User talk:Tahmasp

Welcome!

Hi Tahmasp! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --alidoostzadeh 03:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on Safavids

Hi You usually should discuss your changes in the discussion page. What is of utmost important is to always source with verifiable and scholarly sources any statement that you wish to input. Sometimes some sources conflict and that is the reason to specially go in the discussion page and discuss the issue in a civil manner. Some users might overstep the bound of civility or try to use force/threats or make bitter nationalistic rants or show irrational behaviors. When this happens, always report it to the Admins of Wikipedia. Have fun editing. --alidoostzadeh 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denkard

Hi, this addition is not needed. The paragraph immediately after your addition explains the name. (first para of 'Introduction' section). -- Fullstop (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the [1] translation of the name? Its quite ok. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be not a bad idea having a separate section on etymology of the word. Mostly it is done, on wikipedia. Anyway, if you persist not to have the etymology section, I won't mind, you can undo the changes. thanks Tahmasp (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases on Wikipedia, the section titled "Etymology" should just be called "Name" :)

Anyway, what I was thinking was that "Introduction" section would be a little odd if something came before "Introduction." Perhaps it could be renamed to "Background information" or similar, and that be subdivided into "Name", "Epoch", and "Authorship"? What do you think? -- Fullstop (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

I left a note on WP:AN/I about your efforts. You may have a perfectly reasonable justification for these edits. But, if so, you have to explain yourself. Geo Swan (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian theory of the affiliation of the Bulgar language

Hi, the "Iranian"/"Pamiri" theory exists, but is marginal and shouldn't be emphasized through templates and such. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, it is only endorsed by Bulgarians (who have a nationalistic reason to do so, because they have a traditional enmity towards Turkey, and regard an Indo-European affiliation such as Iranian as being more prestigeous and "civilized"). More importantly, it is advocated by historians, not linguists; thus, these authors are not reliable sources, because they are not experts on the relevant subject. It is quite ridiculous how these historians are struggling to produce amateurish "Iranian" or "Pamiri" etymologies that they are absolutely unqualified to assess. Note that so far, I've been struggling on the Bulgar language talk page to convince a pro-Turkic user that the Iranian theory should even be mentioned.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian and فارسی

Salam. Persian is more correct than Farsi in English, but inside the direct quotes of scholars or classical historians, it should stay as is. Outside of that it is good to change it. یعنی اگر از یک پژوهشگری نقل قول مستقیم شده است و این پژوهشگر واژه فارسی را بکار برده، دیگر نبایست این واژه را به پرسین تغییر دارد زیرا این یک نوع دستکاری در سخن آن محقق است. البته این به نظر من صحیح تر است. پیروز باشید —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali doostzadeh (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am mainly concerned about classical quotes like Ibn Nadeem. Note he differtiates between Farsi and Dari and Pahlavi, but calls all of them Persian languages. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with your skill

Please visit the Sima Mafiha page and help to extend the article. Actually I found little info about her. I am afraid that she could be forgotten at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.113.239.102 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve the Tat Language

--Faikpro (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muley Abul Hassan

May I ask you to cite some sources for your claim, that "Mula" Abdul Hassan is the "exact" name? What do you mean by "exact" anyway in this context, since various transcriptions of the arabic original are possible? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Arabic somewhat and I'm sure that in Arabic it is not pronounced Muley. cheers--Tahmasp (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Mawla and Mullah, which both are of same root.(talk) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep this discussion together, so feel free to answer here. I do not doubt your knowledge of Arabic, but there are standards for transliterating or trnscribing Arabic, see Romanization of Arabic. Again I ask you to cite your sources. There are different views possible by the way , I think. One way to look at the name is the spanish Muley Hacén, which is certainly rather a mockery of the arabic original than an exact transcription. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, newspapers and popular books use not a transliteration (Which should be "Mwli"), but a transcription (Which should be "Mawla"): instead of transliterating each written letter they try to reproduce the sound of the words according to the orthography rules of the target language: Qatar. And can you please cite your sources for "Muley".--Tahmasp (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, "Muley" is neither a transliteration nor a transcription.--Tahmasp (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I paid attention to the Spanish version and saw that it is Mawla too, nevertheless Spanish Wikipedia is not a good source.--Tahmasp (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reference to Mawla. That cleared up something already. Sources for Muley Hacén being the most common form in Spanish are easily given: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and so forth. I know the Spanish wikipedia is not the most reliable source (yet the English is neither, that is why independant sources are needed). I did not claim that "Muley" is a transcription, see my comment above. But since "Mula/Mulay" is rather a nickname than part of the real name, it probably should not appear in the title. Would you agree to move the article to Abu l-Hasan Ali, Sultan of Granada? (There is already a redirect to the article under this name, and it is consistent with the French and German wikipedia) --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea. Do it. Then we can refer to his title(s) in the text.--Tahmasp (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there had actually been two Abu al-Hasan Ali one Arab (15th centtury) and one Persian (9th century) (see here). What about that?--Tahmasp (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

however it shouldn't be a serious problem because the Persian one was no Sultan.--Tahmasp (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do it. There is already a disambiguation page Abu al-Hasan, so it is no problem to put one more on it. But I just noticed the difference between "Abu l-Hasan" and "Abu al-Hasan". I am not sure, what is the correct version in this case? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has used Abu-al-Hasan-Ali, also as you said in wikipedia they have implemented Abu al-Hasan elsewhere, however both cases are probably correct but one case seems to be more common at least in literary form.--Tahmasp (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since both forms are possible, I leave it at this for the moment. One can always move the article again if needed. I also added a first short reference to the title, in both the Spanish and the Arabic way. Go on to expand it if you like. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your change. It seems good.--Tahmasp (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bagh (word)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bagh (word), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagh (word). Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Bagh (word)

Dear Tahmasp, thank you very much for so kindly bringing the discussion on the above-mentioned entry to my attention. I have now contributed to the discussion. With kind regards, --BF 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tahmasp, thank you for your additions to the entry, which are very nice. I disagree, however (very strongly I must add) with the opening sentence of the entry, for the reason that it is very imprecise. Where is e.g. "a special type of garden" based on? The original text (which is still there, below the title "About the word") is in contrast very precise: it specifies what the word normally means, and it qualifies this meaning in the second part of the first sentence — this qualification is not mine, but is Dehkhoda's. I admit that elsewhere in the world the word may have somewhat different qualifications, but I believe that such qualifications must be properly documented. Incidentally, "Bagh" should be "Bāgh", otherwise one will have conflict with the Avestan word Bagh to which reference is made later in the text. I should be grateful if you would kindly take the above remarks into your consideration. As it stands, I very strongly disagree with the present opening sentence of the entry. With kind regards, --BF 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at least originally it has had only middle eastern architectural elements and if you look at historical baghs like chahar bagh you can easily see that type of architecture. Nevertheless, yes in Persian bagh means garden in its general sense not an special type of it. At last I think these considerations should be added to the article but with source. thank you for your attention.Tahmasp (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tahmasp, evidently I could not possibly have objections to additions, not least those by you which have transformed the entry into a remarkably nice entry. I was just referring to the fact that we should make distinction between what we may think to be the case and what is established to be the case. In fact, as you may have noticed, someone (not I) has already marked your sentence and asked for references. (Incidentally, earlier today I changed some Baghs into Bāghs, conform what I had written to you earlier.) As for chahar bagh, I have as yet to read this Wikipedia entry, but if you know the history of the Qajar period, then you will realise what disasters some of the governors (like Prince Zell ol-Soltan) brought to the architectures of Esfahan and Shiraz, as Reza Shah did to that of old Tehran — they all razed to the ground what they thought to have become old-fashioned (in the case of Zell ol-Soltan, the motivations were very sinister and had nothing to do with aesthetic taste; I think Zell ol-Soltan can be said to have truly raped the architecture of Shiraz). It follows that for instance today's chahar bagh is not what is has been and what it had supposed to be, and these should be accounted for when defining such words as "Bāgh". With kind regards, --BF 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Behnam Farid, As you said articles should not be based on our thoughts but should be backed by sources, and I think those users who add citation tags to articles do nothing wrong. About Chahar bagh your comments was interesting and I should read more on this matter. What have been imposed to these historical panoramas are disgraceful, Best regards.Tahmasp (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]