Talk:Ala al-Dawla Muhammad

Daylamite origin
Gomada: Since it seems that you have a hard time understanding the simple things I'm saying, looks like I have to write it for you here;

'''Although the historian Margaretha states that the Kakuyids were of Kurdish origin, however, many other scholars consider them relatives of Sayyida Shirin, who was from the Dailamite Bavand dynasty. Encyclopædia Iranica also states that; “it should be remembered that “Kurd” in the sources of the 10th-11th centuries refers to all the transhumants of the Zagros region including the Lors.” According to historian James Boris, the word “Kurd” first became an ethnic identity in the 12th and 13th century. However, he further states that the term was even then also being used as a communal sense. '''

'''Rustam Dushmanziyar, the father of Muhammad, was a Dailamite soldier in the service of Buyids and was rewarded with land in Alborz in appreciation of his services. His duty was to protect Ray and northern Jibal against the local leaders from Tabaristan. Rustam was the brother of the Bavandid princess Sayyida Shirin, the mother of Buyid emir Majd al-Dawla and Shams al-Dawla''' --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My dear friend, who categorizes all iranic culture (Baloch, Kurdish, Gilak, Mazanderani, Ossetian, Persian...) as Persian or Iranian (as Encyclopædia Iranica does), because in modern time most of people think Iranian = Persian. First of all, you must not forget (but unfortunately you forget often), you are not the only user who can decide on Wikipedia, this is a collective job. Wikipedia uses sources to support a theory. Reliable or not, must be discussed. I don't claim myself that Buyid or this man is Kurdish, I use a source. Understand? Do you have a problem about source? Then lets discuss it. Now about your Iranica.com theory from James Boris: Yes he says his own theory, but does he deny that there were no Kurds at 10th-11th century? And where were those Kurds living? About the claim :All iranic nomads mentioned as Kurds; Does that mean, it's also possible that those nomadic people are modern Kurds or not? :) There is not always certain information about history, therefore we can not say; what James Boris said is the law, it's just a theory.--Gomada (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Gomada: Your personal opinion/view don't matter here, I have come up with several sources that proves that he was of Dailamite origin (and that Kurdish wasn't a ethcnity back then), while you haven't proved anything. Either come up with a proper argument or the original information will be restored. That's how it works here, just because you don't like it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) doesn't mean anything. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion? Seriously? Are the sources, which I added, my own works? :) Btw thx, you proved here again what I said above. You replace Iranian instead of Kurdish without any source :) So, which one is nationalistic-POV? I recommend you once again to stop act as you know the best.--Gomada (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Gomada: Without any source? Seriously do you even read the articles you edit :)? It says it clearly here: Although he is called an “Kurd” in the book, the word was used as a social term during this period, designating IRANIAN nomads, rather than a concrete ethnic group.  And you still haven't come up with a proper argument, it almost seems like that you're trolling. I still await a proper argument that supports your random adding of information on this article. If you can't come up with any, then I don't see why the information you added should be there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop falsifying. The sources, you gave, are about a theory, not about Madig. According to this theory, should we call everyone Iranian without any other source? To support your opinion, you don't care about other sources. It doesn't make sense to discuss with you anymore. You'll keep to act as you know the best. We need some neutral users to solve this issue.--Gomada (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Gomada: Falsifying? theory? again just because you don't like it (WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) doesn't mean anything. I am slowly losing my patience, and if you don't have anything to say, I don't see why I shouldn't revert it back to normal. In fact, I don't think there is anything you can do to prove your point, since he was simply not Kurdish, and was the son of a prince from the Bavand dynasty, which was clearly not a dynasty of Kurdish origin, a term used on Iranian nomads back then, and which only became an ethcnity later, as proven by the sources I added, but which you chose to ignore. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like a pretty clear case of historical revisionism by user Gomada. I would recommend him to cease these activities, unless he can actually add a source that states that the Dailamites were Kurds. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Even then he would need to have a few sources by prominent scholars stating that the Dailamites were Kurdish, since I could easily counter that argument with manyyy sources by prominent scholars such as Bosworth, Madelung.. etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

When I said, we need opinions of neutral users, I didn't mean your supporter LouisAragon :) When you need help, you call him as here and here Anyway, you both will find excuses again. I have no time to waste, there is a real life outside. Good luck to you ;) --Gomada (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like you lost the discussion. See ya :) --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Kaka is not Persian
The word Kaka is not Persian. It is Persianized Turkic word (possibly Khalaj) of Aqa/Aqu. In 1000 A.D the influence of Turks in Central Asia, Iran and in the Middle East was close to zero, in particular in regions like Mazandaran or Sistan. --62.23.46.21 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * lel no --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)