Talk:Al-Tabari/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moving the list of English translations

Striver, I want all those translations in the SAME PLACE. If someone who reads only English looks for Tabari, he/she is not going to click on a link with an Arabic title. There is NO NEED for the breakout articles. You should not create a breakout article unless the main article is getting very very long and it makes more sense to move some info out. Breaking an already tiny article into stubs is just making more work for the reader. It is reader-hostile. Zora 07:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont agree. If someone wants information abuout the book, the person will go into the book link and find it. Please, could you revert me again? --Striver 07:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What next?

So Tabaristan is now part of Iran? What was it part of in the days of Tabari? I suppose: The Sunni Arab Shining Oppressed-by-Persians Republic of al-Zora-iyah? C'mon, let's be creative. Let's make up another fictitious entity for Zora to dump her Iranophobic infested hatred shit on.--Zereshk 03:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It was part of the Abbasid caliphate, which is not Iran. According to LeStrange, the province was called Tabaristan for the first few centuries of the caliphate. Then the term Mazanderan gradually came into use. (LeStrange, 1905, p. 369) Zora 06:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. It was "Abbasid ruled Iran". Please learn.--Zereshk 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Iran" did exist way before the half-Iranian Abbasids time:

File:Zora says Iran did not exist--The Persians.jpg

Book is: "The Persians", Gene R. Garthwaite, 2005.

--Zereshk 05:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought experiments:

• I have an axe. It's the same axe I've had for 30 years -- or is it? I've changed the head of the axe 4 times and the handle 5 times. Is it the same axe?

Questions of identity and continuity are not so simple. I'll bet you think you have a self, too. Zora 08:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. If that were the case, nobody could get condemned in any court if the accused presented such an argument ("oh your excellency, but all my cells have changed since I killed her. The old ones have died and been replaced by new ones, 4 times! I'm thus not the murderer any more"). Im smarter than you are, Zora. And I've taken more philosophy classes than you.

I gave you a scan. How stubborn can one be? When will you stop trying to maliciously imply that Iran somehow invaded Tabaristan, Khuzestan. etc?--Zereshk 09:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, it's properly called a Gedanken Experiment. :)--Zereshk 09:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm NOT implying that Iran invaded Tabaristan. I believe it was part of Ehranshar under the Sassanids, but it's not clear if it was called Tabaristan then. According to LeStrange, Tabar meant "high mountain" in the local dialect and Tabaristan would be "land of high mountains". In my copy of the Sahrestaniha i Eransahr, the area is described thus:

Cities were built in Padisxwargar, either Armayil or by the order of Armayil were built by the mountaineers, who from Azi Dahag acquired the dominion of the mountains.

I found Padisxwargar in Isfandiyār's Tārīh-i Tabaristān [1] (cool site, check it out!), where it is called Farshwádgar.

It's not at all clear that Padisxwargar had exactly the same boundaries as the Abbasid Tabaristan.

As to whether or not there was an "Iran" under the Abbasids -- well, there was certainly an area that had once belonged to the Sassanids. There was also an area (smaller) where people continued to speak Persian. Saying that this was Iran as it is known today is arguable. It seems self-evident to you that the "nation" extends far far back into the past, but it doesn't seem at all evident to me. I see continuity in language and tradition, however. Zora 12:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Talk:Tabari — Tabari → Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari – Tabari is a generic term for the people of Tabaristan. There are several people called al-Tabari. The full name should be given to clarify things. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

• Support --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support provided: We make "Tabari" a disambig page and put all the Tabaris on there as a list.--Zereshk 02:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

edits

I recateqorized a bit, and didnt delete anything except the editorial material that is already presented in the relevant books and has nothing to do in this biographical article.--Striver 14:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

somebody readed the parts moved to History of the Prophets and Kings and The commentary on the Qur'an (book). Those parts to dont belong to this article, its like clogging up the Muhammad article with the differetn editions of the Qur'an. Editions of a book belong to the book article, if there is such, and not the biography of the writer. Now, if there was no article for the books it would be correct to add them to the biography of the writer, but not when they do have a separet article. --Striver 13:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Even longer form of name

The disambiguation page Tabari had an even longer form of the name than what appears in this article. It had "Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir ibn Yazid ibn Kathir al-Tabari". I removed that long form from the disambiguation page and made it look like what appears in the first sentence of the article. I'm putting the information here in case anyone wants to add it to the article. (I can't confirm whether it's correct or not.) The name in the disambiguation page should not be longer than or different from what is in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), subsection "Piping". --Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

bayrak's editing

this user has done the change (1) consisting of two parts:

1. change from Persian to Persian stock.
2. putting ""who wrote exclusively in Arabic" in the summary/introduction.

none of these are 100% fine. Persian stock is non-sense. and the source provided states explicitly he is of persian origin. therefore the first part of edit is, according to WP:VAN, vandalism: the user is doing it deliberately on some articles (deliberately adding non-sense). the second change is something to be discussed whether 1. it is based on one source or not, 2. it should come in the first sentence.

it can not go on like this. --Xashaiar (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind if you want to change the sentence of Persian stock to pesian origin but we should stick the sources --Bayrak (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

you don't mind? what do you mean? you are adding this stock to the pages of persian scholars which is in direct contradiction with what the sources provide.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

would you please Stop firing the charges, there are a sources and we have to stick with it, Are we clear --Bayrak (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

X, just put 'origin' and he'll be happy. It's not a big deal. --Enzuru 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

enzuru, the expression "persian by origin" in ref. [1] as well as "persian tabari" in ref. [3] mean, by (non-existent)zero order logic, tabari is persian. the one born in tabirestan is of persian origin but not persian?--Xashaiar (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NO Original research here --Bayrak (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

you proved who you are: the deduction "today is friday, and the day after each friday is saturday implies tomorrow is saturday" is what the above message of mine means. for you that's an or?--Xashaiar (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You proved my point, X. There is no difference between of Persian origin, and being Persian. Since that's the case, let Bayrak put that. It has no difference to you, and it'll somehow make Bayrak happy so we can move on with our lives. --Enzuru 22:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

we should not create new terms. first define term, provide sources enough to overcome my sources, then. i have provided source for the fact that tabari is persian.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

After the Islamic conquests Arab soldiers had been distributed to the new Islamic States, for example Andalusia inhabited by 41 thousand troops with their familes --Bayrak (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your sources say "Persian by origin" and "ethnic Iranian." Just put one of those. --Enzuru 23:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

there are three sources. the third says "persian". do you want 10 more? fine with me.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you on your period? Just say that, and revert me, I only care to put what the sources say. What do you think, I'm pushing Pashtun nationalism on the article? --Enzuru 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

just look what you are doing. most prominent and famous Persian by origin and ethnic Iranian what the hell is this??? --Xashaiar (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

ooooookh! :)):)):)) my brain restarted!--Xashaiar (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru the only REASON that make me here is my Hatred toward the falsification of the facts --Bayrak (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been following Bayrak longer than you have, X. From what I know, he's made a "recovery" though still has some issues with the Persian articles. If things are sourced there shouldn't be an issue, but just keep "Persian origin" or ethnicity or whatever for now unless you find a source that just states Persian. Sticking to sources makes sure no one can complain unless they are not worthy of being listened to. And Bayrak, very few Persians ever spoke Arabic as a mother toungue, though they spoke it as a lingua franca, a language of science and literature. Please find a second (and possibly a third) source saying he wrote exclusively in Arabic. --Enzuru 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All of his (Huge) works were in Arabic and there is a source placed on the other hand is there a different claim for this? --Bayrak (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just a bold claim, can you give us a second source? Huge works don't mean all! --Enzuru 21:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

All his works were written in Arabic, He Did not write non-Arab i just called his works huge --Bayrak (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Give us a second source, Bayrak! This way no one can complain. If you can't find a second source, we might be breaking WP:UNDUE. --Enzuru 23:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blackwell Synergy - Muslim World, The, Volume 93 Issue 1 Page 145 ...(even the ethnically Persian al-Tabari wrote exclusively in Arabic) --Bayrak (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

the sentence "even the ethnically Persian al-Tabari wrote exclusively in Arabic" is not academic. moreover the phrase that has made you a bit hopeful can be a fake sentence originated from the same primary source. --Xashaiar (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The language he wrote in, is irrelevant and putting it in the lead is WP:UNDO even if there are 100 sources about it, Arabic was the [lingua franca]] of the time, and everyone wrote in it. ( Like how we don't put emphasis on which medieval western authors wrote in Latin) The issue here is if he was a Persian, and I have added another source explicitly saying he was a Persian. --Sina111 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

i added one more. now we have 5 sources. that should be enough.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bayrak, it wouldn't hurt to say some of his prominent works were in Arabic. Does anyone disagree to that? --Enzuru 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

encyclopædia is not supposed to stress trivially concluded facts. that is the introduction says what farabi's main works are. up to you ɛ.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, that should be fine. --Enzuru 01:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you very much.--Xashaiar (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Zashaiar et al.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Name is mistranslated to be POV

His name means "father of Jafar, named after the Prophet Muhammad, son of Jarir, from the province of Tabaristan". No it doesn't. It means (using an English language ordering) "Muhammad, father of Jafar, son of Jarir of Tabari", it's not clear whether Muhammad or Jarir (or both) are from Tabari however. Editing accordingly. Pbhj (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied?

The article had been copied wholesale from the Encyclopedia Brittanica 11th edition and was seriously out of date. I rewrote it and added such modern references as I could find online. Further collaboration on the references, especially the Arabic references, would be appreciated. Zora 23:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is "tafir al kabir" and "tafsir at-tabari" the same thing? --Striver 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, al-Tafsir al-Kabir is by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Tafsir al-Tabari is actually entitled Jami' al-Bayan.--Supertouch (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tone of some parts of the article

At least the content of 6th paragraph of the biography section doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry to me at all. It is more like a 'tale' recounting an event and such.Feels that part needs a bit of tidying up. Thanks.Prophetoffrivolity (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

call me stoopid, but I came here googling 'Tabari 11:24 / 2034' after visiting some site citing Robert Spencer (yeah, I know). Should there be something about the rivers of blood etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.115.30 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)