User talk:Fakhredinblog

Welcome!

Hello, Fakhredinblog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

And don't forget, the edit summary is your friend. :) – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi vs. Persian

Farsi is a useful synonym for Modern Persian language that does see use in English language sources, and is listed in the OED as an English word. The problem is that "Persian" is ambiguous because of its associations with ancient Persia, i.e. it may refer to Old Persian or Middle Persian just as much as Modern Persian. Your comparison with français etc. is a bit disingenious, since these are not in actual use. "Farsi" has a status similar to "Hindi", "Urdu", "Kazakh", "Bengali", "Telugu", "Hausa", "Tagalog", and any number of other languages. To be fair, however, the OED also cites opposition to "Farsi",

1984 Bull. British Soc. Middle Eastern Studies XI. 123 It may still not be too late to put an end to the grotesque affectation of applying the name ‘Farsi’ to the language which for more than five hundred years has been known to English-speakers as Persian.

and I do not insist on using "Farsi" at all, Modern Persian language is perfectly correct; just Persian otoh is a little ambiguous, but alright if the context is clear. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dieter for your message. I understand why you feel that Persian is a bit "ambiguous," as it may refer to Old Persian as well as Modern Persian. In this sense, the name of the language is very much similar to Greek. It may refer to Ancient Greek, Koine Greek, Medieval Greek , or Modern Greek. Using the word Farsi in place of Modern Persian is like using the name Helenic instead of Modern Greek to distinguish it from other forms of Greek languages. This distinction, if necessary, can be directly pointed out in the text or in the speech, and we don't need to start using a different name for that.

About Farsi being listed in Oxford English Dictionary, I must say that the word is currently in use in English language (no doubt!), and, therefore, appears in the dictionaries. However, the official organization that can make a decision if this usage is justified or not is The Academy of Persian Language and Literature. In a pronouncement, the Academy has clearly rejected using the word Farsi in Western languages. I attach the document here for more information. FakhredinBlog (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy of the Persian Language and Literature has delivered a pronouncement on the English name of Persian language and rejected any usage of the word "Farsi" instead of Persian/Persa/Persane/Persisch in the Western languages. The announcement reads:

1) "Persian" has been used in a variety of publications including cultural, scientific and diplomatic documents for centuries and, therefore, it carries a very significant historical and cultural meaning. Hence, changing "Persian" to "Farsi" would negate this established important precedent.

2) Changing the usage from "Persian" to "Farsi" may give the impression that Farsi is a new language, although this may well be the intention of some users of Farsi.

3) Changing the usage may also give the impression that Farsi is a dialect used in some parts of Iran [Persia] rather than the predominant (and official) language of the country.

4) The word "Farsi" has never been used in any research paper or university document in any Western language, and the proposal to begin using it would create doubt and ambiguity about the name of the official language of Iran [Persia].

Thank you for quoting from the APLL. Their last point is ludicrous, and quickly dispelled by a 1-second Google-Scholar Search, that shows thousands of scholarly papers using "Farsi".[1] Is anyone surprised that an institution with the word "Persian" in its title would privilege this usage? *sheesh*

Yes, if you do a 1-second Google-Scholar Search, you will find number of papers using "Farsi," and you will find even more of them if you repeat your search over time. The fact is that at the time of the pronouncement, the word "Farsi" had never been used in any research papaer or university document. Over time, due to unawareness of the scholars, the word is started to be used, and will be used more and more as far as the ignorance exists. My aim is to spread the knowledge and speed this process down. FakhredinBlog (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent edits seem to be a clear cut example of disrupting wikipedia to make a point (see Wikipedia:POINT). If you do not stop disrupting the work of wikipedia to make your point you may face administrative consequences.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user above. In particular, blanket, high-speed reverting of people who disagree with your changes is considered disruptive, and can result in a block to stop the disruption. I see above that you have warned about this even some months ago, so you cannot be unaware that others consider this editing disruptive. Please stop. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the Farsi issue? I have to say I agree with Fakhredinblog in changing most instances of "Farsi" into "Persian" as this is indeed to be preferred. However, not in all cases should it remain the only name (see my comment below). Changing "Farsi" to "Persian" can only be called disruptive if there are clear reasons to include both names (as in List of languages by name), for instance. — N-true (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using an automated tool to change the text of many articles without prior discussion, and then using an automated tool to revert edits by people who disagreed with your changes, is disruptive regardless of what the change is. However, the fact is that "Farsi" versus "Persian" is a long-term contentious issue, so unilateral attempts to change the whole wiki without prior discussion are particularly bad. The fact that the user (or you) believes he is justified does not make it justified. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ·Maunus· and Gavia immer. I understand your points. My effort in editing the texts does not meant to disrupt wikipedia. For your information, I did not use any automated tool! I did it manually. It is a hard thing to do but I considered it important enough to do so. In addition, automated tools are prone to mistakes. While I tried to evaluate every text to find out in which context the word should be replaced and in which one not. Clearly my judgment is different from yours, but it does not make me wrong, and does not make you right as well. In fact, it is not about me being justified or not, it is an official decision from the Academy. You may disagree with it but it is official. We can of course put it into discussion, but after all we should accept the fact that the word "Farsi" should NOT be used in English text, as it is officially decided. You may not be aware of the history, but the whole thing started less than 30 years ago. That means until late 70's the word "Farsi" was not part of English vocabulary. The fact that some people started using that and made it popular does not make it right. It should be actively corrected. Even if some people search for the word "Farsi," we should redirect them to the correct source, instead of trying to facilitate their search. I hope the issue is clearer now. FakhredinBlog (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to mention two extra point to Gavia immer. Firstly, the statement "you have warned about this even some months ago" is not true! User dab put a comment here in November last year and I answered to that in December. By that time I have not done any edits in Wikipedia yet in that regard. One can simply check that in the history of my contributions. I sincerely hope that it is not a norm in Wikipedia community to consider a simple discussion a "warning."

Secondly, about the article Naming the American Civil War, I guess you do not know Persian language. The phrase "جنگ داخلی امریک" is not correct. The correct phrase is "جنگ داخلی آمریکا." I hope that you see the extra character at the end, and the change in the other character. I kindly asked you not change the Persian phrase in case you decide to undo my edits. I understand that you may not agree with me, but please accept the fact that my knowledge of Persian language is better than yours. Thank you for your understanding.

Last, but not least, I see no justification to use the word "Farsi" in this particular article. The article is not about the names of the languages, and other languages are stated by their English names. The word "Farsi" is used as stand alone, without the name "Persian" beside it. I appreciate if you can clarify your justification. FakhredinBlog (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I talk about disrupting wikipedia to make a point I talk about the fact that almost all of your edits are devoted to change the term farsi to persian in any article where you find the term. This you do without prior discussion or establishment of consensus - even though several editors, including the OED, disagree that Farsi should be considered a deprecated term in the English language. It seems to bethe case that you personally find the word Farsi to be distasteful in an english context - althpugh there is nothing inherently wrong with using the word. In my view this is a case similar to changing date formatting from BC to CE because of personal preferences - when according to the MOS, one should follow the dating system used by the mai contributor to an article. Establishing an account only to change the term Farsi to Persian because of a personal preference is disruptive to the establishment of consensus which is the basic wikipedia operating principle. When the editors who deal with farsi/persian language have established a consensus to disallow the use of the word Farsi - then blanket changes, like the nes you are undertaking can be made - not before.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the communication you had with dbachmann (dab) above, I probably should have said "informed" rather than "warned"; there was no need to say more than that. My point is that you did have information about this issue on Wikipedia before you made your mass edits. With regard to the Persian/Farsi text in Naming the American Civil War, I don't speak (and cannot read) the language in question; most English speakers cannot. That particular article has a history of low-quality edits, which is one reason I jumped on it so quickly and reverted the entire thing. I realize that most of the foreign language terms in the article don't have referencing, but I'd appreciate it if you provided referencing for your version of the text. If you do so, I have no problem whatsoever with that part of your edit. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification ·Maunus·. I would like to add that I did not established my account solely to change this particular term. It is evident from the date that the account is made and the dates of the edits. It just happened that I am interested to this topic (besides many other topics). If you see few contribution of mine in Wikipedia English is just because I contribute more in Wikipedia Persian (whenever I have time).

In fact, it is not a matter of personal preference, but a matter of consistency in individual articles and throughout the encyclopedia. One may use Farsi in place of Persian throughout a particular text or in a systematic fashion throughout the encyclopedia, but from an editorial point of view one may not use Persian in most of the occasions and suddenly use Farsi in the next sentence. This will confuse the reader more than giving him more information. It is at least wise to use Persian as the official name and use Farsi in brackets beside it only if necessary.

I made systematic changes simply because there were systematic inconsistencies, and you appreciate that more than 95% of my edits were justified. The discussion is just about some disagreements on less than 5% of those. I do, however, agree with you that the editor should have established a consensus beforehand. I am sorry for my ignorance in that regard. I considered the announcement of the Academy, and point of view of OED and other references, enough to perform the changes. Apparently it is not the case for Wikipedia, although it is for me. I hope the editor establishes a consensus soon. Let me also add this, as my personal point of view, that the consensus should not be based on what the majority of Wikipedia users prefer, but rather what scientifically is evaluated and published.

I also appreciate your clarification Gavia immer. It is still not clear to me what kind of references you would like to have in the article of Naming the American Civil War. Dictionaries normally provide no translations for phrases, but for words. However, if you will be so kind to undo your undid on my edits, I will definitely provide more information for that part. FakhredinBlog (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persian vs. Farsi

This is about the changes you made to the List of languages by name article. I agree with you (and that Persian Academy) that "Farsi" is to be avoided in English (and German, French, etc.) texts. And I also switched to saying "Persian" quite some time ago, as do my colleagues in Linguistics. But this is a different case here. The article lists – next to the official or most common name – any names of languages, that are also more or less widely used and that are likely to be heard, regardless of its political correctness. Your counterexample of "Suomi" doesn't work, because "Suomi" isn't used in English (or German, French, etc.), but "Farsi" is (though, not as commonly as "Persian"). A better comparison would be "Sakha" vs. "Yakut". People searching the list for Farsi should be able to find it. Furthermore, this is not an English text, but a list of languages, along with their alternative names, if they should be used ot not. So your claims are clearly invalid for this very article. Please accept that. — N-true (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you N-true. I did all the changes manually in order to have a good judgment for every article separately. Clearly my point of view is different from some other users. I still think that my example of "Suomi" versus "Finnish" is valid. The fact that something is common does not make it right. What if some people start using Suomi now and make it popular? After 20 or 30 years, should we accept that name to enter official texts? I do not think so. FakhredinBlog (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I do think so, yes. If suddenly for any reason, "Suomi" is widely used, then it should indeed be listed as an alternative. Something similar happened with Yakut (a Turkic language from Siberia), which used to be called "Yakut" (German: Jakutisch) for quite a while, but as the speaker prefer to have their own name used, "Sakha" in this case, this has gained wider use now and has even become official. Linguistic works call the language "Sakha" almost exclusively now. If something like this happens to "Finnish/Suomi", then okay, then "Suomi" should also be included in that particular list. — N-true (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just have different point of views. I think the decisions is not always based on what the majority of people prefer, but rather what scientifically is evaluated and published. We do also see it is social behaviors in a society. If a certain pattern is common, it is not always considered right, and efforts are made to correct that. FakhredinBlog (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I use Farsi to describe the language of Iran, and Persian to mean the people/culture of Persia. Always have done, and won't change. — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas; Most probably you "always have done" that simply because you consider Persia and Iran two different entities, while, in fact, they are not. FakhredinBlog (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

questionable edits...

Every couple of months someone comes along and decides to change every reference to Farsi to Persian.

I am not aware of any wiki policy to back up this wholescale change. But, even if there were a policy to back it up, it would remain a mistake to make this change in quoted material.

You have been making this change in quoted material. Please be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geo Swan. You mentioned a very important point. The fact that every couple of months someone changes Farsi to Persian means that there is an official/scientific reason behind it. It is not just personal point of views. Although many users may disagree, the official decision remains valid.

I tried to judge every change based on the context, and therefore I did not use any automated tool. I do not know which quoted material you are talking about. If you please let me know I may correct it. Thank you. FakhredinBlog (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not accept that since someone comes along and tries to change every instance of Farsi to Persian "means there is an official/scientific reason behind it." I could as easily suggest that since they end up getting changed back makes the other usage "official".

I am going to consider wikipedia policy decisions "official". I am going to need a lot of convincing that policy decisions of other bodies should be considered "official" here.

In general, we should have our usage reflect the usage in our source documents. Our sources are supposed to be verifiable and authoritiative. If they use Farsi what possible justification would we have to over-ride their usage?

If you think you "know" "Persian" is correct, and "Farsi" is incorrect, how would you answer the challenge that this is a violation of the policy proscribing "original research"? Geo Swan (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not Orignal Research, as Fakhredinblog referred to that Persian Academy Citation, of which the content is even included in the Persian language article itself, basically. A Wikipedia suggestion is also "Be Bold!". — N-true (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My emphasis in that sentence was not on "someone" but rather on "every couple of months". I mean that if a pattern is happening in systematic way (not randomly), there is always a scientific reason behind that. In general, you are right arguing that the "scientific reason" may or may not be justified, but in this particular case the scientific reason is the announcement of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature. The Academy is the "highest authority" in every matter related to Persian language, and there is no official party above that. FakhredinBlog (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the Academy of Persian Language and Literature might be the highest authority with regard to Farsi/Persian, it is not authoritative with respect to the English language (nor is anyone else). Wikipedia follows major reference works in practicing descriptivism, which just means that we use the language that actually exists, rather than trying to set standards. The fact is that, as multiple people are telling you here, the terms "Persian" and "Farsi" are both used in English to refer to the same modern language. Hence, both are acceptable on English Wikipedia. Further, to repeat what Geo Swan has said, changing direct quotations is wrong, and changing the terms used in particular referenced material is bad. Neither should be done. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance and usefulness of descriptive linguistics is undeniable. However, from a prescriptive point of view, your statement "nor is anyone else" (implying that no party is authoritative with respect to the English language) is not justified. No doubt authorized parties do exist for many languages, including English (you will find some references about that in the section "Authorities" in the article Linguistic prescription). Having said that, one may argue why Wikipedia does not follow prescriptivism. Although there are controversies, you surely know that prescriptivism is generally acceptable in education and in publishing. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, falls into this category.

In the late 70s and early 80s, the word "Farsi" was introduced into the English vocabulary by some non-native English-speakers, who, themselves, were unaware of the name of their mother tongue in a foreign language. If you deny the authority of an authorized party to introduce the name of the language into English, how do you approve the authority of those ignorant non-native speakers to do so? Please remember that I am talking from a prescriptive point of view.

In regard to the issue of direct quotations, I will shortly start a new section to explain it in more details. FakhredinBlog (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Geo Swan and Gavia immer, I added a section to my user page called "Direct quotations and Translated quotations" in that matter. FakhredinBlog (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTimeLine

Hello and thank you for your suggestion of WikiTimeLine for en.wikipedia.org and fa.wikipedia.org. Yes, I am the author and I have already replied at bugzilla. I will give you and the people and wikimedia my full support and hope I can be of enough help to get WikiTimeLine (or better said: an improved version of it) to run on wikipedia. ColdCase (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]