User talk:HistoryofIran

Userpage	Talk page	Awards	Articles	Sources

Email

Hello, HistoryofIran. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Question

Salam, could you please explain what part of my edit was non constructive on the page of Khuzestan?

i added reputable sources saying Khuzestan was majority Arab. i updated the stats and percentages to show more accurate numbers, even Britannica says Khuzestan is over half Arab.

I’d appreciate it if you could undo the reversion.

Kheyli mamnoon ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Britannica is incredibly low quality, barely WP:RS. Meanwhile you removed a source by Cambridge University Press from 2019, erroneously claiming that it is outdated and false. The percentage given by the Cambridge source is also similiar to the one given by IranAtlas , which you falsely changed to 2,310,000 and 48.9%, though I see now that the previous version which I reverted to (33.8%) is also wrong, the actual stats given by IranAtlas are 1,600,000 and 43,79%). HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, nvm, the numbers are actually 33% if you go by "All languages". HistoryofIran (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Not quite it is almost half.

How is CIA and Britannica low quality?

more sources than Iran Atlas point towards an Arab majority.

At the very least why did you remove the body of text where I referenced those numbers? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

And why remove the local spelling of Abu Shehr?? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to know why my languages of Iran edit was reverted? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Not quite it is almost half.

The Cambridge sources and IranAtlas contradicts you. I think it's your time to explain now, why did you falsify the numbers given by IranAtlas?

How is CIA and Britannica low quality?

Regarding Britannica, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Your CIA source (which I haven't verified) is from 1980. You consider a Cambridge source from 2019 outdated, but not the CIA one? Why? Regardless, the current revision still portrays the Arabs as majority, just with actual stats and better sources, which you removed/altered.

more sources than Iran Atlas point towards an Arab majority.

IranAtlas also says that they're a majority in Khuzestan, just not the numbers you try to portray it as.

And why remove the local spelling of Abu Shehr??

I already explained that, please see my edit summary. Your addition was also unsourced, which another user told you. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Because CIA and Britannica are more reliable than Iran Atlas.

As well as Minority Rights Group.

Moreover, why not add the local spelling of Abu Shehr? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Let's try again, please address the questions this time;

1) Why did you falsify the numbers given by IranAtlas?

2) Your CIA source (which I haven't verified) is from 1980. You consider a Cambridge source from 2019 outdated, but not the CIA one? Why?

Moreover, why not add the local spelling of Abu Shehr?

You already received a response to this. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

1) Because 33% is false. Britannica (reliable source for wikipedia), CIA, and other rights groups show them as over 50%, not 33% there is not a fully accepted number.

2) My apologies. I hadn’t checked the CIA date, but regardless it is a reliable source, numbers have only grown since then.

how about changing the percentages then? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't like that you're ignoring parts of my comments that aren't convenient for you. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Also how does Iran atlas show them as majority when the numbers are 33% ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They're still the biggest ethnic group, just not over 50%. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

They are over 50 though. Check the sources I provided earlier.

and I dont understand why my body of text was removed? Referencing the new numbers? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Please re-read all my comments here. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I did.

I propose a compromise. We can add a range with both of our sources (CIA, Britannica, and Iran Atlas)? Because you don’t seem to understand exactly what I am saying

for example 33%-50%, etc

And I answered your questions I dont understand which part I ignored ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

And also could I add my body of text where I reference those sources and numbers

because its worth having multiple sources and conclusions ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Not only are you making the 50% number up (WP:SYNTH/WP:OR), you're still ignoring the fact that Britannica is not suitable here, and making a "rule for thee but for not me" in regards to the CIA citation (which I also fail to see how is more high quality than IranAtlas and the Cambridge source), which is indeed outdated. Please also see WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Fact of the matter is you falsified the numbers given by IranAtlas and falsely claimed that the Cambridge source from 2019 is "outdated and false", both which you refuse to address and which is highly concerning. My last comment on this. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

? I said that it was my bad that I called cambridge outdated. Read my reply.

and you give me WP:WEIGHT. Well isn’t CIA a significant viewpoint? And i cant see why Britannica is not suitable here.

atleast the body of text where I reference alternative numbers should stay. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Last try.

And i cant see why Britannica is not suitable here.

Read , Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Well isn’t CIA a significant viewpoint? And i cant see why Britannica is not suitable here.

I fail to see how, it's not an expert source, doesn't even focus on the subject, regardless it's outdated, especially for you, since you considered a source from 2019 as outdated until you were called out for it.

atleast the body of text where I reference alternative numbers should stay

No, per all my comments including the policies that came with them, which you are still ignoring. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

??

Hey so I read MOS:LEADALT, it says “As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

Archaic names, including names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name), and should not be placed in the first sentence.”

for Bushehr, you want me to add archaic or what? Because as I’ve said, Abu Shehr is a local name separate from the widely used English name. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey so I read MOS:LEADALT, it says “As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

According to what WP:RS is "Abu Shehr" the "local official name"?

Archaic names, including names used before the standardization of English orthography should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name), and should not be placed in the first sentence.” for Bushehr, you want me to add archaic or what? Because as I’ve said, Abu Shehr is a local name separate from the widely used English name.

"Bushire" would be the archaic name for the city before standarization. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

here is the source: https://www.mindat.org/feature-139817.html

or the cambridge source I provided earlier where you removed it. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

here is the source: https://www.mindat.org/feature-139817.html

A random mineralogy website, which makes no mention of "local official name" either.

or the cambridge source I provided earlier where you removed it.

Which doesn't say it is a "local official name". Please read WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay guess it’s not a local “official” name, but you’re being too strict I think.

Couldn’t “Bushehr, or alternatively Abu Shehr historically, is a port city etc” be a good sentence?

Literally gave two sources and aligns with WP:SYNTH. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:LEADALT and WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Is there something I’m missing??

it states archaic names as plural “s”, and a quick search shows Abu Shehr as one of the archaic names.

multiple sources list it as an alternative.

hence you can write bushire and abu shehr.

this is nonsense, Abu Shehr should be legitimately mentioned. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again you're reading what you want to read, and it is getting tiring at this point. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Dadash thats why I asked if I’m missing something.

I give you straightforward explanations with sources and you just give me links and expect me to fully understand.

I read what I read and that’s my conclusion. Archaic is plural and Abu Shehr is one of the archaic names.

if you’re so confident, lay down the ego and give me a straightforward answer dadash. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my ego, I couldn't care less about it. You have provided zero WP:RS that shows Abu Shehr qualifies for WP:LEADALT, and you keep making WP:OR/WP:SYNTH claims about it. The only WP:RS you have provided is a Cambridge source once saying "Bandar Bushehr of Abu Shehr", that's it. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

How about https://www.visitiran.ir/en/province/Bushehr-Province

Dadash you’re too strict i think

Irani hasti? ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but those are the policies. A tourism site, which says; "Bushehr is one of the oldest ports in Iran with a long history, known by various names such as Rishahr, Abu Shahr, and Lian." I fail to see how that qualifies it for WP:LEADALT and how Abu Shahr/Shehr is more significant than the many other names that are mentioned.

Baleh. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok so various sources that say Abu Shehr/Shahr is a alternative name isn’t worth writing?

I’ve personally given you more sources that mention Abu Shehr (Cambridge, tourism site, even the mindat.org) than the other names.

And leadalt states, “The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. Use this principle to decide whether to mention alternative names in the first sentence, elsewhere in the article, or not at all.”

adding “Or alternatively Abu Shehr,” does not create clutter and adds historical insight. ~2026-44634-46 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Two out of three sources which are not WP:RS, and which mentions Abu Shehr along with dozens of other names, does not qualify it for WP:LEADALT. The only WP:RS only once says "Bandar Bushehr of Abu Shehr" (whatever that is supposed to mean), that's it. While you may prefer Abu Shahr/Shehr, there is nothing that shows it is more significant than the many other names that are mentioned. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you know any sources that discuss the confusion surrounding Yazdegerd the likely fictitious son of Bahram IV?

Instead of a full on page, I think it would be better at this point for it to be a section on Barham IV's page, it could also discuss the confusion surrounding Yazdegerd I's parents?

Because lot of people seem to be confused on the matter and I think it would be better than the things I've previously done, what do you think about that, would that be better?

I still aim to participate in a positive manner and this particularly strange case keeps getting my attention.

Good day to you and thanks for reading this. Sneakier (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. But that's the thing, there is no confusion, this is not supported by WP:RS at all, which is why the article got deleted. There is nothing that supports his existence. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

So can a section of Bahram IV mention the thing? Perhaps the issue part or something? I checked the only wikipedia article that mentions that individual and I think there might be a source that mentions what might have caused the confusion by al-Isfahani. Sneakier (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS of it? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for late response, didn't see your reply. Well, the problem with the WP:RS is that like you said, they're quite old (I think you said 100+ years old) and its in russian. To get an actual good source I'd have to look for translated work of al-Isfahani's book Sneakier (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Al-Isfahani's work is a primary source, please see WP:PSTS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

But I should then have to find the page, right? Sneakier (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Al-Isfahani is not WP:RS. We need secondary sources on this matter. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok, I misread, please forgive me. Then I shall seek a secondary source on the matter Sneakier (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Revert in bad faith.

For the "Persians" article: I am not in an edit war. I spoke with other editors, and they kept my edit and clarified it. You are the only one reverting my edit. Again, everything was WP:RS, with clear statements. You cannot revert stuff that doesn't fit your narrative, and then give me an edit war warning, when you are the one who is unnecessarily edit-warring. There is no need for a talk page topic, and I believe that according to Wikipedia rules, the paragraph you removed is credible, and sourced from WP:RS sources, and is not WP:SYNTH.

I also gave you a proper explanation, no other editor is against the changes I made.

I expect to be able to revert the page to what it was without your reverts.

Thank you. Prof. JS2 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything, please use the talk page and reach WP:CONSENSUS. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Does this pass as a reliable source?

Hi. On Dagestan#Toponymy, There is a cited article from TDV Encyclopedia of Islam written by Ziya Bunyadov. Seems that Turkish encyclopedia is a mixed bag; e.g. see Biruni and Ibn Sina. 70 WP articles use it as citation. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Mann Mann, I've removed it. Yes it is a mixed bag indeed. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)