Talk:Mubariz al-Din Muhammad

Background
User Nabataeus wants to use a Book by Carlos Ramirez-Faria (a Venezuelan economist and a specialist of the history of Venezuela...) to impose his POV, which is that Mubariz al-Din was an Arab.

Here the link pointing to the Amazon page describing Carlos Ramirez-Faria and his book :

https://www.amazon.com/Concise-Encyclopaedia-History-Carlos-Ramirez-Faria/dp/8126907754#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1520899641835

I provided a source (Encyclopedia of islam) which says that the Muzaffarids, the dynasty founded by Mubariz al-Din in the 14th century, was Persian but their ancestors came from Arabia at the time of the muslim conquest of Persia (7th century). Therefore, i Stated in the article that Mubariz al-Din was Arab or Persian (i provided a source from René Grousset which states that the Muzaffarids were an Arabo-Persian dynasty for the Arab claim). For more informations, take a look at the editing history. I would like to have other opinions.

Farawahar (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it circle around the assumption that I am incapable of providing additional materials that state the same exact remark on the Arab origin of Mubariz.. no actually. I was pointing to an evident case of OR that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Your source doesn't say Mubariz is a Persian by origin, quite the contrary. Instead of the accusations, why don't you provide credible sources that explicitly state what you asserted rather than misinterpreting references?


 * As for Faria, you said:


 * "Faria is specialized in the history of Venezuela...... Rene Grousset who is much more reliable for this topic"


 * Fine, I agree. Here is a quote from Rene Grousset book: Its founder, the Arab Mubariz ad-Din Muhammad who was already in power at Yezd and in Kerman.


 * Please, once again, don't include something that wasn't stated by the source. Read WP:NOR carefully for further guidelines. And refrain from disruptive edits. Best regards.


 * Nabataeus (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

« Fine, I agree »:

So, after arguing that your source, the Venezuelan economist, was reliable for this topic, you finally recognize that he was not ? Sounds to me like a wind vane... First of all, let me tell you that since, unlike you, i’m not here by nationalism, i’m glad to have provided a reliable source for the Arab claim.

Second, as i told you before, Encyclopedia of islam made it clear, the Muzaffarid dynasty was Persian but their ancestors came from Arabia in the 7th century. Mubariz al-Din Muhammad was the founder of that dynasty in the 14th century, so, he was a Persian wirh Arab roots.

This is not a matter of original research, this is a matter of logic, but you are so much blinded by your Arab nationalism that you can not see what is obvious but that goes against your opinion...

I will not change the article until more experienced users give their opinion, and i advise you to do the same.

Farawahar (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , your opinion would be welcome on this topic.


 * , your opinion would be welcome on this topic.


 * , your opinion would be welcome on this topic.

Farawahar (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you sign your post please? I believe diverting our dispute over Mubariz into personal level is not the way to resolve the issue.


 * "The Cambridge History of Iran" state: The Muzaffarids originated in an Arab family in Khurasan


 * The encyclopedia of Islam describe the the Muzaffarids as a Persian dynasty of Arab origin. The nature of the entity, the environment, culture, geographical domain are what is meant by the usage of that terminology. It was better suited in the Muzaffarids article that broadly discuss the state, which you added. No objection from my part since it give a description of the state not the family. Encyclopedia of Islam never mentioned or labelled Mubariz as a Persian.


 * Therefore using it as a source for Mubariz ethnicity is pure OR and personal analyze, a something that was not stated by the author.


 * your thoughts?


 * Nabataeus (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... Full disclosure here... The extent of my expertise is that I know it's extremely crass to call someone from Iran Arab, and probably outright racist to expect someone from Afghanistan to speak Arabic... and that's mostly just because I have a US military background. If you're looking for an expert, you're best bet may be contacting WikiProject Islam. I honestly can't think of any really experienced editor I personally know with a high level of expertise in the subject, of the type that can do an in-depth analysis of sources.  G M G  talk   23:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notified  G M G  talk   23:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of islam clearly states that the Muzaffarid dynasty is Persian with Arab origins. Having Arab origins and being Arab are two distinct things... Mubariz al-Din is a Muzaffarid ruler, therefore he is Persian with Arab roots, no more, no less. Again, this is a matter of logic, not original research...


 * my post is signed now : no « personal level » in our dispute. Again, it’s all about logic...

Farawahar (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)




 * Yeah if you call a Persian from Iran an Arab, probably. But that could go both ways. Some Gulf Royal Families, believe it or not, are Iranians of Arab origin who re-settled in Arabia after the oil boom. Many still in Iran are of Arab origin and speak Arabic, they number approximately 1.5 M. Their presence date back centuries ago.


 * The main point: his statement concerning Mubariz is OR, the source, encyclopedia of Islam, didn't call Mubariz a Persian by origin neither even mentioned him in the quote. Only describing the Muzaffarids (as a a state that patronized Persian culture) Persian, and further described the family as of Arab origin. But Farawahar used that statement to emphasize on the Persian origin of Mubariz. I pointed to him that the remark was OR that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves, instead he should provide a source that actually state his assertion without personal misinterpretations.


 * Nabataeus (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Some other sources:
 * My version of the Encyclopedia of Islam is the 1993 edition and it has text different from what is quoted in the article. It says p.820
 * It is looking like the balance of sources that address his origin are describing 'Arab family from Khurasan'. Definitly not as "Arab or Persian" though. There is a footnote in Manz I want to check out as it is the only one that cites his background. Jbh  Talk  02:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Added quote from my version of EoI 05:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The footnote is to a contemporary source: Isfizari, Rawdat vol. I, p188 — Acording to Manz p62: "Isfizari was a bureaucrat; he served in the diwan of Husayn-i Bayqara and produced a collection of correspondence as well as his Rawdat. The history was finished in 899/1493–94 and dedicated to Sultan Husayn Bayqara’s vizier Qawam al-Din Nizam al-Mulk Khwafi.40 Isfizari tells a story about Shams al-Din Muhammad Taftazani, told to him by one of the intimates of Taftazani’s great-grandson, Sayf al-Din Ahmad" Since this is a contemporary source I would say it would be definitive. Jbh  Talk  03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My version of the Encyclopedia of Islam is the 1993 edition and it has text different from what is quoted in the article. It says p.820
 * It is looking like the balance of sources that address his origin are describing 'Arab family from Khurasan'. Definitly not as "Arab or Persian" though. There is a footnote in Manz I want to check out as it is the only one that cites his background. Jbh  Talk  02:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Added quote from my version of EoI 05:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The footnote is to a contemporary source: Isfizari, Rawdat vol. I, p188 — Acording to Manz p62: "Isfizari was a bureaucrat; he served in the diwan of Husayn-i Bayqara and produced a collection of correspondence as well as his Rawdat. The history was finished in 899/1493–94 and dedicated to Sultan Husayn Bayqara’s vizier Qawam al-Din Nizam al-Mulk Khwafi.40 Isfizari tells a story about Shams al-Din Muhammad Taftazani, told to him by one of the intimates of Taftazani’s great-grandson, Sayf al-Din Ahmad" Since this is a contemporary source I would say it would be definitive. Jbh  Talk  03:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a better version. Thanks for your neutral stance on the matter. Nabataeus (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out to a very important note that seems no one has noticed yet. The source which Farawahar has brought, while reliable, is an old version of Encyclopedia of Islam that has been edited in the first quarter of 20th century. This is very important, because at that time Iran was still known and referred to as "Persia". [[Name of Iran|

Only after the name change from "Persia" to "Iran"]] in 1935, did western sources start using the terms "Iran" and "Iranians" in place of "Persia" and "Persians". That is why when we check the newer version of Encyclopedia of Islam on the same entry, and which was written after the name change, we find no mention of "Persia" or "Persian". One should always use the most recent sources available not the obsolete ones. However, if the first edition is still acceptable in Wikipedia, than historical context should be considered. The term "Persian Dynasty" is to be read as "Iranian or Iranian based dynasty". Calling a dynasty "Persian of Arab origin" would make no sense in our time, and it is like saying "Slavic dynasty of Germanic origin"! Frasfras17 (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My version (1993) describes the Muzaffarids as "one of the successor dynasties which arose in Kirman, Fars and lrak-i Adjam following the disintegration of the Ilkhanid empire"  Jbh  Talk  06:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, is really Frasfras a different user from Nabataeus...? Second, no one said Mubariz was of Persian origin. Sources state Persian with Arab origin... And, by the way, user:Frasfras, one can be Slavic with German origin. More, the word « Persian » was in use long time before 1935, see Achemenids, Sassanids, etc... Farawahar (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with your version, which is well balanced and keeps a NPOV.

Farawahar (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not make accusations of sock-puppetry without evidence and if you have evidence take it to WP:SPI not the talk page. (Now that is interesting! Looks like someone did so please, no sniping just let it play out.) Second, please take a look this brief tutorial on editing talk pages to see how to properly indent/thread a conversation on a talk page and please do not place your signature on a separate line. Finally, very much to my surprise, not one of the sources I have described Mubariz or the Muzaffarid line as Persian. I came to this expecting the 'Arab' claims were nothing but ethnic POV pushing, like is so often seen, but nearly all of the sources I found at least acknowledged that the family claimed Arab origins. Jbh  Talk  06:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all i have not accused Nabataeus and Frasfras of sock puppetry, i asked a question (did you see the question mark ???). You know about the sock puppetry investigation for this two (three ?) users but maybe other contributors of this talk page don’t, that’s why i asked the question.


 * Second, thank you for the tutorial, if i can i’ll try to use it.


 * Third, Encyclopedia of Islam describes the Muzaffarid dynasty as Persian, just have a look at the editing history of the page, but as i said above, i agree with your edit which clearly states the « distant Arab origin » of Mubariz al-Din...

Farawahar (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe this category solves your dispute: Category:Iranian people of Arab descent --Wario-Man (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)