Talk:Hajji Firuz

Original research ?
Haj Firooz is the killer of Omar Khataab (Abu lolo )? Who says that ?! Please give references ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Symbolism - What does it mean?
In the History section, the article says that Pirouz Nahavandi planned to kill the leader of the Arab-Muslim Army in revenge for conquering the Persians. In describing the assassination, the article states, that Pirouz Nahavandi


 * ... gutted the Caliph Umar ibn al Khataab to the neck, then stabbed him in the back, the symbolism of which would have been understandable to those at the time.

Unfortunately, the symbolism of this act is not understandable to this reader, and probably to many other modern readers, so please tell us what it symbolizes.Ileanadu (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I reverted changes recently made that appear to lack neutrality and reliable sources. To say that Hajji Firuz is "beloved" or his face color represents the fire-keeper of old, we must provide sources that support it. To say that a source does not present any evidence we must have another source to back up that statement. It's not our role as editors to insert our own views, analysis, or observations. We always need reliable sources for everything that we add to an article. Joja lozzo  14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ja
"To say that Hajji Firuz is "beloved" ... we must provide sources that support it."

-- I can agree with you here. But it's like saying that Santa Claus is a 'popular holiday figure.' If you don't want that there, that's fine.

"To say that a source does not present any evidence we must have another source to back up that statement."

-- The original citation (which is from a personal blog -- is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia in the first place). Secondly, for acceptable citations, "Some evidency of authenticity is required for a source to be acceptable" (WIKI source guideline); that means all of the stuff written in the section on criticism must appear in the actual citation. If you see that they provided facts, you're welcome to quote those facts, but the truth is they're not in the source.

That leaves only three logical choices:

1. open up wiki citations to include personal blogs (but this is not allowed); 2. delete the paragraph; or 3. cite and quote the evidence from the source -- here the onus ( burden ) is on whoever inserted that section. (And logically you can cite the same source to point out that it's an opinion that gives no citations or references.)

Either the personal blog cannot be used as a citation or the claim should be supported (""Some evidency of authenticity is required" Wiki Standards). It seems that paragraph should be deleted.

Best, 67.169.112.181 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The authors are professors of history and Iranian studies. Self-published works by such experts are considered reliable sources. I have added back some of what I deleted with a little more neutrality. Joja  lozzo  15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Haji Firuz "racist"?
I have never ever heard of any Iranians in Iran perceiving Haji Firuz as racist or even associating this traditional figure as such. That part of the article has as its source ONE source (Faces around the World: A Cultural Encyclopedia of the Human Face By Margo DeMello – Black Face, Page 28) written by a non-Iranian, and which doesn't even focus on Iran. Just because some outsider(s) may associate a foreign custom with racism does not make this a valid association with "black-face" in the American context. I suggest the removal of that section due to inaccuracy / irrelevance.


 * I don't think it is irrelevant since it has sources (note not all of these are RS)
 * but it is good to discuss it here. This was a popular discussion topic in Iranian groups in 2021 because of BLM (and not all of these citations are from the US). A lot of things I am noticing in these citations is that the historical intention (which may or may not be related to slavery or race) doesn't seem to matter much in the context of our current global race issues. I do agree with you though that this needs more discussion, development and more citations, before we consider adding it back. Jooojay (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Also pulling this quote since it seems relevant, "Several scholars have insisted that Hajji Firuz’s blackened face has nothing to do with racial signaling, but is about the fading blackness of winter, since the Iranian New Year is the vernal equinox and many of its rituals have to do with banishing winter and welcoming spring (e.g., Chaharshanbeh suri, or “Burning Wednesday,” when celebrants jump over bonfires and shout “My yellowness for your redness,” meaning my jaundiced [yellow] color for your ruddy [red] color). Scholarship on this topic continues to attempt to distance its racial aspects from the history of enslavement of Africans in Iran; some scholars, indeed, make no note of this possible connection. See, for example, Niayesh Purhassan’s “Hajji Firuz: performans: barrassi va mo’arefi-ye ‘Hajji Firuz’ va negahiye- tatbighi beh namayeshgaran az manzar va didgah-e performans” (“Hajji Firuz: Performance: Research and Introduction to “Hajji Firuz” and a Comparative Look at the Performers/Actors from a Performance Perspective”), in Me’mari va honar (Architecture and Art): Namayesh, nos. 125–26 (AH 1388/AD 2009): 42–47. In contrast, and for an interesting discussion of the contemporary controversy in the Netherlands over Zwarte Piet and a comparison to the Hajji Nowruz tradition, see Angelita D. Reyes, “Performativity and Representation in Transnational Blackface: Mammy (USA), Zwarte Piet (Netherlands), and Haji Firuz (Iran),” Atlantic Studies, no. 4 (2018): 521–50." from (A. Motlagh, 2020)..

Bad Source Link
Source 3 leads to a scam site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Education-over-easy (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)