Jump to content

Talk:Qanat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Qanat/Archive 2) (bot
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Technology|class=C}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Civil engineering|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Civil engineering|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Water|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Water|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East |importance=Low}}
}}
}}
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archive box|auto=long}}
| algo=old(365d)
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Qanat/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:Qanat/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=100K
}}
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadsleft=1
==Dating==
| minthreadstoarchive=1}}
''a farming technology known to have developed entirely in ancient Persia,'' Does this then mean "brought to an exquisite peak of technical perfection in Persia before it was even ''considered'' elsewhere?" I've seen the aerial photographs, too. But how are these ancient qanat systems dated? By [[fatwa]]?[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 00:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:No, by Bush's [[State of the Union Address]]. How else do you think they date archeological remains?

:Even the name Qanat is Persian.--[[User:Zereshk|Zereshk]] 03:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Qouting [[Jona Lendering]] from his website * [http://www.livius.org/q/qanat/qanat.html]: " As the ceramics of the farms at the exit of a qanat offer an indication of its age, it is possible to date the first qanats to the late second millennium B.C.E.; they were constructed in the country that was once known as Maka and is now called [[Oman]].
In the Late Iron Age, the irrigation technique spread to Iran; in the sixth century, many qanats were dug in the area east of the Zagros mountains" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.154.8.168|213.154.8.168]] ([[User talk:213.154.8.168|talk]]) 10:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Tikrit argues a South-East Arabian origin for the falaj (or Qanat) and so I'm adding that to the article. To be honest, I think it makes sense for falaj to have its own page, specifically because of recent archaeological finds, publications and clearer understanding of these systems and their role in the early UAE (or Omana or Magan, or Makkan). It's a concept with its own name in Arabic and its own place in Arab (specifically UAE) history. I'd be interested in any views on this. [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 05:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

== Article has been rewritten & renamed ==

I would have been disastrous to dump my specific article about a specific place into that huge wandering article on Qanat. I just went through a great deal of trouble to change the whole article (even though right now it is DYK) and to change the name to prevent such an awful event. Hopefully you can let my little article alone now. It would have been drowned in that messy Qanat article, and the point of it completely lost, as the article which has nothing to do with mine. --[[User:Mattisse|<span style="color:#007FFF;">'''Mattisse'''</span>]] 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:Fine, I think you're right that it works well as it is now, though I have added at least a link from the [[Turfan water system‎]] article to [[qanat]]. --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::From what I can make out from the qanat article, they are not quite the same systems, although the rambling description of qanat is unclear and the article is a grab bag article with everything but the kitchen sink thrown&mdash;it too long to bother to read and try to sort it out&mdash;so many inadequate descriptions of other countries thrown in, probably the result of your "merge at all costs" policy. And most of the qanat references are taken from two books on Iran (Persia) published by the University of Texas, so the qanat article seems POV. Plus why add more mess to the qanat article? Many of the pictures are misrepresentations of Turfan's system as it is. The whole article is misleading. --[[User:Mattisse|<span style="color:#007FFF;">'''Mattisse'''</span>]] 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Fair enough - I'll bow to your greater knowledge of the subject as a whole. Presumably there ought to be a general article on "water systems fed by sloping tunnels from upland aquifers", but I'm certainly in no position to write it, or even to know what title it should go under. I agree that at present this one seems heavily skewed towards Persia. --[[User:OpenToppedBus|OpenToppedBus]] - [[User talk:OpenToppedBus|Talk to the driver]] 08:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

== why a separate article? ==

Qanat / Qanaah literally means 'channel' in Arabic. This article should be merged with 'irrigation channel'. --[[Special:Contributions/212.9.126.1|212.9.126.1]] ([[User talk:212.9.126.1|talk]]) 13:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

== Qanat > Canal ! ==

canal: early 15c., from French canal, chanel "water channel, tube, pipe, gutter" (12c.), from Latin canalis "water pipe, groove, channel," noun use of adjective from canna "reed" (see cane). Originally in English "a pipe for liquid," its sense transferred by 1670s to "artificial waterway." cane: late 14c., from Old French cane "reed, cane, spear" (13c., Modern French canne), from Latin canna "reed, cane," from Greek kanna, perhaps from Assyrian qanu "tube, reed" (cf. Hebrew qaneh, '''Arabic''' qanah "reed"), from Sumerian gin "reed." But Tucker finds this borrowing "needless" and proposes a native Indo-European formation from a root meaning "to bind, bend." Sense of "walking stick" in English is 1580s. says: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=canal&searchmode=none [[User:Böri|Böri]] ([[User talk:Böri|talk]]) 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

== Merger proposal ==

I propose that [[Turpan water system]] be merged into [[Qanat]]. The [[Turpan water system]] is karez or kariz, that is already been redirected to [[Qanat]], and its Chinese version [[zh:坎儿井]] is linked to [[qanat]] too.[[User:Hahahaha哈|Hahahaha哈]] ([[User talk:Hahahaha哈|talk]]) 03:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
:I don't agree; the [[Turpan water system]] article is about a specific implementation of the technology (like [[Aqueduct (bridge)]] versus [[Aqueduct of Segovia]]). [[Turpan water system]] is long enough to stand on its own, and this article is ''incredibly'' long already and would suffer from a merger. -[[Special:Contributions/165.234.252.11|165.234.252.11]] ([[User talk:165.234.252.11|talk]]) 20:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified (January 2018) ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on [[Qanat]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/821795136|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1031/the-qanats-of-iran/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161018153716/http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20%28UNESCO-IHE%2CUNW-DPC%2C%202009%29.pdf to http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20(UNESCO-IHE,UNW-DPC,%202009).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429163019/http://amordadnews.com/neveshtehNamyesh.aspx?NId=6010 to http://amordadnews.com/neveshtehNamyesh.aspx?NId=6010
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609052009/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/ghi/02143038/articulos/ELEM8484120249A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/ghi/02143038/articulos/ELEM8484120249A.PDF
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.qanat.info/en/colloge.php
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://scitation.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=ASCERL&smode=strresults&maxdisp=25&possible1=Madani%2C+Kaveh&possible1zone=author&OUTLOG=NO&aqs=true&viewabs=ASCECP&key=DISPLAY&docID=1&page=0&chapter=0&aqs=true
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326131646/http://www.destinationiran.com/Kariz_(Qanat).htm to http://www.destinationiran.com/Kariz_(Qanat).htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 17:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

== Tikriti and Arabia ==

I'm sorry, reverters, but Tikriti does indeed claim that and the source backs it perfectly. Al Ain's <i>aflaj</i> are precisely of south east Arabian origin and Tikriti does indeed argue as such - and that they are pre-Achaemenid. His paper, quoted in the citation, is TITLED "The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system" - it can't really get clearer than that, can it? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 06:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
::I added a further source citing Tikriti's view (shared by Potts and others, BTW). Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 09:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

== Origin ==

I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=852761659&oldid=851448006 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]]. {{Ping|Wikaviani}} What do you think about it? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 08:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

: This is blatant POV pushing by a disruptive editor who has been already [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexandermcnabb#December_2017 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.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=872439443&oldid=872368554 diff] makes it more dubious. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 14:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

: Hi {{Ping|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. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Nabataeus}} Hi, fyi, i reverted the controversial edit, since such a claim sounds quite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources exceptional] and as such, requires multiple high quality sources and a consensus on the article talk page. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 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). [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 00:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

{{Ping|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. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk: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 <u>isn't</u> POV pushing, per [[Wikipedia:LEAD]], where is this information in the article? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 02:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
:::Well, if this <u>isn't</u> 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''". --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 03:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: [https://fr.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/English-1968-Origin.pdf WARD] : "Apparently originating in pre-Achaemenid Persia, tunnel-wells spread to Egypt, the Levant, and Arabia in Achaemenid times (550-331 B.C.).".
::::: [https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat 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.
::::: [https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2000.tb00021.x 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."
::::: [http://www.academia.edu/10767576/The_Origin_and_Diffusion_of_Qanats_in_Arabia_New_Evidence_from_the_Northern_and_Southern_Peninsula 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, {{u|LouisAragon}} can feel free to make the move. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 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]]. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk: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]]. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 09:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

:: That's quite a violent reaction, {{Ping|Wikaviani}} - the content has been in the article for some months now and the cites back it up solidly. It's not POV pushing, as others have also argued, with some conviction, that there is now substantive academic opinion that casts doubt on the origin of the Qanat as undoubtedly Persian. You're not the first person to try and yank Doug Weller into a sourcing argument. The sources are good, the content is good, the argument is real and now accepted/made by a number of respected academics. You may not like it(clearly you don't) but there it is. We've got Remy Boucharlat (2003), in his paper Iron Age Water-draining galleries and the Iranian Qanat, (in Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer [eds.] Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, Trident Press, London, who states: "We are left without any Iranian ancestor in antiquity for the qanat technique of draining from a deep water table. Until we have more definite information, it is best to consider the use of underground galleries in the Oman Peninsula during protohistory and antiquity as a local invention." p. 170

:: Earlier in his paper, he cites excavated falajes from the UAE Iron Age, e.g. one at Bida bint Saud. "Here too, are good indications of an Iron Age for the falaj, which is situated around 150 m from a very interesting building with a pillared hall (al-Tikriti et al. 2001: Fig.03; 2002: 349-351, Fig. 12). The Iron Age date for this gallery is provided by several hundred pottery sherds found in the well-defined archaeological context of the tunnelled gallery and the shari'a." (p. 167)

:: I'll add more tomorrow as I don't have access right now to all my books. The doubt as to the origin SHOULD be in the lead. More can follow lower down. I'm happy to keep piling on the content and respected academic sources. It's not WP:POV. It's not WP:UNDUE. It's just something that appears to upset your own personal applecart. But it IS a thing. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 12:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and someone asked about the Underground Aqueducts Handbook. You may find this instructive. I hope the quotes are OK under fair use:

"Concerning the first examples of these underground aqueducts, all the studies until the end of the last century firmly attributed their invention to the Iranians in the early first millennium BC, following H. Goblot’s book (Goblot 1979). This position cannot be longer maintained." Underground Aqueducts Handbook P. 280

"The chronology of the early falaj was rapidly set, thanks to several excavations of villages totally depending of the falaj. Moreover, an example in Oman was dated by radiocarbon of the ninth century BC (Cleuziou 2001, 3 quoting I.D. Clark’s PhD in Paris 6 University 1987, 173). 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. He published his first results in 2002 in Arabic and later an up-to-date English edition (al-Tikriti 2011)." P. 283

"The question of the date of these early aflāj is not disputed. Every excavated example is clearly linked to a settlement, and in three cases, together with a large building, each of them is securely dated from the Iron Ages II and, possibly, III. Iron Age II starts at the turn of the second and first millennia BC and ends around 600 BC." P. 287

"None of the Iranian qanāt can be directly dated from the pre-Islamic period and even from the following centuries, despite some assumptions put forward time to time, especially for the Khorasan province, corresponding to the NE quarter of the country." P 296

Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

: Hi to all of you. My concerns are about the [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] nature of such a claim since it goes against what the vast majority of the sources support. {{ping|Alexandermcnabb}} : I would suggest you to follow [[WP:BRD]] since you're an experienced editor and as such, you're certainly aware of Wiki rules. As said above, since this "Arabian peninsula" claim goes against what the vast majority of sources say, it's what we call [[WP:FRINGE]] or [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]], this kind of claims requires multiple high quality sources and for now, you failed to provide them. Also, even if a disputed origin can be mentioned in the article (with multiple high quality sources), this certainly does not belong to the lead. I would appreciate other knowledgeable editors' opinion here. {{ping|LouisAragon|Kansas Bear|HistoryofIran}}. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 16:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

::First off, I would like page number(s) and quote from this source,
*Angelakis, Andreas N; Chiotis, Eustathios; Eslamian, Saeid; Weingartner, Herbert (2017). ''Underground Aqueducts Handbook''.
::Also misrepresenting what a source states is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious editing]], since Alexandermcnabb uses ''"The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management"'' to show it supports Tikriti yet oddly it contains this paragraph;
*"''Traditionally, however, the origin of aflāj in Oman has been attributed to Persian influence during Achaemenid times (eg English 1997). It is generally accepted that the technique was used in Persia from at least the end of the 8th century BC. During the mid-6th to mid-4th centuries BC. it began to be diffused more widely. This was a period of Persian expansion, especially during the reign of Cyrus the Great, and there is abundant evidence from archaeological and historical records of contact between Persia and Arabia(MRMEWR 2006). Much of Oman came under Achaemenid rule in the mid-6th century BC., and from 226 AD it formed part of the Sassanian Empire of Persia, until the Sassanians were finally driven out of Oman with the coming of Islam in the 7th century AD. It is possible that many aflāj were built in Oman in Achaemenid times, and it appears that it was during the Sassanian period that irrigation by aflāj reached its widest extent(Wilkinson 1977, 1983).''" --Zaher bin Khalid Al Sulaimani, Tariq Helmi and Harriet Nash, ''The Social Importance and Continuity of Falajuse in Northern Oman'', page 3.
::Therefore, if this source is used it should show everything it states concerning aflāj, not simply information [[Wikipedia:Cherrypicking|cherry-picked]] to show a certain POV.
::As such these sentences;
*"''This view is disputed by Tikrit[i], who argues a South-East Arabian origin for the technology. A pre-Achaemenid Empire Arabian origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook''"
::should be moved to the body of the article and sourced appropriately. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 20:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

:::*"''First off, I would like page number(s) and quote from this source, Angelakis, Andreas N; Chiotis, Eustathios; Eslamian, Saeid; Weingartner, Herbert (2017). ''Underground Aqueducts Handbook''.''"

::: You could see it above in my post, Aqueducts of Saudi Arabia, page 214, make a case of Arabian origin Qanat system.

:::* "''Also misrepresenting what a source states is [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious editing]], since Alexandermcnabb uses ''"The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management"'' to show it supports Tikriti yet oddly it contains this paragraph''"

::: It also contains the following; "'''There is archaeological evidence that the earliest period of falaj construction in Oman dates back to 1000 BC. (Al Tikriti 2002), suggesting a pre-Achaemenid origin and consistent with the legend.'''". Which should be included, the paper don't knock the doors of the problematic origin of the aflaj system. The traditional belief is as that, only with the extensive field work that this idea of the diffusion of the system from Iran to Arabia can't withstand archaeological evidence. The existence of Qanat technology in Arabia pre-date that of Iran by centuries. Which according to Boucharlat this system was not invented and diffused from Iran, he believe it to be an independent innovation in many regions.

:::* "''should be moved to the body of the article and sourced appropriately''".

::: Both should be removed or included. The lead cover "any prominent controversies", and since this is that "'''''The origin of this technology is still debated'''.... I aim to take a step back from the '''controversy''' about the origin of falaj technology''" (Julien Charbonnier). Then it ought to be included next to the various hypotheses.

:::* Per NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant [[Point of view (philosophy)|views]] that have been [[wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]<nowiki/>on a topic.

::: So far there are 4 sources that support the hypothesis that it was an Arabian invention ("''Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Otes''", "''The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system''" by Tikriti, "'' the Underground Aqueducts HandBook, Acueducts of Saudi Arabia''", and "''Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer - Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates''"). [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 22:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: <del>At no stage, BTW, did I use "The 4th Asian Regional Conference & 10th International Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management" as a source.</del> [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] above has done a better job than I could have in surfacing and explaining the sources here. Maybe we can now agree to reflect the academic change in - and lack of - consensus in the lead and also to change the 'Origins' section of the article which is currently badly sourced and written? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 04:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: Concerning the 4th Asian Regional Conference, could you explain this edit where you added it then[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=prev&oldid=872649189]? [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 04:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: Good point, had forgotten it was there (was looking for it in the long text above). Just used it 'cos it cited Tikriti. Lazy, really, and not the most helpful thing I've done, TBH... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 04:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}

This sentence : "There is archaeological evidence that the earliest period of falaj construction in Oman dates back to 1000 BC. (Al Tikriti 2002), suggesting a pre-Achaemenid origin and consistent with the legend" does not mean that the earliest Qanat was in Oman, rather it means that the earliest Qanat '''in Oman''' dates back to 1000 BC, not exactly the same. As Kansas Bear said above, this is a misrepresentation of what the source says.

"''The existence of Qanat technology in Arabia pre-date that of Iran by centuries. ''" : POV not supported by any source, exept if i'm mistaken. The article's lead contains five 21st century sources supporting the Iranian claim for Qanat, but an editor said above "''Maybe we can now agree to reflect the academic change in''".

To make it clear, correct me if i'm mistaken, if you fail to provide multiple high quality sources '''explicitly''' supporting an Arabian peninsula invention for this system, you're under [[WP:OR]] and your inclusion will not gain any [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 14:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

: The Qanat system and its origin and diffusion to Arabia is attributed to the Achaemenids. If you're skeptic of the source fine, no worries. As for the Qanat technology in Arabia and the claim that it pre-date those of Iran by centuries, you could see my first post.

: In the meantime, you ignored the "high quality" sources that exists which support an Arabian invention, so let's track the sources so far;

:* 1)"''archaeological evidence support this..and we believe therefore that the system was transferred to Iran from the western pediment of the Hajar mountains''". - '''The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system'''.

:* 2) "''We are left without any Iranian ancestor in antiquity for the qanat technique of draining from a deep water table. Until we have more definite information, it is best to consider the use of underground galleries in the Oman Peninsula during protohistory and antiquity as a local invention.''" - '''Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer - Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates'''.

:* 3) "''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.''" - '''Underground Aqueducts HandBook, section Aqueducts of Saudi Arabia'''

:* 4) "''Our new evidence undoubtedly indicates the possibility that the falaj may have an Arabian origin''" - '''Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopatamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday'''.

:* 5) "''It was held that the qanat must have originate in Persia, largely because that is where the larest numbers of qanats are found; and their origin has frequntely been attributed to the Achaemenids. More recently, several archaeologists working in the Arabian Peninsula have argued that qanats (aflaj) originated there, claiming to have discovered pre-Achaemenid qanats of early first millennium B.C. (Magee 2005).''" - '''The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World'''

: Sorry, you can't shove the Arabian hypothesis under the rug, or the sources that dismiss an Iranin origin such as Boucharlat. This article is heavily biased. Needs some work. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 21:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Nabataeus}} You know me and you probably know that i try to do my best to avoid being driven by any bias, otherwise you would not have pinged me in order to give my opinion in the past, right ? Thanks for the above sources and your efforts to provide citations. However, since sources are not unanimous about that system's origin, any rewording of the article should consider both claims (i'm able to provide numerous sources supporting an Iranian invention of Qanats). Will check the sources you provided above when i'll have some time for that. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Exactly! The origin is not simply Iranian or Arabian. The view of Boucharlat is more persuasive. That said, yes the article should consider both claims; "the origin of the technology is still disputed, however, the majority of scholars consider it to be an Iranian origin, while others...... etc." along the lines. And I didn't accuse you of bias, I was describing this article. Even when you said that "I failed to provide high quality sources" even though I did in my response to Kansas. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 22:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: You know very well, {{Ping|Wikaviani}}, that I have a name. You could have pinged me rather than referring to 'an editor' above. You have consistently avoided engaging with me directly in this other than to throw accusations of POV etc., even going so far as to start this whole thread on a confederate's talk page under the heading 'POV?' before moving it here when you had established a bulk of conversation without the participation of 'the editor' you disagree with. For the record, I left the Tikriti observation here with the intention of coming back and adding more when I had time. The reference to Tikriti and his beliefs (not presented by my as an absolute, you'll note, but a 'view') was valid and sourced and still is. Nevertheless, I'm very glad {{ping|Nabataeus}} came into this, with well reasoned reference to more sources - and I <b>agree totally that the article should reflect both origins</b>, which is why I brought Tikriti into it in the first place, to introduce balance to an article which lacked it. I am more than happy that [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] proceed and introduce changes to that effect and am also happy to step back so that we can get beyond wild accusations of bias and POV and actually reflect, honestly, the academic consensus which has built up with the recent investigation of the origins of the qanat (the Arabic word for 'channel', BTW) and also its Arabian cousin, until now unfairly unrecognised (and reduced to a mere redirect), the falaj. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 03:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::Actually, it '''is''' POV pushing to introduce information into the lead of an article that is not present in the body of an article. Therefore, Wikaviani's assessment of the situation was spot on. Seeing how you have been here '''7''' years you already know this and yet the information is '''still''' present in the lead. I have asked for quotes and page numbers for the aforementioned information, finally quotes have been supplied, but no page numbers.
:::*"''which is why I brought Tikriti into it in the first place, to introduce balance to an article which lacked it.''"
:::::If that were the case the information would have been placed in the body of the article not the lead. Per [[Wikipedia:LEAD]], "''Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article''". --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 05:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::: I have added the information you asked for into the article, under the section 'origin'. Somehow I don't feel you're going to be any happier, but there it is, backing up the lead and fully sourced and referenced, page by page. I haven't contested the unsourced assertion that "Qanāt (قناة) is the Arabicized of Persian Kanāt", which the next sentence itself contests, neither have I removed the badly sourced and frankly dodgy stuff about cotton and Persia. I'm out now, {{ping|Nabataeus}} is likely more acceptable to you as a contributor to this article. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 07:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::::: {{ping|:Alexandermcnabb}} As i told you on my talk, i don't meant to offend you. If you felt so by my above "no ping", then my appologies. Let's talk about content now, you added a large paragraph to the "origins" section of the article that is exclusively based on the few sources supporting (Tikriti, almost exclusively) a "South-East arabian" origin of the system, ignoring that the vast majority of sources still support a Persian origin. [[WP:UNDUE]] for the least. You need to self revert and wait for the discussion to conclude. Also, your "''I don't feel you're going to be any happier''" toward Kansas Bear shows that you blatantly know your edit will not be endorsed, [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|quite disruptive]]. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 08:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] was unhappy that the sourced assertion in the lead was not linked to text in the article. Now it is. I don't think you or he would be happy with anything less than going back to the original article pre June 2018, nothing blatant about that. But the facts are facts - there is significant academic support for an Arabian origin. We now have a Persian origin and a South East Arabian origin. Both asserted, sourced, cited. That's balance, no? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 08:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
:*"''Kansas Bear was unhappy that the sourced assertion in the lead was not linked to text in the article.''"
::No. Your addition to the lead of the article violated [[Wikipedia:LEAD]], which I explained(more than once) and clearly you ignored and chose to make personal. Your continued [[Wikipedia:TROLL|comments about another editor's emotional condition]] clearly indicates you are [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|not here]] to build an encyclopedia. I see no reason to continue any type of dialogue with someone like you. We are done here. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

: No, your edit is not well balanced at all. As said above, you're an experienced editor and you know you have to wait for the discussion to conclude before editing the article again and again. Nabataeus, who agrees with the legit inclusion of an Arabian origin, also said that it should be said that the majority of sources support an Iranian origin. How is your addition balanced ? You should self revert and be patient. Thanks.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 09:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Guys please let's calm down and not edit the page while we at it. Tikriti and other sources I read say/imply that the majority of scholars support an Iranian origin, which is the case, but in their view, could not withstand recent archaeological evidence.

We need to first establish that its origin is disputed and a matter of controversy (according to julien) "however the majority of scholars consider the system to be of Iranian origin. According to a theory proposed by Richard W. Bulliet, when the cotton was introduced to the Middle East, it devastated the agricultural systems already in place there. Because Persia is too hot for the crop to be cultivated; to solve that problem, the qanat was developed ...... etc."

side note: I am not sure if Richard said that. But the argument could be changed to reflect reliable sources. You get the point. But please include it as the opinion of the author, his views, per [[WP:NPOV]]; "'''''If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.'''''". Best regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 09:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:: SO, we have this text, reverted:

:::The 2002 publication of a paper by archaeologist Walid Yasin Al Tikriti, The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system, provided the first counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia and was identified as such by accounts of the campaigns of the Assyrian King, Sargon II, in 714 BCE. Tikriti cites this and also accounts by the Greek second and third century historian Polybius as being the basis for academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopting an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Sargon's annals and Polybius, but points out at least seven Iron Age aflaj (plural for falaj, the word used to denote waterways of this type in the United Arab Emirates) recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Additional to finds of Iron Age aflaj in Al Ain, Tikrit pointed to excavations in Al Madam, Sharjah, by the French archaeological team working there, as well as by a German team working in Maysar, in Oman. Tikriti is at pains to point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia, likely by the Sasanian conquest of the Oman peninsular.

:::Others have followed Tikriti's lead. In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat in his paper Qanāt and Falaj: Polycentric and Multi-Period Innovations Iran and the United Arab Emirates as Case Studies, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period.

::::Given that every singe assertion in that text is sourced in the reverted copy, what would you like to add to balance it? The wobbly bunkum about cotton, supported by cites that talk about Indian cotton cultivation? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 10:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: There's absolutely nothing wrong with the text, it makes it "explicit" that the it is the author view, and sourced throughout. I will save it to be included as the argument of the Arabian hypothesis. In the meantime let's not edit the page as there's no point. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 10:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: {{ping|Nabataeus}} For my part, i'm all calm. Just asked {{u|Alexandermcnabb}} to refrain from editing the article without [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] and in a [[WP:UNDUE]] manner. Therefore, i would suggest everybody to desist from editing the article without proposing his version on the talk first, as this is disruptive for Wikipedia. Hopefully, Wario-Man restored the statu quo. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 11:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::: The text itself follows [[WP:NPOV]], nothing is stated as facts neither is there any OR. Nicely sourced with reliable materials. Your problem was that it was undue, in my part it should be stated clearly that the majority support the Iranian hypothesis. Then add the arguments, not as fact but as opinion. Both for the Arabian and Iranian claims. No need for the issue to take any longer. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 11:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::: Agreed, my problem is that his version was under [[WP:UNDUE]]. However, as i said above, don't hurry and make your proposal on the talk '''before''' editing the article in order to gain [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]].<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 12:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|Nabataeus}}, you will excuse me if I have not tried to peruse the wall of text. Have you supplied page number for the quotes you have supplied? If so, I believe we can make a new section and start working on the origin section for the article.--[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::::: YOUR problem? It was Wario-Man reverted the edit! So the text is given by me above, to be inserted in the origin section, that's my proposal. I'd suggest you might like to produce a better first para stating the Iranian argument: that bunk about cotton is badly sourced, unworthy and IMHO not credible. If nobody's got anything useful to say on this (there's been a clear position to establish consensus on here - that the article should be balanced - since the get-go), I'd suggest [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] may choose to be bold. I'll not edit further for now... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 14:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{ping|Alexandermcnabb}} Yes, it was my problem and i asked you to self revert, since you did not, then Wario-Man legitimately reverted your edits. Anyway, Nabataeus, just like any other user, can feel free to make a proposal on this talk page, but not to edit the article without consensus like you did. Also, i would like to see the sources with page number(s) as Kansas Bear asked above. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 15:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
: They were given, line by line, assertion by assertion, sourced to a tee, in the reverted text. Fill your boots. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 15:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

== Continuing ==

Let's continue it here. {{ping|Kansas Bear}}, the page numbers of the sources above are;

1) '''The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system p.135 in the Arabian Studies journal, Vol. 32'''.

2) '''Potts, Al Naboodah & Hellyer - Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates p.170'''

3) '''Underground Aqueducts HandBook p.214'''

4) '''Of Pots and Plans: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopatamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday p.353'''

5) '''The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World p.291'''


Wikaviani, the texts of Alexander are sourced with page numbers that you could check. Kansas was asking me for the quote I shared above. Only thing we could do now is to propose an Iranian version. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

:Yeah, I just read the Origin section and it's a mess. {{ping|Wikaviani}}, would you be interested in writing a Iranian origin theory? Nabataeus, could you write up the Arab origin theory? Then we place both theories under the Origin section. Thoughts? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:: My version would be that of Alexander, it is sourced and nicely written that covers the provided arguments by the authors, not as facts, but as their opinions. If Wikaviani need any help in writing the Iranian version I could help him. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When you start writing section "Origin" move these current stuff from the lead to there:
*''"The qanat technology was developed in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward.[1][2][3][4][5][6] A pre-Archemaed Empire origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook. [7] The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today."''
Plus if this system was very common among different peoples of Near/Middle East and it had variations, the differences and varieties should be mentioned too. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 09:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

: Yes it would be, as the opinions of the said authors. Moreover, the Qanats of Gonabad date is not sourced, here or in the main article. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 10:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

<nowiki>* Archaemenid </nowiki> Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 10:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I did notice that the stable version (since June 2018) that opened this whole discussion got lost in among all the reverting etc. I have restored that version, which includes the Tikriti argument that started this discussion (and which, as has been proven, stands as both reputable and influential academic work that is well sourced here in our talk).

This restored content is also the context for the following line regarding a pre-Archaemenid <i>Arabian</i> origin in the Underground Aqueducts Handbook.

This original lead would be stood up by the addition of the proposed and agreed content discussed above. <b>Any</b> alternative lead would be fine by me as long as it stated a) no origin or b) both origin arguments, FWIW.

The restoration is purely procedural: that version shouldn't have been changed until our consensus here had been reached - as per the argument behind the reversion of my suggested addition in the 'Origin' section, which was given as a validation of the lead. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 16:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi, sorry for the delay responding. Yeah, i can write the Iranian part, but i'll do a proposal here on the talk page before any edit to the article.
Additionaly to the sources already in the article, here are some sources supporting an Iranian origin of qanât :

* http://hamed.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Qanat_WHC_2010.pdf
In the abstract, page 1 :
" By the increasing demand of water due to the increasing population, ancient Iranian invented a new system to bring the groundwater to
the surface using the gravitational force. "

* http://www.academia.edu/10767576/The_Origin_and_Diffusion_of_Qanats_in_Arabia_New_Evidence_from_the_Northern_and_Southern_Peninsula
page 215 :
" Qanats are most ubiquitous in Iran, where this technology was created sometime between the tenth and eighth centuries BC, and it is here
that evolutionary experimentation has created the greatest varieties with regard to lenghth, depth, and form. "

* https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat
" 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. "

* https://books.google.fr/books?id=IOj5H_yL6W4C&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=qanat+origin&source=bl&ots=Xp0Sao0rt6&sig=XXg6lIutPW823jO9pCd4fCvuB9g&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji9tKcrZbfAhVIzRoKHaqFBwk4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=qanat%20origin&f=false
chapter 8, page 125 :
" About 2500 years ago, Persians invented a number of methods for harnessing groundwater, including a water management system called a
qanat. "

Here are some sources saying that the invention of qanats is older than 1000 BC :

* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239533205_Water_resource_management_in_Ancient_Iran_with_emphasis_on_technological_approaches_a_cultural_heritage
page 583/584 :
" To make use of the limited amounts of water in arid regions, as early as the fourth millennium BC, the Iranians developed the first man-
made underground water channels called qanats. "

* https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/eer/pdf/eer-18-2-57-2.pdf
In the abstract :
" More than 3,000 years ago, Persians started constructing elaborate tunnel systems called Qanat for extracting groundwater for
agriculture and domestic usages in arid and semi-arid areas and dry deserts. "

* http://universitypublications.net/ajs/0201/pdf/RHS362.pdf
page 125, in the introduction :
" The Qanat technology was developed in Iran’s arid regions to make use of groundwater resources for agriculture and
habitation. "
and also:
" The antiquity of Qanats is not yet exactly established but the Qanat of Jopar near Kerman city (which is associated with the worship of
Anahita the water goddess) is estimated to have existed as far back as 1200 BC. "

* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260292663_Traditional_Water_Tunnels_Qanats_in_Iran
Abstract :
" Qanats are subterranean tunnels ancient civilizations built to access groundwater that have been originated from rainwater.
The technique is a sustainable method of groundwater extraction and date back some 5000 years or more in Iran. "

To all involved editors here, would you be so kind as to take a look at the above sources and let me know if they can be used in the article. Then i'll write a paragraph for the Iranian claim here on the talk in order to gain consensus for inclusion. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
::The sources look fine to me Wikaviani. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Thanks for your valuable opinion, i'm going to start writing the Iranian section. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 19:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the Iranian part of the "origins" section. I would welcome the eye of other editors before inclusion (if the article is unblocked) :

From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://hamed.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Qanat_WHC_2010.pdf|website=hamed.mit.edu|access-date=2018-12-11|title=Qanat: An Ancient Invention for Water Management in Iran|page=1}}</ref>
Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in [[History of Iran|ancient Iran]] by the [[Persian people]] sometime in the early 1st millennium BC,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://hamed.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Qanat_WHC_2010.pdf|website=hamed.mit.edu|access-date=2018-12-11|title=Qanat: An Ancient Invention for Water Management in Iran|page=1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lightfoot|first=Dale R.|title=The Origin and Diffusion of Qanats in Arabia: New Evidence from the northern and southern Peninsula|url=http://www.academia.edu/10767576/The_Origin_and_Diffusion_of_Qanats_in_Arabia_New_Evidence_from_the_Northern_and_Southern_Peninsula|journal=The Geographical Journal|language=en|volume=166|issue=3|issn=0016-7398|page=215}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=IOj5H_yL6W4C&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=qanat+origin&source=bl&ots=Xp0Sao0rt6&sig=XXg6lIutPW823jO9pCd4fCvuB9g&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji9tKcrZbfAhVIzRoKHaqFBwk4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=qanat%20origin&f=false|title=Water and Sustainability in Arid Regions: Bridging the Gap Between Physical and Social Sciences|last=Schneier-Madanes|first=Graciela|last2=Courel|first2=Marie-Francoise|date=2009-12-01|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=9789048127764|language=en|pages=125-126}}</ref> and spread from there slowly westward and eastward.<ref name="Wilson_2008">{{cite news|author= [[Andrew Wilson (classical archaeologist)|Wilson, Andrew]]|title= Hydraulic Engineering and Water Supply|editor= [[John Peter Oleson]]|book-title= Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World|location= New York|publisher= Oxford University Press|date= 2008|isbn= 978-0-19-973485-6|pages= 290–293|url= http://glirby.people.wm.edu/COLL100/Oxford-HydraulicEngineering.pdf|format= PDF|access-date= November 1, 2017|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171107055629/http://glirby.people.wm.edu/COLL100/Oxford-HydraulicEngineering.pdf|archive-date= 2017-11-07|dead-url= yes|df= }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1031/the-qanats-of-iran/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114034225/http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1031/the-qanats-of-iran/ |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2012-01-14 |title=The qanats of Iran · |author=Goldsmith, Edward }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Bart.nl|url=http://users.bart.nl/~leenders/txt/qanats.html|title= The quanats of Iran}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Water History|url=http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/qanats/qanats.pdf|title=Qanats}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Heritage Institute|url=http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/kareez/index.htm |title=Kareez (kariz, karez, qanat)}}</ref><ref>Nikravesh, Ardakanian and Alemohammad, Institutional Capacity Development of Water Resources Management in Iran: [http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20(UNESCO-IHE,UNW-DPC,%202009).pdf#page=169 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018153716/http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20%28UNESCO-IHE%2CUNW-DPC%2C%202009%29.pdf |date=2016-10-18 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat|title=Qanāt {{!}} water-supply system|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en|access-date=2018-12-11|quote=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.}}</ref> According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/eer/pdf/eer-18-2-57-2.pdf|website=www.e-sciencecentral.org|access-date=2018-12-11|title=Review of Ancient Wisdom of Qanat, and Suggestions for Future Water Management|page=57}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://universitypublications.net/ajs/0201/pdf/RHS362.pdf|website=universitypublications.net|access-date=2018-12-11|title=APPLICATION OF TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE AS SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO MITIGATION OF SHORTAGE WATER SUPPLY IN DESERT REGIONS|page=125}}</ref> and as far back as before 3000 BC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239533205_Water_resource_management_in_Ancient_Iran_with_emphasis_on_technological_approaches_a_cultural_heritage|title=(PDF) Water resource management in Ancient Iran with emphasis on technological approaches: a cultural heritage|website=ResearchGate|language=en|access-date=2018-12-11|pages=583-584}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Saberioon|first=Mehdi|last2=Gholizadeh|first2=Asa|date=2010-12-01|title=Traditional Water Tunnels (Qanats) in Iran|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260292663_Traditional_Water_Tunnels_Qanats_in_Iran|quote= Qanats are subterranean tunnels ancient civilizations built to access groundwater that have been originated from rainwater. The technique is a sustainable method of groundwater extraction and date back some 5000 years or more in Iran.}}</ref>

The Archemaed era [[Qanats of Gonabad]] is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.rfi.fr/culture/20160729-unesco-qanats-iran-patrimoine-humanite-yazd|title=Unesco: les qanâts d’Iran, patrimoine de l’humanité|date=2016-07-30|website=RFI|language=fr|access-date=2018-12-11|quote=L’un des 11 qanâts inscrits sur la liste du patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO est le qanât « Qasabeh » de la ville de Gonabad dans la province du Khorasan-e Razavi au nord-est de l’Iran. Il est également connu sous le nom persan de « Kariz-e Keykhosrow ». C’est l’un des plus anciens qanâts du monde, les experts situent sa construction entre 700 et 500 ans av. J.-C.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://surfiran.com/qasabeh-qanat-iran/|title=Qasabeh Qanat: A UNESCO World Heritage Site – SURFIRAN|date=2017-06-10|website=SURFIRAN - Iranian Tour Operator and Travel Agency - Iran Tours|language=en-US|access-date=2018-12-11}}</ref>

Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 20:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}

: I see no opinions presented as facts, fine by me. But "The Archemaed era [[Qanats of Gonabad]] is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today" is not referenced and no source support that.

: {{ping|Kansas Bear}}, {{ping|Alexandermcnabb}}, {{ping|Wario-Man}}, any concerns or tweaks you want to propose or you all agree with Wikaviani version? [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:: Added two sources, however, i would welcome any opinion about their reliability. This sentence was already in the article, it was not part of my addition. I just copy pasted it.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Yes I know. But these sources doesn't pass [[WP:RS]]. Moreover, the date of the origin of the Iranian qanats should be followed by "However, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period". Best regards [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 23:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
::::I think the Al Tikriti article is unreliable because of flawed reasoning. On page 120 Al Tikriti finds the development of aflaj having no connection with mining and then says the origin can have neither, which is a ''non sequitur'' to me. Involving the ''legend of jinn sulayman'' in the debate on the origin (p. 135) sounds plainly unscientific to me. Indeed most sources place the invention in Iran or in close proximity, Kurdistan being a good possibility. That said, I don't believe an exact location can be given, mainly because of the distance in time and the absence of datable material in stone structures. And of course there is a certain level of politics in the debate, as Iran (yes, and others) claims the invention to be Iranian. A case in point, and particularly hilarious, is the debate on the origins of the [[puquios]] in Nazca valley: if they are qanats, they must have come with the conquistadores. If they predate the Spanish conquest, they cannot be qanats, because qanats are Iranian and can only have come with the Spanish.(David Fleming, [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284899458_The_puquios_of_Nazca_A_prehispanic_invention_or_colonial_artifact The puquios of Nazca: A prehispanic invention or colonial artifact?]) I think we should not be too specific on a particular origin, other than broadly the region of Iran-Kurdistan. As does [[Xavier de Planhol]] in the very much Iranian [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kariz_4 Encyclopædia Iranica]. He doesn't say it's Iranian and not that it's not Iranian, but rather argues around it. [[User:SanderO|SanderO]] ([[User talk:SanderO|talk]]) 00:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC) (wrote the Dutch article)

::::: Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood Tikrit "reasoning" on the legend of the jinn of sulayman, Wilkinson used the local legend as an evidence against local Omani origin, which is indeed unscientific and was dismissed by Tikriti.

::::: As for the mining hypothesis, here the full quote of tikriti;

:::::* "'''''In his discussion of the origins of the Iranian qanãt (the equivalent of the falaj), Goblot suggested that the system of tunnels may originally have been the result of mining activities in the northern Alburz and Armenia ( 1 963). This hypothesis was cited by Wilkinson, who considers the falaj to be of Iranian origin (1977: 76). However, irrigation tunnels need to be carefully engineered with the proper gradient in the right direction before they can be connected to the water source. It seems unlikely that copper miners would bother considering such conditions as the slope of the ground and the direction of land which needed to be irrigated as they made their tunnels, something for which the defenders of the mining hypothesis apparently have no explanation. Indeed, despite repeating this hypothesis, Wilkinson himself has changed his view more recently (1983: 189). Thus, in my opinion, the development of the falaj was the direct result of a need to exploit underground water and had no connection with mining activities.'''''"

::::: I see no flawed reasoning (maybe to you as you said). If the defenders of this hypothesis such as Wilkinson have changed their opinions on the matter. You could try [[WP:RSN]] if you have any concerns. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 00:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Al Tikriti has origins and further development mixed up. Or perhaps: the basic idea and further development. It has been suggested, by De Planhol amongst others, that miners (already in the 3rd millennium BC) had to cut their tunnels sloping upward to get rid of waste water. Al Tikriti seems to argue that this cannot be the case because "irrigation tunnels need to be carefully engineered...etc". Goblot and De Planhol never suggested miners were building irrigation works. [[User:SanderO|SanderO]] ([[User talk:SanderO|talk]]) 01:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::: Nothing could be said with certainty on the basic idea of the Qanat system, whether it was the result of urging need to exploit the water from mountain aquifers, or as Goblot claimed that it was devised by miners to extract water via canals (I believe that qualifies as an irrigation work done by miners). Both are likely, Both are argued. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 02:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{ping|Nabataeus}}<br>
As for Qanat(s) of Gonabad.
*''The Protection of Archaeological Heritage in Times of Economic Crisis'', ed. Elena Korka, page 81-82, calls it more than two thousand years old.
*''Underground Aqueducts Handbook'', ed. Andreas N. Angelakis, Eustathios Chiotis, Saeid Eslamian, Herbert Weingartner, page 140, states the qanat of Gonabad is 2700 yrs old. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 05:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*''Cisterns: Sustainable Development, Architecture and Energy'', Alireza Dehghani-sanij, Ali Sayigh, page 27, states the qanat of gonabad is dated around the arrival of the Aryans.--[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 05:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

: The underground aqueducts would do. Thanks. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 05:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

{{Ping|Kansas Bear|Nabataeus|Wikaviani}} My whole point is writing a [[WP:NPOV]] revision especially considering [[WP:WEIGHT]]. For example, I don't understand why Walid Yasin Al Tikriti is so special?! Edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=872953424&oldid=872649189 this one] are clear POV-pushing and biased approach. The opinion of that scholar has no special weight and it could be mentioned just like the other ones. Feel free to start editing and If I have more concerns after your edits, I write them on talk page. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 08:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

: Hi, we established [[WP:WEIGHT]] by explicitly stating that the majority of scholars support the Iranian origin. And why Tikriti is special; maybe because he is renowned scholar who worked in that field for 40 years, plus he is strong advocate of the Arabian origin? Tikriti is the only one cited as a reference for the Arabian hypothesis. Remy in the other hand don't believe in unique center, Arabian or Iranian.

: "Neutrality assigns [[#Due and undue weight|weight]] to viewpoints '''in proportion to their prominence'''. ''However'', when reputable sources contradict one another and '''''are'' relatively equal in prominence,''' ''describe both points of view and work for balance''. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

: Unless, if you believe, Tikriti is not of equal prominence, well... It is probably for the lack of acquaintance. Anyway, his view could be summarized more to make it relatively short if you think it is necessary. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 09:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Wario-Man}} According to me this guy is not special and should be cited as a normal source, just like the others. Also, as {{u|SanderO}} rightly said above, i find his remark about the excavations confirming the "legend" quite strange for a scholar who is considered here as being a prominent expert.
:: {{ping|Nabataeus}} Boucharlat or Tikriti (especially the latter) are not, as far as i know, more prominent than the other scholars who are cited here, therefore, i think that they should all be treated equally.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:::* "''i find his remark about the excavations confirming the "legend" quite strange for a scholar who is considered here as being a prominent expert.''"

::: Go ahead, don't hesitate, please, point where he argued that the excavations confirms the legend.

:::* "''Boucharlat or Tikriti (especially the latter) are not, as far as i know, more prominent than the other scholars who are cited here, therefore, i think that they should all be treated equally.''"

::: No one said they are more prominent, or less for that matter, than other scholars. There's no obscurity however that they are specialists and prominents scholars in their field. You could describe the opposing view more clearly, I have no problem. This has become more [[WP:JDL| I just don't like it case]]. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 14:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Not sure what you meant with your above reply. you mean that Tikriti did not mention the Djinn legend ? Also, i don't see how my comment is under [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]], maybe you could clarify ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 15:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: I replied to Sander0, and explained how he just misunderstood Tikriti. The legend of the jinn building those underground aqueducs was used by Wilkinson as an evidence against the Omani origin of the Qanat. Which Tikriti believe that (the Qanat) was from remotely distant past, hardly any memory of the structures origin are alive. Thus he consider it intriguing legend, nothing more, nothing less. And should be treated as such. He explicitly states it.

::::: I will shorten the version of the Arabian hypothesis and submit it here. Regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 15:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: No worries about your removal of other users' comments, anybody can make mistakes, me the first. As to someone being a [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]] case, the only one i see here is Alexandermcnabb who just don't like some of the sources supporting an Iranian invention i posted above, while they have been endorsed by Kansas Bear, you and me (and probably by Wario-Man who did not contradict them). Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I'll go with it too, as most of the sources do. I may have misinterpreted the legend section, really sorry for that. I maintain my other criticism, but will be glad to let go of it for now, because I have new problems with the Arabian hypothesis. Bottom line: Oman seems to have three types of falaj, and only one qualifies as a qanat. Al Tikriti doesn't distinguish between them in the introduction, nor in the sections where he describes his finds. He seems to assume that any water channel is (part of) a qanat.
:::::::First, De Planhol in the ''[http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kariz_4 Encyclopædia Iranica]'': "Far simpler techniques of water adduction involving underground channels must be clearly distinguished from kārēz, although they are often grouped together." Second, [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12826007.pdf THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE AND CONTINUITY OF FALAJ USE IN NORTHERN OMAN]: see section 3 (TYPES OF AFLĀJ IN OMAN) on page 3. The first one is the qanat type. The [http://www.omanws.org.om/en/page/about_oman Oman Water Society] concurs: "Among these three types, only the da´udi Falaj is similar to qanat irrigation systems of Iran." And [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316477824_Aflaj'_Water_Management_in_Oman_The_Case_of_Falaj_Al-Khatmeen_in_Birkat_Al-Mouz_Wilayat_Nizwa Aflaj’ Water Management in Oman] states: "Omani authorities reported the existence of 4112 aflaj of which 3017 are live systems; about 1000 have underground qanats (dawoodi aflaj)".
:::::::Al Tikriti reports finding surface or near surface channels, often of the cut-and-cover type, and finding sherds in some of them. I understand from the sources that all three types may have such or similar channels, for instance in [https://www.academia.edu/13597984/Towards_Sustainability_and_Equity_in_Access_to_Water_Design_and_Practices_for_Afl%C4%81j_in_Oman TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUITY IN ACCESS TO WATER: DESIGN AND PRACTICES FOR AFLĀJ IN OMAN], p. 26/27. Of the access shafts, a telltale sign of a real qanat, Al Tikriti found only one.
:::::::In pages 136 and 137 Al Tikriti argues that his aflaj are different from other (older) water harvesting techniques and that type 2 of THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE AND CONTINUITY... is in fact a precursor of the qanat type falaj. Although I find some of his arguing and evidence strong, I can find no other source confirming this. In general, I think his theory is interesting and his evidence compelling. But one doubt remains: Al Tikriti dated something to the Iron Age, but was it a qanat or something else? I think we need more scientific voices (=other sources) in this matter. Regards, [[User:SanderO|SanderO]] ([[User talk:SanderO|talk]]) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::: Thanks for your insights. As for your concerns on the types of Aflaj, the paper of Tikriti discuss the underground qanats (using the local term aflaj). When he dismiss sulayman ibn daud (hence daudi aflaj) legend as an evidence against Omani origin, it becomes clear that the discussed technology is daudi aflaj, underground aqueducts (even if you didn't get that from the archaeological description, or the illustrations). He says in the paper that it is the equivalent of Qanats. The term is not used by Tikrit only, it is also used by other scholars who favour the term aflaj over Qanat, such as Julien.

::::::::* "'''''In general, I think his theory is interesting and his evidence compelling. But one doubt remains: Al Tikriti dated something to the Iron Age, but was it a qanat or something else? I think we need more scientific voices (=other sources) in this matter.'''''"

:::::::: Yes it was Qanat. Remy for instance made a new hypothesis (should we mention it?) that tapping water from underground, standard aflaj (or as you like Qanat) was not known in ancient Iran or Arabia. Tikriti's reply was that;

::::::::* "The new element in Boucharlat's hypothesis was the idea that Iron Age aflãj should be considered as underground water galleries, not proper aflãj. This however is not correct, as the archaeological evidence clearly demonstrates. As a field archaeologist involved in the excavation of several aflãj, most of them from the Iron Age, I am happy to present some evidence that contradicts this hypothesis; evidence which demonstrates that Iron Age irrigation systems are typical of 'the falaj and are not simply 'underground water galleries'. Apart from the exposed elements of Hili 15, i.e., the surface channels, the šarFah, the cut-and-cover section and the shaft hole, there is further evidence. In Area H, the last unit to have been excavated, the main section is orientated east rather than north-east, which indicates that the falaj was fed with water from the foothills of the mountain ridge located to the east. The topography of the area does not provide any evidence for a possible stream or for surface water situated between the last excavated point and the mountain ridge. We should also mention that the falaj at Hili 15 has an upstream secondary channel (sacïd pl. sawacid) to feed the main channel. This is a feature of a standard falaj and we believe that more of these sawãcid may have existed to supply the main channel with extra water. This secondary channel (sacïd) is oriented to the north-east, which means that a second water source may have fed this falaj. It is also worth mentioning that the existence of this secondary channel might have been due to its being dug when water dried up at the original source. It should be noted that most of the relatively recent dry aflãj in the Hili area originate at the north-east edge of the village. This is indicated by the spoil heaps, which form lines oriented in the same direction. Mother wells are still visible from the surface and according to the local inhabitants none of these aflãj were fed directly from the nearby wadi. It is known, however, that sometimes water can be diverted from the flooded wadis to the mother wells to increase the reservoir. Some shaft holes can also be designed to catch rainwater.." He further adds that "Additional evidence demonstrating that Iron Age aflãj were of the standard type, '''tapping underground rather than surface water'''"

:::::::: According to Tikrit the shaft holes at al jabeeb falaj were too deep to collect surface water. As for sources supporting Tikriti, you could take a look above, I provided multiple sources. Best regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 05:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::No I did not "get that from the archaeological description, or the illustrations". They could still describe either one of the other two types, as both can be underground too, if only shallow. Yes, I read Al Tikriti's reply to Boucharlat: it's the part I found compelling. Where Al Tikriti states that "Apart from the exposed elements of Hili 15, i.e., the surface channels, the šarī'ah, the cut-and-cover section and the shaft hole, there is further evidence" he seems to argue that surface channels, šarī'ah and a cut-and-cover sections provide proof of a daudi falaj. But they do not, as they can be parts of the other two types as well. Which leaves the access shafts, of which he found only one. And the deeper lying sections he describes towards the end of the paragraph on Hili 15, looking more like a real qanat. But these are not the sections where he found the sherds that can be dated to the Iron Age.
:::::::::I still have doubts on Al Tikriti, but not to the point that I want him silenced. I'll be including the Arabian hypothesis in the Dutch article. [[User:SanderO|SanderO]] ([[User talk:SanderO|talk]]) 11:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: Hi, let's establish one thing first: the qanat is simply underground tunnels connected to a mother well. The first page of his paper describes the aflaj (which he, as many scholars, use as a synonymous of the qanat) as consisting of five parts, the mother well, the tunnel, the cut and cover section, sari'ah, and the surface channels. It is thus clear that his usage of aflaj, as his explicit description, designate the underground aqueducts rather than diverting the surface water. In a paper dealing with the qanats of the UAE, the author state the following; "''The vertical wells used for the irrigation in the region during the Bronze Age was replaced by aflaj, which tapped groundwater in gently sloping tunnels since Iron Age''". This is the "'''standard'''" aflaj.

:::::::::: Moreover, the sherds of Hili 15 are around the falaj which he dated to the period II of the Iron age. Not sure what you mean. But his dating of Hili 15, and other east Arabian aflaj, according to Boucharlat, are "'''definitive'''". [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 13:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::: They are, indeed definitive - because they're based on carbon dating materials extracted from the <i>aflaj</i>, as well as evidence gathered from digs, rather than citing secondary 'historical' sources with no on the ground research or discovery, as earlier assertions have chosen. This is precisely why the more recent academic consensus has moved from the Persian to the Arabian origin. Tikriti is, by the way, acknowledged as authoritative by peers - and more importantly, his papers are not academically contested. They're peer reviewed, published in respected journals and I would humbly suggest our place is not to argue the academic merits of published papers, but to cite them in this encyclopedia as trusted sources. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 15:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::::Alexandermcnabb, your humble suggestion is right. I may have strayed from what gets us article content as my personal insights don't qualify. @Nabataeus: we seem to be in disagreement on what makes up a qanat, or there being such a thing as a ''standard'' falaj. In light of the previous I'll leave it at that, because it would take too much time and space to sort this out. Besides, that we disagree doesn't necessarily mean to me that I'm right and you're wrong, so I've got my work cut out anyway. Thanks for your time. [[User:SanderO|SanderO]] ([[User talk:SanderO|talk]]) 07:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

===Edit warring===
I've restored the last stable version (uncontested between July and November) and temporarily protected the page to stop any further edit warring. This discussion seems to have gone round in circles several times and I strongly suggest you seek outside opinions. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

: Hey {{u|Joe Roe}}, i think there is a misunderstanding, if you read this talk page, you'll see that there is actually a consensus and i was about to edit one part of the article while another editor wanted to edit the other part. Could you please unblock the article in order to let us edit it (without any edit war) ? Thanks.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 20:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
::If there is a consensus for specific text then you can use {{tl|FPER}}, or ping me, or wait for the protection to expire in a few days. But given the last round of edit warring was just a few hours ago, I think the protection should stand for now. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Thanks for your swift reply. As i said above to the other involved editors, i made my proposal of content with several new sources as requested by the template. If this addition is endorsed by the other editors, then i'll ping you, since the current version is, according to everybody on this talk page, a mess and is poorly written and sourced. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Thanks, [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]], restoring the stable article while discussion is ongoing is precisely what I was trying to do. We have an agreed text for the Arabian origin but I have to say its tone is totally different to the Iranian origin argument, which rather than (as the Arabian) presenting academic opinion merely asserts Great Truths. The sources are less than stellar:

::::: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260292663_Traditional_Water_Tunnels_Qanats_in_Iran - this source gives no evidence of its assertion of a 5,000 year old origin whatsoever. It cites Goblot, who we have seen later researchers refute strongly. A date of 3,000 BCE for the invention of the qanat is, frankly, wild.

::::: https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/eer/pdf/eer-18-2-57-2.pdf - this source quotes the problematic Goblot and also Sargon and Polybius. The VERY trinity of sources which Tikriti et al have recently so successfully picked apart. I think we should note the provenance of the assertion which does not, in any case, pre-date the CARBON DATED origin of the Arabian aflaj.

::::: http://universitypublications.net/ajs/0201/pdf/RHS362.pdf - This source uses a lot of 'estimated' and 'seems to' language - and cites no sources for its assertions. It variously states that qanats "date back 1200 years" but also that "The first recorded Qanats were dug in the north-western areas of Iran and date back to 800 BC." It also says, "Historical evidence shows that Qanats were in use in Iran during the Achaemenian era." (our old friend Sargon at work here). In other words, it's all over the place.

::::: https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat - We're citing Britannica in WP? Shame. And this article uses the magical word 'PROBABLY' when dating Qanats.

:::: These sources are questionable. There's not a carbon date or archaeological find among 'em - it's all Sargon said this and Polybius said that - which is precisely what the Arabian consensus has asserted and, through careful archaeology and carbon dating, established. That's my 2p worth. Having said that, I have no objection to you saying Qanats were created by Iranian rabbits as long as we keep the balance in the lead (including the present reference to Tikriti and the handbook) and have both viewpoints placed in 'Origins'. Oh, and that we spell Archaemenid right, which was my fault to begin with. Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 03:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: {{ping|Alexandermcnabb}} Kansas Bear said above that these sources were fine. Also, if you have any concerns about their reliability, let's just take them at [[WP:RSN]].<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 06:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

:{{Ping|Joe Roe}} With respect to your decision; As I said on your talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Roe&diff=prev&oldid=873290325], How did you decide to choose that revision as the stable one? The whole discussion is about his edits and the current tone of the lead and the representation of sources. After reaching a consensus, we'll change them for sure. So why did you restore his revision? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 08:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
::Please see the reply on my talk page. Building a consensus for what version you ''would'' like to see would be more productive than arguing procedural points (and in this case there really is nothing to argue). &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 13:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Please see my comment on your talk. I think that Wario-Man is correct here. The stable version is the one before Alexandermcnabb's edit, not the one after, since it was his addition that triggered the content dispute. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Dutch Wikipedia has a template for just this situation. It reads something like "The admin has secured the wrong version. He/she is requested to secure the other wrong version." [[User:SanderO|SanderO]] ([[User talk:SanderO|talk]]) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

== The Arabian and Iranian theories ==

Since the legitimacy of the Arabian hypothesis existence can't be questioned, this is a summarized version of the written Arabian hypothesis by Alexander (all are sourced in the article);

"'''Al Tikriti provided a counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia. He cites Sargon II annals as well as the accounts of Polybius as being the basis for the academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes that academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopt an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Polybius and Sargon annals, but points out at least seven Iron Age aflaj recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Tikriti point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia by the Sasanian conquest of Oman. Others have followed Tikriti's lead.'''"

This is Boucharlat opinion, he doesn't support an Arabian origin. However, his opinion is valid and valuable, since he doesn't believe in unique center;

"'''In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period.'''"

{{ping|Kansas Bear}}, {{ping|Alexandermcnabb}}, {{ping|Wario-Man}}, {{ping|Wikaviani}}

Works for me - and thank you for your diligence and patience - you've handled this way better than I... Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 09:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

: Sounds quite well for me too. However Boucharlat's statement "''no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-islamic period''" goes against what numerous sources say (the ones according the invention of the system to Iran and the ones saying that the Qanats of Gonabad are 2000-3000 years old posted above by {{u|Kansas Bear}}), but since it's attributed, it seems ok for me, if everybody else agrees with it. also, you only quoted the part where boucharlat denies an exclusive Iranian origin, not the one where he says he believes in a multi-center origin. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


*"''Even though some uncertainty remains regarding the origin of the qanat, several authors agree that this hydraulic system was born in the northwest region of Iran more than 3,000 years ago (Hussain et al, 2008; Kazemi, 2004).''" -- ''The qanat of the Greatest Western Erg'', Boualem Remini and Bachir Achour, ''Journal (American Water Works Association)'', Vol. 105, No. 5, International (May 2013), p. 104.

*Hussain I.; Abu Rizaiza, O.S.; Habib, M.A.; & Ashfq, M., 2008. Revitalizing a Traditional Dryland Water Supply System: The Karzes in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water International,33:3:33.
*Kazemi, G.A, 2004. Temporal Changes in the Physical Properties and Chemical Composition of the Municipal Water Supply of Shahrood, Northeastern Iran. Hydrogeology Journal, 12:723. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 05:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:'''No,''' because it still has the issue that mentioned by me in above sections. The way you put all of Arabian, Iranian, and other origins and how you summarize them matters. Weight and NPOV tone, e.g. scholar X rejects existence of pre-Sasanian Qanats in Persia, but scholar Y and Z disprove X's opinion. And if you want to dedicate a whole paragraph to a specific scholar, then you should do it for the others too. Or you can divide "Origin" into subsections like "Arabian origin", "Iranian origin", and "Other...". Let an editor like [[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] or someone else rewrite it. We don't need a new revision with just some additional texts but suffering from a POV tone (like both [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&oldid=851448006 old] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&oldid=873783708 current] revisions). --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 09:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:: Neutrally presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views published by reliable sources, avoiding stating opinions as facts, is the basis of NPOV. And per that; "''Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.''". I think it is fair enough to state that the majority of scholars support the Iranian hypothesis as to balance the article. Keep in mind that both versions weren't written by me, if you want to to make some tweaks with the Iranian version, go ahead. Now your proposal is better, if you believe it would solve our issue. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 11:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::: I agree with {{u|Wario-Man}}, as i said above, this version only gives some parts of what scholars like Boucharlat say, this should not be. Also, in the Iranian part, there is no attempt to discredit the Arabian claim, while your version tends to discredit the Iranian side. I also think that this section should be written by an experienced and trusted editor like {{u|Kansas Bear}}, or any other knowledgeable editor. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 14:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::No, it's not neutral and Wikaviani has explained it too. The issue is not how you quoted those sources, the issue is about how we use them. Let me explain it:
:::*Current revision: ''"The qanat technology was developed in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward.[1][2][3][4][5][6] This view is disputed by Tikriti, who argues a South-East Arabian origin for the technology.[7] A pre-Achaemenid Empire Arabian origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook.[8] The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today. "''
:::The issues: 1) Cited 6 sources for Iranian/Persian origin but no details. Feels like a overcited part. It does not give necessary info about the Iranian origin. Just a sentence with 6 cited sources. 2) Then we see two sources about non-Iranian origin which discredit Iranian theory. 3) And then ''...Qanats of Gonabad'' appears and discredits the previous Arabian claims. 4) As you see it's a mess and confuses the readers.
:::Your suggested text is OK (you should consider Wikaviani's point though) BUT the problem is if you add it to the article without expanding or rewriting the Origin section, then it just confuses the readers like the current revision. They see stuff like that "Qanats of Gonabad" and same confusion happens. '''AGAIN,''' As I said, the way we put all of those content together and how we summarize them matter. '''My suggestion:'''
:::*We remove origin-related stuff from the lead.
:::*In "Origins", we mention Iranian, Arabian, and other origins just per their weight. e.g. "Most scholars propose an Iranian origin.. but there are non-Iranian origins like Arabian or X suggested by some scholars".
:::*Dividing "Origins" into subsections: Iranian, Arabian, and etc. Now this is where you put your quoted texts and etc. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 14:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Scholars dismiss things, discredit many things, argue against it. Wikipedia reflect the academic statement. There's no attempt to discredit the Arabian claim? It is not like there are papers that discredit and point to the fallacies of the Arabian claim so "'''an attempt could be made'''". There is a difference, an attempt by a user fail the NPOV policy, presenting the opinion is, not. The NPOV policy couldn't be any more clearer on that. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 14:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: You could expand the Iranian version and give it more detail and depth, I have no problem. As for the current version, it should be re-written and that's why there is an active discussion. Glad the text is ok. I agree with your proposal, could you write the Iranian theory? [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 14:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: the aim of Wikipedia is not to make conflicting statements between different theories. The Iranian paragraph has been endorsed by different editors, it does not tend to discredit the other side's view, nobody denied it and therefore (i ignore irrelevant [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]] comments by Alaxandermcnabb about the sources here), i don't see why we should rewrite it. The problem here is how you present the Arabian claim by trying to discredit the other side's theory, which is, indeed, better sourced. We could just write the Iranian theory, and then point to the fact that this theory has been questioned by some sources who claim an Arabian/X/or Y origin and provide links pointing to the said sources with page numbers and quotes. this is a better way to keep a [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] article about the origins. Personaly, i'll wait for Kansas Bear's insight and proposal before any other move. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 16:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::*"''We could just write the Iranian theory, and then point to the fact that this theory has been questioned by some sources who claim an Arabian/X/or Y origin and provide links pointing to the said sources with page numbers and quotes. this is a better way to keep a [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] article about the origins.''"
:::::::This might be the best way to present all the information properly. Why not write it up and post it here? Then discuss it from there? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 17:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::: Two theories are bound to have "conflicting" statements regardless. It is the argument of reputable sources, their opinions are presented neutrally, sourced tightly, and along the lines of Wiki policies.. see [[Al-Farabi]] it have "conflicting" statements, argument are given (of the sources), statements are discredited by the next that follows. How are you gonna make your mind when no scholarly arguments are included? I support own sections, it seems there is no other way at this point. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 17:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::: So in other words undue weight for the Arabian hypothesis it is? No, I support Wario proposal. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 17:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
"''see [[Al-Farabi]] it have "conflicting" statements, argument are given (of the sources), statements are discredited by the next that follows.''" Irrelevant here, see [[WP:OTHER]]. Also, it's not really a matter of [[WP:UNDUE]] here, rather [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. What's the problem with my above proposal ? Why do you absolutely want to present the two theories in a conflicting way ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 17:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:* "'''Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.'''"

: That's exactly what the Arabian version stands for. it is accurate representation of the position. If you think that the Iranian position isn't represented accurately. Feel free to do it. What you are requesting is the opposite. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 17:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:: Have you read what i said above ? When have i said that the Iranian position is not represented accurately ? I said '''we should not present the two theories in a conflicting way''' and Kansas Bear (and, i presume, {{u|Wario-Man}}) agree with that. Also, my proposal does not go against " Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. " at all, rather, it allows a [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:IMPARTIAL]] presentation of the matter.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Sections should be made then, providing both views and counter views. Thoughts {{ping|Joe Roe}}? [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Usually, admins refuse to side with one part against the other, especially when they have performed administrative actions, like Joe did here when he protected the page. Take a look [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins here].<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: He is not engaging in the dispute, neither he used his position while he was. Since he said he read the discussion, his opinion is valuable as a 3rd party and not a participant. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 19:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: As i said, '''usually''' admins refuse to side with one part of the dispute, but Joe is welcome to give his opinion just like any other user and i also would welcome his insight. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah I've been trying to stay relatively uninvolved, but the current version looks fine. We should definitely reference the Arabian hypothesis and as long as claims are stated neutrally and clearly attributed, I don't think we need to worry too much about [[WP:WEIGHT]] in an area like this. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

== Proposal ==

Here is a proposal (some sources are yet to be added) :

From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://hamed.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Qanat_WHC_2010.pdf|website=hamed.mit.edu|access-date=2018-12-11|title=Qanat: An Ancient Invention for Water Management in Iran|page=1}}</ref>
Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in [[History of Iran|ancient Iran]] by the [[Persian people]] sometime in the early 1st millennium BC,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://hamed.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Qanat_WHC_2010.pdf|website=hamed.mit.edu|access-date=2018-12-11|title=Qanat: An Ancient Invention for Water Management in Iran|page=1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lightfoot|first=Dale R.|title=The Origin and Diffusion of Qanats in Arabia: New Evidence from the northern and southern Peninsula|url=http://www.academia.edu/10767576/The_Origin_and_Diffusion_of_Qanats_in_Arabia_New_Evidence_from_the_Northern_and_Southern_Peninsula|journal=The Geographical Journal|language=en|volume=166|issue=3|issn=0016-7398|page=215}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=IOj5H_yL6W4C&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=qanat+origin&source=bl&ots=Xp0Sao0rt6&sig=XXg6lIutPW823jO9pCd4fCvuB9g&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwji9tKcrZbfAhVIzRoKHaqFBwk4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=qanat%20origin&f=false|title=Water and Sustainability in Arid Regions: Bridging the Gap Between Physical and Social Sciences|last=Schneier-Madanes|first=Graciela|last2=Courel|first2=Marie-Francoise|date=2009-12-01|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=9789048127764|language=en|pages=125-126}}</ref> and spread from there slowly westward and eastward.<ref name="Wilson_2008">{{cite news|author= [[Andrew Wilson (classical archaeologist)|Wilson, Andrew]]|title= Hydraulic Engineering and Water Supply|editor= [[John Peter Oleson]]|book-title= Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World|location= New York|publisher= Oxford University Press|date= 2008|isbn= 978-0-19-973485-6|pages= 290–293|url= http://glirby.people.wm.edu/COLL100/Oxford-HydraulicEngineering.pdf|format= PDF|access-date= November 1, 2017|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20171107055629/http://glirby.people.wm.edu/COLL100/Oxford-HydraulicEngineering.pdf|archive-date= 2017-11-07|dead-url= yes|df= }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1031/the-qanats-of-iran/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114034225/http://www.edwardgoldsmith.org/1031/the-qanats-of-iran/ |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2012-01-14 |title=The qanats of Iran · |author=Goldsmith, Edward }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Bart.nl|url=http://users.bart.nl/~leenders/txt/qanats.html|title= The quanats of Iran}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Water History|url=http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/qanats/qanats.pdf|title=Qanats}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Heritage Institute|url=http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/kareez/index.htm |title=Kareez (kariz, karez, qanat)}}</ref><ref>Nikravesh, Ardakanian and Alemohammad, Institutional Capacity Development of Water Resources Management in Iran: [http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20(UNESCO-IHE,UNW-DPC,%202009).pdf#page=169 ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161018153716/http://www.gwp.org/Global/ToolBox/References/Capacity%20Development%20for%20Improved%20Water%20Management%20%28UNESCO-IHE%2CUNW-DPC%2C%202009%29.pdf |date=2016-10-18 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/qanat|title=Qanāt {{!}} water-supply system|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en|access-date=2018-12-11|quote=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.}}</ref> According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/eer/pdf/eer-18-2-57-2.pdf|website=www.e-sciencecentral.org|access-date=2018-12-11|title=Review of Ancient Wisdom of Qanat, and Suggestions for Future Water Management|page=57}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://universitypublications.net/ajs/0201/pdf/RHS362.pdf|website=universitypublications.net|access-date=2018-12-11|title=APPLICATION OF TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE AS SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO MITIGATION OF SHORTAGE WATER SUPPLY IN DESERT REGIONS|page=125}}</ref> and as far back as before 3000 BC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239533205_Water_resource_management_in_Ancient_Iran_with_emphasis_on_technological_approaches_a_cultural_heritage|title=(PDF) Water resource management in Ancient Iran with emphasis on technological approaches: a cultural heritage|website=ResearchGate|language=en|access-date=2018-12-11|pages=583-584}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Saberioon|first=Mehdi|last2=Gholizadeh|first2=Asa|date=2010-12-01|title=Traditional Water Tunnels (Qanats) in Iran|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260292663_Traditional_Water_Tunnels_Qanats_in_Iran|quote= Qanats are subterranean tunnels ancient civilizations built to access groundwater that have been originated from rainwater. The technique is a sustainable method of groundwater extraction and date back some 5000 years or more in Iran.}}</ref>

The Archemaed era [[Qanats of Gonabad]] is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.'''[cite the 3 sources provided by Kansas Bear]'''

However, some authors have questioned the Iranian origin of Qanat, claiming that the system originated in the Arabian peninsula '''[cite relevant sources]''' while others, have suggested a multiple origin '''[cite Boucharlat]'''<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

: No, removal of sourced materials and a failure to proportionally represent both positions. NPOV:"'''Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.'''" And the above, as I said, fails to do that. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 19:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:: "''No, removal of sourced materials and a failure to proportionally represent both positions.''" don't know what you're talking about. I did not remove any source. Also, there is no ''failure to represent both positions'' according to [[WP:NPOV]] since there are far more reliable sources supporting an Iranian origin. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 19:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:: <u>And</u> "'''fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.'''" <u>precisely means that the Iranian origin can be longer</u> than other views, since, as said above, there are far more reliable sources supporting it. Let's be patient and wait for other users' opinion. BTW, for better readability, please sign your posts. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::: You removed sourced statements, arguments, assertions, that was attributed to reliable respected authors which goes against "representing significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If it is published by reliable sources, it should be thus included. The Arabian hypothesis is adhered by prominent scholars whose opinions and analysis of the available data shouldn't be silenced. The Iranian sources are many, but are '''mostly outdated before the recent archaeological discoveries''' that re-shaped the academic sphere. That's why according, to some scholars, not remy only, Iranian origin simply can't be maintained. Regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 19:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: "'' If it is published by reliable sources, it should be thus included.''" nope, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion here]. Wikipedia works primarily with [[WP:CONSENSUS]] and the version you proposed above is all but consensual.
:::: "''The Iranian sources are many, but are mostly outdated before the recent archaeological discoveries''" nope, '''again''', if i'm not mistaken, '''all the above sources supporting an Iranian origin are 21st century sources''', your comment about them is only your opinion.
:::: Again, be patient and let's wait for more input from other involved editors. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: 21st century doesn't mean it is not outdated, it is relative, something from yesterday could be outdated. And the sources, mostly, pre date the recent discoveries. That's why the inclusion of the arguments is important. And no my comment about them is not my opinion, it is the opinion of several authors. As for the consensus, two support the inclusion and three (? I believe Wario, not sure about Kansas, and you) don't. Not including it as including it is thus both far from consensual. If no middle ground is found, then it should be settled by RfC. And I will comply with the result. Regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 20:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: "''And no my comment about them is not my opinion, it is the opinion of several authors.''" Got a cite for this ? some of the sources supporting an Iranian origin are even from 2018 ...
:::::: "''If no middle ground is found, then it should be settled by RfC.''" If you want a RfC, then fine, but as far as i can see, the version i proposed is more consensual and fits with [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:IMPARTIAL]]. Both positions are represented in proportion to the prominence of each view without any [[WP:UNDUE]] weight given to one side.
:::::: "''And I will comply with the result''" not complying is not an option with a RfC.
:::::: Let's be patient and wait for more input, unless you want to go for a RfC right now, this would be fine for me too. Regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 20:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Wikaviani}}, have you written up an Iranian theory or did I missed it? My initial idea was to have both theories written out, then to work(if absolutely necessary) towards a composite. Let's have both theories posted here instead of arguing over semantics, please. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 21:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Let me see what I can do with what was written at the top of this section. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 21:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but our discussion here is about how to formulate the theories while remaining [[WP:IMPARTIAL]]. to make it short, which one of the two following formulations do you prefer ?

* "From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems. Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as before 3000 BC.

The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.[cite the 3 sources provided by Kansas Bear]

However, some authors have questioned the Iranian origin of Qanat, claiming that the system originated in the Arabian peninsula [cite relevant sources] while others, have suggested a multiple origin [cite Boucharlat]"

* "From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems. Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as before 3000 BC.

The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.[cite the 3 sources provided by Kansas Bear]

Al Tikriti provided a counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia. He cites Sargon II annals as well as the accounts of Polybius as being the basis for the academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes that academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopt an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Polybius and Sargon annals, but points out at least seven Iron Age aflaj recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Tikriti point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia by the Sasanian conquest of Oman. Others have followed Tikriti's lead."

This is Boucharlat opinion, he doesn't support an Arabian origin. However, his opinion is valid and valuable, since he doesn't believe in unique center;

In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period."<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Kansas, i missed your last message. Sure, take a look at it. Thanks.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 21:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:Its ok. I'm working on it. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 21:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== Concept ==

Traditionally it is recognized that the qanat technology was invented in ancient Iran<ref>''The Protection of Archaeological Heritage in Times of Economic Crisis'', ed. Elena Korka, (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 78.</ref> sometime in the early 1st millennium BC,<ref>"Qanat: An Ancient Invention for Water Management in Iran" (PDF). hamed.mit.edu. p. 1.</ref><ref>Lightfoot, Dale R. "The Origin and Diffusion of Qanats in Arabia: New Evidence from the northern and southern Peninsula". The Geographical Journal. 166 (3): 215.</ref><ref>Schneier-Madanes, Graciela; Courel, Marie-Francoise (2009-12-01). Water and Sustainability in Arid Regions: Bridging the Gap Between Physical and Social Sciences. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 125–126.</ref> and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. Accordingly some sources state qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC<ref>"Review of Ancient Wisdom of Qanat, and Suggestions for Future Water Management" (PDF). www.e-sciencecentral.org. p. 57.</ref><ref>"APPLICATION OF TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE AS SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO MITIGATION OF SHORTAGE WATER SUPPLY IN DESERT REGIONS" (PDF). universitypublications.net. p. 125. </ref> and as far back as 3000 BC.<ref>"(PDF) Water resource management in Ancient Iran with emphasis on technological approaches: a cultural heritage". ResearchGate. pp. 583–584</ref><ref>Saberioon, Mehdi; Gholizadeh, Asa (2010-12-01). "Traditional Water Tunnels (Qanats) in Iran". "Qanats are subterranean tunnels ancient civilizations built to access groundwater that have been originated from rainwater. The technique is a sustainable method of groundwater extraction and date back some 5000 years or more in Iran."</ref> Consequently, the [[Qanats of Gonabad|qanats of Gonabad]] have been estimated to be nearly 2700 years old.<ref>The Protection of Archaeological Heritage in Times of Economic Crisis, ed. Elena Korka, page 81-82</ref><ref>Underground Aqueducts Handbook, ed. Andreas N. Angelakis, Eustathios Chiotis, Saeid Eslamian, Herbert Weingartner, page 140</ref>

In 2002, archaeologist Walid Yasin Al Tikriti provided a counterpoint that the qanat did not originate in Persia.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tikriti|first=Walid|date=2002|title=The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system |publisher=Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41223728|journal=Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies|volume=32|pages=117|via=JSTOR}}</ref> As evidence, he noted seven Iron Age ''aflaj'' recently discovered in the [[Al Ain]] area of the UAE which were dated back to the first millennium BCE based on sherds, pottery, fireplaces, and architecture.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tikriti|first=Walid|date=2002|title=The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41223728|journal=Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies|volume=32|pages=131|via=JSTOR}}</ref> Tikriti pointed to excavations in [[Emirate of Sharjah|Sharjah]], by the French archaeological team working there, as well as a German team working in [[Oman]] of possible Iron age ''aflaj''.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tikriti|first=Walid|date=2002|title=The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41223728|journal=Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies|volume=32|pages=131|via=JSTOR}}</ref> He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was taken to Persia, likely by the [[Sasanian Empire|Sasanian]] conquest of the Oman peninsular.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tikriti|first=Walid|date=2002|title=The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41223728|journal=Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies|volume=32|pages=137|via=JSTOR}}</ref>

In 2013, Boualem Remini and Bachir Achour, stated that the origin of the qanat technology is uncertain, yet confirmed the technology was in use in northwest Iran c.1000 BCE.<ref>''The qanat of the Greatest Western Erg'', Boualem Remini and Bachir Achour, ''Journal (American Water Works Association)'', Vol. 105, No. 5, International (May 2013), p. 104; "Even though some uncertainty remains regarding the origin of the qanat, several authors agree that this hydraulic system was born in the northwest region of Iran more than 3,000 years ago (Hussain et al, 2008; Kazemi, 2004)."</ref><ref>Hussain I.; Abu Rizaiza, O.S.; Habib, M.A.; & Ashfq, M., 2008. Revitalizing a Traditional Dryland Water Supply System: The Karzes in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water International,33:3:33.</ref><ref>Kazemi, G.A, 2004. Temporal Changes in the Physical Properties and Chemical Composition of the Municipal Water Supply of Shahrood, Northeastern Iran. Hydrogeology Journal, 12:723</ref>

In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat in his paper ''Qanāt and Falaj: Polycentric and Multi-Period Innovations Iran and the United Arab Emirates as Case Studie''s, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained.<ref name=":0">{{Citation|last=Boucharlat|first=Rémy|title=Chapter 17 Qanāt and Falaj: Polycentric and Multi-Period Innovations Iran and the United Arab Emirates as Case Studies|date=2016-11-25|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pioNDgAAQBAJ&pg=PR6&dq=%22Chapter+17+Qan%C4%81t+and+Falaj:+Polycentric+and+Multi-Period+Innovations+Iran+and+the+United+Arab+Emirates+as+Case+Studies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN_r7TgqPfAhUOLKwKHQI8AboQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=%22Chapter%2017%20Qan%C4%81t%20and%20Falaj%3A%20Polycentric%20and%20Multi-Period%20Innovations%20Iran%20and%20the%20United%20Arab%20Emirates%20as%20Case%20Studies&f=false|work=Underground Aqueducts Handbook|volume=|pages=280|publisher=CRC Press|doi=10.1201/9781315368566-18|isbn=9781498748308|access-date=2018-12-08}}</ref> Whereas Boucharlat contends archeological evidence indicates a polycentric innovation as opposed to a radial diffusion.<ref>Boucharlat, Underground Aqueducts Handbook, page 279.</ref>


{{ref-talk}}

== Complain, Suggestions, HERE ==

Complaints, Suggestions, etc. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 22:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Kansas Bear}} First of all, thank you very much for your work here, your version sounds quite good according to me. However, i would like to suggest some improvements :
* the link to boucharlat's book is broken and the browser dislays a "page not found" message when i try to follow it.
* Boucharlat seems to point to a multi place origin for the system, might be good to include that.
* Might be good to include the links pointing to the sources for all of them.
* For more consistency with the sources supporting a 5000 years old invention, i would suggest saying "as far back as ''before'' 3000 BC.
Thoughts ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:Tried to fix the Boucharlat link. As for links, I was copying references for the appropriate information and if links were already part of the references, they were copied. I do not believe linking is necessary if the reference is properly cited.
*"''Boucharlat seems to point to a multi place origin for the system, might be good to include that.''"
:I did not run on to that. Can you point me to the page, title, etc? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 23:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

:: Page 279 : '''"'''The hypothesis of radial diffusion from a unique center does not match with the archaeological evidence. the Qanat and falaj in their general meaning may well be a polycentric innovation in different geographical contexts at different periods, especially for the first period, the first millenium BC.'''"'''<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

: Fine by me, Kansas. Thanks for your work. There are extremely minor things: I would suggest, 1) removal of the first counterargument, as some authors before tikriti challenged it, and attributed it to Uratu, Armenia. However he was harshly criticized, from what I understand. So it should be stated that Tikriti provided a counterargument to the Iranian theory 2) The dating wasn't architecturally, but carbon dated, that's why it is definitive. Just that. BTW why you removed remy claim that no pre-islamic qanat exist in Iran? If it would solve the issue I have no problem. Oh, and I agree with Wikaviani on the inclusion of the polycentric innovation hypothesis. Regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 04:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::1)a)"''removal of the first counterargument, as some authors before tikriti challenged it, and attributed it to Uratu, Armenia''"
:::I did not see any mention of Uratu, Armenia in the Arab origin, did I miss something?
::1)b)"''So it should be stated that Tikriti provided a counterargument to the Iranian theory''"
:::the wording used in the Arab origin paragraph indicated Tikriti was the first, "'' The 2002 publication of a paper by archaeologist Walid Yasin Al Tikriti[ ..... ] provided the first counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative...''"
::2)"''The dating wasn't architecturally, but carbon dated, that's why it is definitive.''"
:::I searched the source given and could not find carbon dating in the article(''The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system''), if you know which page, let me know, I will check it and if it checks out, I will add it back.
::3)"''BTW why you removed remy claim that no pre-islamic qanat exist in Iran?''"
:::I felt having Boucharlat claim there were no pre-Islamic qanats in Iran, when coupled with what the traditional belief states(Iran origin), did more damage to Boucharlat as a source than good.
::4)"''Oh, and I agree with Wikaviani on the inclusion of the polycentric innovation hypothesis.''"
:::Ok. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 05:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::::* "''I did not see any mention of Uratu, Armenia in the Arab origin, did I miss something?''"

:::: Yes, because I read it and can't locate it for now. Indeed the paragraph say that it was the first counterpoint, I am not sure what made Alexander believe in that. There's no source that state he was the first neither it is the case, so we should avoid it.

::::* "''I searched the source given and could not find carbon dating in the article(''The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system''), if you know which page, let me know, I will check it and if it checks out, I will add it back.''"

:::: per the Underground Aqueducts HandBook, p. 282.: "The chronology of the early falaj was rapidly set, thanks to several excavations of villages totally depending of the falaj. Moreover, an example in Oman was dated by radiocarbon of the ninth century BC.

:::: Best Regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 05:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: Oh, sorry it speaks of the UAE. You could see Tikriti page where he dated sherds, pottery, and fireplaces in p. 120. for example to the Iron age. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::On the page 131(Tikriti), it mentioned architecture of the ''tuqab''.
::::*"''In spite of the absence of pottery, we were still able to date the falaj to the Iron Age on the basis of the shape and architecture of the tuqab.''"
::::::Would you prefer sherds, pottery, and fireplaces, instead? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 06:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::: In the absence of organic compounds, architectural similarities between the dated falaj could suggest a pattern thus an Iron age origin for certain features of the falaj. If no organic evidence exist. That's fine, but since both methods are used I believe stating that it is simply dated is enough, the reader could check the source for more info on how it was dated. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}

Sounds like a good compromise, many of the very surprising claims are npw removed from the text, like '''"'''no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period'''"''' or '''"'''no evidence has been found for any such qanat in Iran dated earlier than the 5th century BCE'''"'''. Also, the dismissal of JC Wilkinson's conclusions are also removed, which is a good thing since Wilkinson was one of the first serious scholars who have studied this matter. Thanks for your job Kansas (and thanks to you too, Nabataeus, for the time you spent contributing to this long thread). If Wario-Man agrees with this version, let's include it. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 07:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

: Yes, the current version after the tweaks doesn't silence the Arabian hypothesis. Thanks to you and all the participants. Regards. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 08:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:If your suggested revision is the above section "Concept", it's unbiased, good and ready for inserting into the article. Just rewrite the lead. These detailed discussions are really helpful for the future. Thanks, all. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 09:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

: Though I wasn't previously involved here, because of Wikaviani's [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|WP:Disruptive]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=873972338&oldid=873960318 edit], in which he removed citations, bloated space, made quotations funny, like by turning " to “ or ”, with the excuse that uninvolved editors need a consensus to make necessary changes, I have had to come here. I checked the discussions, and that aside from the issue of [[WP:Neutrality]], just as Wario-Man's correction of a typo does not contradict the consensus, and he did not need a consensus to do that, [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|WP:adding references]] where they are needed, adding the CN tag to unreferenced text, minimising extra space, and correcting quotation marks does not contradict the consensus, and these are according to the rules. Now it should be clear that there is a discussion going on, lest uninvolved editors face the same situation which I did. [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 10:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 10:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=prev&oldid=873956303&diffmode=source This edit] is not simply a maintenance and correction of typos that are not related to the issue. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 11:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Leo1pard}} I would suggest you to refrain from labelling other users' contribution as "disruptive" when they ask you to use the talk page. I'm happy to see that you have, at last, found the "talk" button. Also, as Nabataeus said above, the diff shows that all your changes were not only minor corrections, recommend you to desist from trying to mislead other editors, since this is a [[WP:PERSONAL|personal attack]], take a look [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Accusing_others_of_tendentious_editing here] : '''"Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page"'''. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
::: If the real issue at hand is [[Wikipedia:Conflicting sources|WP:conflicting sources]] about whether [[Iran]] or the [[Arabian Peninsula]] is the exact place of origin of the qanat, then you could have focused on that, not [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&diff=873972338&oldid=873960318 remove references where they were needed, add unnecessary space, turning " to “ or ”, and so on, with the excuse that the person who made these edits was not involved in these discussions, or needs a consensus to make edits that are obligatory according to the rules], particularly the use of relevant sources for content, and of course I have evidence of what happened in the article. [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 13:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 13:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: Don't try to fool others. The "real issue" is that you made a first edit against the consensus found on this talk page, then you made several other edits which can be labelled as minor corrections and unrelated to the issue discussed here, therefore, in order to revert your unconsensual first edit, i had to revert all your changes because of intermediate edits. Learn to use the talk and you'll not have these kind of problems in the future. As you can see, i have not reverted your recent edits since they're, indeed, minor corrections and content additions unrelated with the issue that has been discussed on this talk page. Done with you here.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}

To all involved editors who extensively contributed here, any of you guys is welcome to make the relevant changes accordingly to the consensus found here, or, i can also do it if you want. Best regards.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
: So the issue is that the majority of authors believe that it originated in Iran, with some believing it to be the Arabian Peninsula, based on archaeological findings here and there, but either case, the qanat originated from south[[western Asia]], because it is the region of both Arabia and Iran, so how does it contradict the consensus to say that southwestern Asia is the place of origin, when the consensus is more to do with 2 places within southwest Asia, than about the bigger region? [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 13:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:: In your edit summary you were talking about a "Western Asian" origin, now you mention only southwestern Asia. A little look at a map will show you that indeed, '''Iran and the arabian Peninsula are included in Western Asia''' (and also in southwestern Asia), but '''Western Asia and southwestern asia are not limited to Iran and the Arabian Peninsula'''. Do you want me to provide you a map ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 13:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
::: No need for a map, I know what [[Western Asia]] is, it's just that "Southwest Asia" is more accurate, because the western part of [[Russia]] that is in [[Asia]] is treated as being outside West Asia, despite forming the northern part of Asia's western border region with [[Europe]], and [http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/Notes/Notes_Exam2/SWA.html Arabia and Iran are indeed considered part of Southwest Asia, so there is no dispute about Southwest Asia being the place of origin of the ''qanat'' system], as far as I see. [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 15:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 15:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

So what would we do now? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 22:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

: I was about to edit the article accordingly to this talk page, but i'm wondering what to do with the cotton stuff paragraph. Remove it ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 22:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::Would anyone miss it? Can the information be moved to another part of the article? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 22:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::: Will take a look at it tomorrow. If we cannot move it in another part of the article, i would suggest to delete it while keeping some of its sources. Thoughts ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
::::I went ahead added the consensus Origin and placed the Cotton related paragraph to the Iran section. Further decisions over the Cotton paragraph can be made at any time. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 22:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: Thanks a lot. as usual, you're a precious editor man. I may reword slightly the lead accordingly to the "origins" section. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 23:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

:Why the lead is still untouched? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 05:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
::I believe Wikaviani was going to address that some time later? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 06:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
:::As I said in my previous comments, it's an issue. Should be moved to the Origins or shorten and neutralized. Mentioning one scholar (Tikriti) and one source (Underground Aqueducts Handbook) in the lead is not a good idea and makes this article like a promotional stuff or advertisement. We can't leave that part untouched. --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 07:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: So replace it with "However, contemporary academic opinion based on archaeology has moved towards a Southern Arabian origin for the innovation." Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 07:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

::::: '''No.''' If the first part begins with "According to most sources..." then the 2nd part should be something like 1st part, e.g. "According to some other sources...". --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 07:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::: I was able to address it if the version i proposed was adopted, since that version could be mixed with the lead's sentence, but that was not the case, therefore, if the isse is that there is only one source (Tikriti), then, maybe, we could add another one ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 08:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::: You, Kansas Bear, or other editors can summarize and shorten the content of Origins and put in the lead section. But honestly I think we should remove it from the lead. When origin of something or someone is disputed, lead is not a place for putting origin-related stuff there. Or if you think origin-related info is useful and are a part of article summary, you should make it short and neutral. Should I mention some examples? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 08:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::::: Let's move it to the "origins" section, but then, we need to reword it.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 09:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::::: If we move it to Origins, then the lead becomes short. Any plan for the lead after moving those stuff? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 09:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}

Honestly, i think we should keep the lead and cite more sources for the Arabian part, since it's quite tricky to do otherwise. Are you sure we cannot have disputed content in the lead ? According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite this], we can have disputed content in the lead if sources are provided. Thoughts ?<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 10:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:The lead should summarize the article or gives necessary infto to the readers, e.g. someones finds term "qanat" in a book, searches it, and reaches to this WP article. That person just wants to know basic info and the lead should give it to them. Current lead is bad: Sounds like an ad, focused on origins rather than summary, and other issues mentioned by me before. We can keep origins in the lead, but as I said it should become shorter, neutral, and simple. Something like this, more or less (you can use better wordings): ''"According to most sources, the qanat technology was developed in ancient Iran by the Persians sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward... Some other sources suggest a South-East Arabian origin..."'' --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 12:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:: Yeah, i understand your point. Reworded the lead, would welcome your opinion about my edit. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::It's OK. Now we just need some useful stuff from the body of article and a summary of them in the lead. Can you do it? --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 18:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

:::: Sure, i can do it. You mean for example adding to the lead some content like "Qanats are used in several countries on the four continents" etc ... ? i'll need some time since i'll be quite busy right now, but i'll take a look at it tomorrow. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 18:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

== Lead's improvement ==

As {{u|Wario-Man}} said above, the lead should still be improved. therefore, my proposal is to add this content to the lead, if there is consensus about it :
'''"Qanats are used in numerous countries, but the value of this system is directly related to the quality, volume, and regularity of the water flow."'''
I would welcome the eye of every involved editors here. Cheers.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:purple">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 02:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
:There is no need to call me or the other editors. If your additions follow guidelines, then fee free to add them. The consensus and previous discussions were about Origins and it has ended in my opinion. You like to edit this article, then just edit it. Cheers! --[[User:Wario-Man|Wario-Man]] ([[User talk:Wario-Man|talk]]) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

== Saltmaking ==

I've just greatly shortened the section on saltmaking, which was lifted more or less verbatim from Bloch's paper. While looking at the paper, I got a creeping sense of it being a bunch of baloney. If you search online for more about qanats used for saltmaking, every reference to this idea comes back to Bloch, and his paper, though accepted at an apparently peer-reviewed journal, is borderline incoherent in many places, and its references section is positively illiterate-looking (and all the references are to his own papers, most self-published!), so I can't say I think ''Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation'''s standards are very high. He's not allied with any university, only with an institute he himself founded, "SALT ARCHIVE" (in all caps for no reason). Salt Archive's website is, to put it mildly, [http://salt.org.il/ not confidence-inspiring].

I'd be inclined to remove the whole section. The next person who feels the same, I encourage you to just do it—but I thought I'd give the idea a chance in case there are some non-poppycock sources to cite. [[User:Nondirectional|Nondirectional]] ([[User talk:Nondirectional|talk]]) 04:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

:Besides being,
*"''Founder of M.R.Bloch SALT ARCHIVE- Owner of Chemical Engineering consultancy- MBL Separation Engineering, Israel''"<br>
:Does David Bloch have any expertise in this area? --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 04:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

:: It seems weird that the qanats were used for saltmaking. We should avoid out of their field self-publishing authors, from the look of it, Bloch fall in this category. [[User:Nabataeus|Nabataeus]] ([[User talk:Nabataeus|talk]]) 08:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

::: Agreed with {{noping|Nabataeus}}. If this section is only supported by one source, it should be left out per [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:WEIGHT]].<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Wikaviani|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|<span style="color:black">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 11:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

:::: I traced the section in question to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Qanat&type=revision&diff=814757451&oldid=811780029 couple edits] made by, guess who, user [[User:Commonsalt|Commonsalt]], who has a user page with capitalization and misspellings suspiciously like that used on Bloch's website. This saltmaking section (and the user page) represents the only edits "Commonsalt" has to his credit, and I'd just as soon we got rid of them. Deleting it. [[User:Nondirectional|Nondirectional]] ([[User talk:Nondirectional|talk]]) 02:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your arguments for deleting any mention of the very possible original design of the qanat watershed streams systems as salt leaching systems, I should like to request your reconsidered attention to the subject, and not base it solely upon "single" source reasons. 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Rudolf_Bloch Moshe Rudolf Bloch - Wikipedia]:

: Moshe Rudolf "Rudi" Bloch was an Israeli scientist. Contents. 1 Biography; 2 Awards and ... Moshe Rudolf Bloch ... Salt Mirror and Petroleum Formation ...

[https://www.academia.edu/37593057/Revealing_the_Original_Purpose_Engineered_Qanat_Karez_Falaj_Salt_Leaching_System Revealing the Original Purpose Engineered Qanat Karez Falaj Salt Leaching System]

Academic estimates cite the principle use of Qanat/Karez water to have been for domestic irrigation purposes, however, the human engineering effort required for building these ancient Qanat systems was clearly so great that other, far more valuable <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Commonsalt|Commonsalt]] ([[User talk:Commonsalt#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Commonsalt|contribs]]) 07:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I've just done a bit of format cleanup on your previous comment; feel free to revert it if you disagree with anything I did.

: I have at least four concerns with using your paper as a citation to include a saltmaking section:

: 1. In your paper, you assert that there was a "considerable rise of the ocean eustatic sea levels [redundancy ''sic''] between the years 200 BCE and 300 CE," which would have put worldwide salt evaporation flats out of commission. You offer a single citation for this claim, a 1964 paper by M.R. Bloch. Palaeoclimatology, however, has seen a vast amount of development in the 55 years since that paper. Wikipedia's own well-cited page on [[past sea level]] shows no such rise, and notes, "The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago," and, "Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, 3,000 calendar years ago to present, sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD." Absent any modern evidence of this putative ocean rise, I see no reason to suppose that global salt trading networks were disrupted, certainly not enough to justify the creation of what you call (twice in two pages) a "feat of underground engineering which could be compared to the Egyptian Pyramids and the Great Wall of China."

: 2. You claim that the only conceivable reason to extend the qanats to the uninhabitable arid regions of central Asia is to make salt there. You have not addressed the well-known differences between today's climate in those areas and the climate there thousands of years ago, when modern Iraq, for example, was lush enough to be known as the Fertile Crescent, and Lebanon was forested thickly with cedars (whereas today actual Lebanese cedars may be outnumbered by cedars printed on Lebanese flags). Formerly usable grazing land in Australia is, as we speak, [[Salinity in Australia|being rendered useless]] by irrigation practices that dissolve the pre-existing salt from the local minerals and coat basin floors with it. Even I, at best a dilettante in palaeoclimatology, can offer the counterconjecture that the sabkhas you suppose to have been used for saltmaking are in fact the result of poor irrigation practices.

: 3. The article you linked just above has a striking lack of competent citations. You cite several sources in your bibliography, but fail to link any specific claim in your paper to any specific source that verifies it. Some of the sources you cite are dubious at best, for example, "https://wiki2.org/en/list_of_endorheic_basins" (cited without a title). Nearly a third (7 of 24) of your citations are to your own work or to that of M.R. Bloch, who I must assume is related to you; these citations appear to be the only ones backing up the saltmaking aspects of your theory. This dearth of good citations extends to all your work that I've seen.

: 4. As I implied in point 3, the saltmaking theory seems to have been originated with M.R. Bloch, whose legacy I tend to believe you must be attempting to preserve. Whatever Moshe Rudolf Bloch's familial relation to you, David Bloch, you are clearly tied quite closely to him and his legacy, being, as far as I can tell, the sole proprietor of the MRBLOCH Salt Archive. This calls your neutrality in this matter into question. A salt researcher can, of course, be expected to have strong opinions on salt, and these do not disqualify him, and indeed may make him a more reliable source. However, the claims of a salt researcher with dubious credentials, who to all appearances is attempting to preserve a familial legacy, should be regarded with much more skepticism.

: All this is over and above the general poor formatting and grammar of all your work I've seen so far. I'm willing to forgive quite a bit of bad English and bad formatting if the message behind it seems solid. After all, not everyone is a graphic designer or can afford to hire one, and not everyone speaks English as a first language. In your case, however, the message does ''not'' seem solid, and your formatting and grammar further detracts from your believability. If more serious scientists were on board with you, I'm inclined to believe, your work would at least have attracted the services of one competent copy editor. But this can't be said even of your published work in a third-party journal, which calls both your reputation and that journal's into question.

: If you can convince a more reputable scientist that your theory holds water (so to speak), and get that scientist to back you up – or if you can find even one other reputable scientist besides M. R. Bloch (reputable as he may have been) who already subscribes to the same theory – then there may be grounds for considering reinstatement of the saltmaking section. Frankly, I think you have an uphill battle, but I'm willing to be surprised. Please put your surprises here first, of course. [[User:Nondirectional|Nondirectional]] ([[User talk:Nondirectional|talk]]) 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


== Unnecessary content duplication ==
== Unnecessary content duplication ==

The section on Iran is almost a 100% verbatim copy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_water_sources_of_Persian_antiquity, an article the section actually provides a link to.
The section on Iran is almost a 100% verbatim copy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_water_sources_of_Persian_antiquity, an article the section actually provides a link to.


Latest revision as of 13:27, 6 July 2024

Unnecessary content duplication

[edit]

The section on Iran is almost a 100% verbatim copy of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_water_sources_of_Persian_antiquity, an article the section actually provides a link to.

What is the purpose of this redundancy?

The article is already a wall-of-text; maybe mark the article for clean-up. 99.225.227.193 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, articles on Wikipedia overlap, that's not different here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraphs worth ~2300 words overlap. I would say that is different from any article I've encountered on Wikipedia so far.
In my opinion and experience, keeping so much duplicate content synchronized manually over multiple articles will lead to major problems down the road. Signs of this are already showing when affected paragraphs are carefully compared (e.g.: punctuation, grammar, word ordering).
This is the reason why I tried to bring the issue to the attention of those who maintain the article.
Anyhow, if the redundancy is deemed acceptable, then I can live with it too (as long as I am not asked to fix it :) ).
Thank you for following up. 99.225.227.193 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i get you, but we cannot remove the content from this article, maybe a merger proposal could fix that. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a merge proposal even if consensus is gained (or if they decide to boldly do it), is that usually the original proposer has to be willing to merge the content themselves. Fork99 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qanat&oldid=1232945207"