Talk:Tahirid dynasty

Language in lede
Articles get edited for language and tone all the time, it's called WP:COPYEDIT. That is what I did. You stating that it's in the source while reverting me doesn't make it better, it makes it one POV. Articles are supposed to be WP:NPOV and maintain WP:DUEWEIGHT, it is possible to maintain all point of views while editing for language. I also pointed out in the edit summary how contradictory the statement "In fact, under the Tahirid dynasty, the tax revenue of Khorasan that was sent directly to the caliphal treasury was perhaps much larger than the previously collected extractions" was, and so I edited it for consistency.

Literally no point was changed other than edited for language to minimize any possible POV wording and some redundancy. Your reverts of copyedits are disruptive, especially now that there's more user edits done and I have to fix it manually because the Undo button won't work. You even restored "country = Iran" to the infobox. Can you read it on the article? No, because it isn't a valid template! Phrasing like "collected extractions" is redundant. DA1 (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize for having to revert back to a prior point, could you please re-add your edit again and also verify my edit to see whether it was NPOV and not improper? DA1 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, no worries, i fixed the references again. As to your edit, it sounds good to me and fits with WP:NPOV. , i understand that you want to stick to sources in order to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, but please note that the fact that a content has reliable sources does not mean that it must be included without any changes in the article, since WP:NPOV is the relevant point. : . Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to not actually understand WP:COPYEDIT and WP:NPOV. The view that the Tahirids independence was misleading is stated by Kennedy. It should stay their per WP:NPOV. Not to be deliberately removed under groundless reasons. Clearly: "Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources" Wikipedia editing policy. You didn't do that, you toned down the assertion of the source instead of correcting the grammar and sentence to make it consistent and improve readability. Or better if it is an issue "by claiming" NPOV and copyedits, then we should directly quote Kennedy to avoid personal bias. Nabataeus (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikaviani, could you please sign your post? I find it highly unlikely that Hugh Kennedy is unneutral, but even if, and I mean if, the source was biased and not neutral, the content shouldn't be removed:


 * "NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. We don't document only neutral facts or opinions, we write about all facts and opinions neutrally."


 * "'NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground. Points of view and criticisms are by nature not'' neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented..."


 * "'NPOV is an attitude and mindset, not a true "point of view", and refers primarily to editorial neutrality, and only peripherally to content neutrality. In fact, it doesn't mean that content is neutral, but that editors'' remain neutral in their presentation of biased content."


 * "Content is not neutral, so preserve its bias". We could avoid editor bias by quoting Kennedy directly if it is an issue. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I reiterate, that author POV has not been removed, what's been edited is merely the language and tone. Every POV is still represented in the lede. NPOV doesn't mean all views are correct (some opinions are more significant or correct than others), I agree with that, which is why I referenced WP:DUEWEIGHT as well. You are nitpicking over semantics right now and I'm not sure why. You reverted and reinstated a line that was contradictory ("in fact".."was perhaps") and an invalid template parameter as well. The fact their "independence" vs "autonomy" is a matter of opinion was there before and still is now. This was nothing worth reverting. DA1 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The WP:NPOV policy is effectively extremely important, nobody denies that, however it should be balaced with WP:UNDUE, i quote from the link i posted above : "The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.". Leaving the word "misleading" in or out or writing "considerable autonomy" or just "autonomy" is not a matter of dispute, since the two are equivalent, however, if you guys cannot find a compromise, then i would strongly suggest you to go for a RfC instead of edit warring. Personally, i don't really see what is wrong with DA1's edit. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur with your edit in "fact" and "perhaps". However, not on the other things. Since I find it to be intended to down play and tone down the assertion of the source, which goes against the core of WP:NPOV (and to maintain it we should quote Kennedy to present it neutrally without editor bias in the wordings). Nabataeus (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But it wasn't a direct quote but a line presented through the article's language itself. That puts weight on that opinion over the other opinion to call the other "misleading". If that is Kennedy's view than the line also shouldn't says "other sources". Neither opinion is misleading from Wikipedia's NPOV, so why include it for one but not the other? And, what's wrong with simply saying "but enjoying autonomy rather than independence." in place of "and enjoyed considerable autonomy rather than being independent from the central authority." It expresses the same meaning but is not needlessly elongated IMO. This is primarily why I feel like we are arguing over semantics. DA1 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "However, others describe" already expresses that it is a differing viewpoint, I think the use of "misleading" to refer to the former viewpoint to be problematic and putting undue weight on one opinion, when we can simply express both without labeling either as 'misleading'. DA1 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes it wasn't direct quote, and "sources" (plural) was added by Wikaviani to reflect the two sources. The word misleading is the opinion of Kennedy, and we should neutrally present his view instead of toning it down since "all types of biased points of view must be documented..." that's to say if Kennedy is biased, which is not the case, his point on the Tahirids independence being misleading should be included. Do you think we should quote Kennedy directly to avoid bias in wording? Nabataeus (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I've always read the article's statement in question that either: neither opinion is misleading, or both respective opinions are misleading from the opposing side. I never felt that interpreting this was an issue, so hard using the word "misleading" to describe either viewpoint to me seems problematic. Since we can't retrospectively get the former to call the latter also "misleading" in turn to satisfy your interpretation of quoting. The fact that the latter considers the former 'misleading' is already implied. The author's view is not being misrepresented but presented as another equally valid viewpoint. DA1 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "so why include it for one but not the other?"


 * Because that's called WP:OR, unless you have a source that state otherwise. Nabataeus (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are seriously misrepresenting policies, my statement there was rhetorical. None of my edits were OR because they already represent the differing viewpoints. But yours may have DUEWEIGHT issues. Also you quoted an WP:ESSAY in your last post above not Wikipedia guideline. It is literally the opinion of one editor (BullRangifer), even though I agree with the gist of his statements. And it's not Kennedy being called "unneutral" (to answer your original post atop) but rather the Wikipedia article itself. An author can have any view they like, but the article must present it in a way that's both neutral and doesn't place undue weight. Note the qualities of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT:




 * Also note WP:IMPARTIALTONE:


 * There are clear indications of how NPOV/DUE works. DA1 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you thoughts about the above? Perhaps the RfC you suggested really is in order. Because I feel he's contradicting WP:IMPARTIAL, which states to summarize the point and not necessarily quote their wording per se. Not that I imagined this would ever be an issue, it's very menial. An author could choose to use language far more colorful than "misleading", even curse someone out, but that doesn't mean we include it in WP if its not essential. Kennedy disagreeing and thinking the former is mislead is already implied through basic English language use of "However, others describe.." DA1 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your above statements, there is a clear difference between WP:OR (which would imply that an editor misrepresents the sources) and WP:NPOV (which implies that editors should not give undue weight to one source over others). Obviously, leaving the word "misleading" out of Kennedy's statement is not WP:OR, rather, it fits quite well with WP:NPOV. Indeed the two versions (with or without the word "misleading") are tantamount saying that, according to Kennedy, the Tahirids were not independent rulers, but including the word "misleading" gives some undue weight to this view over the other sources who claim the opposite (i.e they were independent rulers). As an uninvolved editor and third party, i would suggest to drop the stick, however, it's his right to argue his opinion, therefore, if  does not agree with this, a RfC, rather than an edit war, should decide. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  17:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "None of my edits were OR because they already represent the differing viewpoints."


 * I am answering your question why we don't add the remarks to the other point of view, I didn't address your edit.


 * Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.


 * How "depth of detail", "prominence of placement" or"juxtaposition of statements" is related to our issue?


 * "''The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."


 * No one endorsed or rejected anything, but per WP:NPOV both sourced claims should be presented equally. We could directly quote Kennedy or try RfC. I also don't understand what you highlighted "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." is related to our issue. Nabataeus (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted your edit per what has been said above, however if you want to challenge this, please consider a RfC. If you need any help for that, ping me, i'll be happy to help you. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  14:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikaviani, if you believe there's neutrality problem then the followed standard is direct attribution: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." WP:NPOV. The author, well renowned scholar, believe such a view is misleading, I merely reflected that, and if such language is biased according to you, then direct attribution is the only option without any addition. Nothing against biased statements (from authoritative sources). Only against biased users who are selective in their inclusion of content. If you think there's a problem you may want to try the dispute resolution noticeboard or RfC, since this was the previous version for a while. Nabataeus (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy you're referring to explcitly states "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."" As you can see, the sentence has been balanced with the removal of the opinion saying that the guy is the best player, replaced by the less controversial claim saying that his skills have been praised by ... Hugh Kennedy is a reliable source about this topic, nobody denies that fact, however he only expresses his opinion here and we should not give some undue weight to the opinion of a single source. The wording proposed by is more neutral and fits better with Wiki policies. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually this intended to remove the opinion, as it can't be asserted as if it was a fact, and to make it factual this formula ought to be followed. As biased statement should be presented only in-text attribution. Moreover, no one said such a view is misleading (as fact), but Hugh Kennedy consider such a view to be misleading (and goes to give the status of the relationship). This is stated and referenced, previously it was ambiguously, but still according to some authors it is misleading. In this version, no one said it is misleading which qualifies as an WP:UNDUE, rather the opinion is attributed to Kennedy, direct quote to avoid editorial bias. Nabataeus (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This version is an imrovement compared to the one before edit war, if it's endorsed by the community, then it's fine for me, but if edit warring resumes about this, then i'll have no other choice but to open a RfC and report involved users. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  19:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Fine by me also. Nabataeus (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ref
Persian Empire?

Shouldn't it be rather called Iranian-Arabic empire? The founder was probably not persian, he was from Khorasan which is highly multi-ethnic and there is indeed no evidence that he was an ethnic persian, right? Besides, they were obviously highly arabized and even Arabic was to some extent a common language there. Shouldn't it be better to term the empire Iranian-Arabic rather than just Persian? It is just not reasonable to claim it persian, right? --95.116.81.199 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read the article - it literally calls the dynasty of Persian stock. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to lede
To.."The Tahirid dynasty was an Arabized Sunni Muslim dynasty of Persian dehqan origin, that ruled as governors of Khorasan from 821 to 873 as well as serving as military and security commanders in Abbasid Baghdad until 891." --2600:1700:6CC0:2800:640B:B03E:890E:6D0C (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Source for the Tahirids being culturally Arabized?
There is no source provided for this information; should a credible source be provided, or should this information be removed altogether? Praxeria (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "There is no source provided for this information..."
 * Really?
 * "The historian Clifford Edmund Bosworth explains that the Tahirids were highly Arabized in culture and outlook, and eager to be accepted in the Caliphal world where cultivation of things Arabic gave social and cultural prestige."[24] --Bosworth, C. E. (1969). "The Ṭāhirids and Persian Literature". Iran. 7: page 106.
 * Appears sourced to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)