) p. 75, and Pellat (1983–2011) also mention his given name Firuz/Feroz, while Fischer (1980) p. 16 is unique in only mentioning Firuz but not Abu Lu'lu'a/Abu Lu'lu'. For Firuz Nahavandi we currently have no RS and for Piruz Nahavandi there is one known RS, Hiro 2019.
While more sources in the article use Abu Lu'lu' and variants (8) than Abu Lu'lu'a and variants (5), among those sources that are most used in the article and treat the subject in most detail there are more sources (3) using Abu Lu'lu'a (El-Hibri (2010), Madelung (1997), Pellat (1983–2011)) than sources (2) using Abu Lu'lu' (Algar (1990), Torab (2007) p. 194).
Apart from purely quantitative considerations, Abu Lu'lu' is derivative while Abu Lu'lu'a is the original (it's an Arabic name) and is used as such by all primary sources, which I think should strongly weigh to the advantage of the latter. All considered I think that Abu Lu'lu'a is therefore the best title. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections. I have no objections to the change. But I also have no objections to the article being called "Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz". I strongly object to it being changed to "Piruz Nahavandi" (a name discussed earlier on this page).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opportunity for input given title discussions in above sections. SilverLocust 💬 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Umar's death date[edit]

Umar died on 1 Muharram per Ibn Kathir and several other scholars. Umar was stabbed on 26 Dhu al-Hijja while died few days later on 1 Muharram, please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.148.36 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a reliable modern secondary source which discusses this date and explicitly mentions 1 Muharram?
The sources currently used only mention "ʿUmar was assassinated, at the height of his powers (his age is given variously as 53, 55, 60, 61 and 63), on 26 Ḏhu ’l-Ḥidjdja 23" (Levi Della Vida & Bonner 1960–2007) and "assassinated the caliph ʿOmar b. al-Ḵaṭṭāb, on Wednesday, 26 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 23 [...] According to some sources, death was instantaneous. Others relate that the caliph survived three days; this version seems more probable." (Pellat 1983–2011)
Pellat is probably talking about Ibn Kathir, but unfortunately he does not explicitly mention that after surviving three more days (27, 28, 29 Dhu al-Hijja) he died on the fourth day after the assassination, on 1 Muharram. We need another source for this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The source which is cited in the article, History of al-Tabari: Volume XIV: The Conquest of Iran, mentions several dates and included that "Abū Ja'far [al-Ṭabarī] said that it is also reported that ('Umar) died at the beginning of al-Muḥarram, 24 [November 7, 644]. I am not an expert on Wikipedia so unfortunately don't know much, if you could maybe find any good sources for 1 Muharram date because on the date of 1 Muharram every year, several events and rallies are carried by Sunnis in commemoration of Umar especially throughout South Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.57.223.145 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, SheryOffical. Unfortunately al-Tabari is also a primary source, and we need a secondary source for this. I don't have time to look for one right now; maybe later. I have also adjusted it in the Umar article, and asked editors there to look for a source. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: Well, after a little bit of research, I found one source for the 1 Muharram date and that is Meir Litvak's Know The Enemy: Evolving Attitudes Towards "Others" in Modern Shiʿi Thought and Practice in which Litvak mentions about Umar Kushan on page 132: "prominent Shiʿī authorities, such as Shaykh Mufīd and Ibn Idrīs al-Ḥīllī (d. 1201), who had maintained that there was no historical basis to the claim that ʿUmar was killed on 9 Rabīʿ but that he actually died at the end of Ẕī Ḥijjah or the first of Muḥarram; the ḥadīth attributed to the Prophet of praising....". This may be a good source to add to the Umar Kushan] article. Shaykh Kasuri 22:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abu_Lu%27lu%27a&oldid=1227956897"