Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz

Early Life deleted

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

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)

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)

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 [1] to [2] – 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 [3] --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)

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.[4]. 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)

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)

Why is the motive stated as a fact when there are multiple possible motives.

The article only states that umar was killed by abu lulu due to an arguement about tax payments expected to be payed from abu lulu to his master. This is simply one account of what the motive could be. Another possible motive which is more likely is the fact that abu lulu was taking revenge for the invasion and conquering of his nation and people. It seems a little odd that this possible motive is listed in the Wikipedia page on Umar Ibn al khattab, but it is completely left out from this page. May I ask, what is the reason for this? Thank you. 216.181.132.21 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason is that our Umar ibn al-Khattab article was citing unreliable sources, while this one is a good article strictly based on reliable sources. I fixed that now by copying content from this article to Umar's article.

Do note, however, that multiple possible motives are indicated in our article: first the motive that Abu Lu'lu'a did not want to pay taxes to his master is given, but then the article clearly states that although this is the reason given by most historical accounts for Abu Lu'lu'a's assassination of Umar, Umar's harsh policies against non-Arabs are also likely to have played a prominent role. One of the footnotes also indicates the alternative explanation given by some medieval sources that rather than himself not wanting to pay the tax, Abu Lu'lu'a's was angry about the caliph's raising a kharāj tax on his master al-Mughira.

In contrast, 'revenge for the invasion and conquering of his nation and people' is not given as a motive by any reliable source. Even if some semi-reliable source would be found that claims this, it would probably be wp:undue to include it given the fact that the many experts cited in this article (Pellat, Madelung, Levi Della Vida & Bonner, Ishkevari, El-Hibri) do not even allude to it as a possible motive. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

If the "harsh policies" claim is merely Madelung's hypothesis, as indicated by the footnote, then it shouldn't be asserted as fact. Perhaps an "according to" statement and a move to the views paragraph (i.e., last paragraph in section) would be more suitable for an opinion. There is also a hint to what the OP is talking about in El-Hibri (p.112): By depicting Abū Lu’lu’a and Rustam as equidistant from ‘Umar in their expressions of national frustration, narrators intended to show a vindication of Sasanid political pride and Rustam’s final failure.. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We're not asserting it as fact, we're saying likely, and this only in one clause (vs. the multiple references to the tax dispute throughout the article). We're also contrasting this likely additional motive with what historical accounts are saying, indicating that it is somewhat more hypothetical. Using 'according to' would clutter up the sentence and is inadvisable, and simply not needed for what is after all an uncontested point of view by a recognized expert (Madelung).

Regarding El-Hibri, as you know, he is talking about 9th-century historians and their 8th-century sources rather than about the 7th-century Abu Lu'lu'a himself. We're already using El-Hibri to talk about how these 9th-century historians regarded the assassination of Ali's perceived enemy Umar by a Persian slave as foreboding the special affinity between Persia and the Hashimid family of the prophet (including Ali), so maybe something could be added there with regard to these historians understanding the killing as an act of national revenge. However, this is rather complex for a Wikipedia article (we're already not doing a great job of it as it currently stands), so we would need to explain this very clearly (especially the fact that modern historians do not endorse these 9th-century views). If it is to be done at all, I think the best way to go about it would be to write an entire new section on 8th-/9th-century narratives about Abu Lu'lu'a, based on El-Hibri 2010. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I've changed Umar's harsh policies against non-Arabs are also likely to have played a prominent role to Umar's harsh policies against non-Arabs may also have played a prominent role. I think that's cautious enough; Umar's harsh policies against non-Arabs are established fact, so Madelung's inference here doesn't seem far-fetched. Of course, if some other expert would explicitly contradict it, it would have to be rewritten to reflect that, but I think we're good now as is. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

You have made the article worst. Please explain how the source used in umars article was unreliable. What guidelines was it not in line with? Why not include both possibilities? What is the harm in including the possibility that the killing MAY have been motivated by revenge for the Muslim conquests? The harsh treatments are not the same as what I stated. To be frank, you seem to have a dismissive attitude about what the Iranian people were enduring during the Muslim conquests, you do not take into consideration how that could manifest itself into an assassination.

With all due respect, your bias is very evident in your work. You also stated that Omar Koshon is a anti Sunni festival, when it is purely a nationalistic pride festival. If it is anti Sunni as you put it, why was it only celebrated in Iran? Why don’t Iraqi Shias or any other shia muslims celebrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.132.21 (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources you have cited also include that the motive was not clear before giving the “tax dispute” story that you included in this article and umars article. If you are not willing to include both accounts (revenge for Muslim conquests and tax dispute), it would at least improve the neutrality of this article if you state that the motive was not clear, before stating the “tax dispute” story, like you have done in umars article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.132.21 (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me also be frank: I have absolutely no stake in this. I don't care about either Umar or Abu Lu'lu'a, Sunni or Shi'i, Arab or Persian. The problem is that too many editors who come to this talk page do care about those things, but have little or no care for what expert sources are saying.

The problem specifically with the source removed at Umar, Modern reformist thought in the Muslim world by Mazheruddin Siddiqi (1982), is that it apparently presents a point of view not found in any expert source, advanced by someone (Siddiqi) who is not himself an expert (he is not cited by any of the other sources). That is what we call wp:undue: minority opinions by no-name scholars are generally not given much weight, and are often excluded. I don't have access to Siddiqi 1982, but if you would like to quote the relevant paragraph (p. 147) here on the talk page (it would be especially helpful to know what sources if any Siddiqi himself quotes) and propose some way to integrate it in the article, please feel free to do so.

As for Omar Koshan being anti-Sunni, see the title of one of the expert sources this is based on: Johnson, Rosemary Stanfield (1994). "Sunni Survival in Safavid Iran: Anti‐Sunni Activities During the Reign of Tahmasp I". Iranian Studies. 27 (1–4): 123–133. doi:10.1080/00210869408701823. JSTOR 4310889. The festival absolutely was anti-Sunni in origin, being part of the political instrumentalization of Shi'ism by the early Safavids. The article used to explain this better, also containing more information about how the festival evolved into Iranian folklore in more recent times. I have restored some of that for clarity.

As you requested, I have added to the lead that Abu Lu'lu'a's motive for killing Umar was not entirely clear, per Pellat 2011. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns and clarify the points I tried to highlight. I appreciate the effort. As for the source that doesn’t meet the guidelines , I will do more research to see if I can find sources that meet the requirements. As for the origins of the Omar Koshon festival, you may be correct. However, as someone who lived in Iran, I can assure you that the festival was most cherished by the Iranians who were not as religious/agnostic. Now obviously my claim is meaningless without a source that meets the guidelines, so I will also see if I can find any source relating to that festival. Once again, thank you for not dismissing my concerns, I really appreaciate it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.132.21 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the festival is now largely folkloric and focused more on carnaval-type elements such as role reversal rather than on any type of religious feeling, with few people in Iran even still being aware of its original nature. Torab 2007 contains much useful information on that, but it's still quite superficial. It would be very interesting to have a reliable source that goes more in-depth, though I'm afraid that such a source won't be easy to find. Anyway, if you find a good source, be sure to add it here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

His motifs

His motifs are not clear? His country was attacked, his people were killed, he was taken as slave. Then people think he did it for tax reasons? 2406:3400:313:B310:1904:7D90:E84A:7B30 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes scholarly consensus on a given subject. The questions you raise are irrelevant to Wikipedia. These belong to the domain of original research. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a country, an empire, and one that was also constantly at war and enslaved others with gay abandon. All this is 100% par for the course at the time. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Policies against free non-Arab Muslims?

Apaugasma, could you please mention which Umar policies are you referring to? You're claiming that they were policies against all non-Arabs in Medina (including Muslims?), and not just the captives. What are those policies specifically? And which secondary sources give details or analyze the primary sources that mention them? In general, an assertion made by one or two historians shouldn't be turned into fact without some details. Furthermore, Madelung's Succession has received some criticism with regards to biased language and selective handling of the primary sources (see our article). We need to be aware of this. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 05:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Like our article says, where earlier works had a known pro-Sunni bias, Wilferd Madelung's 1997 work seems to have a pro-Alid bias, but this was welcomed by a luminary like Hugh Kennedy. Madelung's work is regarded as a much-needed corrective, even though it may at times tip the balance in the other direction. So sure, Madelung should be used with care, but do we repeat that too for all the pre-1997 accounts of early Islamic history which all but ignored Shi'i or pro-Alid perspectives? There's no more reason to use Madelung with care than any of the pro-Sunni biased works that preceded him.

But so yes, use with care. We do this. I will quote the entire relevant passage here:

Long quote from Madelung 1997, pp. 74–76

The task of organizing the government and administration of the conquered territories fell to Umar. He did this on the basis of largely identifying Islam and the Arabs. At this time Islam came close to becoming a national religion for the Arabs. Most of the remaining non-Muslim Arabs, also outside Arabia, quickly followed the summons to Islam, while the number of non-Arab converts was initially insignificant. The tolerance that the Qur'an offered to the 'People of the Book', mostly Christians and Jews, was extended to all other religious communities in the conquered territories. The Arabs of the tribe of Taghlib in northern Mesopotamia, who refused to give up their Christian faith, were nevertheless incorporated into the Muslim army and were given a special tax status under which they paid double the tithe (ushr) imposed on Muslims as zakat but not the humiliating head tax (jizya) and land tax (kharaj) levied on other non-Muslim subjects. Umar no doubt expected that they would soon become Muslims. When the Christian Arab tribe of Iyad sought refuge in Byzantine territory, Umar wrote to the emperor demanding that he expel them and threatened to drive non-Arab Christians into Byzantine lands. Under Byzantine pressure some 4,000 of the tribesmen returned to Muslim territory. It is evident that the caliph regarded all Arabs, whether Muslims or Christians, as his primary subjects. In contrast to the conquered territories, Arabia was to be, as far as feasible, purely Muslim and Arab. The relatively large Christian and Jewish communities in Najran and Khaybar were summarily expelled by Umar to the conquered territories. Non-Muslims were generally not to be allowed to settle in the Hijaz or to stay in any place there for more than three days. Umar was also anxious to keep most non-Arab Muslims out of Arabia, in particular Medina. There was a general restriction on bringing captives (saby) to the capital. This restriction was certainly not confined to non-Muslims, since captives in particular tended to convert to Islam. It was obviously more difficult, however, to keep Arabic-speaking Muslims out of Arabia. After having been struck by Abu Lu'lu'a, Umar is reported to have addressed the accusation to Ibn al-Abbas that he and his father were eager to multiply the non-Arabs (uluj) in Medina. Ibn al-Abbas answered, assuring the caliph that al-Abbas and he would do with them whatever the caliph wished. Umar then questioned how anything could be done now that these non-Arabs had learned to speak the language of their masters, prayed their prayers with them, and shared their acts of devotion. In contrast, Umar ordered before his death that all Arab slaves held by the state be freed. The strong bias against non-Arabs in Umar's policies evidently contributed to creating the atmosphere in which the Persian captive Abu Lu'lu'a Fayruz, outraged by a perceived slight on the part of the caliph, was prepared to assassinate him in a suicidal attack and in which the caliph's son Ubayd Allah was equally prepared to murder any non-Arabs whom he could reach. Umar's deep commitment to Qurayshite and Arab solidarity was balanced by an even deeper commitment to Islam. He was fully aware that it was only Islam that had raised him to the top and was turning the Arabs into the masters of a vast empire. Like other men of great power he saw in his stupendous success a clear sign of divine favour which he could only attribute to Islam. He might be inclined at times to bend the rules of Islam, as in the case of the Christian Arabs of Taghlib; yet when he perceived a conflict between his Arab bias and his loyalty to Islamic principles, he did not hesitate to obey the latter. This is well illustrated by an anecdotal, but perhaps true, story reported by al-Azraqi. When Nafi' b. Abd al-Harith al-Khuza'i, Umar's governor of Mekka, left the town to meet him, the caliph asked him whom he had appointed his deputy there. On being informed that it was his client Abd al-Rahman b. Abza, Umar flew into a rage and reproached Nafi': 'You have appointed one of the clients over the people of God.' Nafi' told him, however, that he had found Ibn Abza the one who knew best how to recite the Book of God and the one most informed about the Law of God. Umar calmed down and remembered a saying of the Prophet that God raises some in this religion and abases others.

Let me summarize. According to Madelung, Umar's policies were based on identifying Islam and the Arabs. Islam was a national religion for the Arabs. But Christian Arabs were also exempted by Umar from paying the humiliating jizya which non-Arab Christians had to pay. Umar wanted Arabia to be purely Muslim and Arab. But just Muslim wasn't enough. He was anxious to keep most non-Arab Muslims out of Arabia, which presented a problem when these Muslims spoke Arabic: it was quite difficult to keep Arabic-speaking Muslims out of Arabia. Umar reproached Ibn al-Abbas that he was eager to multiply the non-Arabs in Medina. There was nothing to be done against them, because these non-Arabs had learned to speak the language of their masters, prayed their prayers with them, and shared their acts of devotion. Since most non-Arabs coming to Arabia were captives and slaves, one way to keep non-Arabs out was to restrict access to captives and slaves, even though these in particular tended to convert to Islam. Umar in fact had nothing against captives or slaves as such, which is illustrated by the fact that he ordered before his death that all Arab slaves held by the state be freed. Clearly, the fact that there was a strong bias against non-Arabs in Umar's policies had nothing to do with any bias against captives or slaves, but with his Arab bias and his deep commitment to Qurayshite and Arab solidarity. Ultimately he would be even more loyal to Islam, but this was still a far cry from the type of anti-nativist Islam purporting to be 'ethnically blind' that would develop in later times: Umar was loyal to Islam because it had raised him to the top and was turning the Arabs into the masters of a vast empire.

So, how much of Madelung's narrative here is in fact reflected in our article? Do we mention Umar's preferential treatment of Arab Christians? Do we contrast the fact that he was killed by a Persian slave with the fact that he freed Arab slaves? Do we expound upon the ways in which he tried to keep out non-Arabs out of Medina? No, three times no. All we say is that "Umar's biased policies against non-Arabs may also have played a prominent role" (emphasis added) in creating the climate that lead to Umar's murder. We say may precisely where Madelung says evidently. As a whole, that very much is using Madelung with caution, especially given the fact that we don't have any other source which dwells upon this theme as long as Madelung does, much less a source that explicitly contradicts or rejects Madelung's narrative.

Do you seriously question whether Umar had any bias against non-Arabs at all, or whether that this may have played a role in Abu Lu'lu'a's motivations? Because the thing is, I have never seen any reliable source question this, and my impression is that all reliable sources in fact agree with Madelung this far.

But impressions aside, it is becoming inappropriate for you as a Wikipedia editor to keep on laying your own doubts about Madelung upon this article without any recourse to reliable sources that do so too. I would like to raise the bar here, and ask you to refrain from commenting unless you have found a source that specifically argues against Madelung's view, to such an extent that it would invalidate even the minimalist version of it that we give in our article here. Let me stress that I haven't even come close to looking at all the sources which may be relevant: to give just one example, I have no idea what the recent works by Fred Donner say about this. Please do check recent sources if you have the time. I will also say that Madelung relies far too much on the traditional sources for my personal (revisionist) tastes. But revisionist or not, if some more recent scholar should be able to show that Umar's purported bias against non-Arabs is in fact a myth, I would personally be inclined to accept that. In any case, that would necessitate a overhaul of this article, whatever I think of it. But the sourceless arguments against an authoritative and (as far as we're aware here) uncontested treatment like Madelung's just have to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kennedy's assessment that Madelung's Succession is a partisan source. Kennedy expresses this viewpoint with great emphasis: "Madelung's work is vigorously, and at times disconcertingly, partisan.". For dealing with biased sources, the RS policy suggests attribution and a brief note on perspective (see WP:PARTISAN). Citing another source for balance may be useful as well. A GB search turned out this passage also by Kennedy:

A short anecdote shows ‘Umar reproving a governor who paid the ‘atā’ to Arabs but not to the mawālī. In response to what must have been a common situation, ‘Umar is said to have written to the governors that non-Arab prisoners who converted to Islam and were freed and became mawālī should have the same rights and obligations as other Muslims and be paid the same ‘aṭā’.[8]

This is a straightforward case of a partisan source needing attribution and balance. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no balance to be made when there is no other source. To do this, we would need a source specifically saying that Umar had no significant bias against non-Arabs and that Madelung's suggestion that a supposed bias against non-Arabs contributed to creating the atmosphere in which Abu Lu'lu'a killed Umar is far-fetched and unlikely. We don't have that source.

Your quote from Kennedy here is cherry-picked and merely shows that some later sources depicted Umar as equitable to the mawālī. As Kennedy notes on the same page you're selectively quoting from,

The reports which come down to us are often tendentious and polemical and reflect not just the original form of the dīwān but the fierce and sometimes violent controversies to which it gave rise through the next century. One of the points at issue was whether non-Arabs could be paid salaries. The status of non-Arab Muslims (mawālī) was to be a major source of conflict and some of the traditions about the dīwān certainly reflect this.

Kennedy gives one other example, and then gives the Umar anecdote you quote. Is Kennedy arguing here that Umar actually was equitable to the mawali? That this report and others show he was not biased against non-Arabs? Is Kennedy referring to Madelung claims regarding this and arguing that he was wrong? None of that: he cites it as an example of later polemical reports coming down on one side of an issue that was controversial in that later period.

In his review of Madelung 1997, Kennedy apparently (unfortunately I don't have access) criticized Madelung for being partisan, which is probably fair. That's why we use him with caution, ignore his most strenuous claims, turn his evidently into may, etc. We were very clear in the main text that this is not a fact but a hypothesis (it may also have played a prominent role), and we actually attributed the hypothesis in as many words to Madelung in the footnote (This is the hypothesis of Madelung 1997, p. 75. According to Pellat 2011, Abu Lu'lu'a's true motivation is not clear).

What do you want to do with the article? Changing "non-Arabs" to "non-Arab captives", as you did here, downright misrepresented Madelung's view, which was still the source cited. I think this is really concerning. But from what we had, it was just one small step to put the attribution in the main text, which I just did. I hope this finally puts your concerns to rest. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the attribution. I'm generally content with this outcome, although we should briefly note Madelung's perspective following the examples in WP:PARTISAN. Several sources have characterized his work as pro-[Imami] Shia. Speaking of Fred Donner, he also criticized Madelung's as biased:

Madelung, unfortunately, has allowed himself to become virtually a partisan in the conflict, unequivocally supporting the claims of ‘Ali. [9]

Also, Umar giving high salaries to non-Arabs and decreeing equal treatment is an example of Madelung being selective. Baladhuri recorded the decrees and Madelung frequently cites him, however, they were entirely omitted in his analysis. I also think Kennedy's assessment is more positive:

As already noted, other evidence makes it clear that bodies of Persian troops like the Āṣāwira were paid salaries like the Arabs, from a very early stage.

Signing. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to put other scholars' criticisms of Madelung in context. For a scholar of his stature (those who criticize him also praise his great learning; Kennedy calls him perhaps the greatest authority on early Islamic traditions and sects at the present day and his 1997 monograph a work of massive scholarship), he seems to have allowed himself to be unacceptably partisan. Despite Donner's criticism, he still follows closely the detailed accounting given in Wilferd Madelung. Madelung's account is described as partisan and pro-Alid, but also as learned and authoritative.

Clearly, it's impossible to add all these qualifiers in the main text. On the other hand, something brief like "according to the pro-Shia scholar Wilferd Madelung" would be wildly undue. An explanatory footnote might be helpful, provided that it is balanced, sourced, and concise.

But before we do this it might be useful to have a wider discussion about Madelung's 1997 monograph, involving more editors, for example at WT:ISLAM. I have seen this work used rather uncritically on dozens of Wikipedia pages (I even found myself warning other editors about relying too much on it). A broader consensus on how to use it, and perhaps on how to describe it, would probably be helpful. I also still have questions whether it is due to single out Madelung for this type of qualification, which would be somewhat resolved by seeing other editors agree that this is necessary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Madelung is without doubt a great scholar and has contributed a great deal to various areas of Islamic Studies including Kharijism, Ismaili Studies, Twelver Shi'ism, Islamic Theology, Eschatology and Messianism and more. But his Succession without doubt becomes a problem if used in a sloppy way or relied on heavily. It is true that the work has garnered both praise and censure, but they are not of equal magnitude nor of same nature. While his thoroughness and depth is almost universally praised, his conclusions and his analysis of the sources are almost universally derided. His use of sources as if they were documentary films which he could watch and draw his conclusions from lies outside of mainstream consensus in the field of Islamic Studies, and makes his conclusions border on our definition of fringe. When relied exclusively or mainly upon, it creates articles which present his opinions as scholarly consensus or uncontested truth statements in Wikipedia's voice and gives unsuspecting readers a very skewed presentation of the material. However, it is, AFAIK, the only dedicated source on the history of the Rashidun period (that of El-Hibri being historiography rather than history and is in fact a very daunting read, his conclusions being often unclear to lay reader, like myself). As it happens, Succession is sometimes the only RS dealing with the subject/point at hand. The question then arises, what do we do in such situations? My position on it is that it is of course better to use Succession instead of using primary sources. But care must be taken to separate his narration of events from his conclusions and analysis and use the source to support reporting of plain non-controversial facts and when presenting his opinion becomes necessary for balanced presentation, as it often happens, to present his opinion as opinion in the text and not as a matter of fact. This of course should apply to not just Succession but to any other sources whose conclusions/opinions are not accepted in the mainstream of the field. But this source in particular lies so much outside the mainstream that its use demands extra caution. Not just Donner or Kennedy, there are many others who have criticized the work in very strong terms, including Morony, Elton, and Lewinstein. The last of these goes as far as to say that (rephrasing) it was unfortunate for Ali that he did not have Madelung to represent him at the arbitration in place of Abu Musa. In fact, Madelung himself has rejected his Succession thesis in his more recent works to present an even more radical theory in which it is not Ali who is Muhammad's rightful successor but his daughter Fatima whom he could not appoint because he was afraid of Umar, who from being an emotional fool in Succession is turned into a mini-God genius who could foresee from the Meccan period that the persecuted movement was one day going to turn into a phenomenal empire the ruling position to which he envied and converted to obtain. Abu Bakr is turned from a "coolly calculating Meccan businessman" who robbed the prophet's household of their rights in Succession to a sincere partisan of Muhammad who did all he could to save the prophet's household from the evil of Umar.

Our article on Succession gives a wrong impression that the work is criticized and lauded equally, which is simply incorrect. I will expand the article with as many reviews as I could find to bring things in balance.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I rewrote the Abu Lu'lu'a article here I'm really a bit out of my depth when it comes to early Islamic history. I could sense that Madelung's account of it was a little idiosyncratic and should be used with care, but I'm quite surprised to hear it called wp:fringe. If that is the case then the Abu Lu'lu'a article may need some more work to give Madelung less weight (I did not by any means solely rely on him, nor took his account at face value, but his views do somewhat weigh on the article as it stands).

More important, however, is the fact that many other articles rely much more heavily on Madelung, precisely for his conclusions and analysis. I feel that if Madelung's views on early Islamic history are truly wp:fringe, in-text attribution may often not be enough, and there may be many cases where it would be better to leave his views out entirely. Just one example is Hasan ibn Ali, which is chock full of references to Madelung (pinging Albertatiran and Ghazaalch as the two main editors there).

Updating and improving The Succession to Muhammad sounds like a great idea, but at this point I feel that following this up with a discussion on WP:RSN and a subsequent entry in WP:RSP might be helpful? I'm not going to participate in any of that (I'm trying to do the wiki-break thing), but it may be a really useful thing to have for future editors, especially if the WP:RSP entry could formulate some alternative sources which may be used instead of Madelung for analytical and evaluative approaches to early Islamic history. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: My subject above was not your use of Madelung in this article, although now I can see that it is slightly overused, but its use in general and the approaches we take to its use. I should also say that my classification of it as fringe was a bit of exaggeration, and taking it to perennial sources should not be on cards IMO. It has wealth of info on narratives and could be used well when one avoids overuse and giving articles outlook of Madelung's stance (just like Wellhausen's Oppositionsparteien is a bit outdated in its analysis of Kharijism and Shi'ism but nevertheless contains a great deal of straightforward information on these topics and can be used with preference over primary sources, or when quoting Wellhausen's stance, as I've done in many articles, especially Kharijites–I even translated it for the purpose). My point above is that his trust in and use of source is not shared by the majority of the historians and his conclusions that he draws are widely criticized, so its use should be minimized in favor of other sources wherever possible and his conclusions should not be presented with emphasis and preference (as is done in the article you linked above), but presenting them is sometimes necessary (e.g. in analysis of Mu'awiya's reign) and can be done with direct attribution. My approach in last couple of years has been to do that with all sources unless the thing being said is obvious fact.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. I just feel it would be even more helpful if there would be some kind of consensus-bearing notice we could point to in order to make more editors aware of it. I wish I had known about it before I started work on this article.

AhmadLX, after you've worked a bit on the Succession article, would you be willing to come back here and create a sourced explanatory footnote to place after our first in-text mention of Madelung, briefly putting his views in context? That note could then perhaps be copied to other articles where appropriate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Apaugasma. My view is that of Mahmoud M. Ayoub, who points out the pro-Umayyad bias of the Western classical orientalists, with the exception of Madelung (see Ayoub 2014, p. 64) Perhaps cynical, but to me this also explains why some editors want to minimize Madelung. As for its use in Hasan ibn Ali, this and my other articles survey Madelung and other sources to avoid any bias. In any case, my priority right now is to improve Shia articles which doesn't leave any time for conversations like this. Maybe later... Albertatiran (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ayoub, Mahmoud M. (2014). The Crisis of Muslim History: Religion and Politics in Early Islam. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 9781780746746.

  Interesting. But this precisely shows why this conversation should be had now rather than later. Presumably you are sometimes going to use Madelung when improving Shia articles, and any potential NPOV problems are much easier to fix before than after the fact. Perhaps consider working together with AhmadLX on the Succession article (Ayoub 2014 would seem to be relevant)? Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Albertatiran: We don't follow what Ayoub thinks, we follow what majority of the scholars think. Ayoub but confirms that Madelung's Succession lies outside scholarly consensus. If you really are here to right alleged "wrongs" of historians by extensively using Succession, you are really at a wrong website. @Apaugasma: regarding the foornote thing, will ping you when done expanding the article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, I hope you don't mind me leaving this unanswered. Peace. Albertatiran (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Apaugasma! Citing Madelung for his comprehensive and unique collection of early historical accounts and listing his views alongside others' views (when available) has doubtless improved my articles. He is also a leading researcher in the field. So it's safe to say that there are no breaches of NPOV here (and won't be any going forward). Albertatiran (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I do have my doubts now, not about using Madelung for uncontroversial facts taken from primary sources but for his analysis and opinion, because even when attributed it can create a wp:falsebalance. If multiple historians of early Islam reject Madelung's analysis then the opinion of one scholar of religious and inter-faith studies like Ayoub cannot be held to carry the same wp:weight in issues involving early Islamic history, however much an editor personally agrees with Ayoub. If Madelung's account is largely or universally rejected by other historians, he can't be seen as leading. I do think it's worth for anyone writing on early Islam here to take a close and honest look at this.

But if discussion about it would produce more heat than light, then sure, ignore it and go on improving articles. It looks like we are going to solve the issue here with a footnote, which may make its way to other articles later, but I don't expect that to ruffle too many feathers. There's one thing I couldn't agree more with, and that's: peace. Personally, I'm going to continue studying my Latin. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I've now added to Succession all reviews that I know of, except for Crone's, which I don't have access to. I've asked for it somewhere and will add when I get it. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I'm not feeling particularly inspired now and I have some off-wiki priorities, so I will leave writing the qualifying footnote on Madelung's work to you or to someone else who feels like doing it. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Instead of a footnote, I'd consider linking to the book article and thus allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Something along the lines of "According to Madelung's Succession, ..." Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Like this? I spelled out the whole title and clarified that it's a monograph, because I think a lot of readers would otherwise be stumped as to what Succession is supposed to mean. A sourced footnote would still clarify much better and allow to remove the added clutter again, but this can always be written later. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources for the name Piruz Nahavandi

Ronnnaldo7, none of the sources provided here qualify as reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia's standards. In articles of this type, reliable secondary sources are those published by reputable academic scholars who are specialized in the history of Islam.

The two Persian-language sources provided, i.e. the fiction work from ketab.com and Sabahy 2016 (a wp:self-published work of scholarship printed by on-demand press H&S Media) might qualify as WP:ABOUTSELF primary sources for a claim like "in modern Persian he is sometimes called Piruz Nahavandi (پیروز نهاوندی)", but nothing more.

However, because Wikipedia has been featuring this name for a very long time (this article was named Piruz Nahavandi from 2008 until 2021, and on fa.wiki there has been an article with this name since 2006), I would like to see some Persian-language sources dating from before 2006 that use the name Piruz Nahavandi, to be sure that we are not dealing with a case of WP:CIRCULAR (and eventually a case of citogenesis).

Additionally, it would be nice if you could provide a full citation including author name, date, title, publisher, and page number. Thanks for your efforts! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to search Google Books and Google Scholar with the terms "پیروز نهاوندی" or "Piruz Nahavandi" - there are plenty of books and scholarly sources with both terms that meet WP:RS.

Additionally, why are you persistently reverting my edits which state his Persian name along with the transliteration in the parenthesis of the lede: (Persian: پیروز نهاوندی, romanized: Piruz Nahâvandi; Arabic: أبو لؤلؤة فيروز, romanized: Abū Luʾluʾa Fīrūz, from Middle Persian: Pērōz) and changing it to the sole Arabic name: (Arabic: أبو لؤلؤة فيروز; from Middle Persian: Pērōz) ? As he is Persian, his Persian name should be in the lede's parenthesis, which is the norm across Wikipedia articles (e.g. Nikola Tesla). The Persian Wiki also has the title of the article by his common name: Piruz Nahavandi. Accordingly, this article could be renamed to Piruz Nahavandi per WP:COMMONNAME in the English language, but we can digress from this for now as there are sources online with both the Piruz Nahavandi name and the Abu Lu'lu'a name.

I understand that you have made many edits on this article and have it listed on your page, but please be mindful of WP:OWN. Thanks. --Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

His likely original Middle Persian name as given by the RS cited in the article Pērōz is mentioned in the current lead sentence, so I'm not seeing your point about changing it to the sole Arabic name. This is about the fact that in Modern Persian works of fiction and self-published works he is sometimes named "Piruz Nahavandi", a name that is never used by historical primary sources or high-quality secondary sources on the topic, originating as it does in 20th-century or 21th-century Iranian literature. I'm not entirely sure whether this is wp:due to mention in the lead, though I'm inclined to think that it would be as long as it is made very clear that the name is modern in origin, and as long as it can be established that the name was in use by a significant amount of Persian-language sources published before 2006.

Now both the wp:onus to convince other editors that this is due for inclusion and the wp:burden to demonstrate the verifiability of the name's use in non-wp:circular (not relying on Wikipedia, so pre-2006) sources is in fact on you. But of course I'm willing to help. One thing that jumps out for me is that when I search for "پیروز نهاوندی" on Google Books as you suggested, (link) there are many (non-reliable) Persian-language sources using the name (see the bold highlights), but when I restrict the search to before 1 March 2006 (the creation date of the Wikipedia article), (link) all of a sudden no Persian-language sources nor bold highlights of the name show up. This strongly suggests that the name was not in use before 2006, and was in fact popularized by Wikipedia.

Searching Google Scholar for "پیروز نهاوندی" (link) yields nothing. But searching Google Scholar for "Piruz Nahavandi" (link) yields 14 (mostly non-reliable) sources, although again restricting the search to before 2006 (link) yields nothing (actually the name was not in use until 2016: link). Now interestingly, the first result in the non-time-restricted Google Scholar search for "Piruz Nahavandi" does yield Hiro 2019, which definitely is a reliable source in general, but Hiro clearly is not a historian of Islam and is not relying on historical primary sources, which makes him wp:unreliable in context (if he is not using primary sources he is technically not a secondary source), especially because he is very likely relying on Wikipedia and so using him would be wp:circular.

Yes, I wrote this article and have put a lot of time in it (can you believe that I put more time –a lot more time– in trying to reach consensus in discussions like this with other editors than in actually researching the RS and writing it to GA-level? ), yet this does not mean that I own the article. What it does mean though is that I care about using high-quality sourcing, and that I am curious to know everything there is to know about it. For example, I'm genuinely curious as to the origin of the name Piruz Nahavandi. I would like to know who first used it, in what context, and more generally what modern Iranians believe about him. But I have never found reliable secondary sources writing about this. Both I and other editors have been looking for such sources before (see e.g. this thread), but we were unsuccessful. If you would like to search further, that would be great, but please do remember that the burden to find high-quality sourcing and to discuss their use with other editors is on you. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree with your statement: "I'm inclined to think that it would be as long as it is made very clear that the name is modern in origin". This is why my latest edit of the article made note of the fact that he is known as Piruz Nahavandi in Modern Persian (also given the fact that surnames were not too common in those times). Also, I am fluent in both English and Persian, and Piruz Nahavandi is most certainly the commonly used name to refer to him in the modern Persian language - both before 2006 and after 2006 - hence the Persian Wiki's article title. I'll let you choose one of the many sources available on either Google Scholar, Google Journal, or other scholarly sites for the addition of 'Piruz Nahavandi' to the article as you are more experienced than I am. Keep in mind that there may be variations to 'Piruz', such as 'Pirouz', 'Piroz', etc. The Persian Wiki article also has references. As such, due to the sources, I strongly believe the modern Persian term should be added as such to the lede / Name section, and the distinction being made from Middle Persian to Modern Persian. Also, I'm curious to know, what is the reasoning behind your fixation with making sure the WP:RS has to be from before 2006? Your requirements don't conform to WP:RS, and you know well that asking for a digitized RS on a rogue topic like Piruz Nahavandi from strictly before 2006 is rare. Additionally, if the Hiro source you cited above is reliable in general, why are you moving the goalposts and, without proof, assuming the author is using Wiki to refer to him as Piruz Nahavandi, especially when there isn't a single mention of 'Piruz Nahavandi' in the current form of the article? The Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, and should therefore be used in the article. Furthermore, my point with you having only added the sole Arabic name (yes, I can see the Middle Persian name as well, but I’m referring to modern languages), is that the Modern Persian name currently isn't in the parenthesis, and this goes against the norm of Wikipedia articles as the article's subject is a Persian (e.g. Nikola Tesla's Serbian Cyrillic name is added in the parenthesis of the lede as he was a Serb, etc.). This is unfortunately just yet another example of the Arabization of Persian history as Peroz is Persian and Abu Lu’lu’a is of Arabic origin (& yes I saw your comment in the thread from 2021, but my point still stands). Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As I explained, we need a source from before 2006 because of serious concerns that post-2006 sources may be wp:circular (see the evidence I presented above, especially [10] vs [11] and [12] vs [13]). There is absolutely no requirement for sources to be digital or online. As I also explained, the wp:burden is upon you to present such a source. If you don't agree that wp:circularity or citogenesis is a concern here and that there is therefore no need for a pre-2006 source, we will need the input of other editors to see whether a consensus can be found. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let's also seek the input of other editors as it seems you are the only one going against the guidelines of WP:RS by wanting a pre-2006 source, even though the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS as there is no evidence of Hiro having used Wikipedia to refer to the subject as 'Piruz Nahavandi' when there isn't a single reference to that name in the Wiki article. As the Hiro source is an example of RS, and you have, respectfully, thus far failed to present concrete evidence of it being otherwise (and no, your other sources listed do not show that the Hiro source is an example of circularity), then I will go ahead and rightfully WP:DOIT due to the aforementioned source being RS. I will add the Hiro RS and make note of the distinction between Middle Persian and Modern Persian as we discussed. Furthermore, you also haven't commented on my other questions & points regarding having the subject's language added in the parenthesis - I will add this in the parenthesis as is the norm across Wikipedia articles per my example above, and will include the Transliteration, which you previously incorrectly reverted when you did a full reversion (as opposed to partial), & I'll also make the distinction between Middle Persian and Modern Persian, as we've discussed. Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course I don't agree with adding "Piruz Nahavandi" to the lead when I don't agree with adding it to the article at all for all the reasons mentioned above. Please also note that this article was named Piruz Nahavandi from 2008 until 2021, and that when Hiro 2019 was writing the article looked like this (except of course that the title was Piruz Nahavandi). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, and since there is no consensus right now, these edits constitute edit warring. Please self-revert and seek other means to gain consensus.

We could ping other editors who have edited this page and ask for their opinion, or perhaps we can try WP:3O. But edit warring is not the way. Please reconsider. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As you've said the following: "Of course I don't agree with adding 'Piruz Nahavandi' to the lead when I don't agree with adding it to the article at all for all the reasons mentioned above.", then we are at a stalemate here and you're not being fair and impartial towards the addition of the WP:RS. As, per your page, you focus on Arabic work, your lack of acceptance with the addition of the Persian language name is an example of WP:POV. The WP:ONUS is on you to prove that the RS is in fact an example of circularity, and to reach consensus amongst other editors. Thus far, you have failed to prove that the WP:RS is an example of circularity, and you have also failed to reach consensus on the matter as you are currently the only person disagreeing & not accepting the RS. The WP:DOIT rightfully stands per the WP:RS, and the edits do not constitute 3RR as I did not revert you and I added the latest content after having had discussions with you before adding the WP:RS per WP:DOIT. Furthermore, you may not agree with the addition of the Persian language name in the parenthesis, but that is the norm across English language Wikipedia articles and should stand per my example above, even if you, respectfully, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am all for the opinions of others and would be glad to bring others in, and hopefully they can be impartial and an abuse of power is not committed seeing as how you have more privileges here than I do. The fact of the matter is, the source is an example of WP:RS, the edit is rightful per WP:DOIT, and the onus is on you to prove that the RS is an example of circularity, and to reach consensus on the matter. Simply linking the Wiki article to that time period is not sufficient as proof, especially when the title of the article is the same as it was then. I've since used Citation bot to clean up the citation from Oxford University Press, along with the ISBN.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of the dispute and discussion

WikiProject Islam and WikiProject Iran, as well as previous posters on this talk page AhmadLX, HistoryofIran, Iskandar323, Toddy1, and Wiqi55, have been notified of this discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary statement by Apaugasma

The dispute revolves around whether or not to add the name "Piruz Nahavandi" to the name section and lead of the article, as e.g. here.

Reliable sources from Caetani (1905–1926) to Ismail (2016) have for more than a century consistently referred to the subject of this article as "Abu Lu'lu'a" or "Abu Lu'lu'", and not once as "Piruz Nahavandi". Wikipedia has titled the article Piruz Nahavandi from 2008 until 2021 on en.wiki, and from 2006 until today at fa.wiki. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the first RS who referred to the subject as "Piruz Nahavandi" was written in 2019 (Hiro 2019). Some Persian-language writings (fiction, self-published scholarship) have been found using "Piruz Nahavandi", the earliest a self-published source from 2009. The Persian-language RS Ishkevari (1994–2020) does not use it. No sources at all apart from Wikipedia have been found using the name before 2009 (compare [14] to [15]); [16] to [17]).

Given all this, there is a reasonable suspicion that the name "Piruz Nahavandi" may not have been in wide use before 2006 and may have been popularized by Wikipedia. Hiro 2019 as the only RS is suspiciously late to the game. If, on the other hand, Persian-language sources did widely use it before 2006, it should be reasonably easy to find such pre-2006 sources. The concern that by including this name Wikipedia may engage in wp:circular reporting or citogenesis has sufficient weight to demand that some notable (if not necessarily reliable) pre-2006 sources should be cited. If such sources are found I agree with adding the name to the name section of the article, though preferably not as a mos:leadalt since it's hardly found in RS. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary statement by Ronnnaldo7

WP:RS can be found within Google Books, Google Scholar, and other scholarly sources with the terms "پیروز نهاوندی" or "Piruz Nahavandi" (as well as other iterations of the name 'Piruz' which include 'Pirouz', 'Piroz', etc.). Even when presented with the aforementioned RS, such as Hiro, for example, Apaugasma is stating the source must be from before 2006 due to circularity. This request goes against the requirements of WP:RS. Valid proof has not been shown yet regarding the Hiro source being an example of circularity, and I'm afraid we're reaching WP:OWN and possibly WP:POV on Apaugasma's side per the reasons in the discussions above, though to be fair, discussions have been fairly professional thus far. Also, as the norm across English language Wikipedia articles is to state the name of the subject in the subject's language in the parenthesis of the lead (e.g. Nikola Tesla's Serbian Cyrillic name is added in the parenthesis of the lead as he was a Serb, etc.), the modern Persian language name should therefore be added, and not just the Arabic name. My latest edit to the page added the WP:RS per WP:DOIT, and included the distinction between the Middle Persian and Persian names as we discussed above, and also included the transliterations. Also, the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject matter is often times Piruz Nahavandi in both Persian and English sources per above (hence the Persian Wiki's article title), but as the Arabic-origin version of Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz is presented in some sources as well, I will digress on the renaming of the article for now (renaming to Piruz Nahavandi per WP:COMMONNAME to be clear) - although, the sad reality is that this is just yet another example of the Arabization of Persian history as Peroz is Persian and Abu Lu’lu’a is of Arabic origin. To summarize, RS has been presented for the name "Piruz Nahavandi" and no concise proof of circularity has been shown to discredit the RS. Also, as is the norm across English Wikipedia leads, the Persian language name should at the very least be added in the parenthesis of the lead as the subject matter is a Persian, and my latest edit did so per the WP:RS while including the transliteration as well.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Free discussion

• Honestly I think the explanation in the name section is perfectly adequate. It doesn't appear to have much currency in English language scholarship and so is not really so prominent that it really warrants use as an alt name or really featuring in the lead at all. Not sure what the big deal is. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, the dispute is not only about the lead, but about including the name at all (including in the name section). Before Ronnnaldo7's edits, the name section did not include it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is Hiro is university press and while I take your late to the game point on board, isn't it straying a bit close to OR to dismiss it in this manner? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's a bit of a policy vs editorial standoff. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Evaluating secondary and tertiary sources is emphatically not OR, but a core task of editors. It is not questioned here whether Hiro 2019's reasoning or interpretation of sources is valid, it is questioned whether he is reliable as a source for what he writes. In the wp:context sketched in my summary (and add that he is not a historian of Islam and so does not rely on primary sources, nor cites secondary sources), I would say no, though your mileage may vary. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm honestly fairly neutral in terms of local consensus for or against inclusion in the naming section. I can't find the part in the Google book as it stands. In truth, given that's it's just one source, you could almost claim WP:ECREE for this factoid given the extraordinary absence of other references to it in English language sources and your impression of circularity. It's very isolated. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  The mention is on p. 8. It is indeed 'surprising' and 'exceptional' given the absence in all RS before 2019, and so in a sense WP:ECREE applies. Further, how to integrate this with wp:due weight? "Indian journalist Dilip Hiro calls him Piruz Nahavandi"? I don't think so. I would much rather cite several unreliable Persian-language sources and use them as wp:aboutself for "in modern Persian writings he is sometimes called Piruz Nahavandi". I just wish we could have some notable pre-2006 sources to establish that the name does not originate on Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  What, if any sources, was it originally introduced alongside? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Do you mean on Wikipedia in general (fa.wiki; en.wiki)? No sources as far as I can see. Or do you mean the recent reintroduction by Ronnnaldo7? They originally cited [18][19][20][21]. See the first post in this thread for my comments on these. I found Hiro 2019 by the way. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  And this is my latest edit (after also using Citation bot) which, yes, includes the Hiro WP:RS. The edit was made in the Name section of the article and the parenthesis of the lead as per above, and took into consideration our discussion regarding the discrepancy between Middle Persian and Modern Persian. Thanks.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah ha! After perusing the Persian wiki page, a major breakthrough! Encyclopedia Iranica entry, in 1983, titled Abu Lulu'a![22], with multiple origin stories: "some claim that he was a Mazdean from Nehāvand, while others claim that he was Christian called Fērōz Naṣrānī." So this is a Persian POV encyclopedia that dares not weigh in on a definitive answer. So an answer to where the name comes from, and an interesting footnote. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hate to spoil your enthusiasm, but this is Pellat (2011), used quite a lot in the article. Naṣrānī means 'the Christian'. We are mentioning the possible Christian origin, but it has nothing to do with the name Nahavandi ('the Nahavandian'). I remember I was also tricked by this the first time I read it, equally happy to finally have found the origin of the name. But unfortunately, it's not, unless it's some kind of mistake where someone misread Nasrani as Nahavandi. By the way, I also did some digging at fa.wiki, and it may be helpful to note that on fa.wiki it actually originally read "Firuz Nahavandi" in March 2006. It appears to have been first changed to "Piruz Nahavandi" in April 2008. Of course, no sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  My mistake again. But it says originally published in 1983. Do we know if it's actually changed? But on the name, it seems clear that the location "Nehāvand" is the origin of Nehāvandi, not "Nasrani". It's a typical geographical surname. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  It says "Originally Published: December 15, 1983. Last Updated: July 19, 2011". The date tag in the article should be changed to 1983–2011. Yes, his possilikely origin in Nahavand is undoubtedly the basis for a name like "Nahavandi", the only question is: who coined it, and when? How notable is it outside of Wikipedia's 13 to 16-years promotion of it? It's the potential for citogenesis that is bugging me really. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I am fluent in both English and Persian, I can answer your question: "How notable is it outside of Wikipedia's 13 to 16-years promotion of it?". The common term in Persian is Piruz Nahavandi in speaking and in writing, both long before 2006 and after 2006. 'Firuz' is the Arabized version of 'Piruz' (as the Arabic alphabet lacks the letter 'P'). YouTube videos and Google searches of پیروز نهاوندی (Piruz Nahavandi) in Persian will show that as well; likewise the Google Books and Google Scholar sources above for پیروز نهاوندی. I honestly don't think anyone who speaks Persian would know who you're referring to if you say, in speaking, Abu Lu'lu'a or Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz as Piruz Nahavandi is the common name for him in Persian (they might even mistake it for Hajji Firuz if you say Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz); maybe on rare occasions would they know, but the name that is distinguishable in Persian is Piruz Nahavandi.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would very much like to believe you, but the way you go about it is not helpful. WP is based on reliable sources, and you are not one. Please cite a source from (long) before 2006 to back up your claim. It it's true it should be relatively easy. The fact that you know Persian (I don't) can really help here. As an aside, do you have any idea why Ishkevari (1994–2020) (direct link), the only Persian-language RS we know of on the subject, does not mention the common Persian name? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  You can search Google Books, Google Scholar, and other scholarly sources with the terms "پیروز نهاوندی" or "Piruz Nahavandi" yourself for the sources in writing. What I was mainly referring to in my previous comment was in speaking (hence the YouTube reference), which I understand would just be hearsay. In speaking in the Persian language, the common name for him is Piruz Nahavandi (پیروز نهاوندی), and I believe it would be hard for the average Persian speaker to decipher who Abu Lu'lu'a / Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz is if Piruz Nahavandi is not mentioned. As for your Ishkevari question, I don't have an answer for that, but Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar do show results for پیروز نهاوندی / Piruz Nahavandi / other iterations of the name 'Piruz' which include 'Pirouz', 'Piroz', etc.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Okay, I've been doing a lot of digging and I think I've found the crux of the issue. I first searched Google Books for the Persianized form of his kunya "ابولؤلؤ" (Abū Luʾluʾ) before 2006 (link), and it turned up loads of pre-2006 mentions in Persian-language sources (among them a lot of scholarly, though probably not RS, sources at that). Doing the same for "پیروز نهاوندی" (Piruz Nahavandi) turns up absolutely nothing (link).

However, looking instead for "فیروز نهاوندی" (Firuz Nahavandi) before 2006 did turn up (link) just as many sources as "ابولؤلؤ" (Abū Luʾluʾ), perhaps of slightly lesser quality but seemingly still good enough for wp:aboutself. Remember that fa.wiki also originally had "Firuz Nahavandi" in March 2006, which was changed to "Piruz Nahavandi" in April 2008. It's that 'f' to 'p' change in spelling which obscured this form of the name from view, only appearing as it does in extremely low-quality post-2008 sources.

I think all we need now is to pick the best available sources at (non-time-restricted) Google Books and cite these in the article. I think there are enough of them to add to the name section something like:

In modern Persian-language sources he is sometimes referred to by the non-historical name Fīrūz Nahāvandī (فیروز نهاوندی).

1. ^{^} [Citing some sources taken from the Google Books link above.] More recently, the form Pīrūz Nahāvandī (پیروز نهاوندی) has also become popular, for example on the Persian-language Wikipedia.

and change the lead sentence to something like:

Abū Luʾluʾa Fīrūz (Arabic: أبو لؤلؤة فیروز, from Middle Persian: Pērōz), also known in modern Persian-language sources as Abū Luʾluʾ (ابولؤلؤ) or Fīrūz Nahāvandī (فیروز نهاوندی), was a Sasanian Persian slave who assassinated Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644), the second Islamic caliph, in November 644.

All we need now is an editor who knows Persian and who can pick out the best available sources for us to cite. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Strike that last bit, I added some sources myself. If someone who knows Persian would provide transliterations and/or add publishers, locations, etc. where missing, or would just provide better sources with fuller bibliographical records, that would of course still be helpful! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

An end to the saga then! Well done Apaugasma for your hard, earnest work. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Apaugasma: Why did you remove the Hiro WP:RS from the article? I've restored the RS on the article, and moved your sentence regarding his Piruz Nahavandi name from inside the citation to the article itself per the RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  I removed it per the rough consensus above that Hiro 2019 is isolated and suspect for circularity. Personally I also believe that the combination of "Firuz Nahavandi" occurring very widely in pre-2008 sources [23] and "Piruz Nahavandi" being completely absent from them [24] tends to show that the name was popularized by Wikipedia (hence too the citation of the Persian Wikipedia). Btw the source you added here [25] does not seem to contain the name "Piruz Nahavandi"? In any case, I reverted it for the time being because there is no consensus for these edits at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Again, you are the only person here claiming it is an example of circularity, and you've now reverted both myself and another editor. We're going in circles here. Please provide valid proof of circularity, otherwise, the Hiro source is clearly a WP:RS as we've discussed. Furthermore, you're reporting me for edit warring, though my edits are not reverts and include the addition of the sources and content that we've discussed. You again are edit warring by reverting the edits and are in clear violation of WP:3RR, so I have no choice but to report you as well. You must seek WP:Consensus on the circularity, and the WP:Onus is on you to do so. Also, you previously stated the Hiro source is an RS, but are now going against the discussions and the consensus. A reminder that you do not own the article, regardless of your edit history on the page. Please stop edit warring and use this talk page. Iskandar323's neutral version should be restored until this is resolved.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just corrected a citation alignment issue; I don't have a version. I would actually say that Apaugasma has gone out of their way to research and properly source the Persian name (with an "f"); you, on the other hand, just appear to be unduly fixated on a minor variant spelling of almost zero consequence and based on a single source. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  The issue at hand is that the "single source" is an example of WP:RS (also, I've mentioned other sources on Google Scholar, Google Journal, etc.). Apaugasma agreed that the Hiro source is an RS, and then reverted edits for the umpteenth time before falsely claiming that there is rough consensus to back their claims.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am certainly in agreement that the lead doesn't need clogging with marginal alt names—WP:ALTNAME being the generally instructive guideline here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, I believe my previous edit cleaned it up fairly well per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, but was reverted by Apaugasma. There's also no need to add the sentence that Apaugasma added, "also known in modern Persian-language sources as Abu Lu'lu'", as the subject is commonly known as Piruz Nahavandi in the Persian-language per the WP:CommonName on the Persian Wiki and the English-language Hiro WP:RS.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  More than half of the sources used in the article use the Persianized Abu Lu'lu' and variants (see my !vote in the RM below). The sources using "Piruz Nahavandi" are indeed marginal (a work of fiction, some WP:SPS, and the journalist Dilip Hiro, all post the first appearance of that name on fa.wiki in 2008). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  As I told you above, Abu Lu'lu' is an Arabic-origin term. Even if it is used in Persian sources (which I do see it is), it is still of Arabic origin and not of Persian origin. Therefore, your current version in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE isn't ideal and I suggest my version of the parenthesis in the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE (whether with your preferred Firuz or my preferred Piruz per the Hiro source & Persian Wiki), which includes the Middle Persian, Modern Persian, and Arabic forms as we discussed above. Another option that aligns closer to your edit is to bring the Piruz Nahavandi sentence out of the citation and into the Name section itself per WP:Clarify. As stated below, I'm going to WP:JUSTDROPIT as there is no win in this for me, but I strongly believe the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, you even admitted that it's an RS, and there has been no valid proof of WP:Circular for the Hiro source. I do commend you, however, for taking the time to research and bring forth the various sources we've discussed above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Apaugasma: Following up with my comment above, I believe the last suggestion I noted might be best & you might agree upon, and we could put this all to rest - bringing the following Piruz Nahavandi sentence that you've added out of the citation and into the Name section itself per WP:Clarify: "More recently, the form Pīrūz Nahāvandī (پیروز نهاوندی) has also become popular, for example on the Persian-language Wikipedia.". That will be all from me as I've made my points by now and would like to wrap it up.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly believe that moving it to the main text would be wp:undue, partly because of the low quality of the sources and the circularity concerns, and partly because it would just take up too much space in proportion to the other content of the section. The name section should for the most part deal with what multiple RS report. One sentence about a non-historical name only or almost only occurring in non-RS is enough: expanding upon that would produce an undue focus on this issue. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Toddy1: I can see that you've reverted and removed the RS that we've discussed here. I understand you've noted WP:BRD, but please read the talk page discussions here to become familiar with the situation. The Hiro 2019 source is a WP:RS that is called into question here by Apaugasma. Apaugasma claims, without proof, that it is an example of WP:Circular. However, both myself and another user - Iskandar323 - have added/allowed it on the article. Apaugasma is the only user claiming it is circular, has not provided any proof or reached WP:Consensus on the matter, and has gone back on their word of admitting the Hiro source is an RS. Apaugasma continues to revert my different RS-added edits while claiming I'm the one edit warring, even though my edits have differentiation per our talk page discussions and are not reverts unlike theirs. Apaugasma falsely claimed that there is rough consensus when they are the only one arguing against the source, and persistently reverted edits/removed the WP:RS: 1 2.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please see above and don't present my views on behalf of me. I was simply indifferent to undoing your pickling of the lead ahead of a probable page move and need to edit it again. One English language source (this is en.wiki) does not an alt name make. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ronnnaldo7: You were edit-warring and you knew it. You need consensus for your bold edits. As far as I can see, your account is the only account in favour of your changes. On this talk page, you have repeatedly argued that Persian-language Wikipedia is a reliable source for the subject's name. The generally-rejected argument that Islamic bookshops selling a book was an endorsement of the book was much more sensible than that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Apaugasma persistently reverted my good-faith edits: 1, 2, 3, and they're not being reprimanded for edit warring or for their personal attacks towards me? My edits were in WP:GoodFaith and WP:Bold in attempting to resolve the WP:ALTNAME based on MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE per the English-language WP:RS, and yet we now have the cluttered Apaugasma version that you've reverted to without even verifying or reading through the discussions here. The issue at hand is Apaugasma agreed that the Hiro source is an RS, and then reverted edits for the umpteenth time before falsely claiming that there is rough consensus. Also, you clearly haven't read through the discussions if you believe my argument is that the Persian-language Wiki is a reliable source - which you also admitted to not having done so. My argument here is that the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, and Apaugasma has made undue claims of WP:Circular without presenting a shred of evidence or gaining consensus, and is persistently reverting my WP:GoodFaith & different (non-revert) edits. Apaugasma is the only one claiming it is circular. Furthermore, what the heck does this have to do with your tangent example of Islamic bookshops?...--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ronnnaldo7: We all accept that your bold edits were made in good faith. But, as explained above, the sources that support Piruz Nahavandi all seem to have been published after that name appeared in Persian-language Wikipedia in 2008. Statements in sources that were based on Wikipedia are not considered by Wikipedia to be supported by reliable sources. I can empathise with your feeling of disappointment, and your wish that it was not true. Take a few months break from this, and then try and find sources from the 1990s or earlier and see what they say. ( The bookshop endorsement story is quite interesting; Apaugasma and I were both involved in it. I think you would enjoy reading it. Maybe it would give you some insights.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  While I appreciate your attempts to mediate, this is the crux of my issue. Both you and Apaugasma have been editing together, both this page and other pages, and I feel that you are siding with Apaugasma as a result and without clearly taking a look at the discussions here - hence why I previously mentioned the importance for impartiality in my earlier discussions here so that there wouldn't be an abuse of power / WP:POV. I'm going to WP:JUSTDROPIT now as there is no win in this for me, but I strongly believe the Hiro source is an example of WP:RS, Apaugasma even admitted that it's an RS, and there has been no valid proof of WP:Circular for the Hiro source. That is all from me; I've spent far too long discussing this and I'll be moving on from this now.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ronnnaldo7, since you've made it clear on your user talk that you prefer to discuss behavior here, I'll post this on the article talk for once. Toddy1 and I took opposing sides in the ANI about that editor pushing religious sources, and your wp:aspersions about abuse of power need to stop. As for the edit to my user page, you should know that it is emphatically not about you but about my whole experience on WP. Yes, I believe that editors pushing ethnic or religious talking points with whatever bad sourcing they can find should simply not be editing Wikipedia and should be indef blocked at sight (I think Toddy1 strongly disagrees there), and yes I believe that includes you, but this is all just my tiny minority belief about WP (hence why it's on my user page), based on experiences with countless other users, and not in any way directed at you personally. I realize that it does come over that way, for which I'm sorry. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ronnnaldo7: If you want to use the "familiarity with the situation" argument, please check this first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Title review

I'm not convinced that the title of this page really needs to be anything other than the kunya: Abu Lu'lu'a. It appears that the main scholar who uses the current title used on the article is Madelung, but he's just one scholar. The kunya alone seems amply precise, concise and aligns with more sources overall, so why the complexity that we currently have instead? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think part of my reasoning when I proposed and eventually made the move was that by naming it Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz the 'Firuz' part, (the Arabicized form of) his original Middle Persian name, would remain highly visible. Quite a few sources do mention that his given name was Firuz, so it's at least verifiable.

To be entirely honest, I would have simply named it Abu Lu'lu'a without second thought if I had not feared that it would lead to accusations of Arabization of Persian history as Peroz is Persian and Abu Lu’lu’a is of Arabic origin, as eventually did happen recently. As I've said before, if someone would open a wp:rm to move to Abu Lu'lu'a I would probably support. It is undoubtedly the wp:commonname. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, it appears I'm a broken clock. I thought we'd had a similar discussion, but not the exact same one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As per above, "Piruz Nahavandi" is also presented in the English language and Persian language sources per WP:COMMONNAME. The Persian Wiki also has the article title based on the common name of Piruz Nahavandi.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Common name means that it is the most common name in English language sources, which it definitely isn't. It's rare compared to Abu Lulu'a. It may or may not be an example of the "Arabization of history" as you say, but editorially overruling that here would be WP:RGW. He lived and died in an Arab empire performing a famous assassination, so it's not surprising that his name has the greatest historical currency and prevalence in Arabic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:RGW. Let's stick to the facts here - the point is, as per above, there are scholarly sources, both in English and in Persian, with both Piruz Nahavandi and Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz. The common name in the Persian language is most certainly Piruz Nahavandi (hence the Persian Wiki's article title), and both the former and latter names are used in scholarly English language sources and in search engine sources (e.g. Google).--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2024

Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz → Abu Lu'lu'a – Per the above discussions of the page title. "Abu Lu'lu'a" is an unambiguous title for the subject and the WP:COMMONNAME apparent in English language scholarship. The appellation of Firuz after this name is something that only comes from a handful of sources by comparison, and was partly done as a form of compromise (an offering to Iranian readers) in the hope of warding off naming disputes. It was unsuccessful in the latter, while the overarching naming confusion has now been conclusively resolved. Since compromise, while sometimes necessary, is not really a policy or guidleline, it seems like this unnecessary addition (which adds no precision, but does detract from concision and muddies the common name) can be dispensed with. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The current name Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz, though going back to al-Tabari (a major primary source), is only mentioned as such once by one secondary source in the article, Madelung (1997) p. 75 (Madelung simply uses Abu Lu'lu'a after that). The two main contenders for wp:commonname are the original form of his Arabic kunya Abu Lu'lu'a (as transcribed per MOS:AR's basic transcription; equivalent transcriptions include Abū Luʾluʾa, Abu Lu'lu'ah, Abu Lo'lo'a, Abu Lo'lo'ah, and more: the common point is the -a or -ah ending) vs the modern Persianized form of his kunya Abu Lu'lu' (also transcribed per MOS:AR; equivalent transcriptions include Abū Luʾluʾ, Abu Lo'lo', and more, without -a or -ah at the end).

Among the sources used in the article, Abu Lu'lu'a and variants are used by Caetani (1905–1926) vol. V, p. 216, El-Hibri (2010) p. 108, Levi Della Vida & Bonner (1960–2007), Madelung (1997) p. 75, and Pellat (1983–2011). Abu Lu'lu' and variants are used by Algar (1990), Calmard (1996) p. 161, Ishkevari & Nejad (2008), Ismail (2016) p. 92, Johnson (1994) p. 127, Mavani (2016) p. 137, Stewart (1996) p. 47, and Torab (2007) p. 194. Among those, Calmard (1996) p. 161, Madelung (1997) p. 75, and Pellat (1983–2011) also mention his given name Firuz/Feroz, while Fischer (1980) p. 16 is unique in only mentioning Firuz but not Abu Lu'lu'a/Abu Lu'lu'. For Firuz Nahavandi we currently have no RS and for Piruz Nahavandi there is one known RS, Hiro 2019.

While more sources in the article use Abu Lu'lu' and variants (8) than Abu Lu'lu'a and variants (5), among those sources that are most used in the article and treat the subject in most detail there are more sources (3) using Abu Lu'lu'a (El-Hibri (2010), Madelung (1997), Pellat (1983–2011)) than sources (2) using Abu Lu'lu' (Algar (1990), Torab (2007) p. 194).

Apart from purely quantitative considerations, Abu Lu'lu' is derivative while Abu Lu'lu'a is the original (it's an Arabic name) and is used as such by all primary sources, which I think should strongly weigh to the advantage of the latter. All considered I think that Abu Lu'lu'a is therefore the best title. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• No objections. I have no objections to the change. But I also have no objections to the article being called "Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz". I strongly object to it being changed to "Piruz Nahavandi" (a name discussed earlier on this page).-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)