Talk:Shiraz pogrom

Use of language in this article

Terms like "hooligans" are unencyclopedic and slant the POV of an article. They are not appropriate. Salim555 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "hooligans" has connotations that look down upon the mob, but I think the word should remain. The word describes the mob fairly. The definition of "hooligan" is "A tough and aggressive or violent youth." From reading the article this definition is the characterization of the mob. Agha Nader 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Who is the governor referring to as a 'mob'? If the Jewish population, then the use of the word to describe their attackers in the following sentence is highly confusing. Phantomsnake (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

state of state of

"state of state of" is presumably a misquote, but I don't have the original book. Art LaPella 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research

The title "Shiraz blood libel" is original research since there is no source that uses that term. I propose changing the name of the article. Agha Nader 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Not only that but only one source was used to state these things as fact. This is a contentious issue and the people who wrote this should take care to use more documentation. It seems to me that some people want to exagerrate tensions between Iran and Israel. Those "evil Jew-hating Iranians", right? FYI, just because Ahmadinejad is an idiot doesn't mean vast majority of Iranian peoples believe in that shit. Khorshid 08:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What do the other sources say? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The blood libel is mentioned passingly in The Jews of Islam by Bernard Lewis on pages 183 and 218, also referencing Nataf's report published in Littman's work. Beit Or 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The important issue is that no reliable source has used the term "Shiraz blood libel". Using such a term as the title is original research. I propose changing the name of the article. Agha Nader 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

What do you want to change it to? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Verification

This article needs to be verified since only one source is cited. Agha Nader 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Any article needs to be verified. Please see my response above regarding the "one source" complaint. Beit Or 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is based soley on one source. There needs to be other sources that verify this claim. Furthermore, you may add the The Jews of Islam by Bernard Lewis if you wish. --Agha Nader 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The source is reliable, what's your problem? Is it with the fact that the article shows the inhabitants of Shiraz in a not-so-good light? Beit Or 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Littman bases the whole story one a few letters. With the great majority from one person. That is not reliable. If the source is so reliable then why do not you add other sources to verify it. Moreover, The Jews of Islam by Bernard Lewis does not, indeed, cite Littman. --Agha Nader 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does cite Littman. Please look carefully. Beit Or 20:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the source cited, and did not see any discrepancies. Since the source is available online, anyone else can verify it who wants to. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am happy that you did not see any discrepancies, but that irrelevant. It must be verified against other sources, not your opinion. This whole article is based on one source. Also that source bases it on a few letters. Do not remove maintenance tags spuriously, as it can be considered vandalism. --Agha Nader 15:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. The policy does not require that everything must be sourced to several different sources. Rhodes blood libel is sourced mostly to one book, and it's a featured article nonetheless. In addition, please do not throw around accusations of vandalism. Beit Or 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhodes blood libel is sourced to no less than six books. Only one book is sourced in this article. Why did not you respond to my previous comment: the "source bases it on a few letters". This source needs to be verified. I did not accuse Tom Harrison of vandalism: do not put words in my mouth. I said "Do not remove maintenance tags spuriously, as it can be considered vandalism." Which is a request and a fact, not an "accusation". I believe I have already talked to you about AGF on your talk, I hope you will not violate it any further.--Agha Nader 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The template said, "Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked." I did that, and then removed the template. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, what source did you use to verify Littman? I hope you are not referring to your own scholarship. As I have stated before, only one source is cited in the article. Furthermore, that source bases the event on some letters, and most of it based on one letter. As user Khorshid asked "this article only uses one source to state these things as total fact?"--Agha Nader 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The template you added says, "Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked." I verified the information in the article with the source provided - Littman. The information in the article accurately reflects what the source - Littman - says. Now, the information in the article has been verified against the source. Do you dispute that what is in the article is what Littman says, or do you have another source that says something else? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:REDFLAG. It states "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." This article makes "exceptional claims" about "historical events" and thus should "be supported by multiple reliable sources". This article cites only one source. How can we present this extraordinary claim as fact based on one source (which is mostly based on one letter too)? WP:RS says to be aware of "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". The Shiraz blood libel is not widely known. This is apparent since only one source is cited. Interestingly, WP:RS states "Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." User Beit Or has insinuated that my "problem" is "that the article shows the inhabitants of Shiraz in a not-so-good light". Please see [1]. --Agha Nader 04:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nearly a hundred years ago there was a pogrom in Shiraz. The Jewish quarter was looted by a mob. Unfortunately, there is nothing extraordinary about that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not extraordinaty, eh? Well if this is so widely known and nothing out of the ordinary, why are there not other incidents? Why are there no other sources? Why is most of this article written based on one letter?--Agha Nader 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have provided to you at least one more sources mentioning the pogrom. You keep cliaming that no other sources exist. Beit Or 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in sources that you claim to exist. I am interested in sources that are cited in the article. --Agha Nader 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have cited other sources on this talk page above. I am entirely free to choose which sources to cite in the article; in this case, I have opted for the one that gives a detailed account of the event, not merely mentions it. Beit Or 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

From Template:Onesource: "This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions." Since none of the above applies to the article, the usage of this template is inappropriate. Beit Or 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source." This is definitely the case here.--Agha Nader 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added two others. Let me know if you think more are needed and I will order Loeb's book from the library. I am sure it includes lots of detail we can add to the article. There is also a bibliography at the University of Maryland that might have some useful titles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added another source, which was already mentioned on the talk page. Beit Or 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe much of this article replies on the single source and the autor of the cited source itself may have special interest or perhaps some intention or bias in purporting this incident. (independant opinion)

For all intents and purposes, it does rely on a single source. Atari400 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it discussed above? Beit Or 23:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no consensus was achieved, and clearly there is a shortage of sources(in reality, only one). The article could use more references to improve it's quality. Please to not remove the tag, unless more references are found. Atari400 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are four secondary sources. The article relies mostly on the primary source, which gives the details of the incidents. Please specify what you mean by "more references". If you want more primary sources, please first demonstrate that such sources exist. Beit Or 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. There are only two sources, of which one relies on the other as a source. In affect, there is a single source. A simple google search shows that most hits and links are directly to this Wikipedia article. Simply put, more verifiable sources are needed. Atari400 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's count the sources again:

The primary source

Nataf, M. Letter of 31.10.1910. AIU Bulletin, No 35, 1910, pp. 182–188.

Secondary sources

1. Littman, David (1979). "Jews Under Muslim Rule: The Case Of Persia". The Wiener Library Bulletin XXXII (New series 49/50).
2. Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00807-8, p. 183 - "Even the accusation of ritual murder, not known in the past, reached Iran, and a particularly bad case occurred in Shiraz in 1910."
3. Simon, Rita J (1980-09). "Review of "Outcaste: Jewish Life in Southern Iran by Laurence D. Loeb"". American Anthropologist 82 (3): 675-676. ISSN 00027294. Retrieved on 2007-04-22.
4. Dinmore, Guy. "Off Centre: An ancient community that is slipping away", Financial Times (London,England), 2000-05-20.

So, we have one primary source and four secondary sources in one of which the primary source was republished. That makes five. Even if you count Littman's article and Nataf's letter as one source, there are still four. This is enough for a reasonably well-referenced Wikipedia article. Beit Or 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before: "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source." This is definitely the case here. Some of the material is based on a single letter. This needs more verification.--Agha Nader (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

there are four to five sources. I'm sure you can count. Still, if you don't think that is enough, add some. But the tag doesn't belong; nothing remains unsourced in the article. Yahel Guhan 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I can count. I know that "there are four to five sources" cited. However, they all rely on one single source. More importantly, on a few letters. I have said this before. I am sure you can read.--Agha Nader (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Agha, why are you removing the references to this antisemitic act as being antisemitic? Yahel Guhan 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs a source for the purpose of adhering to WP:OR. We need a source saying that the Shiraz blood libel was antisemitic. It is not sufficient to have a source that proves that blood libels are antisemitic, and apply that to this article (that would be synthesis). --Agha Nader (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A progrom is an ethnic riot, and the killing of 12 jews makes it antisemitic. This is all sourced within the article. Yahel Guhan 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Case example of WP:OR = "the killing of 12 jews makes it antisemitic."

Look, if it is antisemitism, it should be labeled as such. Nonetheless, we must adhere to Wikipedia policy. We must provide a source saying the Shiraz blood libel was antisemitic --Agha Nader (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

"Further reading

• Loeb, Laurence D (1977-01-01). Outcaste: Jewish Life in Southern Iran (1 ed.). Routledge. p. 328. ISBN 0677045301." Mentioned here in case it belongs elsewhere in the article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing needed

The article written in an undictionary way, and kind of impartial, in unrelated way to it's sources. Need for editing.--Setareh1990 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)