Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge

This page should be deleted and all links forwarded to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu-Lu%27lu%27ah

Why? Please offer some constructive discussion. --DerRichter (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the main discussion for this is on Talk:Abu-Lu'lu'ah. --DerRichter (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible reverse copy

The page found at .CAIS NEWS cais-soas.com/News/2007/June2007/28-06.htm was created 28 June 2007. The similar text found in this Wikipedia article was originally added to the Abu-Lu'lu'ah in 2005 and merged to here in September 2011. Therefore, this appears to be a reverse copy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• PiruzNahavandi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Early Life deleted

Why was the chapter "early life" deleted? --Verethragna90 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Original research

Hello 89.183.85.142 ! Your recent addition to this article is very interesting, but unfortunately we cannot use them since they are entirely based on primary sources. Please read our core content policy page on original research. To summarize that policy: we only report the research already carried out by scholars, and we are not allowed to interpret the original Arabic sources for ourselves.

Apart from that, I am currently rewriting this article from scratch, so when I upload that I will undo your edits anyways. Would you please wait for a few hours before editing this article again? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article! Please get help from the Persian and especially the Arabic page of the article. 89.183.85.142

Linked Omar at Fatimah's house (moved from user talk page)

In article of Piruz Nahavandi is written that Omar injured Fatima, this is the only incident that Omar do that. And must be linked. One of the reson that Shia like Piruz is that Piruz has revenge for Fatimah. Be cause Shia said that Omar killed Mohsen Ibn Ali, and because of that Piruz (who change his religion to Shia and hear that what happend to Fatimah) killed Omar by knife and the last knife in his stomach be cause Mohsen ibn Ali and Fatimah. Nikan Faze (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nikan Faze ! I moved this here from my user talk page because other editors might be interested in this discussion. You're right that the Shi'ite veneration of Piruz is partly due to the perceived retaliation for Fatima, and his annual celebration is actually sometimes called Jashn-e Hazrat-e Zahra ("Celebration of [Fatima] Zahra"). It is not clear to me that our article Umar at Fatimah's house refers to the same incident (especially because it is essential to the Piruz celebration that Fatima cursed Umar, which is not mentioned in the article), but perhaps that's just because our article on the incident needs to be improved. I pipe-linked it in-text for now (to avoid undue emphasis on it).

Quite apart from that, I feel it is my duty to point out that Shi'ism originated at the very earliest with al-Mukhtar's revolt in 685 and the subsequent formation of the Kaysanite sect, so describing Piruz (died 644) as Shi'ite would be ahistorical. Also, Piruz's deed was historically unrelated to Fatima, and the connection between the two is a product of later storytelling in a religious Shi'ite context. At least, that is how the scholarly sources relevant for this encyclopedia see it. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Mention two other narrations

It is a narration that Omar was killed in the mosque whcih is in article. But there are two more narrations too. The second is that the Piruz wanted to build a mill for Omar and killed Omar when the mill was unveiled and then run away. The third is that early in the morning, when Omar wanted to entered the mosque, Piruz immediately attacked with a knife and then fled. These other two narrations are not mentioned at all in the article and should be mentioned. Nikan Faze (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are in fact a lot of narrations about Abu Lu'lu'a (many more than the two you mention) which are not covered in the article right now. This is partly because the sources I've used do not pay much attention to these narrations (their historical value is often low), but also partly because I wanted to write down the most important information first, leaving other things for later expansion by other editors. If you know of good reliable and secondary or tertiary sources which cover this, please feel free to expand the article yourself! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that El-Hibri 2010, pp. 107–114 would be a great source to base this on, though I think that we should be careful to mention these narrations only in so far as they are historically relevant (El-Hibri analysizes their historical implications, and it's this analysis rather than the narrations that we should primarily report). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wars

This is not exactly mentioned in the article. He was either in the battle of Qadisiyah or in the battle of Nahavand. But in the article only wrote Nahavand. ​It is also claimed that he had previously taken part in the Iran-Rome war, and this was not mentioned in the article Nikan Faze (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted in the article now, Abu Lu'lu'a's capture at the Battle of Nihawānd is a hypothesis formulated by Madelung 1997, p. 75, note 67: this is by no means sure, but merely likely. None of the sources I've used hypothesize that he was captured at the Battle of al-Qadisiyya, so that's why it's currently not mentioned. As above, if you know of good reliable and secondary or tertiary sources which cover this, please feel free to expand the article yourself! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

الكنى والالقاب\Volume 1\147

Is a one source i finde that said he was in battle of Iran and Rom. There is source for his war in Qadisiyah too. I search to find it tomorrow. You search too! Thanks alot!! Nikan Faze (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Both Qadisiyya and Nihawand are mentioned by El-Hibri (2010), citing Ibn Sa'd and Baladhuri (in n.84): Prior to coming to Medina, Abi Lu’lu’a was said to have been either a former captive from Qadisiyya or Nihawand or a former slave of Hurmuzan.[1]. El-Hibri notes that a cry uttered by Rustom just before Qadisiayya, "Umar has eaten my liver", was later repeated by Abu Lu'lu'a (p.112). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So please add this to article! Nikan Faze (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing up El-Hibri 2010 here, who perhaps has the most detailed account of Abu Lu'lu'a I've seen yet. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

According to Tabari (volume4 / page 136 ) from Saif ibn Umar, Abu lullah was first captured by the Romans (in the Iran-Rome war) and then captured by the Muslims. Add this to the article. Nikan Faze (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nikan Faze! It is very important to know that we do not base our articles here directly on medieval sources like al-Tabari. Rather than on primary sources like these, we draw upon secondary sources, which are written by modern scholars who have made a comprehensive study of all medieval sources, and we report what they say rather than what medieval sources say. This is because it the job of scholars to interpret and evaluate historical texts (an activity called original research), not ours. It will be good to pay attention to this, because it is one of our three most important content policies: original research (OR) is strictly forbidden here. Please carefully read the policy section on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

I will try to illustrate why we disallow original research here by commenting on your proposal: according to the report in al-Tabari you are referring to, Abu Lu'lu'a was first captured by al-Rūm, which refers not to the (Latin-speaking and pagan) Romans, but to the (Greek-speaking and Christian) Byzantines (the war you are referring to is the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628). However, listen to what the renowned scholar Wilferd Madelung writes about al-Tabari's report: The legendary story reported by Sayf b. 'Umar on the authority of al-Shaʿbī (Ṭabarī, I, 2632; Annali, IV, 500) according to which Abu Lu'lu'a, originally from Nihāwand, had been captured by the Greeks, converted to Christianity, and then was seized from them by the Muslims, is obviously invented to explain why he would have been a Christian convert. His master, al-Mughīra b. Shuʿba, was a prominent leader of the Arab army in the battle of Nihāwand, and there can be little doubt that Abu Lu'lu'a became his slave then as part of the booty. This is expressly affirmed in a report quoted by Ibn Saʿd (Ṭabaqāt, III/1,252). (Madelung 1997, p. 75, note 67). You see how Madelung compares what is reported by al-Tabari with what is reported by Ibn Sa'd, and finds the latter in this case to be more reliable? We as mere Wikipedia editors could never do the work of a specialized scholar like Madelung. We have to trust him and scholars like him, not just anything we might happen to find ourselves in a medieval source. Now of course, if other scholars would find al-Tabari's report here to be credible, we should certainly mention it in the article. But we have to compare secondary sources for that: to evaluate secondary sources is our job (though other encyclopedia's, which like us are tertiary sources, could also help us with that).

I hope you understand this policy now, and will not come up with proposals based on primary sources anymore. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Nikan Faze (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Jufayna man or woman?

Can someone say me why someone say she was woman and some other say he was man? Nikan Faze (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted in the article, Madelung 1997, p. 404 refers to him as "Jufayna al-Naṣrānī" (undoubtedly based on how the primary sources call him): if it were a woman, this would have been "Jufayna al-Naṣrāniyya" (i.e., the adjective "Naṣrānī" ("Christian") would have taken the feminine form "Naṣrāniyya"). Jufayna (جفينة) appears to be one of these Arabic words which have ta' marbuta but are still masculine, like khalīfa (خليفة) ("caliph"). It's an easy mistake to make (I also called him a woman before Wiqi55 luckily corrected me, and to be honest I'm just guessing that the person who drew File:Tarikhuna bi-uslub qasasi-The Conspiracy to kill Umar.jpg made the same mistake (as noted in the article in the caption).

Nor is this the only mistake in the picture: as also noted in the article, the double-bladed dagger is described by El-Hibri 2010, p. 109 as having "two pointed sharp edges, with a handle in the middle". It appears to have been a dagger with two separate blades pointing in two opposite directions (perhaps a bit like the Maduvu), while the picture rather represents it as a sword with one split blade, more like Zulfiqar (undoubtedly inspired by the Alid tendencies of the purported conspiracy). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, yes, I understand. Please add that its wrong dagger in picture.

ln the series Omar, Zulfiqar was mistakenly shown as Abolulu's dagger, like the picture. Nikan Faze (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A thing I think it's wrong

In the article written: Ali (later revered as the first Shi'ite Imam). But this does not seem neutral and is not compatible with Wikipedia law. Because the Shiites believe that Ali was the Imam from the beginning. But in the article, by writing the word "later", it means that the Ali was not Imam and Shiites later lying that he was Imam. Nikan Faze (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nikan Faze! I've already explained to you in another context that according to the established scholarly view, Shi'ism originated at the very earliest with al-Mukhtar's revolt in 685 and the subsequent formation of the Kaysanite sect. And that's not saying anything about Imamism (religious speculations about the divine knowledge and infallibility of the Imam), which goes back no earlier than to the thought of Muhammad al-Baqir (677–733). We are talking about 644 here, so all those things are "later". At Wikipedia, neutrality does not mean that we look for a balance between what Shi'ite Muslims believe and what non-Shi'ite Muslims (or non-Muslims) believe, but rather that we faithfully report what reliable sources (in this case: historians) say. Please do yourself and us a favor and go read a good book on early Islamic history, like Madelung, Wilferd (1997). The Succession to Muhammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56181-7. It is essential that you know what you are talking about when editing Wikipedia, which often means that first you have to read some books. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Abu Lu'lu'a regarded as a Muslim by Shiites (moved from user talk page)

In the biography section, which refers to he was Zoroastrian or Christian, I think that he may be was Muslim should be added as well, because Shiites, arguing that non-Muslims were not allowed to enter Al-Masjid an-Nabawi at that time, say that he was a Muslim. Nikan Faze (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikan Faze! I've moved your query to the article talk page, since it is purely about article content. Please do not post such article-related queries on my personal talk page anymore.

We are already mentioning Madelung's hypothesis that he may also have converted to Islam. From a historiographical point of view (which should be the focus of any biography section), there's not much more to be said. If some Shiite religious scholars have argued that he was a Muslim, we could certainly mention that, but only in a separate section titled 'Religious reception' or similar, and only if there is a reliable (secular academic) secondary source reporting the views of these Shiite scholars. I'm not sure where to start looking for such a source though; it may well not exist yet. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yasser Al-Habib view of Abu Lu'lu'a

It can be added as Shia view of him, be casus Sheikh al habib is a great Shia clergy. He says:

https://alhabib.org/en/what-is-the-proof-that-abu-lulu-reached-iran-and-was-buried-there/

https://alhabib.org/en/was-abu-lulua-a-zoroastrian/

89.183.23.67 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Renaming to Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz

Since a full requested move process can take weeks and often creates a lot of unnecessary work for other editors, I will first just ask on this talk page whether any editor objects to moving this article to Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz? As amply documented in the 'Name' section, the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources is either Abu Lu'lu'a or the somewhat fuller Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz. Both would we good article titles, I just have a general but very much personal preference for having at least two-part names on Wikipedia (if others prefer Abu Lu'lu'a, I'd go with that as well). For some reason, none of the sources refer to him as "Piruz Nahavandi" (also compare [2] to [3] – note that the second source there refers to Wikipedia, which is always a bad sign). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. His name is Piruz Nahavandi which is mentioned in the historical sources (mostly with the name of Firuz which is the same as Piruz becoming Arabic). Abu lulu is his nickname, which is also mentioned in the article, and I see no reason to change the name of the article. Nikan Faze (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nikan Faze! Could you please list the reliable sources which refer to him as "Piruz Nahavandi", and which say that this is how his name is given in the historical sources? Many thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The source that comes to mind now is the Encyclopaedia of Shia. But several other books have called him Piruz too. This article was originally created with this name, the creator of the article did not get this name from himself! The name of the article in WikiShia is Firuz Nahavandi (this article now is available just in Persian and Arabic). Thank you very much for contributing to the article. Nikan Faze (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

But now I see that you are right. Most sources call him Abululu. But please mention the name of Piruz Nahavandi in the initial text of the article too. Thanks Nikan Faze (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Nikan Faze, are you okay with moving to Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz?

I'm afraid that as a wiki, WikiShia is not a reliable source. I would like to at least add the name Piruz Nahavandi to the article, but we really need a good source for this. Could you look it up somewhere and give us a full reference, including the author, title, volume, and page numbers? We need this so that readers are able to verify that the source really says what we say it does. Thank you, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I support a move to Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz. This is what I managed to find regarding his name;

When Fēruz Abu Loʾloʾ (q.v.), a Christian captive of Persian origin, assassinated ʿOmar Don't mind how the name is transliterated, Iranica spells every name how it's pronounced in Persian on purpose.

Cambridge History of Iran, vol 4, page 15; "After 'Umar's assassination at the hands of an Iranian Christian named Firuz, who was known as Abu Lu'lu"

Nice article btw, deffo GA material. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: thanks for the compliment! You'll have noted that I lifted a reference added elsewhere by you, as well as another one added by another editor to that article. Great times when wiki-articles are actually so good you can just follow the references they give (I'll note for the record that I've duly checked and verified them though)! It's just awesome! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha yea, the Rezakhani citation did catch my eye. And I can only agree. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree to rename the article. But the current name should be mentioned. The name Firuz is the Piruz that became Arabic. This is a Persian name. There was no "f" in ancient Persian. Today's Persian is different from the Persian of that time and has become a bit Arabic. Nikan Faze (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikan Faze: how about this? I believe that's supported by the sources we cite in the 'Name' section. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That's wrong Abu lulu Piruz is not a Persian name. Abu lulu is completely Arabic. Piruz is Persian. Nikan Faze (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikan Faze: actually, Abū Luʾluʾ is a Persianized form of the proper Arabic Abū Luʾluʾa, much like Fīrūz is an Arabicized form of the proper Persian Pīrūz. Compare the fa-wiki article: you'll see it mentions the Persianized ابولؤلؤ rather than the proper Arabic أبو لؤلؤة. I'm also a bit surprised that you added "Piruz Nahavandi" to the lead, while we still don't have a source for that. Could you please give us a full reference for this name? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Now I add source. Everything OK now? Nikan Faze (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nikan Faze: no, just adding a source doesn't just clinch this discussion. Two things:

1. You added two references: دائرة المعارف الإسلامية الكبرى (Encyclopaedia Islamica), vol. 6, pp. 198 - 199, and Hassan Ibn Thabit, Diwan, 1971, vol. 1, p. 273. But in the blurb that I can read (I don't have full access) from the Encyclopaedia Islamica entry (which we're already citing as Ishkevari & Nejad 2008, by the way), I only read the following: Most sources give his name as Fīrūz (Ḥassān b. Thābit, 1/273; Ibn Ḥabīb, ‘Asmāʾ’, 155; Ibn Qutayba, 183). So it seems the sources you are citing just mention "Fīrūz" (as we do), not "Piruz Nahavandi"? If they do mention "Piruz Nahavandi", can you provide a quote from where they do? @HistoryofIran: do you have full access to Encyclopaedia Islamica to verify this, or do you know an editor who does?
2. If Encyclopaedia Islamica would mention "Piruz Nahavandi" that would be a great source to add it to the list of names in the lead sentence. However, that doesn't mean it should be the first listed (which should also be the article title): Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz is still a far more common name in the reliable sources as a whole. At the very least, it would merit discussion.

Next time, please give us a full reference that other editors are able to verify, and do this on the talk page first. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't but I've asked for access [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok Nikan Faze (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I just got this sent to me by the nice people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. At least in the English version of Encyclopaedia Islamica (which is a translation of the original Persian; the entry in the English version is located in vol. II, pp. 228–229), there is no mention of "Piruz", nor of "Nahavandi". It further contains the same information as other scholarly works, pointing out that the historical sources disagree on his origin and beliefs, and that according to one rather more reliable report, he came from Nihawānd (but also that the other reports don't mention this). Interestingly, the entry also makes note of one rather less reliable early 12th-century historical source which claims that he was from Kashan (though the authors of the entry don't mention this, there undoubtedly is some relation with Abu Lu'lu'a's shrine in Kashan). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Speaking purely hypothetically here, and bearing in mind this is a talk page, I would note that Abu Lu'lu'a is a purely Arabic nickname, and Firuz is unambiguously the Arabic translation of Piruz. As a Persian, and presumably former Sassanian subject given the time period, Piruz clearly could not have been nicknamed Abu Lu'lu'a back in Persian-speaking Persia. It therefore stands to reason that he would have some other form of identifier, and the natural identifier for otherwise low-born individuals in that era was a place name, such as Nahavand, which would lead us towards Piruz Nahavand-ik in Middle Persian, with the suffix modernised to Nahavand-i in modern Persian. Now, I appreciate that this is WP:OR, but my point is that there is that the etymological path of this name is quite plain, and we should continue to pursue a source for Piruz's Persian name. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If we're not going to talk anymore about what we find in reliable secondary sources, I'll put of my Wikipedia hat for a moment, and put on my original research hat.

It may be that Abu Lu'lu'a was a kunya given to him by later (Arabic-writing) tradition. However, it may also very well have been the case that he converted to Islam while in Medina (as, e.g., Madelung thinks likely). Converting to Islam at that time involved becoming a client (mawlā) of an Arab tribe, and taking on an Arab name would have been a strict minimum to qualify for that. It should be born in mind that he apparently acquired quite a reputation in Medina, to the point of becoming relatively autonomous from his master Mughira. That would have been all but impossible without conversion, and indeed Arabicization, which almost amounted to the same thing in the context of the time.

Because of that same historical context, nisbas pointing to non-Arab origin were not in use before the late 8th century, i.e., after the Abbasid revolution, which very much was a 'revolution of the mawālī' (the Abbasids being the first caliphs who supported the concept that anyone can and should convert to Islam without becoming part of the Arab tribal system). This is also the period from which most of our earliest historical sources date, and it would not be uncommon for these to retroactively apply a nisba to an earlier figure. However, such a nisba is never mentioned for Abu Lu'lu'a. Instead, there is a great variety of stories about him, only a few of which claim he came from Nihawānd.

Generally, and in contrast to early sources, later (medieval) historical sources do not retroactively add nisbas. Moreover, medieval Iranian tradition seems to have held that he originated from Kashan rather than from Nihawānd. In any case, if at some point he would have received the nisba Nahavandi (e.g. in the early Safavid period, in which his popularity was strongly enhanced, and in which he did in fact receive a new laqab, Bābā Shujāʿ al-Dīn), we should have read about that in a reliable source by this point.

It seems much more likely to me that the name Nahavandi is a 20th-century invention, originating –along with the myth about him having been a Sassanian soldier– in some form of Iranian nationalism. Now this is of course pure speculation, but it's the direction in which I would be looking if I were researching this issue.

But, putting on my Wikipedia hat again, none of this should really concern us. Anyone is free to search in the direction they want, but what counts here is simply whether there's any reliable, secondary source telling us something about it. That's the only thing that is actually within our discretion to discuss. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, by your count, how many sources actually refer to him as Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, written out like that in full? Most sources I have seen use Abu Lu'lu'a or Firuz interchangeably as the primary/alternate name, saying something like "Abu Lu'lu'a, also known as Firuz" etc., but not actually adjoined together like in the article title. Similarly, do any Persian language sources actually write his name out as Abu Lu'lu' Piruz? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

By far the most sources refer to him simply as "Abu Lu'lu'a" (the Arabic version). As mentioned above, I personally prefer Wikipedia article titles to contain at least two parts of an Arabic name (I would also prefer Umar ibn al-Khattab over Umar, Ali ibn Abi Talib over Ali, etc.), but I would equally support Abu Lu'lu'a. If you open a RM to move to that name, I would probably support. "Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz" is simply how the two known parts of his name are conventionally structured (see Arabic name): first his kunya, then his ism (given name). As mentioned in the article, Madelung 1997, p. 75 gives his full name in this way (though with the less common transliteration "Abū Luʾluʾa Fayrūz"). The Persian form "Abū Luʾluʾ Pīrūz" is based on the fact that sources which prefer to use Persianized forms of names where available, such as Encyclopaedia Islamica (which is translated from the Persian), generally refer to him as "Abū Luʾluʾ". The "Pīrūz" instead of "Fīrūz" in the Persian form is based on the fact that Chkeidze 2012 mentions that "Fīrūz" is an Arabicized form of "Pīrūz". ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I might come back to it - seems a little WP:OR to adjoin names in a way that most sources don't. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for going through and explaining your findings so far on these points. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Legendary nature of the later story about Abu Lu'lu'a's miraculous transportation to Kashan

In the main body of the article, we currently write that Abu Lu'lu'a was saved from his pursuers by Ali. As these stories would have it, Ali instantaneously transported Abu Lu'lu'a by means of a special prayer to Kashan (a city in central Iran), where he married and lived out the rest of his life. This is related by Mirza Makhdum Sharifi (died 1587 CE) in his Al-Nawāqiḍ li-bunyān al-rawāfiḍ, written in 1580 CE (see Johnson 1994, p. 127, note 23; on Sharifi, cf. pp. 124–125). Fischer 1980, p. 16 also relates the story, characterizing it as a "parable", unfortunately without mentioning where he took it from. All other sources we currently use (Algar 1990, El-Hibri 2010, Levi Della Vida & Bonner 1960–2007, Madelung 1997, Pellat 2011, etc.) do not mention the story of the miraculous transportation to Kashan, but only give the mainstream account that Abu Lu'lu'a was captured and killed by Ubayd Allah ibn Umar shortly after his assassination of Umar, based on early sources such as al-Baladhuri (820–892 CE), al-Tabari (839–923 CE), etc. Clearly the later account that Abu Lu'lu'a fled to Kashan is not taken seriously by these historians, because it is legendary. Is there any good reason not to call it legendary? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty: you changed "According to later legends" to "According to Shia traditions" again. As explained above, I disagree. Would you please reply here? You also changed the piped link from Shrine of Abu Lu'lu'a to Tomb of Piruz Nahavandi, but as discussed in one of the sections above, we have no reliable source referring to this person as Piruz Nahavandi. [edit: I got that exactly backwards, you actually corrected this. Sorry! 18:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)] Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this material, and it ultimately boils down two a couple of sentences based on a legend. I've consequently removed it from the intro summary, where it was providing a sense of false equilibrium with the historical accounts, and replaced it with a more appropriate sentence on the much more tangible celebration surrounding the killing of Umar by Abu Lu'lu'a (shrine specificity aside). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this! However, as I explained in my edit summary, the fact that Abu Lu'lu'a's connection to Kashan is most probably legendary in origin does not in any way mean that it is not important: the 'Legacy' part takes up half of the article, because sources often put a heavy emphasis on it, and that weight should be similarly distributed in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article (the including any prominent controversies is particularly relevant here). We are clearly calling the Kashan story a legend, so as far as the historical account goes we are not creating a false equilibrium. But in terms of coverage in reliable sources, it's simply a fact that there's as much on the legends and controversies as on the actual historical events, so reporting on that is not a case of false balance.

I therefore restored the larger paragraph in the lead, and even expanded it a bit to more clearly explain the role played by the shrine and the festival in Sunni-Shi'i relations. I also added some new stuff to the article itself, expanding upon the historical sources for the legend (apparently Mirza Makhdum Sharifi was an anti-Shi'ite polemicist! not unimportant I think), making it clearer that Umar has been more broadly the focus of anti-Sunni sentiment, and adding some info on how the shrine was recently shut down in an effort to improve Sunni-Shi'i relations.

I know this is a controversial subject, and I was very cautious when I first rewrote this article a while back, but ultimately it doesn't hurt to be a bit more straightforward, especially since it's all very firmly based on reliable, secondary sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I have reservations about the amount of material you want to include about the legendary account in the intro summary. In my edit, I included material on the more significant part of the legacy, which is the Omar Koshan festival, though notably, not even this is held in Kashan anymore. If the legend is to be mentioned, it should not be more than one short sentence. The material on the festival does not meanwhile need to be expanded. The festival has its own article. This page should be strictly biographical. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to keep this article strictly biographical if more than half of the prominent and reliable sources mention Abu Lu'lu'a strictly in the context of the modern controversy (this would include Calmard 1996, Fischer 1980, Ismail 2016, Johnson 1994, Mavani 2016, Stewart 1996, Torab 2007), to which the legendary account is essential. Even the scholars focusing on the historical account (Madelung 1997, and especially El-Hibri 2010) comment on its implications for Persian-Arab relations.

MOS:LEAD mentions that the lead should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [...] As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. [...] Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm; the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole.

Currently, the lead paragraph on the legend and the controversial festival take up slightly more than one third of the lead, even though the amount of sources dealing with that part are about as many as the sources dealing with the historical part (Algar 1990, Caetani 1905–1926, El-Hibri 2010, Ishkevari & Nejad 2008, Levi Della Vida & Bonner 1960–2007, Madelung 1997, Pellat 2011). I think that's more than fair considering the nature of the subject (a Persian slave revered by Shi'is who assassinated an Arab and politically pro-Arab caliph revered by Sunnis!), and that any attempt to further reduce it would in fact come down to suppressing encyclopedically relevant controversies.

If you want to pursue this further, I would suggest putting it up at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This article should be biographical principally because it IS a biography. The shrine and the festival both have their own separate pages and do not need to be covered in the same level of detail on this page. Your point about the sources on the political implications of the killing and its commemoration make a better argument for creating a dedicated page on "the killing/murder or Umar" as a separate subject than they do for further conflating this biography with the political opinions inspired millenia later. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This person is only notable as the assassin of Umar. There's absolutely nothing else of any historical relevance to say about him. Everything about him is controversial. The fact that some editors don't like this is no reason to suppress it, or to create a WP:POVFORK. The article as it stands is as subtle and nuanced as it can be, and faithfully reflects the POV of RSs. If your own POV is so strongly held that you find yourself at odds with WP:NPOV (a natural thing that can happen to any editor), it's probably a better idea to avoid this type of article entirely. [edit 23:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC): I assumed too much here, sorry!] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you have not addressed a single one of the points I have made, and are instead teetering on the brink of ad hominem attack, I invite you to recall WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Wanting a biography to be biographical is not POV; it is adhering to Template:Biography. If there is not much to say about the man, the article can be short. That is fine. If the bulk of the material is about festivals and modern politics, separate articles should be written about those events and topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that the article largely conformed to a biographical template until your "rewrite" in September, which essentially erased the largely stable page structure of 13 years in favour of your own version. Given that you are now responsible for 90% of the content on this page, I would like to know from you why you have chosen to largely erase the subject's widely circulated Iranian name, Pīrūz Nahāvandi, from the article, downplayed his backstory as a captured Sassanian soldier, and removed other legends and stories about this individual, despite your observation that his backstory in general is largely legendary. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend you, but I have addressed the point about the need to be 'biographical' (briefly: Template:Biography does not by any means supersede WP:NPOV), and this is just bludgeoning. There is literally not one source that mentions Abu Lu'lu'a outside of the direct context of Umar's assassination. The anti-Sunni traditions that surround this figure date back to at least the 16th century. Rejecting what the sources write about this because it is supposedly 'not biographical' seems like an ad hoc argument. One can't circumvent NPOV with special pleading like that: a Wikipedia article about a subject covers what prominent and reliable sources write about that subject, simple and clear.

With regard to the name Pīrūz Nahāvandi, please see the thread above. Briefly, multiple editors (including me) have been looking for a reliable source which mentions that name, and we have found none. In any case, the great majority of reliable sources do not use it (its origin is unclear to me, but it's clearly not a historical name), so it wouldn't be up for anything more than a short mention anyway (if a RS would be found).

Same for his backstory as a captured Sassanian soldier: none of the reliable sources I've read ever mentions that he was a Sassanian soldier, while many of them do mention that he was a highly skilled craftsman (which makes historical sense: skilled craftsmen were a favorite target for enslavement at the time, given their enormous economic worth). Especially this one looks like a case of citogenesis to me, but of course if you find reliable sources mentioning that he was a Sassanian soldier that would be interesting to look at.

Finally, as for the fact that I removed other legends and stories, I assume you mean the hadiths and similar primary source material that was being cited and commented upon without support from reliable secondary sources. I did not re-include them (I did indeed rewrite the article from scratch, so I would have needed to give them a new place) because they violated WP:NOR in the first place, and because the reliable secondary sources on which I based the article do not mention them. There's certainly room for expanding the article with a few relevant hadiths that are discussed to some extent by secondary sources (El-Hibri 2010 is a rich source for this), but it's the kind of thing that is really hard to get encyclopedically right, and it's a level of detail I did not aspire to for a first rewrite of what was in point of fact a horribly poor and misinformative article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your perspectives and recent editing process on certain issues. (I'm going to ignore the bludgeoning remark.) What I don't understand is why you perceive there to be the clash between making this biographical AND NPOV ... surely both at the same time would be ideal? But moving swiftly on to perhaps the more interesting points about the sourcing on the more Persian-leaning story elements, was part of the problem that arose related to Wikipedia's specific issue with many Iranian sources? I know this is a problem that does crop up in this genre. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more patient. I also didn't perceive that you're still a relatively new editor. I do feel that I'm spending way too much time on this though, so please try to get with me.

A neutral point of view on Wikipedia means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is a core content policy, which means that the principles upon which it is based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Wikipedia has many guidelines, essays, a manual of style, templates proscribing a certain structure, WikiProjects which have their own conventions, RfCs that create a community consensus on specific issues, etc. This can be confusing to editors, because there is a certain hierarchy between these various proscriptions which is not formally laid down, and which can therefore be hard to navigate. What is relevant here is that templates such as Template:Biography rank at the very bottom of all the things I have mentioned, while core content policy more or less sits at the top of the hierarchy.

This means that the imperative to proportionately represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic could only be overturned by some concern that finds a basis in core content policy on the same level as WP:NPOV. Needless to say, Template:Biography is not it. That template is structured according to what editors have found are the most common types of information that reliable sources publish about biographical subjects (perhaps, and despite the example used, with a certain slant towards modern subjects). However, if for a specific subject reliable sources focus on entirely different types of information, NPOV dictates that the article should be structured according to those types of information. What WP articles contain is first and foremost based on what reliable sources contain, and this takes precedence by far over streamlining biographical articles to allow for a consistent style.

So, to come back to our article, if half of the reliable sources treat the subject of Abu Lu'lu'a in the context of the changing Sunni-Shi'i relations in the Safavid period, in the context of the Omar Koshan festival, or in the context of Abu Lu'lu'a's shrine in Kashan, then we should also dedicate half of the article to these things. That's what the proportionately bit stands for. Furthermore, it is never acceptable, under whatever pretext, to try to hold back the article from fairly representing significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Now what is significant or not (and correlatedly, what is reliable or not) can be a point of contention, but this article is using almost exclusively sources of the very highest quality. Wikipedia editors should simply not contend with such top-quality sources.

Finally, what do you mean with "Wikipedia's specific issue with many Iranian sources"? What Wikipedia considers 'reliable' or not is, just like what it considers 'neutral' or not, more complex than many (new) editors think, but I can assure you that whether sources are Iranian or not has nothing to with it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

My point about Iranian sources is that it feels like the neutrality of the piece, for example with the naming issue, but also with other story elements, may be being affected by the lack of Iranian perspectives, as presented in quality, secondary, reliable Iranian sources that would pass muster by Wikipedia standards. Though incidentally, I did come across the following source, which, while a journal entry of unclear quality and provenance in its own right, does provide a list of Arabic and Persian works that could prove relevant if anyone can read them. I'm particularly referring to things like the work Tarikh va farhang-e Iran (or The History and Culture of Iran) by Mohammad Mohammadi-Malayeri. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't read Persian. However, I am somewhat familiar with Arabic historiographical works, and my experience is that their quality is generally far lower than European-language sources (English, German, French, Italian, the so-called 'forum languages' of Arabic and Islamic studies), more often than not to the point of being worthless. Arabic scholars that read the European-language scholarly literature almost always also write in European languages. Those who write in Arabic are in most cases ignorant of the scholarly literature, and writing within idiosyncratic nationalist and/or Islamist frameworks. Works that are disconnected from the international scholarly literature like that are indeed generally unreliable by Wikipedia standards. But of course, Arabic- or Persian-language scholarly works are by no means a priori unreliable, and this must be very much decided on a case-by-case basis. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Image sizes

Now definition	Now	Default size
upright=1 Note that WP:IMAGESIZE says that upright=1 is the same as the default.	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)
upright=1.8	Shrine of Abu Lu'lu'a in Kashan, Iran
upright=1.5	Shrine of Abu Lu'lu'a in Kashan, Iran
upright=1.2	Shrine of Abu Lu'lu'a in Kashan, Iran

References

Do we really need these giant images in the article? The standard for Wikipedia articles is not to use the "upright" parameter except where necessary. The above is a comparison of what is done now with the default. Please note that the default is meant to be different sizes depending on circumstances. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and WP:IMAGESIZE.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Added upright=1.2 and 1.5 to the table.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've noted a problem where I set image sizes as they look perfectly right on my (larger-than-average) 32" 16:9 3840x2160 monitor, but then get feedback from other editors that they look oversized on their monitors. That's why I just reduced the second image here from upright=2.3 (which I originally set) to upright=1.8. This is based on feedback I've received elsewhere, where reducing the image size to 80% of what it looks good at on my monitor yields an acceptable size for other users. Feel free to further reduce it though (also for the first image). Just note that what looks good on your monitor may not look good on other monitors (the second image is already looking too small on mine). Additionally, I don't believe that the default size (upright=1) is somehow the best fit for most monitors (it would be really handy if it would, but I just don't think it is). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Most articles have the default size (the same as upright=1); remember that how large images are displayed is controlled by a user's settings (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering). I use what I think are the defaults - so thumbnail size =220px - but I can change that to various value from 120px to 400px if I want. The table below shows the effect of various settings of the upright parameter combined with user preferences of 220px and 400px.

User preferences	Thumbnail width (pixels) with different settings
	Thumbnail (default)	Upright=1.2	Upright=1.4	Upright=1.5	Upright=1.8	Upright=2.3
thumbnail size =220px	220	264	308	330	396	720
thumbnail size =400px	400	480	560	600	720	920

I changed the upright to 1.2. For the image in question. My preference is upright=1, and your's us upright=1.8, so upright=1.2 is a compromise. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If some users want thumbnails to be about 400 pixels wide, they should change their user preferences.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: thanks for the tip about the preferences, that's very helpful! I've changed mine to 250px (I wish I could set it to something like 275px, as 300px really makes everything oversized), which may make it easier for me to estimate how things would look on other monitors. However, I stand by my assertion that upright=1 (or the default size, if that is the same) often is not at all a good fit. It's often too small, but it's also very often too large (even with my monitor configuration, which clearly renders images smaller than most other configurations, I often set images at upright=0.75 or the like). In that vein, I would like to ask you whether you don't find the 'conspiracy' image too large on your monitor? I would also appreciate it if you would look at the images in some of the articles listed on my user page and (conservatively) reduce the size of anything which clearly looks oversized to you. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think the conspiracy image is on the large size. Here are some tables showing the effect of changing the upright value on thumbnail size.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User preferences	Conspiracy picture Thumbnail width (pixels) with different settings
	Full size	Upright=0.7	Upright=0.75	Upright=0.8	Upright=0.85	Upright=0.9	Thumbnail (default)
thumbnail size =220px	930 x 1333	154 x 221	165 x 237	176 x 252	187 x 268	198 x 284	220 x 315
thumbnail size =250px	930 x 1333	175 x 251	188 x 269	200 x 287	213 x 305	225 x 323	250 x 358
thumbnail size =400px	930 x 1333	280 x 401	300 x 430	320 x 459	340 x 487	360 x 516	400 x 573

Upright=	Effect of the upright value	Default size
upright=1	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)
upright=.9	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)
upright=.85	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)
upright=.8	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)
upright=.75	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)
upright=.7	Abd al-Rahman (ibn Awf or ibn Abi Bakr) witnessing the purported conspiracy of Abu Lu'lu'a, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna (wrongly depicted here as a woman; the depiction of the murder weapon may also be wrong)

First seeds of Perso-Hashimid affinity

El-Hibri 2010, pp. 107-108 writes things like:

‘Umar’s relation to Persian personalities were cast as seeding the ground for a Perso-Hāshimite affinity and revenge. For his part, therefore, Hurmuzān speaks in his dialogue with ‘Umar not only on behalf of a fallen Persian empire, but also on behalf of ‘Alī.

A further confirmation of the fact that Hurmuzān’s role shows the birth of a Perso-‘Alid affinity in the form of a new Anṣār camp supporting the ‘Alid cause can be seen later, at the Battle of Ṣiffīn, when ‘Alī zealously pursues and attempts to punish ‘Ubaydallāh b. ‘Umar for killing Hurmuzān soon after the murder of ‘Umar. ‘Ubaydallāh’s attack, it will be remembered here, grew out of suspicion that Hurmuzān was involved in a premeditated assassination plot against the second caliph.

However, this is also the moment when ‘Alī’s lost leadership becomes the new religious cause of a new phase in history, to be realized with the community of eastern (mainly Persian) converts to Islam. Outsiders to the traditional community of Medinan rule from then on will fight on behalf of a political issue with a similar situation of exclusion: ‘Alī’s loss of the caliphal role.

Hurmuzān’s debate with ‘Umar evokes the twin themes of the Iranian defeat and the ‘Alid loss of the caliphate. It honors ‘Umar simultaneously as a guide of the jamā‘a and as a moral-religious exemplar, but it subverts him on the succession front. All the characters we have examined so far in various scenes from the chronicles—Rustam, Hurmuzān, and al-Mughīra—finally converge and clash in an allusive climax in the scene of ‘Umar’s assassination. This is mediated through the construction of the image of Abū Lu’lu’a, who carries out the murder in Medina.

Granted, El-Hibri's prose is not very transparent. Like all other scholars, El-Hibri is well aware of the fact that the actual details of the story are impossible to reconstruct, and that the story was framed and reframed by the 8th- and 9th-century sources upon which we depend. But he very clearly and explicitly speaks about a Perso-Hāshimite and Perso-‘Alid affinity originating in the alliance between the anṣār and the Alids, the latter of which is considered rather likely to be historical by scholars. Ali's exclusion from the caliphate, which was firmly in the hands of the traditional Qurayshi elite, probably did lead him to attract supporters from among the more recent converts, including notably converts from among the conquered (mainly Persian) peoples.

Does El-Hibri regard the Perso-Hashimid affinity as a product of a later period, e.g. under the influence of the Abbasids (who came to power as al-riḍā min ahl al-bayt or al-riḍā min Banī Hāshim and whose army mainly consisted of mawālī from Khurasan)? Yes, to a large extent he does: on p. 91, he writes:

Yet, insofar as Persia in general (and Khurāsān in particular) will later rise as the chief patron of the ‘Alid and Hāshimite cause and will be remembered as acting in a historical role parallel to that of the Anṣār in early times, those early events in the succession dispute were not, in the long term, marginal to Persia’s political involvement on the ‘Alid side, nor to its eventual resurgence during the ‘Abbāsid revolution. An ‘Alid-Persian tie in the narratives and an ‘Umar-Arab one formed a division that permeates throughout the early history.

But the fact that possible Perso-Hāshimite affinities strongly resonated with 9th-century authors, who tended to build upon them and elaborate them into unlikely details, does not prevent El-Hibri from confirming that there was indeed something to build upon, or that the events as they happened did in fact lay a groundwork for the later narratives. The earlier formulation in the article perhaps unduly represented the seminal significance of these events as a fact. I have reformulated it to make it clear that it were the 9th-century historians who treated them as such. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In general an opinion held by one historian which received no coverage in secondary/tertiary sources should be handled with more care. I'd consider attribution, "According to El-Hibri, ...". And explicitly naming the 9th-century authors. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a random list of 9th-century authors. Sorry for not making that clear. Could you please quote where el-Hibri limits his analysis to the "9th century" and lists the authors you've added to the article? If not, then it would be closer to source to not name those authors. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a random list: Ibn Sa'd, al-Baladhuri, and al-Tabari really are the three main sources. El-Hibri is quite clear about this on pages 83 (The extant biography of ‘Umar comprises a collection of akhbār and ḥadīth reports that appear carefully selected in the works of Ibn Sa‘d, Balādhurī, and Ṭabarī. In spite of their commonalities, these sources do show some divergences in form if not in substance.) and 109. These are of course 9th-century authors, but El-Hibri also makes this explicit a number of times, e.g., on p. 88: The answer has more to do with the Persian social and cultural milieu of Islamic society in the ninth century than it does with the seventh century. So it's definitely in the source, I just thought it would be ponderous to refer the reader to specific page numbers for each of these things. I can add page numbers if you really think them necessary though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for the quotes. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll broaden my horizons, etc. Will start this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Images:
  • I'd suggest adding "early 20th-century depiction" somehow into the drawing image

     Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• General:
  • I believe the various "(lit 'XX definition')" constructions should be "(lit. "XXX definition")" .... use double quotation marks

    MOS:SINGLE says that glosses should take single quotes; the {{lit}} template that is used in the article also only renders single quotes (its /doc citing MOS:SINGLE as a justification) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

    Yeah, I see we've got yet another specialized template to do things one particular way and not allow any sort of variation ... blech. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

    Y

• Biography section:
  • "mosque of Medina" link for this?

     Done ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  • "Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi" if this person is notable, link to the article, otherwise, I suggest going with "he also killed a bystander behind Umar"

    no entry in the the Encyclopedia of Islam and only two unclear results in Google Scholar, so assuming not notable; wrote "one bystander" to contrast with thirteen people in other version ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

    The removal of the name was disputed; there is a discussion at the talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

    You correctly devined my reasoning for wanting it reomoved, it's unnecessary clutter that distracts from the subject of the article. The current iteration is even worse - it makes the prose bloated and is a GA criteria 3b issue. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

    I just noticed "claim of one man (either Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf or Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr) that they had been seen conspiring" as another issue of bloat/focus - do we need to know these two possible names? -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

    I agree that mentioning Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi is unnecessary and distracting, but of course Wiqi55, who added this information, also has a say in this.

    About Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf and Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr I'm less sure. One of the Abd al-Rahmans is also depicted in the image to the left. More importantly, these are very much notable figures, the first belonging to the ten to whom Paradise was promised and the second being the son of the first caliph and Umar's predecessor Abu Bakr. Both these aspects are heavily laden with pro-Qurayshi/pro-Sunni echoes (the ten to whom Paradise was promised being an early pro-Qurayshi/Sunni concept and Abu Bakr being revered by Sunnis), so the fact that these figures were chosen by later tradition as the ones who bore witness to the purported conspiracy against Umar (also revered by Sunnis) is not likely to be coincidental. There is much 'hidden' meaning like this in these stories, but by linking to the articles we can at least give the readers a hint of why these details are important. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

     Feedback required

    It would appear that there is a rough consensus among editors at the talk page to leave the name of Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi in (without the extra bloat about him being mentioned by Ibn Hajar). I've also added a secondary source mentioning him as a victim of Abu Lu'lu'a.

    I think that everything considered, mentioning the names of people who played a direct role in the events (witness, victim) is not entirely undue. Why would history record these names if not because they were thought to be important at some point? The prose certainly is a bit dense here and there, but as a whole it remains focused on the core events. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  • "After Ubayd Allah was detained, he threatened to kill all foreign captives residing in Medina, as well as some others." ... this sentence lost me .. Ubayd Allah was detained? This sentence is disconected from the rest of the paragraph and narrative, so it's confusing.

    He was detained for the murder of Abu Lu'lu'a's daughter, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna. I clarified this and added some more pertinent info at the end of the third paragraph to make it more obvious. Though I think it's clear now, this new info may need further review. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

    This works. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

    Y

  • "Nevertheless, while Ubayd Allah was subsequently acquitted of his crimes" ... which crimes?

     Done clarified that the murder of Abu Lu'lu'a's daughter, Hurmuzān, and Jufayna was recognized as a crime ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • " (a.o."? explain this abbreviation or just ... expand it?

     Done replaced by "amongst others," ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Annual celebration section:
  • This section is a bit ... big for the article on the person. It's barely shorter than the actual main article itself. This whole section could use some trimming - I'd suggest trying to keep it down to things that actually illuminate something about the subject of the article. I realize that this has been discussed on the talk page in the past, but the other article should be developed further if there is more information. While some information on the festival is clearly due here - some of this information does not shed any light on the legacy of the subject and should be in the primary topic for the festival.
    • In line with this, here's a sugested first paragraph (I've cut the refs as I haven't changed the order of info, just cut some extraneous details)
    • "During the 16th-century conversion of Iran to Shia Islam under Safavid rule, a festival began being held in honor of Abu Lu'lu'a and his assassination of Umar. Named Omar-koshan (lit. 'the killing of Umar'), it was originally held around Abu Lu'lu'a's sanctuary in Kashan, on the anniversary of Umar's death. Later the celebration spread elsewhere in Iran, sometimes on 9 Rabi' al-Awwal rather than on 26 Dhu al-Hijja."

      You're right that it was in need of some trimming. I also wrote the Omar Koshan article at about the same time as this one, and I clearly copy-pasted a bit too much. I trimmed some, summarized some, rewrote some, but also added a little to further clarify some of the more important things (the controversy around some Shi'is celebrating the assassin of one the most revered figures in Sunni Islam accounts for 50% or more of this subject's notability). I took it from 444 words to 294. Does it look alright now? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

      I made a few more concision cuts - check them? I think that your text is an improvement, much less chance of overwhelming the article. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

       Feedback required Checked them, and they were generally good. Copy-edited a little more and corrected one mistake. I think we should be good on this one now? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, thanks very much for the review! I addressed all of your points above. Of one thing I'm not sure, and two points need some feedback and/or further review.

I should probably also note that this is a very controversial subject, which was not easy to get 'right'. I think that most issues brought up by good-faith editors have now been resolved, but disruption from IPs and soon-to-be-blocked accounts is likely to continue indefinitely. For this reason, the higher-than-average level of disruption which is apparent in the article's history page should not be held against it.

If you should note more issues, please feel free to address them too! Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved one point from 'done' to 'discussion ongoing'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that and the issue of ref formating also is coming up... will wait to see if we're into unstable territory ... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, I think that a rough consensus has formed at the talk page, which is reflected in article. There are two points left on which feedback is required, but I think we should be good now. Let me know what you think! Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see what the name of a non-notable person adds, and think it just distracts from the flow of the narrative, but this is a GAN, not an FAC, so it's not a deal-breaker. I would, however, be much more opposed to it at FAC, should this article make it there - the prose is very dense and would need some work to get to FAC standards. Passinng now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi

@Wiqi55: in their GAN review above, Ealdgyth remarked "Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi" if this person is notable, link to the article, otherwise, I suggest going with "he also killed a bystander behind Umar". I answered that since neither Encyclopedia of Islam nor Google Scholar yield something useful, it's better to assume non-notability, i.e., it's not an option to redlink him.

You re-added his name, saying he's actually notable. Perhaps this is not what you mean, but I think it's questionable to assume that the fact that he's mentioned by primary sources renders him notable in Wikipedia's sense. I don't think that the thousands of companions of the prophet, tabi'un, companions of the Imams, and other early hadith transmitters listed in the biographical evaluation (rijal) literature are all notable in the Wikipedia sense, and should have their own article (even if primary sources were to count towards WP:SIGCOV, which they don't, it's almost all passing mentions).

Of course he doesn't have to be WP-notable to merely mention him in our article. But I guess that Ealdgyth's sense was that readers will not know who he is, and will not be able to learn about him by clicking on Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi, which makes this a rather distracting piece of information. Even El-Hibri 2010: 109, our only secondary source for this, does not mention Kulayb, and merely speaks about another man.

Now I don't have any strong feelings about this, and would not at all object going back to the old version where we just mention his name. However, adding in-text that he was listed by the rijal author Ibn Hajar as a companion of Muhammad is really just adding to the distraction. The aim here is not to distract the readers too much, and mentioning the 15th-century author Ibn Hajar does just that in my view. What do you two think? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Kulayb is notable otherwise Tabari wouldn't have mentioned him in a brief summary. His killing is also found in Baladhuri's Ansab, quoting earlier sources (Zuhri, Ibn al-Kalbi, et al). Insisting that a named victim of Abu Lu'Lu'a must be rendered nameless is rather povish. Other figures such as Jufayna are named and twice described despite not having their own article.

I referred to Ibn Hajar via G. Rex Smith (Tabari, vol.14, p.90, note 401). Also there an entry for Kulayb in the earliest complete extant List of Companions (11th century).[5] That he was listed as a Companion is uncontested, but I'd support dropping Ibn Hajar's name. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 03:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wiqi55, I don't believe it's really povish: as I noted, our only secondary source for this (El-Hibri 2010: 109), who has a far more detailed account than we do, also renders him nameless. Rather, naming him when our sources do not would perhaps be somewhat undue. But the problem really is not NPOV, just that it bloats the prose of a rather short article that is already heavy on obscure details.

But what we need to do is to establish consensus here. I tend to agree with Ealdgyth that we better drop the name, which puts your view in a minority at this point. But let's ask the opinion of other experienced users who edited this article. I'll do this in my next comment. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The "killed a bystander" claim is not found in el-Hibri though; its based on Tabari. So you're selectively citing Tabari who didn't say bystander but actually named Kulayb. Also the "depth of detail" is subject to wp:npov. If we're naming all the victims of Ubaydullah, regardless of notability, we should also name the victims of Abu Lu'lu'a. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding. El-Hibri 2010: 109 does write that Abū Lu’lu’a set on the caliph, stabbing him six times along with attacking another man (according to Ṭabarī). Balādhurī and Ibn Sa‘d rely on another version that says [...] that in a frenzy the assassin then attacked those who came to restrain him, wounding thirteen people, before he finally killed himself. So El-Hibri just mentions another man. It's you who added the whole sentence, including Kulayb's name and the ref to al-Tabari which supports it. I just forgot to take out the ref to al-Tabari when I removed Kulayb's name, but the rest is still supported by El-Hibri. Of course, the fact that many of our secondary sources name Ubayd Allah's victims, and that for this reason we do too, does not mean that we should name Kulayb, who is not mentioned by any of our secondary sources. Arguing so is a type of false balance that is precisely contrary to npov. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

But no version says he killed a nameless bystander. The one you're referring to in "according to one version" actually says he killed Kulayb (Tabari). Omitting the name would mislead the reader into thinking that this version didn't identify the one killed. I agree however that the sources we have are more focused on Ubaydullah and the aftermath, which is exactly why we shouldn't use them to suppress information about Abu Lu'Lu'a's victims. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Input needed

@Iskandar323, AhmadLX, Toddy1, HistoryofIran, and LouisAragon: there's a question on which we would like your input:

In the current GAN review, it was proposed by the reviewer to change, in our description of the other people Abu Lu'lu'a killed besides Umar, the phrase according to one version, he also killed Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi who was behind Umar to according to one version, he also killed one bystander behind Umar, noting that Kulayb ibn al-Bukayr al-Laythi is not notable and that mentioning his name is a potential distraction. Should we or should we not implement this change?

Thanks for giving your opinion! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Whether the [alleged] victim is notable (in Wikipedia terms) is irrelevant. Having looked at the passage, I think it adds credibility to mention the name of the victim (given that the information is backed by a reliable source). It also makes it easier for people to find out if more is known about the victim.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just a note: he is only mentioned by al-Tabari and some other primary sources. Anyone who wants to know more will have to go look in those primary sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  We do have some secondary sources. Rex Smith's note is cited above. There is also a short biography by Leone Caetani: "brother of Iyas, Companion of the Prophet, killed by Abu Lu'lu'a ...".[6] Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's revealing : it says he was a sahabi and that he was killed by Abu Lu'lu'a... This is fairly typical of thousands of figures like him: they were recorded in the rijal literature because they figured in the isnads of some hadith, but nothing is known about them. Caetani probably says all one can find in Qawl or al-Maktaba al-Shamila, which is to say, nothing much at all. But perhaps it also doesn't hurt to mention him here, it's after all where his only claim to fame lies. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  I find the reviewer's suggestion reasonable. Either we give detail on who was he and why mentioning his name is important, or we just drop the name.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 01:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Captives in Medina

That Medina was "off-limits to non-Arabs" should probably be changed to the more common "off-limits to adult male captives". According to A. S. Tritton:

Umar did not allow adult male captives — non-Muslims — to enter Medina, but he made an exception in favour of Abu Lu'lu'a, at the request of Mughira b. Shu'ba, as he was a skilled workman.[7]

"Captives" also matches one of Zuhri's account (Annali, V, p.57), but Madelung seems to be selectively translating only the version found in the Musannaf. (Succession, p.75, n.64). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Tritton 1939 is talking about religion in the Arabian Peninsula, so he has good reason to cite that version (is this based on Ibn Sa'd?). But Madelung 1997 also mentions that the city was off-limits to captives (citing Caetani p. 57), to which he adds the version according to which the city was off-limits to the ʿajam (non-Arabs). This latter version of al-Zuhri's report is not only found in the Musannaf: as Madelung mentions, it is also the basis of al-Mas'udi's account, which is translated by Caetani on p. 103. Moreover, al-Mas'udi is also cited by Pellat 2011 as a source for the city being off-limits to the ʿajam. Madelung seems to take both versions as credible, while Pellat at least seems to support the ʿajam version. Tritton 1939 only mentions the captives version because that suits his context, but he does not deny the credibility of the other version. I therefore see no good reason to replace the ʿajam version with the captives version. We may perhaps add that the city was off-limits to captives as well as to non-Arabs, though I think that this would be a rather unnecessary distraction. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't ignore the main text and cite a note. Madelung's main text supports captives (citing the two accounts of Zuhri). He also translated an account referring to the Arabs as "their masters" (p.75). Same with Tritton, so that's two sources supporting captives. And Mas'udi didn't write anything himself. He repeated almost word for word Zuhri's account in the Musannaf without attribution. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How do you know that al-Mas'udi used the Musannaf and not some other independent version of the report? And if so, why would the Musannaf be less reliable than Ibn Sa'd? These are not questions we should be trying to answer here, as they are doubtlessly leading us into original research territory. But we've got two secondary sources dealing at length with the Abu Lu'lu'a narratives (Tritton does not), both of which support the ʿajam version, one (Pellat) only mentioning that version, and another (Madelung) being aware of the two versions but explicitly supporting the ʿajam version as also credible, using it to support statements like Umar was also anxious to keep most non-Arab Muslims out of Arabia, in particular Medina. Add 'captives' if you want, it is fully supported by Madelung, but do not remove or obfuscate the well-supported 'non-Arabs'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Shrine of Abu lu'lu'a firuZ

Can you please tell me if he committed suicide in Madina sharif how did his dead body travelled to Iran from Madina sharif a distance of minimum 400hrs or 500hrs؟ How did his dead body survived and reached safely to iran؟ How is it possible ؟ 59.103.244.174 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This is stated in the article, here: According to later legends, Abu Lu'lu'a did not die in Medina, but was miraculously saved from his pursuers by Ali, who transported him by means of a special prayer to Kashan (a city in central Iran), where he married and lived out the rest of his life. This at least is what was claimed by the anti-Shi'ite polemicist Mirza Makhdum Sharifi (1540/41–1587). Perhaps other sources (in particular, Shi'i sources) simply maintain that he was able to flee his persecutors in Medina and travel to Kashan by himself? If there is some coverage of this in reliable sources it would be nice to add that to the article.

Please do keep in mind though that this is not a forum for general discussion. Comments here should be strictly about how to improve our actual article. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)