Talk:Ormus/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Mirros site
Plagiarized from
[Paste of article text removed]
- Just for the record, it's not plagairized--Nationmaster mirrors content from Wikipedia. PRIIS 09:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Poem inclusion?
I probably won't see this page again, but I would just like to raise the issue on whether or not the poem in this article is of any relevance. I chose not to remove it, but I don't know, really. -x42bn6 08:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't a poem, though I agree it might almost look like one. It is a remark of historian John Speed. The poem-like layout simply tries to reproduce Speed's original layout, which is found upon a 1626 map of the Middle East. If it is of relevance I am not sure of either, but it is not a poem. /The Phoenix 14:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Hormuz in Marco Polo's book
The city of Hormuz or Ormus is mentioned in the travels for Marco Polo. Could be interesting to add that information.
~Naddia~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.149.103 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
John Speed passage
Why not read the '∫' as long s? Why not read mothe r?itie as mother Citie, given that the mystery letter is said to look like '(' ? —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, in reality of course this '∫' (i.e., long s) is simply how they usually printed "s" in certain positions in those (not just in English, but in Latin, German, and other European languages). There is no reason to reproduce it as anything other than plain "s" when we're quoting old authors today. Vmenkov (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ormus (Chemical)
Can we please get a see also page for the alchemical formula of Ormus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.255.49.47 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ormus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:de881MdDmrsJ:www.dataxinfo.com/hormuz/The%2520City%2520and%2520the%2520Sea%2520-%2520Hormuz.pdf+Kings+of+Ormuz&cd=2&hl=ca&ct=clnk&gl=es with https://web.archive.org/web/20111215220015/http://www.dataxinfo.com/hormuz/The%20City%20and%20the%20Sea%20-%20Hormuz.pdf on http://www.dataxinfo.com/hormuz/The%20City%20and%20the%20Sea%20-%20Hormuz.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The list of rulers?
I am wondering where the list of rulers is coming from? Other than spellings being wrong (Seyf ud-din not Serf ud-din), the list doesn't match either Mo'ini's history OR the portuguese archival documents.
BaghdadKavad (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Major Edits
This article is a disaster. It actually provides very little information on Hormuz and even renders the name in the obsolete, medieval European way, while the native sources always call it Hormuz (Shabankareyi, Mo'ini, Vassaf, etc.). It also lacks any information about the political history of the original city on the southern coast of Iran or the kingdom that later grew out of the island of Jarun/Hormuz. I am going to do major edits on this page and turn it into a respectable page. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You mean what I mean from the sentence? Well "a certain" is really just a figure of speech. I put the h/b speculation because sources sometimes over-correct his name to Deramkuh (meaning unknown) or try to say it is Deramkub (for Dirham-kub "Dirham issuer"). Both seem to me to be folk etymologies. I just include them for people who might have seen both version. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I have added a major section to the pre-Portuguese history. I will be adding references to it. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://iranologie.com/the-history-page/the-kingdom-of-hormuz/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. I am the writer of the original source, and it is public domain and I am not raising copyright issues. I shall not paraphrase myself for 8 pages. You want to remove the pre-Portuguese history to satisfy an agenda, so do what you like. I don't really care. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Pre-Portugues History Section Amended
The article seems to be a victim of people involved in edit warring because of political interests, having removed most of the history of Hormuz/Ormuz prior to the Portuguese conquest because of supposed concerns over copyright (from a public domain website written by me, so I am not going to raise issues against myself for sure). I am an academic and don't have the time to get involved in nonsensical political disputes, so I don't really care enough to paraphrase myself for 8 pages of text. But I do care that people who see this article know that Hormuz did exist before the Portuguese came to conquer it. So I added a small paragraph with proper references to bring this to the readers' attention. Good luck with the Wikipedia goal of educating people by being so petty. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is no agenda, other than your own. Your personal blog is not a fit source for Wikipedia and you can assert your status as an academic as much as you like, but copying and pasting that blog text into Wikipedia without proper CC licensing is both a copyright violation AND using Original Research WP:OR, which is strongly discouraged. Just because you say it is true - and that you are an academic - does not make it true. Your blog is not a reliable source WP:RS for Wikipedia. That's as far as any agenda goes - well-sourced, reliable and encyclopaedic content that does not violate copyright is the aim, nothing more or less. As for charges of edit warring, I flagged the content as a copyright violation, an administrator agreed and redacted the violating content. There's no war. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a blog, and whatever it is, it is well-sourced and researched, as you acknowledge here, and it is a text that has been referred to in academic articles by others. It's based on my study of original sources of the time and is a basic expose of the history of the area based on these sources, regardless of my status (which you seem to be referring to here as a weakness). So, I have referred to original research, the content were encylopaedic (it is a basic expose and does not contain any "agenda") and as far as copyright goes, the entire website is public domain. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did not refer to it as well-sourced and researched. It's Original Research, rather than facts cited to academic papers or other media. And without following specific WP procedures to make the copyright available under a CC license (which you did not), it's a copyright violation. It's not good enough evidence for a Wikipedia article, because it doesn't count as a editorially independent reliable source. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, let's have a discussion here on the nature of historiography. The fact is that articles on the history of non-Western entities suffer from a lack of research, because there has basically not been enough work done on these areas, particularly on in-between areas like Hormuz. There isn't always a 100 books and articles available on these subjects like there is for, let's say, Tudor England or the Holy Roman Empire or even the Duchy of Spoleto! These are neglected parts of the world with neglected subaltern histories, and even if someone was going to write a book about them (I am, about a neighbouring area) there will not always be funding or publisher's interest on them. But these are parts of world history and should be addressed. In the past 80 years, apart from an few articles by Jean Aubin, Qaem Maqami, Potts, and Vosughi, there has been precious little written about this. I sort of see online publishing, including Wikipedia, as a way of remedying this research. I am in fact publishing an article on Kish and Hormuz and so a part of this information will soon become "editorially" verified. But for now, this is research that I have done based on reading the original sources, finding a few documents that were previously not noticed, and looking at alternative sources of information. Its presence perhaps is less harmful than its absence, don't you think? --BaghdadKavad (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, no. Better to have a few well sourced, attributed facts than unverifiable OR - particularly in an area like the Gulf that is subject to so much dubious nationalism and revisionism when it comes to history. So let's stick to citing verifiable bodies of work - including peer reviewed academic papers - rather than including 'our own' research, primary sources, which is not allowable as per Wikipedia guidelines. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, let's have a discussion here on the nature of historiography. The fact is that articles on the history of non-Western entities suffer from a lack of research, because there has basically not been enough work done on these areas, particularly on in-between areas like Hormuz. There isn't always a 100 books and articles available on these subjects like there is for, let's say, Tudor England or the Holy Roman Empire or even the Duchy of Spoleto! These are neglected parts of the world with neglected subaltern histories, and even if someone was going to write a book about them (I am, about a neighbouring area) there will not always be funding or publisher's interest on them. But these are parts of world history and should be addressed. In the past 80 years, apart from an few articles by Jean Aubin, Qaem Maqami, Potts, and Vosughi, there has been precious little written about this. I sort of see online publishing, including Wikipedia, as a way of remedying this research. I am in fact publishing an article on Kish and Hormuz and so a part of this information will soon become "editorially" verified. But for now, this is research that I have done based on reading the original sources, finding a few documents that were previously not noticed, and looking at alternative sources of information. Its presence perhaps is less harmful than its absence, don't you think? --BaghdadKavad (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did not refer to it as well-sourced and researched. It's Original Research, rather than facts cited to academic papers or other media. And without following specific WP procedures to make the copyright available under a CC license (which you did not), it's a copyright violation. It's not good enough evidence for a Wikipedia article, because it doesn't count as a editorially independent reliable source. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a blog, and whatever it is, it is well-sourced and researched, as you acknowledge here, and it is a text that has been referred to in academic articles by others. It's based on my study of original sources of the time and is a basic expose of the history of the area based on these sources, regardless of my status (which you seem to be referring to here as a weakness). So, I have referred to original research, the content were encylopaedic (it is a basic expose and does not contain any "agenda") and as far as copyright goes, the entire website is public domain. --BaghdadKavad (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)