Talk:Shabankara

Origin

. Frat070699 (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Frat070699 (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Eh, is there supposed to be a message? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

the shabankarah was not "ethnic kurds " also the primary sources such as "al 'umari " intruduce kurds lurs shouli and shabankara four seperate groups

the shabankara even werent a single ethnic Herodotous (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Background

@HistoryofIran: I'm curios myself as there seems to be a bit of confusion: Was the Shabankara tribe of Pars of ethnic Kurdish origin, or were they "Kurds" in the tradition non-ethnic sense of the term? Armanqur (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Dunno, I guess it depends on which scholar you ask. I'm not really well-versed in this topic unfortunately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Should they be labeled as Kurds or as Iranians? Armanqur (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Armanqur: What source explicitly states that Shabankara are not ethnic Kurdish but Kurdish in another sense? You've removed academic sources because your own opinion contradicts them? --Semsûrî (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And what do you mean by 'unreliable popular source'?[1] All I see is POV-editing from your side, to be frank. Defining one reference as unreliable, but removing them all does not look good. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"The A to Z of the Kurds" is not an academic source; it's a an unreliable popular source. Also, some of the other sources you referenced weren't considered as acceptable before, so why would they be acceptable now. Moreover, the Iranica page barely mentions anything about the Shabankara tribe; it's in no way a reliable source for this. Besides that, there are plenty of sources that question the Kurdishness of groups and tribes in southern and south-eastern Iran. If their Kurdishness is in question, then referring to them as Iranian makes more sense. Armanqur (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can ask some of the admins and let them decide. Armanqur (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are two entries of Encyclopaedia of Islam unreliable? You declare academic references unreliable without real argumentation. I'm notifying @El C: for this. -Semsûrî (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

When someone else referenced encylopaedia of Islam (a different version from yours) for this page, it was reverted by an admin. I simply assumed that this version would also be considered as unreliable. Also, can you definitively prove that they were specifically ethnic Kurds and not nomad kurds? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed as if one of the two encyclopaedia links didn't state anything about the Shabankara tribe directly; how would it be considered as a reliable source for this matter? Armanqur (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the EoI entries explicitly states that Shabankara is Kurdish, the other explicitly states that their ruler was Kurdish. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having a bit of a difficult time immediately grasping the nature of this dispute. El_C 11:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, we're arguing about whether or not the Shabankara should be labeled as Kurds. I don't think they should because the term "kurd" is a bit ambiguous. Admins such as HistoryofIran, Wikaviani, Wario-Man, and Kansas Bear may have an answer for this. Armanqur (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well from my point of view, it is academic and specialized references versus your POV. Encyclopedia of Islam and especially Iranica Online are specialized on Iranian topics and do not question the ethnic Kurdish background of Shabankara. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Iranica page doesn't state anything about whether this is the Shabankara tribe of Kermanshah or Southern Iran. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these two completely different tribes with the same name? Which tribe was the Iranica article referencing because the name of the tribe seemed to have been randomly thrown in at the bottom of the reference page of the Iranica article. Armanqur (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It does talk about Shabankara of Fars. :

There were many Kurds in Fārs in the 11th century, including as many as five tribes of Šabānkāra (Ebn al-Balḵi, tr. pp. 5-13). Although Ebn Balḵi distinguishes the Šabānkāra from the original Kurdish tribes of Fārs, the name of one of the Šabānkāra five clans, Rāmāni (the other four are Esmāʿili, Karzubi, Masʿudi, Šakāni), is identical with that of a Kurdish tribe of Fārs mentioned in early sources.[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Semsûrî (talk • contribs)

Semsûrî, please make sure to sign your comments. Anyway, I'm not sure what is expected of me here. This isn't an area with which I am familiar. If there is a need for administrative action, it has not been made clear to me yet at this stage why that is (also noting that HistoryofIran, Wikaviani, Wario-Man, and Kansas Bear are not admins). El_C 15:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Armanqur and Semsûrî: The solution is WP:WEIGHT and WP:NEUTRAL. If both Kurdish origin and Daylamite origin have weight among the scholars, then all content about the background/ethnicity should be moved to the body of article and a proper section like Origins (keep the first paragraph and move the rest). Other points: Consider Wikipedia:I just don't like it; e.g. if a reliable/expert source says Shabankara were Martian, you can't delete it just because you don't like it or you think it's wrong. Personal opinions/interpretations do not matter. Also see Wikipedia:Citation overkill; adding a bunch of random sources is not helpful. Each source should bring something new to the table. I @Kansas Bear and LouisAragon:; your thoughts? --Wario-Man (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Firstly, Potts simply states on page 166 that "[Shabankara] are thought to have been descendants of Daylamites or of some of the “kurds” who were deported to Fars from the area of Isfahan by ‘Adud od-Dowleh." That should be corrected in the article since it currently states that Potts believes in this theory. Secondly, Potts theory on 'kurds' being a generic term was not removed[3]. However, as per WEIGHT, there are more scholars who do not question the ethnic Kurdish background of Shabankara and that's why my edits were made.[4] As of now, Armanqur's actions are not only Wikipedia:I just don't like it but they also used unsupported attributions (the 'some' change here[5]). If this is simply a case of personal opinion v. scholarly references I believe their edits should be reverted. --Semsûrî (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)