User talk:Ali Soltani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ali Soltani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Un focused 07:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1 Iranian Weapon Systems
2 A question regarding the Persian Gulf name dispute
3 Two Articles in need of your attention
4 (If you have time) Please vote in the survey on this proposed move
5 (If you have time) please vote in another survey on another proposed move

[edit] Iranian Weapon Systems

I don't know why User:L0b0t keeps deleting the good content you contribute rather than just editing it to make it better, but I'll try to help as much as I can. I appreciate what you've done to gather and post information about these weapon systems, as long as it's not in violation of copyright. Un focused 07:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question regarding the Persian Gulf name dispute

Thank you for your message. I agree we should aim at the best solution. What is the best solution? In my opinion it is not to present one side in the dispute as being more "acceptable" than the other side.

Currently the article presents information in a distorted way, is unduly selective in the information presented, and is very much about presenting one side as right and the other as wrong: it is a blatant attempt to bolster the Iranian side in the dispute. We have articles on the Sea of Japan naming dispute and the British Isles naming dispute. Does Wikipedia take a position in these disputes concerning which side is more acceptable and which is less acceptable? No, all we do is report on what others have written about it.

Of course a few 17th century maps will not "justify" calling any geographical feature by any name. To think so would be silly. But we as Wikipedians do not need to have arguments ourselves why it should be called this or that. All we need to do is report on the arguments used by others. If these are silly arguments, that is not our problem.

It is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to judge what is "more likely". Let historians and other experts write about it, and we can report on what they find.

You may be right in suspecting that there is no justifiable "other point of view". I myself wrote this about it, in response to a request to have "the Arab POV" presented in the article:

There is no such thing as "the" Arab point of view. There is a whole generation of Arabs who don't know any better: it is the name they were taught in school, and which they read in their newspapers and hear on television. They may be completely unaware of the existence of a dispute. And there are Arab nationalists who want to see the name "Persian Gulf" wiped from the map(s), also internationally. In summary, their argument is this: We hate the name "Persian Gulf". We love the name "Arabian Gulf". Therefore this body of water must be named "Arabian Gulf". Is this not obvious from the present article? Must this be spelled out more explicitly, and what would be gained by that? If there is a more "neutral" representation of this nationalist point of view (I've never encountered one), let those who adhere to it add it to the article.

However, unlike you, I do not see this as a problem. All we need to do is report on what others have written about it. If no-one has written about it, we don't report on what they haven't written.

Also unlike you, I think there is no "truth" in the matter. On almost all old maps the Islamic Republic of Iran is called Persia. Does this make Persia the "true name"? Honestly, I don't even know what that question might be supposed to mean, let alone that I could answer yes or no. But what you and I and other editors think about this, is – or should be – irrelevant. Wikipedia should not be used as an instrument in a dispute between people who each have their own irreconcilable "truths". If everyone simply adheres to the Wikipedia policies there need be no conflict. Unfortunately, a majority of the editors watching the page appear not to understand the Wikipedia principles and think that the article should present the case for the true name. As long as they foster this misunderstanding, the conflict cannot be resolved. --Lambiam ^Talk 10:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Articles in need of your attention

There are two entries at Wikipedia, which have falsely created -- they are Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Both entries are factitious. I have requested the entries to be deleted. My reasons are:

The term Turko-Persian Tradition (or Turco-Persian) does not exists academically and it is a factitious entry! Check the Encyclopaedia Iranica to confirm -- The correct name for that culture is the Persianate culture not the "Turko-Persian". Turkophones (mostly of mixed race and Persianized in culture) only spoke in Turkic dialects and were in the military. That is not enough participation in creating and forming the culture to deserve the name "Turko-Persian Tradition" – This is misinformation. All the elements in that area, which have to do with tradition and culture, were drawn from the Iranian culture (Persian, Kurdish, Azari, Baluchi, Tajik, Luri, Gilaki, Talishi, Mazandarani, etc.), and the Islamic faith, not much Turkic elements (like shamanism, yurts etc.) were incorporated in. That is what makes the name "Turko-Persian" an imaginary one and therefore the entry should be deleted.

Any contributions would greatly appreciated. Bā Sepās Surena 02:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)