Talk:Richard Nelson Frye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Richard Nelson Frye is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

I happened to notice this article and cleaned it up. I removed huge sections of quotes, some of which seemed not be quotes from Frye but arguments to the effect of "Persians good Arabs bad". It would probably be more useful to quote from reviews of Frye's work, if I can find any such. Zora 20:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not entitled to change an article to make it suit your needs. --Kash 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone is entitled to change any article. I've made a compromise version--feel free to edit it. Chick Bowen 23:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but every single quote in the article is from frye himself, from his book. One can't just discredit it all because of his\her own (politically motivated?) wishes --Kash 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But I left in the quotes in my compromise version--I just took out the parts that were not quotes. You can't call Nasser an Arab chauvinist--that violates WP:NPOV. You can quote anything you want. And are you accusing me of political motivation? I was asked to intervene by ManiF. I have no stake in this battle whatsoever--I don't even know what it's about. If you're not interested in a compromise, then I won't offer one, but the wars will continue. Chick Bowen 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Those aren't quotes

Someone apparently attended a lecture by Frye, took notes, and posted the notes. We have NO way of knowing if the notes are accurate. Therefore that section cannot be called quotes. It's an unknown person making unverifiable claims and should not be in an encyclopedia. Zora 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are from Richard Nelson Frye's speech at UCLA. --ManiF 06:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I also saw a link to the UCLA speech once with pictures and all. I think it can be verified.--Zereshk 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can it be verified that he indeed said what someone put on the webpage and in the article? I don't think so. For one thing, I'm fairly sure he's been paraphrased. Whatever I may think of his ideas (forty years out of date) he has a lovely prose style, which is not at all apparent in those supposed quotes.

Quoting is serious business. Journalists can get fired for misquoting. That's why they use tape recorders, if they're not going to run the text by the quotee before publication. None of that is evident here. The web page is not evidence.

If you're so set on this, find a newspaper article that covered the speech, an article by a reputable paper, and we can quote the article. An anonymous person's written notes don't make the cut as encyclopedia material. Zora 09:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Attributing the Frye quotes to the "Iran Heritage Organization" website is in fact fully acceptable within the norms of journalism. Let the reader decide whether "Iran Heritage Organization" is trustworthy or not.--Zereshk 10:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we are bound by the policies and guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It is not "for the reader to decide" which sources are trustworthy or not. Now, if no one is disputing whether the comments are real, then a website can be used ot sinmply link to the comments/quotes themselves. If they are disputed, then the site must certainly conform to reliable source criteria.--AladdinSE 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I'm confused by the section "Dr. Frye on the role of Iran and the Persian language in the formation of Islamic culture". It's calling some people chauvinists and saying someone perverts some spiritualism? Is this the article saying that, or did Rickard Frye say that? Right now it looks very POV even though it's probably just a small matter of clearing up that confusion (putting it in block quotes or something if it's a quote) or changing the wording to be more neutral. –Tifego(t)06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, or someone could delete the whole section, that works too. I don't know enough about the subject to tell if any of the deleted material was relevant, but at least what's leftover looks considerably less POV. –Tifego(t)07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, we could start an edit war about it. Maybe someone should justify their edits here? –Tifego(t)07:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to turn this article into an article about Frye, and various Iranian editors keep reverting to the anti-Arab version. Without even discussing it. This is part of a general dispute roiling many of the Iran-related articles, re the extent to which these articles should express a nationalist POV. Zora 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is about Frye, not about Iran

You guys are reverting just because it's ME making the changes, so far as I can tell. I'm not to be allowed to edit any Iran-related articles. Well, in this case you're defending a version full of bad journalism (supposed quotes that aren't quotes), irrelevant material (Frye's views on the architecture of Tehran are NOT what he is known for, and they are just as well expressed in the original, which is linked), and an anti-Arab rant that has nothing to do with Frye.

If you want Frye to be appreciated as a scholar, then focus on HIM. Don't use him as a stalking-horse for your own obsessions. That's doing him a disservice. Zora 07:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed [or at least attempted to] the parts that looked laughably POV to me. I don't know about the quotes, are they an inappropriate selection of quotes, or actually inaccurate? –Tifego(t)07:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


No, Zora, please stays calm, and assume good faith, and please review the Wikipedia's policy of Wikipedia:Civility. Dr. Frye is, in fact, a respected scholar specializing in Persian, or Iranian history, so the material are relevant to this article. The article gives quotes by a respected Western scholar, from Harvard U, and although it may seem offensive to some--I don’t know why?--but what matters is the factual nature of it as it relates to the article. Now, another user just erased some words like Arab chauvinists, just because the article does not specify if these are direct quotes by the scholar for whom the article is about, or these are the words of the author who wrote this article; so this seems fair, but, when some users, such as you yourself keep erasing entire sections that are quotes from the scholar’s own book, and are relevant to this article, that is not doing the correct thing. I understand from your other contributions, in other articles, that you try to soften any possible negative image given to Arabs or Muslims, however, that is not the precedent we try to set for writing an encyclopedia, and in fact, that is going down a very slippery slope.Zmmz 07:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a question for you: Why was so much of that section from here? An unrelated author's opinionated writing transplanted directly into this article? –Tifego(t)07:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


I don`t know, but the author himself was quoting R. N. Frye. Nevertheless, I [do] agree with what you erased Tifego, but not with what user Zora keeps erasing, which is really unnecessary. We shouldn`t be here, if we are trying to soften the image of Arabs, Persians, Americans......etc., etc. Being pro or against anything is the wrong mind set for writing an encyclopedia. Zmmz 07:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I`m sorry Tifego, why did you erase the section about Dr. Frye`s observation on the Persian influence on Islamic era?Zmmz 08:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Because those weren't his observations? Did you see my edit comment? The only quote in that section I erased was not a quote of Frye. I removed it because it was completely irrelevent to the article's subject, it is merely something which somebody else said that Frye quoted once, and I cannot find any references that indicate the observations above that quote belong to Frye, either. In fact, all I can find is that they were actually a direct quote of somebody named "Dr. Kaveh Farrokh", who as far as I can tell is not the same person as Richard Frye. –Tifego(t)16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, you seem to be insinuating that if I oppose your efforts, and those of the other Iranian editors, it must be that I have a mission to present Arabs and Islam in a favorable light. So far as I can tell, I am just doing my best to be fair, which sometimes leads to angry charges that I'm anti-Islamic or that I'm a Jew. Have you ever LOOKED at my contributions, Zmmz? The ones re costume history? Polynesia? Hawai'i? Bollywood movies? I fail to see a pro-Arab bias there!

As for the implication that YOU are neutral and I'm not ... um, well, I beg to differ. We both have POVs. What's at issue is letting all POVs have a voice, and presenting them as POVs, rather than official WP "truth". That's what NPOV means. That's the ideal of fairness I'm trying to attain.

I think I'm starting to understand what the Iranian editors see in Frye -- it's that he's someone with mucho status in the Western world who has to a great extent adopted Persian high culture as his own, and takes an Iranian secular nationalist position on many things. But I can't say that in the article without a cite, for which I'm searching. Zora 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, please stay calm, and assume good faith; comments like Iranian nationalist POV are uncalled for. Yes, after seeing some odd requests by you, like asking to keep the poet Rumi a muslim, and not insert his nationality in his own article, you stated He migrated from one Islamic principality to another, I did search your contributions, and with all due respect, articles like Bollywood, I believe, seem to be some new contributions, which oddly coincides with a pending ArbCom case you were involved in; yet, if one scans your edits, it will clearly show, 90 percent of your edits are in articles relating to Arabs and/or Islam, which is fine, but you are trying to take quotes and references out, such that in your own words, they make Muslims look bad, they are anti-Arab etc. I have said the same thing to editors that are involved in articles about Persia. The scholarly, and factual integrity of this encyclopedia--Wikipedia--needs protection. I am curious as to what edit I may have made that pushes a POV? Please provide me with an edit of mine that is not factual, or universally accepted by scholars? Zmmz 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


You've been here two months, Zmmz, and I've been here two years. My involvement with Bollywood long pre-dates any involvement with Islam-related articles. The insinuation that I'm editing the Bollywood articles to draw attention away from my dire Muslim plots is ... absurd. Zora 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Um, Zmmz, asserting that Rumi is a "Persian", when he could as easily be called a "citizen" of two other countries, is evidence of a strong POV. You engaged in similar "famous-person-tagging" on the Al-Khwarizmi article. I do not regard my caveats as odd at all. Do read Benedict Anderson on Imagined Communities. Check the Nationalism article for further reading. You are also scolding me for lacking "calm" and not assuming good faith. I'm irked, it's true, but I'm scarcely frothing at the mouth. Nor do I see any reason to assume "good faith" given I have been subjected to a torrent of abuse by various editors as anti-Iranian, racist, etc., and that this solidarity against what you have called "attacks" on Iran-related pages was orchestrated at the Iranian notice board and that you explicitly claimed [1], and [2]. to be the head of the group.
As for the universally accepted by scholars -- that's not what we mean by NPOV. We're here to document various POVs, not to erase all mention of them. Zora 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, please review the WP:POINT, and WP:NPOV policies. That is not what academia is all about; maybe the media gives all sides of a story, but not an encyclopedia. You, for example, trying to argue the fact that the ethnicity of the poet Rumi is not Persian per se, and even trying to erase it, is an illustration of my concerns. It is not an encyclopedia’s job to cite all sides of an argument, unless it is absolutely necessary in some cases, in which not enough information is available to us. In the contrary, we are to use mostly factual, and relevant information--our scholars work hard to provide us that information, so by injecting what we think is appropriate, or what is not, we devalue such precious work. And, by doing so, that is going down a slippery slope.Zmmz 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, you have completely misunderstood NPOV. It is precisely about stating all sides of the argument. It is the element that distinguishes WP from other encyclopedias.
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." That is from the NPOV policy statement.
As for "accidentally" interspersing my comments with yours -- that wasn't an accident, that is standard practice here on WP. If one is discussing a particular point, it is helpful to insert the comment right after that point. Zora 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not what it means, Wikipedia is ultimately another encyclopedia. Please re-read the WP:NPOV policy. A media article, such as an essay in a newspaper, can be a more appropriate place to list all sides of an argument. If as historians, we were to write every single hypothesis in an article, we`d be detouring around facts, and flooding articles with rhetoric. Facts cannot be used as tools, but unmeritted hypothesis can be used to push an agenda. Also, I thought you accidentally bumped my comments down, because you wrote comments in the middle of mine, and my comments looked like ramblings, because they were scattered in different places. But, I guess I can assume too much good faith sometimes.Zmmz 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's absurd to lecture Zora on good faith , neutrality and civility. I've disagreed with Zora on many articles and it was always about the encyclopedic merits of the edits, and always in a civil manner. Zora has often championed changes which have been derided by some editors as anti-Arab and anti-Islamic, but this is not true. The discussion must not devolve into allegations of bias, because if anything, Zora has striven to keep Islamic articles, for example, form being "pro-Arab", or indeed pro-anything in particular.--AladdinSE 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not what the user`s contributions show[3]. But, I have the highest regards for the academic integrity of this encyclopedia, and I will remind any user, including you, to kindly stay away from implying another user`s observations are, "absurd", and to please stay civil. Thank youZmmz 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not imply that your observations on Zora are absurd, I stated that they are, quite categorically. You really ought to lodge a complaint, if you actually believe that this is disallowed, or that the contributions you linked to are some sort of proof for your allegations. Oh and by the way, you can link to policy pages as many times as you want, and repeatedly extoll other editors to re-read them, it will not make you appear one jot more knowledgeable, or more compliant with them then "the rest of us".--AladdinSE 16:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My view

I think it's OK to move the Tehran architecture section to the Tehran article itself. I think it would be more befitting there. Then I can add stuff to it there (about the Arch of Tehran). Just my opinion though.

Aside from that, I actually think some of those quotes are highly intuitive and illustrative of an unusually deep understanding of Iran. My favorite quote is the one where he says: "The gate of inquiry should always remain open, this is Shia'ism." That is priceless. I think I read an exact same statement made by Tabatabaei somewhere once, from the old days before the good faith became infested with politics. A large portion of the current form of Shia ideology in Iran originates from, according to Soroush's recent lecture, a group of people stacked around Mesbah Yazdi. We should keep these Frye quotes--Zereshk 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except that they aren't quotes. They aren't quotes just because you like them. Zora 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Khaldun quote

In fact, another user just erased the same translation on the Richard Nelson Frye article, stating in the edit box, the quotes are anti-Arab. Our job as historians is to report the facts in the encyclopedia, regardless of if we agree with it or not. Moreover, I do whole-heartedly believe that scholars know the difference between the word Persian and other in Arabic, such that in Arabic Persian is Al-Farisi. We have to give scholarly work a higher plateau, higher than our own personal opinions. ThanksZmmz 07:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring (or ignorant of) 4 important things here:
  1. That deleted section of the article said things like "Arab chauvinist" which I don't see how you could possibly interpret as not being anti-Arab, and it was not in a quote.
  2. That user gave additional reasons in the edit comments which you did not refute.
  3. That section did not contain a quote of Rickard Nelson Frye.
  4. That section also appears to be plagiarized from Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's work.
I think those form a valid argument for not having that section in the article until it can be greatly cleaned up. It has nothing to do with the quotes being anti-anything. –Tifego(t)16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tifego let me remind you that you need to stay civil and abide by Wikipedia:Civility. I suggest you concentrate on the article`s contents, rather than the person involved. Secondly I have been giving you the benifit of the doubt, and in fact, I agreed with you erasing the wordings like "Arab chauvinist", that appears in Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's essay. Also, you erased these words in the Richard Nelson Frye article not here, so you may be confusing the two articles. But, again, you can place dispute tags and join the discussions, but you cannot erase an entire section that comes with citations ans is relevant. The section I am concerned wih is Ibn Khaldun`s observation on Persian scientists during the Islamic era. It does not matter whose quote it is, in fact, it is a quote from Ibn Khaldun himself. Zmmz 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, please stop reminding me of WP:CIVIL at inappropriate times. I did not even refer to you at all in my 4 points above. Perhaps you misunderstood my use of the word "ignorant"? It is not an insult. It was in fact showing good faith that perhaps you really did not notice these things, by saying that you were probably not purposely ignoring them. In any case, I was not confusing the two articles, I was merely responding to the same topic you brought up on that talk page, which I have moved here because it was off-topic there. Now, my 4 points above have not yet been responded to. –Tifego(t)23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I reminded you to assume good faith, because you stated, “You are ignoring (or ignorant of)...”. Your questions were replied to above, please re-read it. Again, at this point my concern is with the section about Ibn Khaldun`s observation on Persian scientists during the Islamic era. Why did you go ahead and erase that [entire] section? That being, even when we are in the middle of a discussion, and you yourself said it should stay, since no other sources were provide to discredit the source, which is a book by a highly respected scholar.Zmmz 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply:
  1. Why did I erase it? Because it has nothing to do with Richard Nelson Frye, that's why. Unless I am very confused. Please explain to me what Ibn Khaldun's observations have to do with Richard Frye. I did not remove that section from Ibn Khaldun's page.
  2. "You are ignoring (or ignorant of)" is a statement of fact. It is synonymous with "You appear not to know that". As I already said, it is not an insult to say that somebody appears not to know something. Don't suggest that I am not being civil or having good faith simply because I stated what appeared to be a fact.
  3. Your questions were replied to above, please re-read it. Sorry, I can't find it. Could you point it out again? –Tifego(t)00:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


I dont think this discussion is really that necessary. We can leave out the Ibn Khaldun stuff, at least in my opinion. C'mon people, a compromise isnt that hard.

I think so too, but we're trying to reach an agreement through discussion because Zmmz currently disagrees. –Tifego(t)00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

btw, Tifego, just thought I'd let you know that I hated C++ (with full rage). It would take me agonizing hours to debug and compile something. I must of lost 1 or 2 eyeglass numbers of my eyesight debugging codes. How in the world do you guys become experts in such a laborious field? (yeek...)

:)--Zereshk 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not so laborious when you think it's fun. Maybe I'm crazy to think it's fun. This is all off-topic here, of course, so... –Tifego(t)00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)



The section in question is a translation by an Arab historian, that was used in Dr. Frye`s book, called `The Golden Age of Persia`. He agreed with that observation and published it, so it is very relevant to his work, that is specilizing in Ancient Persian history.Zmmz 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, this section of the article was horribly, terribly confusing and poorly written, and needs to be rewritten and/or explained. For instance, there is no statement or justification for that statement in the article that he agreed with it. It's entirely possible to quote somebody else without agreeing with that person. And there is no introduction/explanation as to why it might be relevant. Until these are justified in the article, it may be better to leave it out of the article. After all, it is the responsibility of the person wanting to add/keep information to provide adequate references, not the responsibility of those who want it removed. –Tifego(t)00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the section is exceedingly clear, and ample references are provided write after each statement, see here please[4]. I don`t think this discussion is necessary. Thank youZmmz 01:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is only 1 reference in the entire section. There is only 1 sentence of explanation, which is a quote from elsewhere that expresses more bias than an encyclopedia entry ought to. There is no explanation at all before the large Ibn Khaldun quote in question. Sorry, but it needs more context at the very least. –Tifego(t)01:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait, actually, there is something else I missed. The quote is now false. Richard Frye did not say "A direct quote from Ibn Khaldun's work". It certainly can't stay like that. –Tifego(t)01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


It concerns me that after all your comments, it is only now that you found out this is from a book by Dr. Frye, eventhough, the section states that, right from the beginning. Also, whether or not the quote is biased...(it is actually factual), it doesn’t matter, what matters is that the quotation describes Dr. Frye’s views. And, if you feel the quotation includes inaccurate wordings, then it is on you, to provide references saying the words are not precise.Zmmz 01:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


It is only now that I found out? Why do you say that? I did not say that, and it is not true. In any case, stop bringing this back to what I know. I don't know a thing and it isn't important. What is important is that someone (who happens to be you) altered an existing quote without (unless I failed to notice your explanation) saying why. See this edit of yours for proof. I am guessing it was simply a mistake you made, but those two sections of text should not be joined like that, unless Richard Frye did in fact say that. And I am absolutely certain he did not say that because I am the one who typed part of the text in that section which is now supposedly part of his quote. See this edit of mine for proof. Also see this search, which gives no results. I admit that is not a guarantee, but it does mean it is probably not online anywhere, which seems unlikely given that the rest of the quote is online all over the place. –Tifego(t)01:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I realized it might be easier to fix than I thought, so I gave it a try just now. But, there is still not much of an explanation about why it's important, because I don't know why it's important. Maybe you could add that to make the article better? –Tifego(t)02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I probably did make a mistake rearranging the quote, but the actual page from the book containing the quote was scanned, and as you [know] it has been submitted in the discussion page of Ibn Khaldun article. The section is relevant because it illustrates the views of Dr. Frye himself.Zmmz 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The section illustrates the views of Dr. Frye himself? Says who? The article should say that, and provide evidence for the truth of that statement, if it is the only reason for the quote being there. –Tifego(t)02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Frye states in the book, "Arabs no longer understand the role of Iran and the Persian language in the formation of Islamic culture. Perhaps they wish to forget the past, but in so doing they remove the bases of their own spiritual, moral and cultural being…without the heritage of the past and a healthy respect for it…there is little chance for stability and proper growth." (R. N. Frye, The Golden Age of Persia, London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1989, page 236), and right after it, he quotes Ibn Khaldun to back up his observations.Zmmz 02:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That quote from Ibn Khaldun is on page 150 in The Golden Age of Persia, which is neither on nor immediately after page 236. –Tifego(t)02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There are different editions of the book.Zmmz 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote was at the very start of a chapter. The different edition must have moved things around a lot. Having been offered no proof, I am doubtful of your assertions here. You aren't actually adding those assertions into the article, so I won't remove them (or the quote) from the article, but you are using them as justification for somebody else's quote appearing on his article page. It seems strange, that's all, so I urge you to add a better explanation there at some point in the future. –Tifego(t)04:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I already explained to you the relevance a couple of times, like here[5].Zmmz 04:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not just asking you to explain it, I'm asking you to prove it, to verify the basis of your explanation. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Since I already said the explanation should go (very briefly) into the article, the implication was that it also needs to be verifiably true. –Tifego(t)04:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The original edition of the book was scaned by Google; when I have time, I will look at it, and submited any corrections needed, if any.Zmmz 05:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I think I've figured out why that quote from Ibn Khaldun doesn't belong. Zmmz is insisting that Frye uses the Ibn Khaldun quote to buttress his argument, therefore it is relevant. But this is an article about Frye and his ideas and is not intended to be an argument for Frye's ideas. It is enough to say what his ideas are. I have the impression that Zmmz and Mani believe that Frye's ideas are TRUE, and that this article is therefore the right place to argue for their truth -- which means adding the quote as proof. Well, NPOV allows us to impartially describe what Frye's ideas are, without taking a position on their truth or falsity. The minute we move from the man to the idea, to the assertion that much that is "credited" to Arab or Islamic civilization in fact "belongs" to Persia, then we have an assertion of a controversial POV, and by WP rules the opposing viewpoint(s) should be allowed as well. But is the article on Frye the right place for this controversy? I don't think so. It belongs in another article. I think the controversy here would just go away if we limited ourselves to talking about Frye, and refrained from asserting his ideas as true. Zora 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you numerous of times to assume good faith. These are Dr. Frye`s views, he is a foremost scholar in ancient Persian history, and the quotation is from his book. No, you can`t keep running through cycles in order to erase entire sections, because you feel they are “anti-Arabian”, and you try to soften the image of Arabs, in an encyclopedia of all places. Even Hitler has his views, and they are in his article. No, you can`t erase the ethnicity of Rumi, so we can just call him a “Muslim”. And, no, you can`t inject your opinion into an article: in the discussion--certainly--as long as you are civil--but not in an article.Zmmz 05:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zmmz, I suggest you concentrate on the article's contents, rather than the person (in this case Zora) involved. Comparing the above two comments, Zora is talking mostly about the article, and you are talking mostly about Zora. And Zora, I suggest you don't give him so many things to deny. I don't know what to think, myself. I don't see why the extra quote is necessary, but it is not inherently POV to quote an author's justification for one of his viewpoints. At the same time, I am not even convinced that it really is the author's justification. –Tifego(t)05:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is justified and in fact encouraged to respond to, or remind others of the assumption of good faith policy, when a user claims allegations about another user. In the contrary, the words I quoted, are quotes from the other user [Zora] herself. But, it`s good to know you remember my original suggestion to you, to stick to articles, unless necessary. Zmmz 05:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it is encouraged? Because that reminder is an allegation in and of itself. It does not feel good to be accused of assuming bad faith, and, paradoxically, it is difficult to refute the accusal without "proving" the accuser correct. It should not be given so freely, IMO. And yes, I'm not talking about the article at the moment either. That's enough of that. –Tifego(t)06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not feel good to be accused as well. Please stay cool, and try your best to refrain from any personal accusations, allegations etc., and concentrate on the article. Bottom-line, there is no justification for erasing an entire section that comes with citations, and one that relates to the Richard Nelson Frye`s work. Editors cannot disrupt an article to project a certain point of view.Zmmz 06:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic conflict that will hopefully be resolved soon

Sorry to expand this here, but I will respond very thoroughly just this one time.

  1. Please stay cool, and try your best to refrain from any personal accusations, allegations etc., and concentrate on the article.
    Unless I am misunderstanding this sentence (which is possible), you are telling me to refrain from personal attacks in response to something that is clearly neither a personal attack nor an expression of anger, which quite frankly is ridiculous.
  2. there is no justification for erasing an entire section that comes with citations
    WrongWrong. And you are talking about something I only did 1 time quite a while ago. And it wasn't the whole section. And my edit comment included my reason for removing it. Why are you bringing this up again now? I thought we were past that stage.
  3. and one that relates to the Richard Nelson Frye`s work
    This was not 'proven' at the time, and is still in debate.
  4. Editors cannot disrupt an article to project a certain point of view.
    You are absolutely right, assuming "cannot" is changed to "should not". Did you mention this for any particular reason?

From earlier:

  1. I have the impression that Zmmz and Mani believe that Frye's ideas are TRUE, and that this article is therefore the right place to argue for their truth
    This is the worst thing Zora said about you recently. It is saying you might have an opinion (which everyone has) and misguidedly be deciding to voice it in the article (which is a mistake people often make). It does not appear to have been intended to provoke you, and it was both preceded and followed by talk about the article or article policy. Maybe even that entire comment was misguided, but while I and certainly disagree with several points in it, and while it could have been said a lot more tactfully, it doesn't seem to have had any malicious intent.
  2. and you try to soften the image of Arabs, in an encyclopedia of all places ... No, you can`t erase the ethnicity of Rumi, so we can just call him a “Muslim”.
    These sound like personal accusations to me, or at least an indication of lack of good faith in Zora, which would be hypocritical considering you said it mere sentences after telling Zora to assume good faith.
  3. And, no, you can`t inject your opinion into an article
    Yes, that is what WP:NPOV is all about. –Tifego(t)07:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That was not an accusation against user Zora, after erasing the section, she wrote in the edit box, Removing anti-Arab ranting and irrelevant section on Tehran architecture. The similar argument was used when she tried to erase the ethnicity of Rumi. These are not good reasons to edit in an encyclopedia. The last comments by me were made in general terms. In the future though, the best way to do this is on talk pages, the discussion page is not the place for this lengthy, personal inquiry. OK? No problem though, good effort. Take-care Zmmz 07:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure whose talk page to move it to. And btw that edit comment you mentioned would be a perfectly valid reason to remove something if it were true, and surely she believed what she said in her own edit comment. –Tifego(t)08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular article is about Dr. Richard Nelson Frye who specializes in Persian culture and history, so any comments by him, or his views are counted as his work, and it does not matter if any user, including myself, agree with his views or not, what matters is, they are his work and passion. It relates to the article well. And, I`m not sure if you are new here, but Wiki is really at its core, an encyclopedia, so we really can`t erase factual, relevant stuff, even if we feel offended by it.Zmmz 08:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, let me remind you that a good deal of the stuff she was erasing was written by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh without reference to that fact, and that it was highly opinionated. And please try not to say things like that which are considered patronizing. Imagine if I [had] said it to you. "I'm not sure if you are new here Zmmz, but Wiki is really, at its core, an encyclopedia, so we really can't include opinionated, irrelevant stuff, even if we want to." I can't help but think you are trying to provoke me and prolong this discussion, when you repeatedly refer to general Wikipedia principles in situations that do not call for that. I am asking that you please stop doing that, specifically. –Tifego(t)08:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that [this entire argument] was pointless. -- Tifego11:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith.Zmmz 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Right-O. This discussion is over. –Tifego(t)21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ibn Khaldun quote (again)

I actually drove to a branch library eighteen miles away to get a copy of the Frye book, The Golden Age of Persia, to check out how he uses the quote.

It opens a chapter on Iranian contributions to Islamic culture. Frye says:

"The remarks of Ibn Khaldun are not in dispute, but the extent of Iranian influences on Islam, the Arabs and the Arabic language needs to be examined and classified." (p. 150)

So, he's not all that interested in the quote. He's interested in specifics.

I don't think that the quote belongs in the article. Zmmz and his cohorts have introduced this quote into a number of WP articles, as part of a campaign to reclassify some luminaries of Islamic culture as Persians. It is not relevant to Frye.

I'm enjoying Frye's book -- I might as well read it now that I have it. He does write well, and he's actually more nuanced in his arguments than some of the editors claiming him as their own. However, he is unrepentantly old-fashioned in his outlook. The book was originally published in 1975. In his foreword to the 1999 reprint, Frye says, "Many publications have appeared since this writing, but none have required a revision of this text, even though several books and articles have clarified details." (p. xiv) That's astounding -- 24 years later and nothing to change? That's a man who's 79 years old and resting on his laurels. Vast upheavals in academia have escaped his notice. Zora 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Zmmz and his cohorts have introduced this quote into a number of WP articles, is a statement that is highly inappropriate and not factual as well. One more time I remind you to stay civil and stick to facts please. Rampant accusations without a strong base can be seen as an incivil attempt to intimidate other users There is no Zmmz AND his cohorts, and I did not insert that section into any of the articles containing it, it was already there long before I browesed through the article. The page of the book that refers to the quote was scaned and submitted in the discussion page of Ibn Khaldun article. But, just you acknowledging that the quote was in Dr. Frye`s book, it`s an indication, that it [is] relevant to this article, that`s about Dr. Richard Nelson Frye and his work. Thank youZmmz 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What about this quote then, from Yahya bin Adam al-Qurashi:
The Muslims, when they defeated the Persians, left the Sawad (southern Iraq), and those of the Nabat and dihqans who had not fought the Muslims, in the same position (as previously). They imposed the jizya on the heads of the men, surveyed the land in their possession and charged kharaj on it. Any land not possessed by anyone was seized as sawafi (state land). (p. 63)

That's quoted by Frye, so that must be important, yes? And then there's Frye's book on Bukhara -- he starts it off with this quote from Oscar Wilde:

The almond groves of Samarqand,
Bokhara, where red lilies blow.
And Oxus, by whose yellow sand
The grave white-turbaned merchants go.

That's important, right? Oh, there's a quote that starts each chapter! Like this one from Rudaki:

Put your face to the mihrab, what is the gain?
My heart is with Bukhara and the idols of Taraz.

Do we have to give all those quotes too? That's at least nine quotes, from the beginnings of the chapters, and then there are the quotes inside the chapters too, like this one:

The geographer al-Maqdisi, who flourished in the second half of the tenth century, wrote that "they are the best of kings in character, appearance, and respect for science and men of science. . . . Among their usages, they do not require men of learning to fall on the ground before them, and they hold assemblies in the evenings during the month of Ramadan for discussions in the presence of the ruler." (p. 89)

Do you think, Zmmz, that we should include all material quoted by Frye, as demonstrating what he finds important? Combing through all his published works to find all the quotes might take some time, ne? Perhaps it would be better NOT to quote people he quotes, but to just quote Frye, the subject of the article? Zora 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You can include any material that is writen by Dr. Frye, as long as it is not frivolous, and it is actually related to his specialty, which is, ancient Persian history. But, you cannot copy and paste every single word from his books into the article. It is clear, from your own comments, not my allegations, that you feel Dr. Frye, is anti-Arab, old-fashioned etc, which is your opinion, and it is fine, but please do not disrupt an article because of it.Zmmz 01:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know who's the new boss of Wikipedia. Suggest you take it up with Jimbo.
If "any material" is OK, but not ALL material, how exactly do you propose to choose which are the relevant quotes? Zora 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed the paraphrase and Tehran architecture again, revised the appreciation para

The supposed quotes aren't quotes. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. The Tehran architecture can go in the Tehran article, per Zereshk. The quote from Frye re appreciation of Persian culture goes into a new, combined section.

We don't use titles here. All scholars are known by the their last name. I removed all the Dr.s and Professors. Look at other articles on scholars, like the one on Historiography of early Islam. It's customary even in academia to just drop titles and use last names.

The gallery -- are those photos public domain? It's going to go away unless Zereshk managed to get licencing for all those photos. Zora 08:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you have the authority to delete those images. They can clearly be used under Fairuse tag. Ive already cleared this with admins. (User:wikiacc).--Zereshk 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Good. I wasn't saying that I would take steps. I'm overextended as it is, and I usually stay away from image problems -- except in the Bollywood articles, where we recently had an anon uploading Photoshopped porn. The gallery is a great addition, as long as it's legit. Zora 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. ManiF reverted on sight, saying "Use talk" -- even though I did. Zora 08:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you, the quotes from UCLA lecture belong here. --ManiF 08:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

THEY AREN'T QUOTES! They are someone's notes on the lecture. If Frye knew that someone was publishing someone else's words under his name, he would be PISSED OFF. Like the Siegenthaler incident. You want to disrespect Frye? If you want to document those opinions as Frye's, you can darn well read some of his books or articles and provide excerpts. Not just cut and paste someone else's notes. Zora 08:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, please turn off your caps lock and read WP:Civil, I don't appreciate your aggressive tone. Those are Richard Nelson Frye's quotes from his UCLA lecture, a source has been provided as well. --ManiF 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The source is completely anonymous. There is no way to confirm that those are quotes -- moreover, there is reason to suspect that they aren't, since they don't match Frye's prose style at all. Zora 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Iran heritage organisation is far from "anonymous", I also disagree with you on your other accusations. If source is provided so I am going to remove the tag --Kash 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a reliable source. It started in 2003, it is not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, and there are very few links to it elsewhere online. In addition, it is overwhelmingly obvious that most if not all of the "quotes" on the page the article links to are not direct quotes of Frye:

  1. That page itself does not call them quotes or say that he said them directly.
  2. One of them says "Richard Frye said" inside it. And only that one.
  3. Another one says "How is it that data (law) became separated from religion", did Frye say "law" in parentheses during his speech?
  4. Another says "1st generation of exile Iranians need to remember their heritage, keep it up". That's not even a sentence, grammatically, and it starts with "1st" instead of "first". It may be a rough paraphrasing of what he said, but those cannot be his exact words during the speech.

The other source (the lecture excerpts) is also not acceptable because it only links to a sound file which is apparently broken/unviewable, and even if it worked, it is not text. If nobody has transcribed and/or published anything about the speech then there is nothing to mention about it on Wikipedia. –Tifego(t) 22:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution

People,

This edit war isnt going to get anywhere.

My proposal was:

  1. that we transfer the Tehran Frye arch quotes to Tehran, so I can beef it up with info about Tehran's architecture.
  2. that we keep some select remaining quotes by Frye. We can discuss which ones. Obviously quotes like "1st generation of exile Iranians need to remember their heritage, keep it up" were meant only for his audience at that particular lecture.
  3. That we mention that the quotes are attributed to Frye according to the Iran Heritage Foundation.

But since my proposals got no attention, I am taking the liberty of contacting the foundation itself, to inquire about the quotes. Obviously, they were recorded (written) by somebody who works for the foundation.

But still, I urge you to consider my proposals. It really should prove to be a compromise in my view.--Zereshk 23:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, first we should make sure they're really attributing them as quotes. We wouldn't want to falsify what www.iran-heritage.org said about Frye, either. As far as I can tell, they are only claiming one thing to be a quote: "I always thought of Iran where Iranian speaking people lived". And that quote looks like it has some error in it, like it's missing a word somewhere. The rest of the items listed there seem to be paraphrasing. Keeping select remaining quotes is fine, but keeping select non-quotes isn't.
I'm considering an RfC for this, to get some more opinions on the matter. Maybe that would make a consensus more likely. –Tifego(t) 00:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
(To clarify, Zereshk, I believe your proposed compromise is well-intentioned, but compromises that compromise the accuracy of Wikipedia are unacceptable, and the people on at least one side of the debate feel that is what this compromise would do.) –Tifego(t) 02:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, open an Rfc please, so some editors who obsessively try to erase any sections and/or statements that they feel is “anti-Arab”, that Dr. Frye is an old-fashioned, 78 year old man who is, out of touch, in favour of macho Persians, and “rests on his laurels ” etc., can explain what justification they may have for objecting to this article[6]. Before, anyone attempts to do that however, they must first seek a third opinion, and then mediation. Zmmz 00:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. I opened an RfC, in any case, since we seem to agree it would help. –Tifego(t) 01:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
By the way, don't say such insulting things (such as "obsessively try to erase") about Zora. It's not nice. –Tifego(t) 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, but it is not a matter of opinion, and not an insult, more like an observation, taken from that user`s own statements. Also, the procedure in Wiki is, one must first seek a third opinion, and then mediation, so your efforts may not get much appropriate attention. And, please provide a link, so others here can participate in the Rfc, if it was opened at all. Zmmz 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Third opinion" is only for when there are two people involved, and I believe there are more than two. Requests for mediation is for slightly more serious conflicts, and we already tried resolving it through discussion. The RfC happens here on this talk page, whenever somebody feels like participating, but here's a link if you really want one: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law. It's just a request for some people to look at it if they want to help out. –Tifego(t) 01:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not a third opinion means. Secondly, setting up a Mediation Cabal is the second step.Zmmz 01:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're a little confused. Third opinion says "This page is meant only for disagreements involving precisely two people". And Mediation Cabal is not part of the Negotiation "track", which unless I'm mistaken is somewhat less drastic than mediation. Honestly I think mediation might be required, but I'll see if anything comes of this first. –Tifego(t) 02:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don`t think you know precisely which direction to turn, but that`s fine.Zmmz 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but couldn't we just move these quotations to Wikiquote? I know it seems like a cheap solution, but there are a lot of quotes listed here - many of them doing little but to reinforce the same point, and the move would put a permanent end to this edit war (at least in this Wiki). Black-Velvet 11:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Three Deep Breaths. Frye is not so much anti-Arab as he is respectful of Iran and it's traditions. This is not about black and white. It is many shades of grey. No one has the right or grounds to say 'I am always right'. Several of the Fry quotes could indeed be taken out of context (the Sistani quote & the religious war quote in particular) but the rest of them express Frye's point of view - right, wrong, or otherwise. Are we to debate the veracity of every quote attributed by a supporter? Should any 'Union' published quotes of Abraham Lincoln be rejected unless we bring him back from the dead to assert he really said it? Are we to question every quote by anyone which is disagreeable? If someone quotes Hitler as saying "I don't like Jews." are we to censor that or argue about whether those were his *precise* words on the grounds it is anti-Semetic? Of course not - that's how this individual thought. Expunging from WP any statement which does not agree with your poliotical view *because it does not agree* or whith which you find cavilling reasons for exclusion is both un-academic and unethical. On the Other Hand including quotes 'out of context' to push a political view or aggrandize something you idolize/admire is also a Bad Thing. My solution would be - define the quotes as 'attributed to' rather than swearing they are verbatim quotes. And take out those which are prone to misinterpretation as they are out of context. To give a flavour of Frye's pro-Iranian views and provide some understanding of what these views are seems quite appropriate to providing understanding of Frye as a scholar. Ask yourself 'why am I using this quote' if part of the answer is 'Frye agrees with my opinion on Iran' - Don't Use It. Bridesmill 16:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection if the people who are so enamored of these supposed "quotes" replaced them with quotes saying the same thing that can be reliably sourced to material that Frye has written. I have a strong objection to putting words in Frye's mouth if they aren't his words. How can I compromise on including material of doubtful authenticity? Zora 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How much authenticity do you want? Personally cannot attest that Frye said these things, but they are a. wholly in character and b. nobody is arguing that he said anything other than these things. Your comment - 'no compromise on bogus quotes' sounds more political than academic. As I said; the tone & context needs to be editted, but why deny Frye's beliefs? Bridesmill 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Because it is not proven that Frye holds "exactly" the beliefs set forth in the supposed quotes. Furthermore, he's not as inarticulate as whoever wrote those quotes. He has a lovely prose style. I don't believe that he would deliver a major speech without writing it out first, and he would not write something like that. Those are someone's lecture notes, and it would be irresponsible to publish them as quotes. If someone wants to read Frye's works and pull out matching material that's fine. If no one can find anything in his published material that matches the lecture notes, then that's fairly good evidence that the notes don't do him justice.
If we were dealing with a journalist writing for an established newspaper, like the NY Times, then we could have some trust that the journalist wasn't making things up ... not total trust, alas (Jayson Blair was the name, yes?), but a lot of trust. Anonymous writing on a web site has no credibility to lose. Nor a track record to inspire confidence. Zora 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen to the lecture linked to in the article and you will see that none of those bullet points are made by Frye. He does not mention Sistani nor does he mention Arabs. He is talking about the Iranian Diaspora and he says that Iranians should encourage their children, particularly daughters, not to marry outside their own ethnic background to preserve their heritage. The Iranian Heritage website is either talking of a different lecture or it is simply wrong. And are we supposed to believe that an academic would say something as garbled as "The Hakhamanesh brought universal and secular law not related of the locals"? Is anyone seriously suggesting these are his words?--210.211.233.121 12:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that nobody is actually trying to argue that Frye stated these things verbatim - therefore, there should be no problem in changing 'Quotes' to 'During this lecture, Frye said that.....' then it becomes obvious that we are paraphrasing. I also argue that whatever specifically Frye said about either religious wars or Sistani, this listing as stated allows it to be very much taken out of context - therefore either put in verbatim what he said, or delete those lines. Agree w/ IP that the Hakhamanesh reference makes no sense - again, either find out specifically what was said in a mutually understandable fashion - or delete that bullet. I only had a chance so far to listen to the first few secs of the audio - and it is even there fairly obvious that the audio is but an excerpt - not the whole talk; nonetheless he does seem to be going into the concept of need for learning how to be a minority. But there again, this can so be taken out of context. I am assuming Frye has a similar take on this concept to Rajaee, who speaks at length about Ismaili mastering of this skill - if that is so, again this needs to be carefully worded or precisely cited. I am starting to agree w/ Zora that this piece is a serious disaster, and

  • a. needs reworking immediately as I outline above, followed by some indepth cleanup or
  • b. delete this portion until cleanly rewritten.

I am not on any anti-arab or anti-iranian tangent here - just that from an academic perspective what is written now is at best partly unclean and at worst academically dishonest and potentially inflammatory. Bridesmill 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I got Frye's email address from Harvard and sent him an email inviting him to come here and check the accuracy of his article OR to send a secretary, research assistant, or grad student who can speak for him. Dunno if that will have any result but it does, that should be authoritative. Since he's not a politician and has nothing to hide, I don't expect any serious problems with vanity editing or censorship. Zora 20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, good idea. The audio is obviuiously an excerpt, in it he makes one statement which is very well paraphrased by "Iranians need to learn how to survive as minorities overseas and how to protect their identity. " I've made a small tweak to separate the fact from the unconfirmed. If you read the Hakhamanesh piece, it is possible to see where it comes from & has some validity - if you can read through the grammar (try translating it 2 or three times). Hopefully we can pause & await Prof Frye's personal comment now. Bridesmill 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on the email

Professor Frye responded quite politely to my email:

I am on my way to Beijing, but when I return in four weeks I will attend to the article on me in the encyclopedia.

So we have to wait a bit, but he's going to take a look at it. He's going to be appalled if he looks at the talk page as well as the article ... but, we've got to be honest. No archiving it all away, yes? My remarks criticizing him and all :/ Zora 18:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Given his credentials, and the nature of academia, I'm sure he's heard worse ;-) Bridesmill 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Me, I personally think we could use quotes straight out of his books (which are often much more insightful) instead of debating the veracity of the Iran Heritage website ones.
I would feel ashamed if he actually did stop by here on this talk page seeing all these petty discussions that we have. The man is no doubt the godfather to "Iranian studies" in American academic institutes. I wish Zora hadnt emailed him. Now I feel like we have become his (Frye's) "asbāb e zahmat" if he did show up.--Zereshk 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

? In a way, yes, but that's somewhat 20/20 hindsight as nobody (incl. yourself on 27 Mar) thought of that solution. I don't think that these discussions are all that petty - the way I read the quotes as given I have to scratch my head a bit too - and we could do just as poor a job taking quotes from his book out of context. Bridesmill 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On April 9, I said, "If someone wants to read Frye's works and pull out matching material that's fine." But no one listened. Zora 02:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
"Matching" meaning what? The quotes I would bring are very different, but interesting nevertheless. At least IMO.--Zereshk 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, if you want to do that, and we could drop the supposed lecture quotes, so that things are tidied up before he gets here, that would be nice. Do you think you could get the other anti-Zora editors to go along with that? I would hope that all he has to do is correct the bibliography. Actually, I would suppose that his latest book would have an up-to-date biblio, so it would just involve copying it. It would be cool if he got here and just said, "Good job."

You have that book, "Greater Iran", which is an autobiography, I understand. That actually might be the best source of quotes. I've just ordered it (splurging, considering my financial situation) but it won't get here for a week or so. What we would want, I think, is perhaps his views on the Revolution, quotes re appreciation of Persian history and high culture, a quote on Arab-Persian relations to replace the one from Ibn Khaldun, reflections on his career, thoughts on Iranians in diaspora, yes? We want the quotes to reflect him, not just the intersection of the sets "what Frye believes" and "what Zora believes" or "what Zereshk believes". I'm afraid that the sets "Frye intersection Zora" and "Frey intersection Zereshk" might be completely disjunct! Zora 04:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminence

Can we please leave him as either a well-known, prominent, or eminent scholar? Ask anyone to list the top ten & Frye's name will come up - to say he is just 'a scholar' is not very accurate - there are people on this page who are scholars. And whether you like or dislike what he says, you have to admit that he is one of the most notable & respected in his field - QED 'eminent'.Bridesmill 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Ustad Frye's biography is quite outstanding. No wonder Henry Kissinger appointed him to invite Iranian intellectuals to Harvard. He is "the founder of Iranian studies at American academic institutions", the editor of "The Cambridge History of Iran", and it was he, not Yar-shater, who was first appointed to chair the Kevorkian Center for Iranian studies at Columbia University. He declined. Then they put the also eminent Yar-Shater as his replacement.--Zereshk 15:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of him very well, I just know words like eminent shouldn't really be put in the introduction, I will put well-known however.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well in order to start an article on Wikipedia the subject has to be notable already. The phrase "well-known" seems a little subjective to me. I don't really see a need for it. AucamanTalk 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to Iranian studies, there are only a handful of seriously respected scholars - Frye is one of them. I personally don't like a lot of what he says and believe a lot to have been superceded by events, but what is wrong with 'eminent' (check the definition - it's not really special or subjective) or if we must 'well-known' (although I think he is more eminent than well-known - well known implies name recognition. Eminence implies respect in the field. Not putting the adjective is like the Einstein article saying he was a physicist; period, full stop.Bridesmill 02:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually eminence basically means more respected than everyone else, and I think that is a bit difficult to determine especially in a filed like this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the word in question in eminent - not eminence. Eminent = standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted. And eminence means prominent or holding superior station - quite different form 'more respected than everyone else'. Also curious why this should be such an issue, and why you think such status would be so difficult to determine 'in a field like this'. Bridesmill 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am talking about eminent, here is what dictionary. come says for its primary definition.-

em·i·nent Audio pronunciation of "eminent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nnt)

adj.

1. Towering or standing out above others; prominent: an eminent peak.

Here is the link- [7]. "Well known" is more matter of fact and objective why don't we stick with that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From your own link: Outstanding, as in character or performance; distinguished: an eminent historian. --ManiF 00:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be the secondary definition, why don't we change it to "widely respected" or "distinguished" or both?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends on which dictionary - I'm a Webster guy & thus agree with Mani - on the other hand, I like Moshe's compromise - it doesn't put much of a value judgement on him but acknowledges he is a force to be reckoned with in the field. Hopefully we can live with this ;-) ? Bridesmill 00:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for catching typo

Mani, thanks for catching the typo in my copyedit. D'oh! Zora 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zora, aucaman, mooshe

Don't you have better things to do than wasting your time following zereshk around everywhere he goes and vandalising his edits. It seems you have vandalised alot of articles related to iran, it also seems that you are jews. Why all the hate towards iranians? What did we ever do to you except saving your lifes a couple of times. Darkred 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please leave it at distinguished? Semantically it makes sense, arguments by Moshe are good; it needs to be NPOV - I've looked at Moshes contribs & what you are saying does not appear to be true in his cae - I have not looked at the others (I came from RfC) Curiously, only Moshe appears to be jewish - is that a problem?Bridesmill 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem? I was curious about why they hate iranians if they are jewish, thinking about persian-jewish relations in history. No personal attack intended. Darkred 05:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What does my ethnicity matter? I find this rather irritating that someone would even bring it up.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What does your ethnicity matter? Like i said above i was curious about why you hate iranians thinking about the persian-jewish relations in history. Or you mean you would hate iranians even if you were of another ethnicity? Darkred 06:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What if you like some Iranians and don't like some others? Suppose you like Jamshid (musician) but think Shahrokh (musician) just doesn't measure up? Suppose you like Hafiz but are rather bored by Firdausi? Suppose you like your friend Monir but not all of her relatives? Does that mean that you're anti-Iranian, or just human? Darkred, do you like all the Iranians you know? Zora 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So you mean you only hate the iranians that edit in wikipedia, well thats a relief. lol :) --Darkred 06:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Suppose you like some of the Iranians who edit on WP and don't get along with others? (No can name names, that would be incivil.) Zora 07:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All right guys I don't think this is accomplishing much.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Sigh. I was trying to break through the sweeping generalizations, but it may be utopian to think that I could. Should we have just reported incivility and anti-Semitism to an admin? Zora 08:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
No I don't think it is really necessary. I think the guy was just trying to get under our skin. If he does it again it might be warranted, but for now I think we should just leave it be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Moshe has indeed followed me, SC, and ManiF to this page, after we confronted him on the Persian Jews page. Why else would you get involved here if you dont even know the names of any living Iranologist comparable to Frye? Let alone making judgements on how good Frye is or isnt. Moshe followed me to Sex in Iran and reverted my edits, even though he knew absolutely nada about Sex in Iran. An obvious sign of intention, if you ask me.--Zereshk 23:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Zereshk, I was asked to look at the Sex in Iran article. Seeing as how the only edits I made on that article consisted of grammitical and wording changes not reversions so I have trouble understanding your reaction, furthermore I only came across this article and changed one word, and eventually came to a consensus about the replacement of the word.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User zora, i hardly ever read accusations and profanities made by users, but in this case i see that you have accused me of anti-semitism and threatened to report me. I have already explained why i asked that question. However it was not appropriate of me, and i apologise for any misunderstanding. I am new to editing in Wikipedia, but it seems clear that there is no place in Wikipedia for such things as profanities and accusations. Dear zora, in your own words, please try to be civil, there are rules and regulations in Wikipedia. I am not here to wage war against anyone, but i am here to stay. Thank you for your understanding. --Darkred 19:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User moshe, it is clear that in spite of several sources, you are repeatedly rejecting them and keep vandalizing the article about the iran-iraq war. Furthermore you have reported to an administrator that i have violated the 3RR and got me blocked for reverting your vandalism four times. Being new to wikipedia i did not know about the rule. However i have now observed the Wikipedia rules and see that the 3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. Please stop vandalizing the iran-iraq article and other articles, or you will be reported for vandalism. Thank you for your cooperation. --Darkred 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Darkred, generally we are not supposed refer to other articles on these talk pages, but since we are already talking about it, the passages I had removed were clearly not vandalism as it is described by wikipedia, as I had provided ample reasons for my edits. Without a proper source we are not allowed to add stuff, and the dubya report and the other source did not qualify as reputable, Zereshk eventually replaced the sources with better ones so for now I am ceasing my involvent in that particular dispute.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

moshe, i am sorry, but you still have vandalized that page even after zereshk's new sources. For now i will have to think about whether or not report you for vandalism. However from now i will answer any question you might have, in the iran-iraq war talk page. Please do so aswell. --Darkred 04:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then please, report me for vandalism, I mean it. Go here and report exactly what I did- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the matter at the agreed location: iran-iraq war --Darkred 05:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of vandalism

Everyday for almost a week Darkred has reverted a previous edit that was agreed on with consensus, his edit summary always consists of a fallacious accusation of vandalism [8] and is usually marked as minor. This is becoming increasingly irritating. I do not understand his motivation for doing this since it was not just me that agreed upon the wording.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Dr Frye impresses me very much & I have a lot of respect for what he has done & said & how intelligent he is. That being said, as discussed at length above, he is NOT well-known outside of a small circle (Iranians & Iranologists). The eminent/distinguished bit I can sort of live with; although collectively it had been decided that distinguished was a better choice of words as the connotation in American english is different from that in other dialects, leaving many readers with a very biased impression. If you look at myriad other articles, honorific type adjectives are just not/not used on WP - Einstein for example states 'widely regarded as' rather than actually asserting that he was. Check out as well any selection of scientists from say, the list of Jewish scientists - you will quickly see that the desire to avoid these adjectives is not an effort at anti-Iranian racism - it is simply trying to keep this article inline objectively with the rest of WP.Bridesmill 19:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Regardless of what sources you have cited not calling him eminent, i really don't see the need to do so. What is wrong with calling him eminent? However you have a point if you want to take out well-known. He is mostly well-known to Iranians and Iranologists perhaps.

However moshe here have constantly lied that you came to an agreement calling him distinguished instead, his intentions are a total mystery to me. I have reported him for vandalism. --Darkred 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How did I lie about reaching consensus? If you scroll up you can see the discussion on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how Moshe represented it, but when he & I had the discussion I was originally in the eminent side - I ended up agreeing that it should be 'Distinguished' based on perception by american readers of english that eminent means 'the best there is' (in other words a synonym for pre-eminent) (originally my perception was that distinguished was a bit POV - all of which underscores how poorly all of us who speak the same language understand each other) I cannot comment on Moshe's behavior on other pages because I haven't looked, but his actions here do not strike me as vandalistic. Bridesmill 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An agreement would be only if the original editor which was Zereshk would agree someone to change his edits, which he never did, thus it never were any agreement, and his clmains were pure lies, and therefore his constant reverting is vandalism, but i am not here to decide that, the administrator which takes care of the reports does. PS as hardly read the profanities of vandalizers, this time is no different, all i had to do is see moshes name under the comment to look away. Moshe again please try to be civil and cooperative, we mean you no harm, and certainly do not hate you :). --Darkred 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

After Zereshk's remarks to my comment, no disagreements/comments where made by him which indicated displeasure over the way things where going - that's since 20 April. I assumed that since the change made sence from a semantic/linguistic POV & was not substantive, silence implied consent or at worst a neutral opinion. I know we have strong feelings running around here - but let's use WP to try & work for a better tomorrow? I'm hoping Darkred you too will try to be civil & all that, at least on this page? Doing otherwise (on anyones part) would be very much against spirit of what Frye strives for. Bridesmill 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You say eminent, I say distinguished

I think two adjectives is too much. It smacks of fawning. So it's either one or the other. I prefer distinguished to eminent, because eminent is Einstein or Chomsky -- someone who revolutionizes an entire field -- rather than someone who is just ... distinguished. Frye has common-sense, a vast and amazing command of languages, and a wonderful prose style -- but he hasn't revolutionized history. He isn't a theoretician.

However -- we could split the difference by switching from eminent to distinguished and back, once a week. Or would a thesaurus help? An entirely new adjective?

Hmmm, let's contrast the Roget's Thesaurus lists for eminent and distinguished:

Widely known and esteemed: celebrated, distinguished, famed, famous, great, illustrious, notable, noted, preeminent, prestigious, prominent, redoubtable, renowned

Widely known and esteemed: celebrated, eminent, famed, famous, great, illustrious, notable, noted, preeminent, prestigious, prominent, redoubtable, renowned

Wow, they have exactly the SAME lists. Is there any word in this list that both of you could agree on? I like "prominent", myself. Zora 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You say distinguished i say well-known eminent

Like i said above it seems fair to remove well-known, because perhaps he is mostly well-known to iranians and Iranologists. But if you still insist that he is not emiment either, and it seems that you have prepared a list of words to choose, i really don't see any reason for changing eminent, because he is in fact an eminent iranologist. However if you still insist then you might as well for example call pakistan's president not known at all or englands queen an old woman. Now you do understand what i am saying, right zora? --Darkred 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

English words can mean approximately the same thing -- as clearly, eminent and distinguished do. They may, however, have slightly different connotations. Which is better? Eminent or distinguished? Moshe and I like distinguished; you like eminent. Picking one or the other should be a minor matter. However, using "distinguished" rather than "eminent" is not at all the same thing as calling Musharraf an "unknown" or calling Queen Elizabeth an "old woman" -- though she is. You are blowing a slight difference out of all proportion. You know, we really could switch back and forth each week. Or choose another word. Or have someone write a program that displays whichever word the reader prefers :) Zora 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all eminent and distinguished are not the same words, even though they may have similar meanings. Second it's not about the word itself, it's about the need you have to change that word. If eminent and distinguished have the same meaning as you say, then why in earth would you like o change them! :) --Darkred 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Words have denotation and connotation. Logicians worry about denotation, poets worry about connotation. I imagine that Persian, like English, has many words for hair (hair, whiskers, tresses, locks, curls, etc). If you were writing a poem, which would you use? If you were writing about barber shops, which would you use? Picking an adjective for a scholar is more like writing a poem. As you know, people differ strongly about poetry.
You may have noticed that I removed the "well-known" and left "eminent" there. I don't care all that much about the difference. I have a slight preference, but don't care to fight about it. I've suggested some alternatives, now you and Moshe work it out. Zora 08:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand what problem darkred has with the word "distinguished". "Eminent" carries a connotation that implies the person "towers above all others in the field" the problem with this is that in a field like Frye's there are not very many objective conditions that can be used to "rank" the scholars position. Now as I have stated above, I am not opposed to using a different word than "distinguished", maybe something along the lines of "Widely respected". If you look at the original exchange above however you will see that Me, Bridesmill, and ManiF eventually agreed upon "distinguished". I will admit that I was never that interested in the subject of this article, I only happened upon this article and decided to make a small adjustment. The reason that I have continued to edit it for so long is probably a combination of stubborness and indignancy stemming from the unsatisfactory reasons of the reversions as well as the insults I have been subject to for no apparent reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can live with esteemed - I like Zora's proposed way out of this. But just to put this into perspective: Noam Chomsky - no adjectives; Albert Einstein - widely regarded as the most important; Voltaire - no adjective. etc etc. (basically, find a bona-fide really famous person, & you won't find an unqualified adjective). So while we argue about which adjective(s), the real argument perhaps is should there even be any? Or if so should they be 'qualified' as in Einstein's? Or do we just want to leave it with this latest iteration? Bridesmill 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry i am not going to discuss this any further, as it seesm you don't want to give up until you erased eminent. I said before that you can take out well-known because he is not well-known and later me and zora agreed to that, she herself changed it, now your telling me again that's not good enough! lol. The word eminent stays as agreed. PS moshe i still don't read your profanities on my talk page here or in history edits. --Darkred 18:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Eminent was never agreed to - Zora suggested a neutral compromise. My point was that any adjective is already going a heck of a lot further than any other person here on WP. But we are willing to call him 'distinguished' or 'esteemed' or 'respected' or some such, even though that is more thna WP normally allows. Eminent won't work because a lot of people understand that as 'the best in their field' - That is debatable for Frye - I'm sure he himself doesn't presume to be 'the best in the field' - He's one of the better ones, yes, but to imply best in the field is so POV it is ridiculous - and not done anywhere else on WP. What makes you so insistent on using a word that WP does not come close to for Voltaire, Einstein, Lincoln, or the Prophets? Bridesmill 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Darkred, Moshe went along with my suggestions to the extent of picking another adjective entirely. Which you immediately reverted to your adjective of choice. I'm starting to get the feeling that it's not the adjective that's so important to you, it's the sense that you've "won" and Moshe has "lost". I could be wrong ... I hope I am. Because we're supposed to be collaborating here, on a real-life project. The project takes precedence over our tiny squabbles. Get along with everyone else on this small matter and you build up good-will which can be, um, cashed-in, to your great advantage, in another dispute. How about the new adjective? How about dropping all adjectives? Zora 19:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
user zora, i have no interest in hearing what user moshe has to say, the best way to deal with people like her is to ignore them. Now once again you have reverted eminent to distinguished even after agreement. Because of this, like i said before there is no more discussion here, we already came to an agreement, and the word eminent stays, if bridesmill and moshe don't like that that's their problem.

Furthermore moshe i have repeatedly asked you to cooperate, again i have no hate for you and do not want to engage in a war here, but i will not let you vandalize it either. like we talk about it before why can't you just be like the russian-jewish sweet girl i had? lol:), same goes for bridesmill :). --Darkred 20:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I came across this article on a tangent, but the "eminent/distinguished" debate does seem to be a bit excessive for a choice of synonyms. I will say that "eminent" shouldn't be thought of as necessarily the "single" best in the field - "an eminent this or that" is common usage and even "the eminent whatever" does not indicate priority over all others - "the" is attached to "whatever". I believe the word "preeminent" may be what some are thinking of and confusing here. Personally, I would likely choose "eminent' if I wanted to indicate the subject belonged to a somewhat smaller and more select group than "distinguished", but it is difficult from this article to see if that is the case or intention here. David Oberst 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Right darkred. Take the WP:NPA and child-like remarks elsewhere. If you have no hate, as you keep on asserting, why the silly little insults, the presumptions of bad faith, the ethnic slurs? Lets leave this where everyone agreed before you started the reverts. Bridesmill 21:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email from Frye

I just got an email from R.N. Frye, correcting the info we have re his schooling and degrees. I entered that in the article. I also removed the quote from Ibn Khaldun, hoping that since some of those who were most vociferous re keeping it were no longer editing here, that those of us who were left could agree that it shed no light on Frye. The previous quote, re Persian civilization being under-appreciated, is much more to the point, and it's a quote from Frye himself. Zora 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mani, dang it ...

Mani, my version gave the gist of his talks and directed readers to sites where they could get more info. Don't delete my edits just because it's ME making them. Zora 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I only pay attention to the edits not the editors, please don't remove the quotes. --ManiF 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, they aren't quotes, and they are not illustrative of Frye's character. They unbalance the article dreadfully. The trimmed-down version represents him better; it shows that he cares for the glories of the past and doesn't wish to see them lost. Zora 07:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashk

Kashk, you reverted and said, "Discuss in talk first." Those dang quotes have been discussed ad nauseam. They're not quotes, they're badly written, they're an embarrassment to the article, and they should be removed. If you're so concerned about Frye's views, read his books and get us some properly sourced quotes to replace them. Zora 10:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zora

I would love to read it but at this particular moment I can't. His quote didn't seem too bad to me but if someone has the book I am sure they can provide some good quotes for sure. --K a s h Talk | email 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] (Greater Iran)

What did you mean by 'He speaks fluent Russian, German, Arabic, Persian, French, Pashto, Uzbek, and Turkish(Greater Iran), ' is Turky part of greater Iran as well.....i thought its Only Iraq!!!WooowAziz1005 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a citation, from Frye's autobiography. Some editor introduced that citation style. You can change it if you find it confusing. I should volunteer to do it, perhaps, but I'm swamped with work. Zora 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERichard_Nelson_Frye_850c.html"