Talk:Qanat/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposal

Here is a proposal (some sources are yet to be added) :

From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems. Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as before 3000 BC.

The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.[cite the 3 sources provided by Kansas Bear]

However, some authors have questioned the Iranian origin of Qanat, claiming that the system originated in the Arabian peninsula [cite relevant sources] while others, have suggested a multiple origin [cite Boucharlat]---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No, removal of sourced materials and a failure to proportionally represent both positions. NPOV:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." And the above, as I said, fails to do that. Nabataeus (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"No, removal of sourced materials and a failure to proportionally represent both positions." don't know what you're talking about. I did not remove any source. Also, there is no failure to represent both positions according to WP:NPOV since there are far more reliable sources supporting an Iranian origin. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." precisely means that the Iranian origin can be longer than other views, since, as said above, there are far more reliable sources supporting it. Let's be patient and wait for other users' opinion. BTW, for better readability, please sign your posts. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You removed sourced statements, arguments, assertions, that was attributed to reliable respected authors which goes against "representing significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If it is published by reliable sources, it should be thus included. The Arabian hypothesis is adhered by prominent scholars whose opinions and analysis of the available data shouldn't be silenced. The Iranian sources are many, but are mostly outdated before the recent archaeological discoveries that re-shaped the academic sphere. That's why according, to some scholars, not remy only, Iranian origin simply can't be maintained. Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

" If it is published by reliable sources, it should be thus included." nope, see here. Wikipedia works primarily with WP:CONSENSUS and the version you proposed above is all but consensual.

"The Iranian sources are many, but are mostly outdated before the recent archaeological discoveries" nope, again, if i'm not mistaken, all the above sources supporting an Iranian origin are 21st century sources, your comment about them is only your opinion.

Again, be patient and let's wait for more input from other involved editors. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

21st century doesn't mean it is not outdated, it is relative, something from yesterday could be outdated. And the sources, mostly, pre date the recent discoveries. That's why the inclusion of the arguments is important. And no my comment about them is not my opinion, it is the opinion of several authors. As for the consensus, two support the inclusion and three (? I believe Wario, not sure about Kansas, and you) don't. Not including it as including it is thus both far from consensual. If no middle ground is found, then it should be settled by RfC. And I will comply with the result. Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"And no my comment about them is not my opinion, it is the opinion of several authors." Got a cite for this ? some of the sources supporting an Iranian origin are even from 2018 ...

"If no middle ground is found, then it should be settled by RfC." If you want a RfC, then fine, but as far as i can see, the version i proposed is more consensual and fits with WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL. Both positions are represented in proportion to the prominence of each view without any WP:UNDUE weight given to one side.

"And I will comply with the result" not complying is not an option with a RfC.

Let's be patient and wait for more input, unless you want to go for a RfC right now, this would be fine for me too. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani:, have you written up an Iranian theory or did I missed it? My initial idea was to have both theories written out, then to work(if absolutely necessary) towards a composite. Let's have both theories posted here instead of arguing over semantics, please. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do with what was written at the top of this section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but our discussion here is about how to formulate the theories while remaining WP:IMPARTIAL. to make it short, which one of the two following formulations do you prefer ?

• "From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems. Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as before 3000 BC.

The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.[cite the 3 sources provided by Kansas Bear]

However, some authors have questioned the Iranian origin of Qanat, claiming that the system originated in the Arabian peninsula [cite relevant sources] while others, have suggested a multiple origin [cite Boucharlat]"

• "From the geographic and meteorological point of view, the Middle east is a dry region that has been always facing water shortage problems. Due to the population growth, a new water collection system, named Qanât, was introduced. According to most sources, this technology was invented in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. According to some sources, qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as before 3000 BC.

The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today.[cite the 3 sources provided by Kansas Bear]

Al Tikriti provided a counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia. He cites Sargon II annals as well as the accounts of Polybius as being the basis for the academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes that academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopt an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Polybius and Sargon annals, but points out at least seven Iron Age aflaj recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Tikriti point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia by the Sasanian conquest of Oman. Others have followed Tikriti's lead."

This is Boucharlat opinion, he doesn't support an Arabian origin. However, his opinion is valid and valuable, since he doesn't believe in unique center;

In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Kansas, i missed your last message. Sure, take a look at it. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Its ok. I'm working on it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References

The Arabian and Iranian theories

Since the legitimacy of the Arabian hypothesis existence can't be questioned, this is a summarized version of the written Arabian hypothesis by Alexander (all are sourced in the article);

"Al Tikriti provided a counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative, that the Qanat originated in Persia. He cites Sargon II annals as well as the accounts of Polybius as being the basis for the academic attribution of the technology to Persia. He notes that academics such as JC Wilkinson (1977) adopt an Iranian origin for the technology under the influence of Polybius and Sargon annals, but points out at least seven Iron Age aflaj recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE have been reliably carbon dated back to the beginning of the first millennium BCE. Tikriti point out that, despite long-standing efforts since the 19th century to excavate qanat systems in Iran, no evidence has been found for any such qanat there dated earlier than the 5th century BCE. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was likely taken to Persia by the Sasanian conquest of Oman. Others have followed Tikriti's lead."

This is Boucharlat opinion, he doesn't support an Arabian origin. However, his opinion is valid and valuable, since he doesn't believe in unique center;

"In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. He asserts that the carbon dating of alfaj in Oman and the UAE to the ninth century BCE by Cleuziou and evidence for such an early date provided by Tikriti are definitive. Additionally, Boucharlat maintains that no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period."

@Kansas Bear:, @Alexandermcnabb:, @Wario-Man:, @Wikaviani:

Works for me - and thank you for your diligence and patience - you've handled this way better than I... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds quite well for me too. However Boucharlat's statement "no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-islamic period" goes against what numerous sources say (the ones according the invention of the system to Iran and the ones saying that the Qanats of Gonabad are 2000-3000 years old posted above by Kansas Bear), but since it's attributed, it seems ok for me, if everybody else agrees with it. also, you only quoted the part where boucharlat denies an exclusive Iranian origin, not the one where he says he believes in a multi-center origin. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Even though some uncertainty remains regarding the origin of the qanat, several authors agree that this hydraulic system was born in the northwest region of Iran more than 3,000 years ago (Hussain et al, 2008; Kazemi, 2004)." -- The qanat of the Greatest Western Erg, Boualem Remini and Bachir Achour, Journal (American Water Works Association), Vol. 105, No. 5, International (May 2013), p. 104.

• Hussain I.; Abu Rizaiza, O.S.; Habib, M.A.; & Ashfq, M., 2008. Revitalizing a Traditional Dryland Water Supply System: The Karzes in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water International,33:3:33.
• Kazemi, G.A, 2004. Temporal Changes in the Physical Properties and Chemical Composition of the Municipal Water Supply of Shahrood, Northeastern Iran. Hydrogeology Journal, 12:723. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No, because it still has the issue that mentioned by me in above sections. The way you put all of Arabian, Iranian, and other origins and how you summarize them matters. Weight and NPOV tone, e.g. scholar X rejects existence of pre-Sasanian Qanats in Persia, but scholar Y and Z disprove X's opinion. And if you want to dedicate a whole paragraph to a specific scholar, then you should do it for the others too. Or you can divide "Origin" into subsections like "Arabian origin", "Iranian origin", and "Other...". Let an editor like Kansas Bear or someone else rewrite it. We don't need a new revision with just some additional texts but suffering from a POV tone (like both old and current revisions). --Wario-Man (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrally presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views published by reliable sources, avoiding stating opinions as facts, is the basis of NPOV. And per that; "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.". I think it is fair enough to state that the majority of scholars support the Iranian hypothesis as to balance the article. Keep in mind that both versions weren't written by me, if you want to to make some tweaks with the Iranian version, go ahead. Now your proposal is better, if you believe it would solve our issue. Nabataeus (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wario-Man, as i said above, this version only gives some parts of what scholars like Boucharlat say, this should not be. Also, in the Iranian part, there is no attempt to discredit the Arabian claim, while your version tends to discredit the Iranian side. I also think that this section should be written by an experienced and trusted editor like Kansas Bear, or any other knowledgeable editor. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not neutral and Wikaviani has explained it too. The issue is not how you quoted those sources, the issue is about how we use them. Let me explain it:

• Current revision: "The qanat technology was developed in ancient Iran by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward.[1][2][3][4][5][6] This view is disputed by Tikriti, who argues a South-East Arabian origin for the technology.[7] A pre-Achaemenid Empire Arabian origin is also argued by the Underground Aqueducts Handbook.[8] The Archemaed era Qanats of Gonabad is one of the oldest and largest qanats in the world built between 700 BC to 500 BC, and is still in use today. "

The issues: 1) Cited 6 sources for Iranian/Persian origin but no details. Feels like a overcited part. It does not give necessary info about the Iranian origin. Just a sentence with 6 cited sources. 2) Then we see two sources about non-Iranian origin which discredit Iranian theory. 3) And then ...Qanats of Gonabad appears and discredits the previous Arabian claims. 4) As you see it's a mess and confuses the readers.

Your suggested text is OK (you should consider Wikaviani's point though) BUT the problem is if you add it to the article without expanding or rewriting the Origin section, then it just confuses the readers like the current revision. They see stuff like that "Qanats of Gonabad" and same confusion happens. AGAIN, As I said, the way we put all of those content together and how we summarize them matter. My suggestion:

• We remove origin-related stuff from the lead.
• In "Origins", we mention Iranian, Arabian, and other origins just per their weight. e.g. "Most scholars propose an Iranian origin.. but there are non-Iranian origins like Arabian or X suggested by some scholars".
• Dividing "Origins" into subsections: Iranian, Arabian, and etc. Now this is where you put your quoted texts and etc. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Scholars dismiss things, discredit many things, argue against it. Wikipedia reflect the academic statement. There's no attempt to discredit the Arabian claim? It is not like there are papers that discredit and point to the fallacies of the Arabian claim so "an attempt could be made". There is a difference, an attempt by a user fail the NPOV policy, presenting the opinion is, not. The NPOV policy couldn't be any more clearer on that. Nabataeus (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You could expand the Iranian version and give it more detail and depth, I have no problem. As for the current version, it should be re-written and that's why there is an active discussion. Glad the text is ok. I agree with your proposal, could you write the Iranian theory? Nabataeus (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

the aim of Wikipedia is not to make conflicting statements between different theories. The Iranian paragraph has been endorsed by different editors, it does not tend to discredit the other side's view, nobody denied it and therefore (i ignore irrelevant WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments by Alaxandermcnabb about the sources here), i don't see why we should rewrite it. The problem here is how you present the Arabian claim by trying to discredit the other side's theory, which is, indeed, better sourced. We could just write the Iranian theory, and then point to the fact that this theory has been questioned by some sources who claim an Arabian/X/or Y origin and provide links pointing to the said sources with page numbers and quotes. this is a better way to keep a WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL article about the origins. Personaly, i'll wait for Kansas Bear's insight and proposal before any other move. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "We could just write the Iranian theory, and then point to the fact that this theory has been questioned by some sources who claim an Arabian/X/or Y origin and provide links pointing to the said sources with page numbers and quotes. this is a better way to keep a WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL article about the origins."

This might be the best way to present all the information properly. Why not write it up and post it here? Then discuss it from there? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Two theories are bound to have "conflicting" statements regardless. It is the argument of reputable sources, their opinions are presented neutrally, sourced tightly, and along the lines of Wiki policies.. see Al-Farabi it have "conflicting" statements, argument are given (of the sources), statements are discredited by the next that follows. How are you gonna make your mind when no scholarly arguments are included? I support own sections, it seems there is no other way at this point. Nabataeus (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

So in other words undue weight for the Arabian hypothesis it is? No, I support Wario proposal. Nabataeus (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"see Al-Farabi it have "conflicting" statements, argument are given (of the sources), statements are discredited by the next that follows." Irrelevant here, see WP:OTHER. Also, it's not really a matter of WP:UNDUE here, rather WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:NPOV. What's the problem with my above proposal ? Why do you absolutely want to present the two theories in a conflicting way ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."

That's exactly what the Arabian version stands for. it is accurate representation of the position. If you think that the Iranian position isn't represented accurately. Feel free to do it. What you are requesting is the opposite. Nabataeus (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read what i said above ? When have i said that the Iranian position is not represented accurately ? I said we should not present the two theories in a conflicting way and Kansas Bear (and, i presume, Wario-Man) agree with that. Also, my proposal does not go against " Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. " at all, rather, it allows a WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL presentation of the matter.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sections should be made then, providing both views and counter views. Thoughts @Joe Roe:? Nabataeus (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Usually, admins refuse to side with one part against the other, especially when they have performed administrative actions, like Joe did here when he protected the page. Take a look here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

He is not engaging in the dispute, neither he used his position while he was. Since he said he read the discussion, his opinion is valuable as a 3rd party and not a participant. Nabataeus (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

As i said, usually admins refuse to side with one part of the dispute, but Joe is welcome to give his opinion just like any other user and i also would welcome his insight. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've been trying to stay relatively uninvolved, but the current version looks fine. We should definitely reference the Arabian hypothesis and as long as claims are stated neutrally and clearly attributed, I don't think we need to worry too much about WP:WEIGHT in an area like this. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Complain, Suggestions, HERE

Complaints, Suggestions, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: First of all, thank you very much for your work here, your version sounds quite good according to me. However, i would like to suggest some improvements :

• the link to boucharlat's book is broken and the browser dislays a "page not found" message when i try to follow it.
• Boucharlat seems to point to a multi place origin for the system, might be good to include that.
• Might be good to include the links pointing to the sources for all of them.
• For more consistency with the sources supporting a 5000 years old invention, i would suggest saying "as far back as before 3000 BC.

Thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Tried to fix the Boucharlat link. As for links, I was copying references for the appropriate information and if links were already part of the references, they were copied. I do not believe linking is necessary if the reference is properly cited.

• "Boucharlat seems to point to a multi place origin for the system, might be good to include that."

I did not run on to that. Can you point me to the page, title, etc? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Page 279 : "The hypothesis of radial diffusion from a unique center does not match with the archaeological evidence. the Qanat and falaj in their general meaning may well be a polycentric innovation in different geographical contexts at different periods, especially for the first period, the first millenium BC."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, Kansas. Thanks for your work. There are extremely minor things: I would suggest, 1) removal of the first counterargument, as some authors before tikriti challenged it, and attributed it to Uratu, Armenia. However he was harshly criticized, from what I understand. So it should be stated that Tikriti provided a counterargument to the Iranian theory 2) The dating wasn't architecturally, but carbon dated, that's why it is definitive. Just that. BTW why you removed remy claim that no pre-islamic qanat exist in Iran? If it would solve the issue I have no problem. Oh, and I agree with Wikaviani on the inclusion of the polycentric innovation hypothesis. Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

1)a)"removal of the first counterargument, as some authors before tikriti challenged it, and attributed it to Uratu, Armenia"

I did not see any mention of Uratu, Armenia in the Arab origin, did I miss something?

1)b)"So it should be stated that Tikriti provided a counterargument to the Iranian theory"

the wording used in the Arab origin paragraph indicated Tikriti was the first, " The 2002 publication of a paper by archaeologist Walid Yasin Al Tikriti[ ..... ] provided the first counterpoint to the long-accepted narrative..."

2)"The dating wasn't architecturally, but carbon dated, that's why it is definitive."

I searched the source given and could not find carbon dating in the article(The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system), if you know which page, let me know, I will check it and if it checks out, I will add it back.

3)"BTW why you removed remy claim that no pre-islamic qanat exist in Iran?"

I felt having Boucharlat claim there were no pre-Islamic qanats in Iran, when coupled with what the traditional belief states(Iran origin), did more damage to Boucharlat as a source than good.

4)"Oh, and I agree with Wikaviani on the inclusion of the polycentric innovation hypothesis."

Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• "I did not see any mention of Uratu, Armenia in the Arab origin, did I miss something?"

Yes, because I read it and can't locate it for now. Indeed the paragraph say that it was the first counterpoint, I am not sure what made Alexander believe in that. There's no source that state he was the first neither it is the case, so we should avoid it.

• "I searched the source given and could not find carbon dating in the article(The south-east Arabian origin of the falaj system), if you know which page, let me know, I will check it and if it checks out, I will add it back."

per the Underground Aqueducts HandBook, p. 282.: "The chronology of the early falaj was rapidly set, thanks to several excavations of villages totally depending of the falaj. Moreover, an example in Oman was dated by radiocarbon of the ninth century BC.

Best Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry it speaks of the UAE. You could see Tikriti page where he dated sherds, pottery, and fireplaces in p. 120. for example to the Iron age. Nabataeus (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

On the page 131(Tikriti), it mentioned architecture of the tuqab.

• "In spite of the absence of pottery, we were still able to date the falaj to the Iron Age on the basis of the shape and architecture of the tuqab."

Would you prefer sherds, pottery, and fireplaces, instead? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of organic compounds, architectural similarities between the dated falaj could suggest a pattern thus an Iron age origin for certain features of the falaj. If no organic evidence exist. That's fine, but since both methods are used I believe stating that it is simply dated is enough, the reader could check the source for more info on how it was dated. Nabataeus (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise, many of the very surprising claims are npw removed from the text, like "no known Iranian qanat can be dated to the pre-Islamic period" or "no evidence has been found for any such qanat in Iran dated earlier than the 5th century BCE". Also, the dismissal of JC Wilkinson's conclusions are also removed, which is a good thing since Wilkinson was one of the first serious scholars who have studied this matter. Thanks for your job Kansas (and thanks to you too, Nabataeus, for the time you spent contributing to this long thread). If Wario-Man agrees with this version, let's include it. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the current version after the tweaks doesn't silence the Arabian hypothesis. Thanks to you and all the participants. Regards. Nabataeus (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If your suggested revision is the above section "Concept", it's unbiased, good and ready for inserting into the article. Just rewrite the lead. These detailed discussions are really helpful for the future. Thanks, all. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Though I wasn't previously involved here, because of Wikaviani's WP:Disruptive edit, in which he removed citations, bloated space, made quotations funny, like by turning " to “ or ”, with the excuse that uninvolved editors need a consensus to make necessary changes, I have had to come here. I checked the discussions, and that aside from the issue of WP:Neutrality, just as Wario-Man's correction of a typo does not contradict the consensus, and he did not need a consensus to do that, WP:adding references where they are needed, adding the CN tag to unreferenced text, minimising extra space, and correcting quotation marks does not contradict the consensus, and these are according to the rules. Now it should be clear that there is a discussion going on, lest uninvolved editors face the same situation which I did. Leo1pard (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 10:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This edit is not simply a maintenance and correction of typos that are not related to the issue. Nabataeus (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: I would suggest you to refrain from labelling other users' contribution as "disruptive" when they ask you to use the talk page. I'm happy to see that you have, at last, found the "talk" button. Also, as Nabataeus said above, the diff shows that all your changes were not only minor corrections, recommend you to desist from trying to mislead other editors, since this is a personal attack, take a look here : "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page". Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If the real issue at hand is WP:conflicting sources about whether Iran or the Arabian Peninsula is the exact place of origin of the qanat, then you could have focused on that, not remove references where they were needed, add unnecessary space, turning " to “ or ”, and so on, with the excuse that the person who made these edits was not involved in these discussions, or needs a consensus to make edits that are obligatory according to the rules, particularly the use of relevant sources for content, and of course I have evidence of what happened in the article. Leo1pard (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 13:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to fool others. The "real issue" is that you made a first edit against the consensus found on this talk page, then you made several other edits which can be labelled as minor corrections and unrelated to the issue discussed here, therefore, in order to revert your unconsensual first edit, i had to revert all your changes because of intermediate edits. Learn to use the talk and you'll not have these kind of problems in the future. As you can see, i have not reverted your recent edits since they're, indeed, minor corrections and content additions unrelated with the issue that has been discussed on this talk page. Done with you here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

To all involved editors who extensively contributed here, any of you guys is welcome to make the relevant changes accordingly to the consensus found here, or, i can also do it if you want. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

So the issue is that the majority of authors believe that it originated in Iran, with some believing it to be the Arabian Peninsula, based on archaeological findings here and there, but either case, the qanat originated from southwestern Asia, because it is the region of both Arabia and Iran, so how does it contradict the consensus to say that southwestern Asia is the place of origin, when the consensus is more to do with 2 places within southwest Asia, than about the bigger region? Leo1pard (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In your edit summary you were talking about a "Western Asian" origin, now you mention only southwestern Asia. A little look at a map will show you that indeed, Iran and the arabian Peninsula are included in Western Asia (and also in southwestern Asia), but Western Asia and southwestern asia are not limited to Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Do you want me to provide you a map ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No need for a map, I know what Western Asia is, it's just that "Southwest Asia" is more accurate, because the western part of Russia that is in Asia is treated as being outside West Asia, despite forming the northern part of Asia's western border region with Europe, and Arabia and Iran are indeed considered part of Southwest Asia, so there is no dispute about Southwest Asia being the place of origin of the qanat system, as far as I see. Leo1pard (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC); edited 15:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

So what would we do now? --Wario-Man (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I was about to edit the article accordingly to this talk page, but i'm wondering what to do with the cotton stuff paragraph. Remove it ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone miss it? Can the information be moved to another part of the article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Will take a look at it tomorrow. If we cannot move it in another part of the article, i would suggest to delete it while keeping some of its sources. Thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead added the consensus Origin and placed the Cotton related paragraph to the Iran section. Further decisions over the Cotton paragraph can be made at any time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. as usual, you're a precious editor man. I may reword slightly the lead accordingly to the "origins" section. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the lead is still untouched? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe Wikaviani was going to address that some time later? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comments, it's an issue. Should be moved to the Origins or shorten and neutralized. Mentioning one scholar (Tikriti) and one source (Underground Aqueducts Handbook) in the lead is not a good idea and makes this article like a promotional stuff or advertisement. We can't leave that part untouched. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

So replace it with "However, contemporary academic opinion based on archaeology has moved towards a Southern Arabian origin for the innovation." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No. If the first part begins with "According to most sources..." then the 2nd part should be something like 1st part, e.g. "According to some other sources...". --Wario-Man (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was able to address it if the version i proposed was adopted, since that version could be mixed with the lead's sentence, but that was not the case, therefore, if the isse is that there is only one source (Tikriti), then, maybe, we could add another one ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You, Kansas Bear, or other editors can summarize and shorten the content of Origins and put in the lead section. But honestly I think we should remove it from the lead. When origin of something or someone is disputed, lead is not a place for putting origin-related stuff there. Or if you think origin-related info is useful and are a part of article summary, you should make it short and neutral. Should I mention some examples? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's move it to the "origins" section, but then, we need to reword it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If we move it to Origins, then the lead becomes short. Any plan for the lead after moving those stuff? --Wario-Man (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, i think we should keep the lead and cite more sources for the Arabian part, since it's quite tricky to do otherwise. Are you sure we cannot have disputed content in the lead ? According to this, we can have disputed content in the lead if sources are provided. Thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article or gives necessary infto to the readers, e.g. someones finds term "qanat" in a book, searches it, and reaches to this WP article. That person just wants to know basic info and the lead should give it to them. Current lead is bad: Sounds like an ad, focused on origins rather than summary, and other issues mentioned by me before. We can keep origins in the lead, but as I said it should become shorter, neutral, and simple. Something like this, more or less (you can use better wordings): "According to most sources, the qanat technology was developed in ancient Iran by the Persians sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward... Some other sources suggest a South-East Arabian origin..." --Wario-Man (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i understand your point. Reworded the lead, would welcome your opinion about my edit. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's OK. Now we just need some useful stuff from the body of article and a summary of them in the lead. Can you do it? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, i can do it. You mean for example adding to the lead some content like "Qanats are used in several countries on the four continents" etc ... ? i'll need some time since i'll be quite busy right now, but i'll take a look at it tomorrow. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead's improvement

As Wario-Man said above, the lead should still be improved. therefore, my proposal is to add this content to the lead, if there is consensus about it : "Qanats are used in numerous countries, but the value of this system is directly related to the quality, volume, and regularity of the water flow." I would welcome the eye of every involved editors here. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to call me or the other editors. If your additions follow guidelines, then fee free to add them. The consensus and previous discussions were about Origins and it has ended in my opinion. You like to edit this article, then just edit it. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Saltmaking

I've just greatly shortened the section on saltmaking, which was lifted more or less verbatim from Bloch's paper. While looking at the paper, I got a creeping sense of it being a bunch of baloney. If you search online for more about qanats used for saltmaking, every reference to this idea comes back to Bloch, and his paper, though accepted at an apparently peer-reviewed journal, is borderline incoherent in many places, and its references section is positively illiterate-looking (and all the references are to his own papers, most self-published!), so I can't say I think Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation's standards are very high. He's not allied with any university, only with an institute he himself founded, "SALT ARCHIVE" (in all caps for no reason). Salt Archive's website is, to put it mildly, not confidence-inspiring.

I'd be inclined to remove the whole section. The next person who feels the same, I encourage you to just do it—but I thought I'd give the idea a chance in case there are some non-poppycock sources to cite. Nondirectional (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Besides being,

• "Founder of M.R.Bloch SALT ARCHIVE- Owner of Chemical Engineering consultancy- MBL Separation Engineering, Israel"
  

Does David Bloch have any expertise in this area? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems weird that the qanats were used for saltmaking. We should avoid out of their field self-publishing authors, from the look of it, Bloch fall in this category. Nabataeus (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Nabataeus. If this section is only supported by one source, it should be left out per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I traced the section in question to a couple edits made by, guess who, user Commonsalt, who has a user page with capitalization and misspellings suspiciously like that used on Bloch's website. This saltmaking section (and the user page) represents the only edits "Commonsalt" has to his credit, and I'd just as soon we got rid of them. Deleting it. Nondirectional (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your arguments for deleting any mention of the very possible original design of the qanat watershed streams systems as salt leaching systems, I should like to request your reconsidered attention to the subject, and not base it solely upon "single" source reasons. 

Moshe Rudolf Bloch - Wikipedia:

Moshe Rudolf "Rudi" Bloch was an Israeli scientist. Contents. 1 Biography; 2 Awards and ... Moshe Rudolf Bloch ... Salt Mirror and Petroleum Formation ...

Revealing the Original Purpose Engineered Qanat Karez Falaj Salt Leaching System

Academic estimates cite the principle use of Qanat/Karez water to have been for domestic irrigation purposes, however, the human engineering effort required for building these ancient Qanat systems was clearly so great that other, far more valuable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonsalt (talk • contribs) 07:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just done a bit of format cleanup on your previous comment; feel free to revert it if you disagree with anything I did.

I have at least four concerns with using your paper as a citation to include a saltmaking section:

1. In your paper, you assert that there was a "considerable rise of the ocean eustatic sea levels [redundancy sic] between the years 200 BCE and 300 CE," which would have put worldwide salt evaporation flats out of commission. You offer a single citation for this claim, a 1964 paper by M.R. Bloch. Palaeoclimatology, however, has seen a vast amount of development in the 55 years since that paper. Wikipedia's own well-cited page on past sea level shows no such rise, and notes, "The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago," and, "Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, 3,000 calendar years ago to present, sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD." Absent any modern evidence of this putative ocean rise, I see no reason to suppose that global salt trading networks were disrupted, certainly not enough to justify the creation of what you call (twice in two pages) a "feat of underground engineering which could be compared to the Egyptian Pyramids and the Great Wall of China."

2. You claim that the only conceivable reason to extend the qanats to the uninhabitable arid regions of central Asia is to make salt there. You have not addressed the well-known differences between today's climate in those areas and the climate there thousands of years ago, when modern Iraq, for example, was lush enough to be known as the Fertile Crescent, and Lebanon was forested thickly with cedars (whereas today actual Lebanese cedars may be outnumbered by cedars printed on Lebanese flags). Formerly usable grazing land in Australia is, as we speak, being rendered useless by irrigation practices that dissolve the pre-existing salt from the local minerals and coat basin floors with it. Even I, at best a dilettante in palaeoclimatology, can offer the counterconjecture that the sabkhas you suppose to have been used for saltmaking are in fact the result of poor irrigation practices.

3. The article you linked just above has a striking lack of competent citations. You cite several sources in your bibliography, but fail to link any specific claim in your paper to any specific source that verifies it. Some of the sources you cite are dubious at best, for example, "https://wiki2.org/en/list_of_endorheic_basins" (cited without a title). Nearly a third (7 of 24) of your citations are to your own work or to that of M.R. Bloch, who I must assume is related to you; these citations appear to be the only ones backing up the saltmaking aspects of your theory. This dearth of good citations extends to all your work that I've seen.

4. As I implied in point 3, the saltmaking theory seems to have been originated with M.R. Bloch, whose legacy I tend to believe you must be attempting to preserve. Whatever Moshe Rudolf Bloch's familial relation to you, David Bloch, you are clearly tied quite closely to him and his legacy, being, as far as I can tell, the sole proprietor of the MRBLOCH Salt Archive. This calls your neutrality in this matter into question. A salt researcher can, of course, be expected to have strong opinions on salt, and these do not disqualify him, and indeed may make him a more reliable source. However, the claims of a salt researcher with dubious credentials, who to all appearances is attempting to preserve a familial legacy, should be regarded with much more skepticism.

All this is over and above the general poor formatting and grammar of all your work I've seen so far. I'm willing to forgive quite a bit of bad English and bad formatting if the message behind it seems solid. After all, not everyone is a graphic designer or can afford to hire one, and not everyone speaks English as a first language. In your case, however, the message does not seem solid, and your formatting and grammar further detracts from your believability. If more serious scientists were on board with you, I'm inclined to believe, your work would at least have attracted the services of one competent copy editor. But this can't be said even of your published work in a third-party journal, which calls both your reputation and that journal's into question.

If you can convince a more reputable scientist that your theory holds water (so to speak), and get that scientist to back you up – or if you can find even one other reputable scientist besides M. R. Bloch (reputable as he may have been) who already subscribes to the same theory – then there may be grounds for considering reinstatement of the saltmaking section. Frankly, I think you have an uphill battle, but I'm willing to be surprised. Please put your surprises here first, of course. Nondirectional (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Concept

Traditionally it is recognized that the qanat technology was invented in ancient Iran sometime in the early 1st millennium BC, and spread from there slowly westward and eastward. Accordingly some sources state qanats were invented in Iran before 1000 BC and as far back as 3000 BC. Consequently, the qanats of Gonabad have been estimated to be nearly 2700 years old.

In 2002, archaeologist Walid Yasin Al Tikriti provided a counterpoint that the qanat did not originate in Persia. As evidence, he noted seven Iron Age aflaj recently discovered in the Al Ain area of the UAE which were dated back to the first millennium BCE based on sherds, pottery, fireplaces, and architecture. Tikriti pointed to excavations in Sharjah, by the French archaeological team working there, as well as a German team working in Oman of possible Iron age aflaj. He concludes that the technology originated in South East Arabia and was taken to Persia, likely by the Sasanian conquest of the Oman peninsular.

In 2013, Boualem Remini and Bachir Achour, stated that the origin of the qanat technology is uncertain, yet confirmed the technology was in use in northwest Iran c.1000 BCE.

In 2016, Rémy Boucharlat in his paper Qanāt and Falaj: Polycentric and Multi-Period Innovations Iran and the United Arab Emirates as Case Studies, asserted that the attribution of the technology to Iranians in the early first millennium BCE is a position that cannot longer be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Whereas Boucharlat contends archeological evidence indicates a polycentric innovation as opposed to a radial diffusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References