Talk:Shapur II

Untitled
This says
 * When King Hormizd II (302-310)

but Hormizd II of Persia says 302-309. Just noticing this slight inconsistency. Someone might want to correct that. -- Timwi 12:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * jep, that´s wrong. Shapur II reigned from 309, not 310 (Frye, History of ancient Iran; Camb. History of Iran etc.).

Move this page?
Now Shapur II redirects to Shapur II of Persia. Is there any reason for this? Would not it be better to have the opposite? --Panairjdde 23:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with the Huns?
I read somewhere that Shapur II came into contact with the early Huns arriving from Asia? Can anyone confirm this..?

Jewish Mom?
I never knew this. Where are some references? If this is true, it is ironic considering he persecuted/taxed Christians and Jews.


 * More importantly, Burckhardt (The Age of Constantine the Great) says the Jews participated in the Christian persecution where (among others) 22 bishops were killed. Student7 (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock sculpture?
This article identifies the individuals represented in a Bishapur rock sculpture of a victorious Persian king as Shapur II (mounted), Jovian (supplicating), and Julian (lying dead). But all the other sources I've found about a very similarly described sculpture at the same location identify the figures as people from the previous century: Shapur I, Philip the Arab, and Gordian III, respectively. They also identify the standing figure in the background as Valerian. (Some debate exists with those who switch the identifications of Philip and Valerian, but that's tangential to the issue I'm raising.) There is at least one other similar sculpture at Naqsh-e-Rustam, but it too is said to represent Shapur I's victory, not Shapur II's.  Is there an additional sculpture at Bishapur specifically showing Shapur II over Julian? Or has this article simply misidentified the subjects of a single Bishapur sculpture? (See the Wikipedia article about Shapur I for a reference to a mural of Shapur I's victory at Naqsh-e-Rustam. The Wikipedia article about Naqsh-e-Rustam also refers to a famous Sassanid rock relief at that location of Shapur I's victory over Valerian and Philip the Arab, and it mentions that there is a more elaborate version of this scene at Bishapur.)

Answer to question about the rock sculpture
There is indeed a rock sculpture representing Shapur II's victory over Julian. However, the one I have now found is different from the one described in the Wikipedia article. It is a bas-relief at Taq-i-Bustan, Iran. According to Adrian Murdoch's The Last Pagan, this sculpture represents Shapur II together with the gods Mithras and Ahura-Mazda. Ahura-Mazda is standing on top of a fallen enemy of Shapur, who is "usually identified as Julian." In this sculpture, all the figures are standing; none is mounted. Interestingly, "[the] fact that it is a god standing over the emperor's head suggests that Julian's death is the result of divine intervention." By the way, the fallen emperor appears to wear a beard, one of Julian's distinguishing features in an era of generally clean-shaven men. This lends support to identifying him as Julian.

Fair use rationale for Image:Shapur ii bust.jpg
Image:Shapur ii bust.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate
According to the info box, Shapur was born in 215 CE. Does anyone else find this odd? I am sure he got daily exercise and had a good diet, but I don't believe he lived to 164! We should instead put 'unknown' for his birth date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulgaroctonus (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * :). Apparently he was "born king." Quite unusual. Have changed the dates. I think they are probably correct.Student7 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Dates
Why is no era given for the dates of events? Is this some new Wikipedia norm that I wasn't aware of? If it weren't for the reference to the Roman Empire, I wouldn't be able to tell which era was being referred to. Has it become a no-no to indicate "AD" or "CE"? I don't understand this. Clarification appreciated. 68.173.255.96 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

the Great?
I've reverted an undiscussed move- I did check first, there are many more sources that don't use 'the great' than do. Please follow the instructions at WP:RM in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research and plagiarism
In response to Yprpyq's edit warring and non usage of page numbers, I would like the page number in Daryaee's book for this sentence, "When Shapur came of age, he led an expedition through Bahrain in revenge, defeating the combined forces of the Arab tribes of "Taghlib", "Bakr bin Wael", and "Abd al-Qays" and advanced temporarily into Al-Yamama in central Najd, the heartland of Arabia.

Pages 16-17 in Daryaee's book, make no mention of Shapur going through Bahrain, no mention of Al-Yamama or of Shapur advancing into the "heartland of Arabia". Whereas this information sounds extremely like what is found on page 136, concerning Ardashir's invasion. Shapur, as per page 16, forced Arab tribes "into the heartland of Arabia", but it make no mention of Shapur and his army advancing there. This is a clear case of original research and may explain why no page numbers are being supplied for the Daryaee source.

This sentence, "The Taghlib tribe was settled in Darayn (a port in Bahrayn) and al-Khaṭṭ; the Abd al-Qays and Tamim were settled in Hajar, and the tribe of Bakr bin Wael was settled in Kerman and the Hanazila in Ramila (vicinity of Ahwaz).", has been copy and pasted from the Daryaee source page 17, which makes it plagiarism, perhaps another reason why there are no page numbers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Persecution
Klueske: Didn't mean it in that way when I said secondary source, wasn't much space left to write on, didn't expect it to get misunderstood thou. Anyways the number of 16.000 Christian martyrs is clearly an exaggeration, or you have anything to say in that matter? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source used for the 16000 deads claim seems to be a religious source, not written by a historian, therefore, i guess it's unreliable for this topic. This could explain the likely exageration. your thoughts ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , The article on Sozomen notes, in the first sentence, he's a historian. An ecclesiastical historian, admittedly, but a historian nevertheless. Please cite sources on the exaggeration, since I'm quite reluctant to accept your word for it. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: What do you mean by that? It's quite clear that it's an exaggeration by simply looking at numbers, just like the numbers that appear for example at Göktürk–Persian wars (first and second) and Battle of Thermopylae. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean: please cite a reliable source that supports that claim. If this writer is known for shameless exaggerations, it should be a breeze to find such a source. I do not accept "it's obvious to me" or "it's quite clear" as a substitute for an actual source that supports that claim. Kleuske (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , An ecclesiastical historian does not mean he's reliable for a death toll, We need a specialized historical source for that.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then cite a bloody source disputing him. The quote is sourced and attributed, is pertinent to the period in question, is near contemporaneous from a quite respected historian. If you have sources disputing that number (or the quote in general), then fine, we can talk. All I see now is two people asking me to take their word that he's unreliable without even trying to back it up with an actual source. Just going "that source is no good" does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say it like it's so easy to find something about a completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian. He's not a respected historian at all, dunno where you're getting that from. What Wikaviani is saying is true, you don't use ecclesiastical historians for this kind of stuff, the exaggerated number of martyrs he lists speak for itself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting that from the "Encyclopedia Brittanica", "The Catholic Encyclopedia" and the "New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", from the fact that he's been in print since the invention of the printing press, is cited in thing like the Codex Regia, etc. As for not being able to find anything on this "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian", I suggest you try Google Scholar, which has quite a few results (5.290) on this "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian" from scholarly sources alone. Kleuske (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should ask for other users opinon, if the source is unreliable for this claim, it should be removed, no matter how respectable the author is. Again, according to me, this source is unreliable for a death toll., , , any insight ? Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Translation: "I'm all out of arguments". Kleuske (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, is this being out of argument when we deal with the reliability of a source ? To make it clear, i have no problem with the sentence as far as a reliable source supports it. If some other contributors support you view about this source for a death toll, then it would be perfectly fine. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You cannot just go around and declare sources you don't like "unreliable" without something to back that up. I have asked several times, and I will ask again to cite sources which claim he was unreliable. The mere fact that you think he's unreliable (and not a historian and other niceties) does not mean anything, here. If you want, escalate it to WP:RS/N. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source, the other 'sources' seem to religious related ones, which is of no use here. With all due respect, this clearly shows that you don't have much knowledge in this kind of topic. He has some searches in some obscure books, so what? He is still a relatively unknown and irrelevant 'historian' in this topic. You claim he is so prominent and well-known, yet no major academic sources refer to him either. Also putting your text in bold doesn't improve your argument. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source What?! Are you [bleeep] joking? You do realize that competency is required, don't you? Kleuske (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: It's not, go ask an admin, such as Dougweller (who was the one who told me). Yes, competency is required, which is making me wonder why you're still here, other than being immaturely passive-aggressive and not having much knowledge about sources, you're not bringing anything else here. You still haven't been able to show anything that supports your argument about this so called "well-known and respected" religious historian. Just let go, jesus, you're wasting both our times here. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * Please comment, since this claim does surprise me. Please read WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not a valid substitute for an actual argument. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Klueske: You have been hostile and making subtle insults from the start, why don't you read it yourself? Also, as I was about to write as well: Lets pretend Britannica is reliable: the site states that Sozomen was a Christian lawyer writing church history, what can that be of use to exactly? HistoryofIran (talk)
 * It's a near contemporaneous source, quoted verbatim, attributed and highly pertinent to the period in question, from a well-respected historian. Hence it should be in an encyclopedic article. You have failed to provide any argument against that, except ill informed claims without the merest hint of any backup and a personal attack (which I resent). I have no choice than to conclude your attitude here is summarized best by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which are not encyclopedic virtues. Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly, we should focus on content, not contributors, so, everybody, calm down., i think that you should apply WP:IDONTLIKEIT to yourself because according to me, the source is not reliable for at least two reasons :
 * 1) t's obvious that a christian living at that time had probably a biased POV about the number of christians killed by the Sassanians ( therefore he is not an independent source).
 * 2) Again, he was not a specialized historian for this kind of stuff (death toll) because he studied history of religions.
 * Since this souce is controversial, why don't you bring another source supporting this death toll ?---Wikaviani (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, claims w/o any evidence. If you read the article on the man, you'll find he did not "study religions" he was an ecclesiastical historian. He was not "a specialized historian for this kind of stuff" because those did not exist in the 5th century. If you are willing to dismiss any source with some kind of affiliation to any side of the story, we should dismiss Tacitus, Cassius Dio, osephus and many others aswell, including any Islamic source. The qualification "utter nonsense" is called for, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's not, that's a really bad comparison. You srsly comparing Sozomen with Cassius Dio etc? Also you know that just because they're called "Islamic sources" doesn't mean they were written by the Imam that lived in the nearest neighborhood, but that they were written in the Islamic east by actual respected historians, which Sozomen is not. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * And Sozomen wasn't the parish priest next door, but a well-respected historian. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: Now you're just making stuff up. Britannica (which is still unreliable) states that your so called respected historian was a Christian lawyer. We dont use Christian lawyers as a source for historical events, in case you didn't know. Also booho, you started the personal attacks yet you don't see me being focused on that. Treat other people like you want to be treated, whether it's on the internet or rl. I am still waiting for you to come up with a source that agrees with your views that Sozomen is a so called respected and well-known historian. If you can't do that, then I see no reason for your edit to stay. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * That's personal attack #2. Apart from being a lawyer, the man was a historian and wrote a notable work, some of which is quoted here, for good reason. I have asked multiple times for any source that backs up your claim about Sozomen being unreliable, unknown, irrelevant (etc.) and you have failed miserably. I have directed you to Google Scholar, pointed out it has over 5000 results for that name (that's scholarly sources alone), pointed out he's in several notable encyclopedias, and I actually did my homework: this summary (2017), provides a nice overview of works about Sozomen, we got Irfan Shahîd in "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century": The most extensive and valuable account of the Arabs in ecclesiastical historians is to be found in Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica and goes on to call him "this major historian". Kleuske (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I conclude that neither of you have been able to produce one single source disputing Sozomen's standing as a historian, neither of you have produced one single source supporting your claim the quote is unreliable and both of you insist I should prefer your word over that of actual, published, modern historians despite the fact both of you clearly demonstrate a lack of any knowledge of the historic figure. This is disturbing behavior for an encyclopedian. Kleuske (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "you have failed miserably" : i would welcome the eye of an admin about your words, please note that your comment is WP:WINNING ... stop being aggressive and let's focus on content, ok ?
 * "I have directed you to Google Scholar, pointed out it has over 5000 results for that name" : let me see if i got this one straight. So, according to you, a google scholar search on Sozomen with 5000 results makes him reliable for this topic ? you're joking, right ? Then just type "Albert Einstein" on Google scholar and you'll get 1170000 results, this does not make Einstein (who was a great scholar) a reliable source for this topic. Please note that i don't say this guy was not a scholar, i just say that, he's unreliable for this topic, big difference.
 * "This is disturbing behavior for an encyclopedian" : No, we're discussing the reliability of the source (at least this is what i'm trying to do while you keep being aggressive with no reason) this is quite normal, what do you suggest instead ? edit-warring ? Again, if any other user comes up here and says that the source is reliable OR if you provide another source supporting this "16000 death toll", it will be perfectly fine for me.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say "let's focus on content, ok" and subsequently go into a rant about the editor you disagree with. Nice one, that. When your done with discussing the editor, please satisfy my request to cite sources to support your claims, as I have done, instead of making (demonstrably false) claims about the historian in question and maligning other editors (i.e. yours truly). And please take this to WP:ANI. I'm up for a good laugh. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , Do you really know what "rant" means ? if yes, when did i "go into a rant about the editor i disagree with" ? I was polite and respectful from the beginning of this thread, clearly, you cannot say as much. Well, if we cannot find a common ground here, then, ok, i'll take this to the relevant board. Please note what sources qualify as reliable for Wikipedia :
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book) : check (the source is a book, ok)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) : cross (the author is not specialized for this topic)
 * The publisher of the work : check ? (publisher is ok ?)
 * Note that Any of the three can affect reliability
 * More : Context matters : i quote from WP:RS : "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The source is from an ecclesiastical historian from the 5th century, really objective ?
 * And : Age matters : the source we're dealing with is 1600 years old ...
 * "I'm up for a good laugh" : again WP:WINNING and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality ...
 * Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the quote is that of a noted historian, quoted verbatim and properly attributed. It is not used to base a claim on, it's not a reference, so the above is moot. There is, I venture to assert, no dispute that the quote is correct. The dispute, as far as I can see, is that you don't like it. Kleuske (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you really think I'm exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, you should bring this to WP:ANI, since that's disruptive editing. But you don't and you won't. Kleuske (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see that at last, you calm down and avoid being aggressive. Yes, the source is from a noted historian of religion who is far from being objective and therefore unreliable here. I'll wait for other users to comment, if they don't, then we'll deal with this on the relevant board. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite personal attacks (and yes, calling your opponent "aggressive" is a personal attack) I have never lost my cool. I have cited sources, rebutted blatant falsehoods and replied to each and every claim made. so for the umpteenth time cite sources supporting your claims or "drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". Kleuske (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: Right, you have never lost your cool, I agree. Anyways, you have neither cited sources (let alone a source) that supports your view of him being a respected HISTORIAN (I don't care about his works about Jesus and religion etc, they are irrelevant here), nor have you rebutted these so called 'blatant falsehoods'. Also, playing victim by accusing people of personal attacks every second yet while still making them does not count as answering an argument. Do you seriously want me to into detail of your hostile behaviour and indirect/subtle insults toward us? I'm not blind. Sozomen as a source regarding the number of martyrs under Shapur II is simply too exaggerated and unreliable. Why do I feel like I am repeating myself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I "seriously want [you] to into detail of [my] hostile behaviour", preferably at WP:ANI, since I'm getting fed up. I also want you to cite a source supporting up your claims as to the unreliability of that number. As an encore, I'll quote mysef (from above) : Irfan Shahîd in "Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century": The most extensive and valuable account of the Arabs in ecclesiastical historians is to be found in Sozomen's Historia Ecclesiastica and goes on to call him "this major historian". Kleuske (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never lost my cool either, as to the "personal attack", your aggressive behavior is a fact, therefore, this is not a personal attack. When you debate with others, saying that thay "failed miserably" or "go to ANI, i'm up for a good laugh" and other words from you obviously qualify as "aggressive". Again, no comments about users, focus on content. As i said, i'll wait a few hours for other users opinion, if nobody moves, then we'll go to the relevant board. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kleuske: First comment towards me in some time without making subtle insults or accusing me of personal attacks, we're making progress. You're showing me a source about Sozomen's view on Christian Arabs (who were mostly pro-Byzantine vassals), what can I use that for in this topic? You know that the Sasanians weren't Arabs, right? His view towards Shapur II and the Sasanians when it comes to their treatment towards Christianity should obviously be taken with discretion, and the numbers are clearly exaggerated (16,000). Tell me, should without any care use Herodotus as a source for everything as well? It's the same case. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, pal... I'm dutch. If I wanted to insult you, the insults would not be subtle, let alone so subtle no-one but you can see them. Cite sources. I do not accept your claims without sources. Kleuske (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers 'pal', your ethnicity is really irrelevant in this discussion and looks more like an excuse to not take responsibility for your actions, but alright. What do you want me to cite? 'Bosworth: Sozomen is unreliable lol'? Shapur's persecution of Christians is mentioned in various major academic sources, yet none of them list the numbers of martyrs since we can't know that, and I am quite sure they have stumbled upon Sozomen before if he is so respected as you claim, yet they haven't listed numbers like his exaggerated numbers of 16.000 martyrs. We have to take sources like Sozomen with a pinch of salt when it comes to describing topics such as these, it's simply a fact we editors who are contributing/expanding articles with information know of. Also, you didn't answer my question regarding Herodotus. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I want you to cite a source that supports your claim ("exaggerated number"). How often do you want to hear that? Kleuske (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've said what had to be said, and so has Wikaviani, you ignoring it is not my problem. This seems more and more like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in my eyes. Also, tell me, should we without any care use Herodotus as a source for everything as well? Go on, answer me, it's exactly the same case with Sozomen, hence why you are avoiding my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So you have no sources to cite and are now reduced to playing games and trying to sidetrack the issue. Ok. Kleuske (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting words into my mouth whilst avoiding my questions and completely ignoring what I am saying, very mature and constructive indeed. The Herodotus question is completely related to our Sozomen problem. Also, wasn't it you that was meant to show a source that shows Sozomen can be trusted in this matter? (hint: it was). If you're not interested in continue discussing due to the fact that you're out of arguments then I am restoring the article back to what it was. Two users who have a lot more knowledge in this kind of topic than you have written several long messages regarding this problem, which you have chosen to ignore, whilst trying to cause a provocation and then immediately use the victim card. That is basically the summary of this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Sozen is exaggerating or not. I did a search and the only comment on his figures was in "Fides Et Historia" - Volumes 30-31 1998 - ‎Snippet view "The fact that Christians in Persia later neglected the Roman theme, and assured the Persian kings of their loyalty, even reaching a certain ... "From then on, waging war against Rome and persecuting the Christians were to Iran two facets of one struggle, and persecution took place especially in ...  Even the lower figure of 16,000 deaths for the fourth century, estimated by Sozomen, are quite impressive." Anyway, a lot of sources use Sozen and I think we should but of course it has to be attributed. As an aside, Sozen looks more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic article.  Doug Weller  talk 18:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So a third party commented and was in favor of including the (attributed) quote. This is subsequently ignored and we're into a edit-war, laced with personal attacks. I invite both users (for the umpteenth time) to come up with a source that disputes the quote in question as unreliable, provide a source with more accurate figures or drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No response except a revert with an edit summary which is a blatant, baldfaced lie. Kleuske (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Third party also said that the source is a personal essay, not an encyclopedic article. Per WP:WEIGHT we cannot cite this non academic source alone without any counterpart. More, you treated me or "liar" while the source is preserved in the next section this is a personal attack...---Wikaviani (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * He writes the Wikipedia article on Sozomen reads like a personal essay, not the quote. That's a lack of basic reading skills or a blatant, baldfaced lie. Your choice. Kleuske (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with him on that. Kleuske (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're under WP:CIR, the admin said "As an aside, Sozen looks more like a personal essay than an encyclopedic article." Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Key words: as an aside and a link to the (wrong) article. The addition "than an encyclopedic article" should make it clear. A lack of basic reading skills it is, then. Kleuske (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus ?
, i find quite strange that a user like you, who did not contribute to the extensive thread in the talk page, comes up here to revert a version of the article who is a compromise, i mean, the source was not removed, i just balanced the text by adding a source given by Doug Weller above, per WP:WEIGHT. Also, please keep in mind that i tried to be as precise as possible in my edit summary. The current version is endorsed by a single user : Kleuske, this is not exactly what one would call "consensus". Also, since you have not contributed a single time to the talk page and nevertheless allows yourself to revert to a controversial text, i think you can keep your "advices" for yourself. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think you should not misrepresent other editors in your edit summaries. Also, please see WP:OWN. Best regards, —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 18:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * : Since you're accusing me of "misrepresenting" other editors, please go ahead and tell me when i did so. If you cannot, then stop your personal attacks.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

etymology
Daryaee is not a linguist and his book may have spelling errors. Check out wikitionary and A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary By D. N. Mackenzie. both only mentioned dēwār. and both wār and war do not mean wall in middle persian (pahlavi).GGBarBar (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can't be cited as a source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * lmao. did i cited wikipedia? I said go check out them. are you blind? you don't see A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary By D. N. Mackenzie above? you should prove word "war" = wall in middle persian or pahlavi. and use a linguistic source.GGBarBar (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't just say 'check A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary By D. N. Mackenzie'. What is the source even? What page? Nice one. Also, since you have such a hard time clicking the link yourself, it seems I must do it for you, here you go To keep the Arabs from mounting further attacks Shabuhr II constructed a defensive system which was called war i tazigan ("wall of the Arabs"). Here you go, there is your proof. I'm reverting back to what it was before, revert me and I'll directly report you to an admin for constant removal of sourced information. Also, keep a nice tone, no need to call me blind. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * dude, you want to abuse reporting system? then go for it. there is nothing such as "war" in middle persian. that's a misspelled in that book. this is my proof: if you don't know anything about persian and middle persian, then just stop acting as an expert. watch your language too. you attacked me first. don't play victim card.GGBarBar (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How did I attack you? Show some proof. Also can you not speak so aggressively? We're not in a forum. Also, yes, I will indeed take this to an admin. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * your edit summaries are aggressive and insulting intelligence of another user. go find a linguistic book instead of dropping a history book here. "war" does not exist in middle persian. you say it's correct. then prove it. just browser that D. N. Mackenzie book and find it. even wiktionary does not mention it as an alternative spelling. i am iranian and i speak persian fluently. so stop teaching me about persian and iranian history. either you have a good source for your claims or you just try to stick to daryayee's book as if it's a error-free book. understand it or you need more explanation? yes, call an admin. maybe you can learn some civility.GGBarBar (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

to admin who reads this: HistoryofIran reverted correct edit of another user just per per daryaee who is not a linguist and his book could have many misspelled pahlavi (middle persian) terms; plus see his original research in edit summary. he thinks war is correct because it sounds like wall and etc. i restored correct term and he reverted my edit without reading my edit summary. then calling my edits disruptive. ignored our discussion here and reverted again. as you see in the above discussions, he ignores my points and insults me just because i'm newbie.GGBarBar (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems like damage control to me. Anyways; Yes I reverted his good faith edit and restored the original information (and added a citation which I forgot to do in the first place). Daryaee is one of the most prominent Iranologists there is, him making "probable misspellings" is your own assumption, which is not valid in this case. Also, no, I never said my edit is correct because it sounds like "wall", you're literally putting words in my mouth at this point. Removing sourced information is indeed disruptive. As for the "insult" accusations, I'm not even gonna answer that, it's quite clear who insults who. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * your Daryaee is iranologist but not a linguist and that term does not exits in middle persian. and misspelled word is not my assumption, i have already provided a reliable pahlavi dictionary which is written by David Neil MacKenzie, a scholar of iranian languages. you can't find such thing like "war = wall" in his book. only "dewar". so my edits are not only correct but also backed up by a linguistic source written by an expert. also wiktionary does not mention your word too. that's your burden to prove "war = wall" in middle persian. as if daryayee and his book are god-like stuff here. you just repeat yourself without find more sources for your claim. just one source which is history book and it's against a work by a linguist. so what would you? trying to convincing admins to ban me? yeah, you already did it. the way you treat new user and people who disagree with you is just awful. reverting their edits and ignoring them? huh? this is a dispute and my points/edits are legit.GGBarBar (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean the word is misspelt. Also your source simply states what 'wall' means in Middle Persian, not 'wall of the Arabs', which means it has nothing to do with the context of the information. Also, it's no secret that Daryaee is much more prominent in the academic world compared to MacKenzie. Furthermore, for the second time, wiktionary/wikipedia is not a reliable source. Just gonna ignore the rest of your statement, throwing rude accusations isn't gonna make your case stronger. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * basically your whole rationale is: i'm right and i love daryayee so "Daryaee is much more prominent in the academic world compared to MacKenzie". illogical and ridiculous response. how did you reach to such conclusion? daryaee or whatever is a historian and mackenzie is a linguist. so obviously mackenzie knows more than daryaee in this field. and you don't get my point why i mentione wiktionary. nobody says wiktionary is a source. my whole point is "dēwār" is the only word you can find for "wall" in middle persian. do you have any other source that support Daryaee's work/claim? where did that "wār" come from? parthian? another source that says that name is correct. you can't drop words just because you see them in a book and you think author of that book is 1000% right. if you can't solve these issues, then ask another editor to come here and solve it. and don't act like a snowflake. how did i insult you? this is not a forum but users like you deserve your own medicine. even your username proves you think you are always right and iranian articles belong to you. you don't own anything here my friend. as i said, i'm iranian and i have come here to contribute to iranian topics. you can go see my edits. do you see any disruptive stuff there? trying to ban/block my account just removes an iranian from editing this project (wikipedia's loss) and as we know the number of iranian users are low. but if you think i was aggressive and harsh, i change my tone.GGBarBar (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gonna let an admin take it from here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like you both violated the 3 revert rule, which may result in blocking both of you, and that you are also both acting aggressively toward one another. Also, GGBarBar, can you please capitalize after a full stop, the absence of which makes your comments difficult to read. Now, it seems to me that there are issues of original research to your argument. You can't take it upon yourself to conclude misspelling — you need to present reliable sources that establish this to be so (lack of mention of the word in a dictionary in and of itself may not count as conclusive proof that it is misspelled elsewhere). Anyway, I'm sure this mystery can be made clear, eventually, but until then, it's best to subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle, rather than continue to aimlessly edit war between the two versions back and fourth. I suggest you both review your dispute resolution resources and go from there. Perhaps launch an RfC. If you end up lacking enough expertise, maybe see if anyone on the Persian Wikipedia can help. For now, please try to interact with one another in a civil manner, because there is simply no reason to treat one another otherwise. El_C 17:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wut, he just got away with removing sourced information, calling me blind, snowflake and whatnot. I was acting properly the majority of the time, how I am being categorized in the same place as him is beyond me. This is disappointing. Whatever, I'll take it somewhere else then. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Darayee and the and Encyclopaedia Iranica state war i tazigan


 * Qādesiya was likely a garrison town in the network of Sasanian fortifications known as the “Wall of the Arabs” (MPers. war ī tāzīgān; see Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, p. 43). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep; This is what a commentary on the translation of the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, a Middle Persian text on geography, says; - might as well put the whole quote here since I know some ain't gonna click on the link ;

"'-War I tazjgan: 'Wall / Fortress of the Arabs' Markwart translates it as the 'lake of the Arabs' (Markwart 1932; 14) which he thought stood for the Persian Gulf. From the early Islamic period the name of this gulf was known as (Arabic) Bafrr Faris or Xalfj Faris and by the later Europeans of the sixteenth century as Sino Persico or Sinus Persicus (Bosworth 1997; 84-89). Thus it is surprising that such a well known name for this boundary of water would be the 'Arab Gulf' (During the end of the Qajar Period and the time of Reza Shah the British for the first time called this body of water the Arabian Gulf, and it became a term used from the 1960's as part of Arab nationalist activities). Nyberg had seen this discrepancy and stated that war stood for wall, 'enclosure,' or 'fortress' (Nyberg 1959; 316-326). One can suggest that war was part of the Sasanian wall defense system (Frye 1979; ill 11 : Azamoush l374; 3-15), here standing for the Khandaq I Sabuhr (Morony 1982; 28). This meaning for war can also be found in Vedic vala; Avestan var-; Khotanese vara-, WaxI wii'g (Bailey 1954; 26-28). In the Sasa�ian period (Avestan) Pi1itika /(Middle Persian) Pi1dig which is mentioned in the Wldewdad (V.19) was equated with the Persian Gulf (Bahar 1375; 142-143 : BehzadT1368; 244).'" --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * An entire paragraph in boldface is a bit much. I switched it to blockquote. El_C 19:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a RFC really still neccessary at this point? I mean it's three academic sources vs a dictionary (which is unrelated to the context of the information). This is my laziness and logic speaking. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. I'll give the other party a chance to reply, but if that reply is not substantive enough (in demonstrating that the argument isn't based on original research) or if it isn't forthcoming, I am inclined to switch to status quo ante for the duration of the protection. El_C 20:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Another source that uses War ī tāzīgān. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been 4 days with no response from GGBarBar, in which time they edited two other articles. I believe the article should be restored status quo ante. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

i searched iranica and they use this daryaee's work in several of their articles. i did not find counter argument for this name in english & persian sources. it could be misspelled, a variety/alternative, changed by grammar, or parthian form of "dewar". so i drop my own argument for now unless i find alternative names from other references.GGBarBar (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/qadesiya-battle is written by D. Gershon Lewental, not Daryaee. There isn't a single reference of Daryaee in the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * “Wall of the Arabs” (MPers. war ī tāzīgān; see Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, p. 43). my point is iranica uses it and it is a academic source. so i drop my debate for now (as i said above). daryaee or whatever does not matter here. the used term matters. but how "dewar" becoming "war" is unsolved and it is not related to this article. i may ask wiktionary editors about it. i have nothing more to say here. restore your edits.GGBarBar (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing is unsolved, the term is "war" per the various sources, it's quite simple actually. But yes restored the edit will be. Now I can perhaps expand the article in peace. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * it's not simple. just stop acting as if you know everything. you are not a linguist. i said i didn't find any counter arguments in persian and english references so i drop my concern for now unless i find something about it. this is the only simple and solved part of this discussion.GGBarBar (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are having such a hard time grasping something so simple then perhaps Wikipedia is not something for you. I'll stop acting like I know everything when you stop having a immature and toxic attitude. I'm done here, good day- --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sassanid King with Crown.png