Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ashura as folklore

This seems to have gone back and forth. Perhaps the matter needs to be discussed, rather than through the cramped confines of an edit summary. Please cite where Ashura is a religious figure and how terming him folkloric is unacceptable and "offensive". - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Uh, it did not go back and forth at all. You reverted my edit--no one else. You are stalking me and harassing me, please stop. There is no evidence that Ashura is folklore. You have this perverted idea that I have to prove that it is not folklore. Please see WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You violated it several times now. Also, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." -- Agha Nader ( talk) 04:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No one is stalking or harassing you, nader, I am checking on your edits because of your recent AN/I problems, assisting you in nipping potential trouble spots in the bud. Removing another's edits, terming them offensive without discussing the matter on the article discussion page, is not constructive. By reverting your edit, it forces you to defend your edit in the proper way - not by edit-warring (as you have problems with not only here, but in other articles) but via article discussion. You would agree that discussion is far more effective than bizarrely expecting the other editors to have suddenly developed telepathy. And I think even you will concede that a reiteration that Ashura's folkloric content outgrowth on your User Talk page isn't really a discussion but rather an edict issuance. Failure to discuss is rather uncivil.
As for Ashura, you termed it "offensive" to include it as folklore. Is this because you see it as a religious event, and not as a folkloric one? Could you perhaps detail your definition as to the differences between the two?
"Near the mosque in the upper neighborhood there was an ancient plane tree that was even more venerable. Someone on an Ashura day has said he had seen it bleeding in sympathy with the martyrdom of Husayn. And so people believed that if they attempted to cut its branches, especially on the festival of Ashura, something terrible would befall them.'
"Such folklore provides the weft in the rich anecdotal tapestry of the village's sense of its place and its social composition through the lives of its highly individualistic characters." ( 1)
This reference relates the Ashura as folklore. I am willing to concede that while the Ashura itself may be of primarily religious significance, the supernatural tales that arise from that significance is not necessarily part of the religious observation. They are instead stories, customs, beliefs and traditions of the Iranian people. Articles about Christian and [[Jewish folklore}Jewish]] contain many instances where something not specifically part of the religious teachings of the faith springs up because of those teachings. As well, a good deal of the folklore from many different countries ( America, England, France and the mythology of pre- and post- Saudi Arabia) has its roots in religion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Absolutely false: "This reference relates the Ashura as folklore." The reference is about a specific family not cutting a branch of a specific tree in their garden! Not about the mourning of Ashura.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you would be served by paying closer attention to what I wrote, nader. The noted reference notes stories and folkloric activities that sprung up out of the religious observance. I would advise you at this point to get a handle on your temper, otherwise it will get you in trouble, - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I find your post a bit rude. Do not refer to me to anything other than my user name. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that Ashura is folklore.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Arcayne, I advise you to revert your last edit. You have violated 3RR:

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]

You are the only person reverting my edits.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, you were supposed to notify me on my user talk page, but I have self-reverted, at your request. Of course, you were at 3 reverts yourself, but i know you knew that. the matter is still unresolved, and we can continue discussing it. Or you can file the RfC and get some input that way. You haven't really presented a cogent argument as to why it should not be included. Perhaps you could take a little time out of your day to explain why you don't think it belongs. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I have already said everything necessary. So I will just present it here. You reverted me several times because you thought that I have to prove something, which is completely wrong.

Please see WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You violated it several times now. Also, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Then you sought to prove that Ashura is folklore. So you provided a source. That source

is about a specific family not cutting a branch of a specific tree in their garden! Not about the mourning of Ashura.

After all this, we are back where we started. I could explain why Ashura is not folklore or why it is offensive to characterize it as folklore (which I have to another editor) but I do not have to since the burden of evidence is on the person "who adds or restores material." You admit to following me to this article to engage me. I believe you are harassing me, you claim you are 'monitoring' me. There was no dispute here, no one reverted my edit (save you). To use your own words "Maybe do yourself a favor and don't talk to me anymore. You've been advised by two admins from your most recetn [sic] AN/I to avoid posting messages to me. This sort of situation was what they were talking about. Do it again, and you can visit the AN/I board again." Cheers!-- Agha Nader ( talk) 19:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(ec during revision) You reverted Alborz Fallah here. When are you going to realize that everything you do leaves a trail? I reverted it back to his version. And you seem pretty fond of using guidelines as shields, so allow me to intoduce you to one you might not be all that familiar with: WP:POV. You believe that because the Day of Ashura is a religious observance that nothing can be called folklore that concerns it. Wrong. When you allow your religious preferences to interfere with your neutrality (and yes, calling edits offensive when they really aren't isn't all that neutral, nader), you are editing a POV, not the substance of the edits.
You reverted material asking for a source. I provided one that notes the presence of a folkloric activity arising out of a religious observance. Guess what? That's called folklore, nader. I even bolded the text so it might dawn on you. :)
As for the other stuff you were deciding to talk about, you brought it all on yourself by being uncivil and making personal attacks on myself and others. Had you done what the admins and myself asked of you (removing the wikiquette alert and apologizing for your racial accusation), you might have presented the picture of someone who was truly sorry for having been uncivil. You refused to demonstrate any of that, so you warrant closer observation by others, myself included. If you are uncivil or make personal attacks, we are going to step in. Politely, of course. If you accumulate enough bad behavior edits, you will get blocked. Its really quite that simple.
Now, I would have have preferred to post this on your User Talk page, but you seem to blank everything there, which rather interrupts civil conversation. However, if you make sure that you don't post off-topic claims/accusations/etc in an article discussion (like you did here) I won't need to put you in your place here. We all clear on that? Splendid. Have a great evening. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
To quote you: "what part of"

"Maybe do yourself a favor and don't talk to me anymore. You've been advised by two admins from your most recetn [sic] AN/I to avoid posting messages to me. This sort of situation was what they were talking about. Do it again, and you can visit the AN/I board again" [5]

"was unclear?" [6]-- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it was the part where you are using my words without really understanding why they were originally used with you, nader. We'll talk again more about this, but the cite will eventually go in, as it a citation of a folkloric activity arising out of a religious observance. I am not really going anywhere, and the article will eventually shape up nicely. You should feel free to contribute material and citations yourself. From your pics, I guess you live in Iran. You probablyknow a lot about the folklore there. Why not - instead of constantly complaining - be helpful and actually add something? thanks in advance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I allow my "religious preferences to interfere with [my] neutrality," eh? What are my religious preferences? How do my "religious preferences" interfere? I am curious to learn them! By the way, you are being rude when you call my edits POV. A glance at my edit history will show a rather neutral editing pattern.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If I change the sentence as "Iranian folklore in Ashura" , that will be OK or not?
    There are some items in Iranian Ashura ceremony that are unique for Iran and not been used in other countries and they are also not purely religious (as using the palm tree as a symbol for Hazrat Ali Akbar or Taziyeh (folkloric show with poem reading) and etc -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
And for Arcayne, I don't think Agha Nader is Iranian (perhaps he is form Pakistan).If he was Iranian , he would not used "offensive" for Ashura ceremony of the ordinary people ... that's the best way that the folk use to show their respect for their religious heros:that is not offensive.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
That is a good compromise. You are a very good editor Alborz Fallah. -- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(←dent)Yes, it is a good compromise, Alborz Fallah. It will fit wondrously with that citation. A shame that someone else was too busy arguing to think of it. And, speaking of nader, i don't really care what his nationality is. His behavior pretty much transcends nationality. Others have noted that he's Iranian. As he's posted personal pictures taken in Iran, there's a bit of weight to those suppositions. Like I said though, I don't care what nationality he is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Ok!
    Then I will change it as the agreement.
    Thank you all for help in improvement of the article.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Why was the other cruft added? Like Shabaan Jafari? The addition is against WP:PROVEIT.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
By the way, it was added by Arcayne [7]. Marking a new era of his violation of policies.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Unsourced Material

There is some material that does not have a source. Alborz Fallah, do not add information without having a source. We appreciate your efforts, but you cannot undermine WP:V. I have tagged some material that is definitely unsourced, and probably original research. I have tagged them to give you a chance to provide some sources. If no sources can be found they will be removed.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Again thank you for your concern, but folkloric items usually don't have written sources; especially when talking about Iran that is not English language.Anyway, it's possible to gather Persian sources about some of the items that you have mentioned , but I don't know how much it is useful for English language wikipedians-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 10:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If you are able to find an English translation of the material (thus fulfilling the verifiable requirement), I'm sure the article would benefit from it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Indeed, "the article would benefit from" sources." We are particularly interested in sources that prove that the material is folklore, not simply that it exist. For instance, "Aghdass chehar cheshm 'Four eyed Aghdass'(A prostitute in contemporary Tehran)" needs a source saying that it is folklore, not just saying that such a prostitute exists. -- Agha Nader ( talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually, a citation noting the existence is helpful in addition as one noting its folkloric outgrowths or origins. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you agree that without evidence that it is folklore, it would be synthesis OR to include it? I think it is insufficient without evidence proving it is specifically folklore. Yet, as you say evidence of existence would be "helpful."-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I will do my best to give the best translation possible for the Persian sources, hope it will help the article. "Aghdass chehar cheshm 'Four eyed Aghdass'(A prostitute in contemporary Tehran)" ,plus "Shaaban bey mokh(brainless shaaban)" were mobs and prostitutes that participate in the coup d'état against the nationalist Prime Minister of Iran , Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq in August 19, 1953 ( 1953 Iranian coup d'état).They have a place in Slang culture of Iran and historical importance , but the English sources are rare about them , because in the Pahlavi era writing about them was prohibited and the Islamic republic they were not official history , but still there exist sources that can be mentioned... Image:TPAjax-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
nader, I would agree that folkloric outgrowths of religious observations are not offensive, so long as it is citably indicated that the folklore grewout of a religious observation.
Alborz Fallah, I am not sure that your translation of the text would be allowable, as some could consider it synthesis. That said, there is an essay (and therefore not policy or guideline, but one editor's personal point of view) WP:NOTOR discusses the eventuality of original translations as Wikipedia expands:
"Text from another language that has no translation into English available may be newly translated. Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes. The credit should be (tr:WP). The translation must, of course, be editable. Fair use caveats apply as they do for other quoted texts; note that while the original text may be public domain, translations of it may be copyrighted."
Not knowing your academic background, you might find it of more use to request a translation from WP:TIE. I have used them twice before, back before I actually had an account, to translate propaganda documents from bahasa Indonesian and then again for something in Basque. the Indonesian translation took some time, and the Basque document was never translated (no Basque translators). You might want to contribute there to help translate documents in Farsi; I know they would appreciate the help.
I also wanted you to know that i turned the image you uploaded to this page into a link instead, so as to save space. there was no intent to refactor your post so as to alter meaning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I must again stress that the source must specifically term it as folklore. I think you will have trouble finding sources for Shabaan Jafari and the like, because I am pretty sure they are not folklore. Shabaan Jafari is a real person who is alive and his actions are well known. There is nothing legendary about him. However, if you find a source saying that he is folklore then we will include it.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not that you'd have any reason to know this, but various real people became folkloric, such as John Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Nelson or Muhammad (or Moses or Jesus, for that matter). Folklore doesn't apply to utterly fictional myth, but rather to the method that oral tales about likely real life events or persons are exaggerated in the round-robin of oft-repeated, generational retelling of those events and people. Perhaps you are operating from a different definition of folklore than the rest of us. If a story (like the Ashara one from earlier) notes a folkloric component to a religious observance, it is in fact folklore related to that religious observance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Definitions

I think we might be "operating from a different definition of folklore." One definition is [8] (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000):

  1. The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally.
  2. The comparative study of folk knowledge and culture. Also called folkloristics.
  3. A body of widely accepted but usually specious notions about a place, a group, or an institution: Rumors of their antics became part of the folklore of Hollywood.
  4. A popular but unfounded belief.

I would appreciate it if you could source your assertion that " John Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Nelson or Muhammad (or Moses or Jesus, for that matter)" are "folkloric." I would disagree with the inclusion of some of those people and a source would help convince me. However, there seems to be a necessity of some component of mystery or doubt to qualify as folklore (i.e. "A body of widely accepted but usually specious notions" or "A popular but unfounded belief"). So fame does not equal folklore. This applies to Shabaan Jafari, who was infamous for violence and thuggery. There does not seem to be a component of rumor about him (you can read his biography). We can generally avoid problems from competing definitions (if there even is a difference) by including material that does not violate WP:V or WP:OR.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, of course; that it shouldn't violate policies is a given. While it would be helpful to have you provide a reference for your definition, it isn't yet germane to question it, except to note that alternative definitions do exist that differ considerably from that which you provided. I think for both of us, it's (as usual) going to come down to arguing about sources - you won't agree with mine on fact, and I will be pointing out how yours are no necessarily on target. What should we do about these differing approaches because, quite frankly, I have little interest in repeatedly taking you to noticeboards when you lose your temper (as it keeps me from edits and users more deserving of my time). There has to be a middle ground, and it might be helpful for you to point out where you feel yours is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Please refrain from making ill-considered insinuations (I am referring to "you lose your temper"). I suggested that "We can generally avoid problems from competing definitions (if there even is a difference) by including material that does not violate WP:V or WP:OR." So we might have differences of opinion on what is folklore or what is not folklore, but by only including material that is sourced as folklore (per WP:V and WP:NOR we can avoid disputes over definitions. I think there won't be a problem (as long as you do not violate [9] WP:OR or WP:V)-- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it's a good talk. I think some contemporary celebrities can be of positive or negative folkloric importance.Shabaan Jafari's notorious reputation is comparable to persons in Folklore of the United States.In Persian slang , when they want to mention an uncivilized mob , they say "Shabaan bi Mokh" ;same as Al Capone in American folklore.As Agha Nader mentioned :"The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally" are folkloric;then I think it's possible to count Shabaan Jafari as an folkloric icon of uncivility .-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you - that's part of what I had been saying. While I am not attempting to offend anyone's religious sensibilities, those sensibilities are not encyclopedic. If folklore extends from religious observances (not a part of the story behind the actual observance but something growing out of that), then it is not "offensive". Perhaps a thicker skin might be called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research is "not encyclopedic" either.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Again, part of the problem is that I think your reading of OR is significantly different than the millions of other users here in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
What am I supposed to take out of such an incoherent statement? -- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Among other things, you can perhaps notice that your characterization of another editor's post as incoherent isn't really all that civil. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
When writing about the folklore, that's not surprising to encounter "Original research"! By definition, the folklore can be neither academic nor official!-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
To add , when folklore is defined as "The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally" , How am I supposed to find written sources to prove it ?!-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 12:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, folklore is studied and documented by scholars. I am sure some sources can be found if the material is notable. Otherwise it should not be included: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" [10]. I do not think that is the case though. In essence, the unsourced material should not have been added in the first place (per WP:V). -- Agha Nader ( talk) 16:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
And What if that rare sources are in non- English sources? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(←dent), as I noted here, there are options for having material translated. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Does the references show ...

Does the references show some of the ceremonies in mourning of Muharram are of Iranian folklore?
I think so.In Iranica , under the title "FOLKLORE STUDIES" , it has been written

"On the other hand, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic every cultural activity in the country is assessed by the powerful ministry of Islamic guidance for its accordance with the established set of Islamic values. As a result, some topics, especially those of religious relevance (such as the ta¿z^a; see Homa@yu@n^, 1989; Idem, 1976; Idem, 1998; cf. Wak^l^a@n, 1991) are prioritized. Other topics of folklorist interest, such as the festivities at Nowru@z (Adòka@÷^; Honar^), risk being qualified as undesirable, either because of their origin in pre-Islamic times or because they simply lack any obvious educational value (see Marzolph, 1994)."


As it can be seen , it clearly says the taziyeh can be considered as folkloric.Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional show of Muharram.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That, my friend, is WP:SYN. In this encyclopedia, we must base every statement on a source (see WP:V. You state:

Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional show of Muharram

Does the author of the source you cited (Iranica) say that? Clearly, it does not. Even if you find a source--which you have not--that proves that "Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional show of Muharram," it would be synthesis OR. Please read WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.

Finally, I would like to advise you to not prematurely remove tags. Without them a reader could be mislead.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Is Ta'zieh a part of Muharram's ceremonies or not? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 08:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
My answer to that question is irrelevant. So is yours. The only relevant answer can be found in a reliable source. Please review WP:OR.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
"Relevancy" was not the question ! I asked: "Is Ta'zieh a part of Muharram's ceremonies?".
This is not "Synthesis OR", because the term "Muharram's ceremonies" is very general and broad-spectrum and there is no doubt about the fact that Ta'zieh is a part of "Muharram's ceremonies", I don't think you deny this...If you ask to only include the exact sentence from references (to prevent "Synthesis OR") , that's against the policy of copy-right and thus "common and clear sense of understanding" is applicable here. If you think your personal understanding of the subject is different, then we can ask for a consensus in this object. -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
You seem to have an imperfect understanding of WP:SYN. May I suggest you review WP:OR? Your response troubles me in some other aspects. I am referring to your statement about "policy of copy-right." Mayhap, you would be behooved by reviewing WP:C. In regards to your statement "'Relevancy' was not the question!" I am puzzled: What am I supposed to take out of such an incoherent statement? I look forward to working with you to clear up these points. Cheers!-- Agha Nader ( talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
By saying "relevancy was not the question" , I meant there is only two possible answer for this question "Is Ta'zieh a part of Muharram's ceremonies?" .Your answer can only be "Yes" or " No" - and not "irrelevant"- .How can you object to my sentence "Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional shows of Muharram" but in same time you yourself believe in that it is? Can we Call it "incoherency" or is it "ambivalence"? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not here to verify or "object" to statements like ' Ta'zieh is a part of Muharram's ceremonies.' We use sources, not editors, for that. Ultimately, we will not include original research, synthetic or otherwise, in the article.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not sure where this is going. But ceremonies and customs by definiton are what makes up part of folklore. As long as this custom/tradition is observed in Iran by good number of Iranians, it is part of folklore. Tazziya (passion plays) are described as part of the Ashura festivals in many sources [11]. Here are several definitions of folklore: [12] and Wikipedia gives a good definition. I would file an RFC if the issue can not be resolved. -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Indeed, a RFC seems necessary to uphold the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. For you and some other editors have utterly failed to submit a single reliable source that calls Ashura folklore. Instead, sad efforts have been made to synthesis sources to include Ashura into the article. -- Agha Nader ( talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Religion, specially regional ceremonies overlaps with the definition of Folklore. Note the event of Ashura by itself is not folklore, but the cultural and traditions that mourn these events can be considered folklore and part of the customs/traditions. it is listed in a article on Persian mythology (and of course folklore and mythology also overlap). Note this book says: "The sug-i Siyavush was replaced by the mourning of Imam Hussain .." [13] [14]. Note the whole section about passion plays. The whole Sineh-Zani concept is also probably rooted in the Daylamite mourning tradition. The striking of the face and offering of food has been mentioned in relation to Sogdian ceremonies of Sug-e-Siyavash. So all these aspects are cultural intrepretation of the Ashura play. So Ashura is not folklore just like Jesus being put on the cross is not folklore, but the ceremonies, customs, passion plays, mournings, offering of food and etc. in Ashura are part of Iranian folklore. That is why books use the term "Festival of Ashura" and the festival has many components which are part of the folklore culture. So the question is not about Ashura being a folklore (it is not), but about the various aspects of the Ashura ceremony/festival being part of the local folklore. For example here is a book that calls aspects of the Ashura festival as folklore [15]. Also I have a long article available with me "Shi'i Ritual and power II. The consolidation of Safavid Shi'ism: folklore and popular religion" written by Jean Calmard. I quote just a sentence: "Many features of Nauruz and other Persian folkloric rituals have been observed in Muharram ceremonies" (pg 150). -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this. You are a great editor who has made great contributions. It's good that you were able to see the quote that Arcayne had posted above (the one about a particular family's tree!). I wonder why you weren't able to see the reason why that quote does not prove that Ashura is folklore. I think you are grasping at straws when you quote people as saying that "Persian folkloric rituals have been observed in Muharram ceremonies," instead of people saying Ashura is folklore. Perhaps it is a telling fact that you have not been able to find a source that says Ashura is folklore and instead resort to synthesis original research. Please remind me again, why should we ignore WP:OR?-- Agha Nader ( talk) 06:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No one wants to say "Ashura is a folklore" as you think ,but we say that in time and place(nations),the reaction to Ashura differs.
Any direct/strict reference may not be found to discuss about single ceremonies being or not being "folklore" , simply just because it's undisputed. Can you show me any article that directly discusses about " Music" being an " art"?I think in this cases the indirect hints in references are sufficient.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
It is good that you finally see that Ashura is not folklore. Accordingly, it does not belong in this article. In response to your question, I am certain that I can find articles 'that directly discuss " Music" being an " art."' -- Agha Nader ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
"finally"?! How many times did I said that the Ashura itself is not folklore , but the way that people perform it is folkloric...But in determining which topic can be included in "folklore" article, a whole topic(ashura) does not needs to be folkloric. Again as an example, there is no doubt about historical persons in history to be "historic" and not "folkloric", but "folkloric songs" about this real persons are "folkloric".Finally,I will be glad to see your findings in "articles that directly discuss "Music' being an "art";I think its possible to "object" that articles by "labling" them as "Irrivalent" or "not mentioned in article".-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 10:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
You are taking a definition of folklore from elsewhere and applying it to facts and situations in order to present those situations as examples of folklore? That pretty much fits the definition of synthesis exactly. Such synthesis should be left to sources to make, not editors. Official Wikipedia policy, WP:OR:

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

By the way, lets stay on topic and not discuss music as art. Just go to the first sentence of the music article if you are not sure: "Music is an art..."-- Agha Nader ( talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iranian folklore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Iranian_folklore&oldid=1207736387"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ashura as folklore

This seems to have gone back and forth. Perhaps the matter needs to be discussed, rather than through the cramped confines of an edit summary. Please cite where Ashura is a religious figure and how terming him folkloric is unacceptable and "offensive". - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Uh, it did not go back and forth at all. You reverted my edit--no one else. You are stalking me and harassing me, please stop. There is no evidence that Ashura is folklore. You have this perverted idea that I have to prove that it is not folklore. Please see WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You violated it several times now. Also, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." -- Agha Nader ( talk) 04:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No one is stalking or harassing you, nader, I am checking on your edits because of your recent AN/I problems, assisting you in nipping potential trouble spots in the bud. Removing another's edits, terming them offensive without discussing the matter on the article discussion page, is not constructive. By reverting your edit, it forces you to defend your edit in the proper way - not by edit-warring (as you have problems with not only here, but in other articles) but via article discussion. You would agree that discussion is far more effective than bizarrely expecting the other editors to have suddenly developed telepathy. And I think even you will concede that a reiteration that Ashura's folkloric content outgrowth on your User Talk page isn't really a discussion but rather an edict issuance. Failure to discuss is rather uncivil.
As for Ashura, you termed it "offensive" to include it as folklore. Is this because you see it as a religious event, and not as a folkloric one? Could you perhaps detail your definition as to the differences between the two?
"Near the mosque in the upper neighborhood there was an ancient plane tree that was even more venerable. Someone on an Ashura day has said he had seen it bleeding in sympathy with the martyrdom of Husayn. And so people believed that if they attempted to cut its branches, especially on the festival of Ashura, something terrible would befall them.'
"Such folklore provides the weft in the rich anecdotal tapestry of the village's sense of its place and its social composition through the lives of its highly individualistic characters." ( 1)
This reference relates the Ashura as folklore. I am willing to concede that while the Ashura itself may be of primarily religious significance, the supernatural tales that arise from that significance is not necessarily part of the religious observation. They are instead stories, customs, beliefs and traditions of the Iranian people. Articles about Christian and [[Jewish folklore}Jewish]] contain many instances where something not specifically part of the religious teachings of the faith springs up because of those teachings. As well, a good deal of the folklore from many different countries ( America, England, France and the mythology of pre- and post- Saudi Arabia) has its roots in religion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Absolutely false: "This reference relates the Ashura as folklore." The reference is about a specific family not cutting a branch of a specific tree in their garden! Not about the mourning of Ashura.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you would be served by paying closer attention to what I wrote, nader. The noted reference notes stories and folkloric activities that sprung up out of the religious observance. I would advise you at this point to get a handle on your temper, otherwise it will get you in trouble, - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I find your post a bit rude. Do not refer to me to anything other than my user name. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that Ashura is folklore.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Arcayne, I advise you to revert your last edit. You have violated 3RR:

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]

You are the only person reverting my edits.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, you were supposed to notify me on my user talk page, but I have self-reverted, at your request. Of course, you were at 3 reverts yourself, but i know you knew that. the matter is still unresolved, and we can continue discussing it. Or you can file the RfC and get some input that way. You haven't really presented a cogent argument as to why it should not be included. Perhaps you could take a little time out of your day to explain why you don't think it belongs. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I have already said everything necessary. So I will just present it here. You reverted me several times because you thought that I have to prove something, which is completely wrong.

Please see WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You violated it several times now. Also, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Then you sought to prove that Ashura is folklore. So you provided a source. That source

is about a specific family not cutting a branch of a specific tree in their garden! Not about the mourning of Ashura.

After all this, we are back where we started. I could explain why Ashura is not folklore or why it is offensive to characterize it as folklore (which I have to another editor) but I do not have to since the burden of evidence is on the person "who adds or restores material." You admit to following me to this article to engage me. I believe you are harassing me, you claim you are 'monitoring' me. There was no dispute here, no one reverted my edit (save you). To use your own words "Maybe do yourself a favor and don't talk to me anymore. You've been advised by two admins from your most recetn [sic] AN/I to avoid posting messages to me. This sort of situation was what they were talking about. Do it again, and you can visit the AN/I board again." Cheers!-- Agha Nader ( talk) 19:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(ec during revision) You reverted Alborz Fallah here. When are you going to realize that everything you do leaves a trail? I reverted it back to his version. And you seem pretty fond of using guidelines as shields, so allow me to intoduce you to one you might not be all that familiar with: WP:POV. You believe that because the Day of Ashura is a religious observance that nothing can be called folklore that concerns it. Wrong. When you allow your religious preferences to interfere with your neutrality (and yes, calling edits offensive when they really aren't isn't all that neutral, nader), you are editing a POV, not the substance of the edits.
You reverted material asking for a source. I provided one that notes the presence of a folkloric activity arising out of a religious observance. Guess what? That's called folklore, nader. I even bolded the text so it might dawn on you. :)
As for the other stuff you were deciding to talk about, you brought it all on yourself by being uncivil and making personal attacks on myself and others. Had you done what the admins and myself asked of you (removing the wikiquette alert and apologizing for your racial accusation), you might have presented the picture of someone who was truly sorry for having been uncivil. You refused to demonstrate any of that, so you warrant closer observation by others, myself included. If you are uncivil or make personal attacks, we are going to step in. Politely, of course. If you accumulate enough bad behavior edits, you will get blocked. Its really quite that simple.
Now, I would have have preferred to post this on your User Talk page, but you seem to blank everything there, which rather interrupts civil conversation. However, if you make sure that you don't post off-topic claims/accusations/etc in an article discussion (like you did here) I won't need to put you in your place here. We all clear on that? Splendid. Have a great evening. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
To quote you: "what part of"

"Maybe do yourself a favor and don't talk to me anymore. You've been advised by two admins from your most recetn [sic] AN/I to avoid posting messages to me. This sort of situation was what they were talking about. Do it again, and you can visit the AN/I board again" [5]

"was unclear?" [6]-- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it was the part where you are using my words without really understanding why they were originally used with you, nader. We'll talk again more about this, but the cite will eventually go in, as it a citation of a folkloric activity arising out of a religious observance. I am not really going anywhere, and the article will eventually shape up nicely. You should feel free to contribute material and citations yourself. From your pics, I guess you live in Iran. You probablyknow a lot about the folklore there. Why not - instead of constantly complaining - be helpful and actually add something? thanks in advance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I allow my "religious preferences to interfere with [my] neutrality," eh? What are my religious preferences? How do my "religious preferences" interfere? I am curious to learn them! By the way, you are being rude when you call my edits POV. A glance at my edit history will show a rather neutral editing pattern.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If I change the sentence as "Iranian folklore in Ashura" , that will be OK or not?
    There are some items in Iranian Ashura ceremony that are unique for Iran and not been used in other countries and they are also not purely religious (as using the palm tree as a symbol for Hazrat Ali Akbar or Taziyeh (folkloric show with poem reading) and etc -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 20:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
And for Arcayne, I don't think Agha Nader is Iranian (perhaps he is form Pakistan).If he was Iranian , he would not used "offensive" for Ashura ceremony of the ordinary people ... that's the best way that the folk use to show their respect for their religious heros:that is not offensive.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
That is a good compromise. You are a very good editor Alborz Fallah. -- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(←dent)Yes, it is a good compromise, Alborz Fallah. It will fit wondrously with that citation. A shame that someone else was too busy arguing to think of it. And, speaking of nader, i don't really care what his nationality is. His behavior pretty much transcends nationality. Others have noted that he's Iranian. As he's posted personal pictures taken in Iran, there's a bit of weight to those suppositions. Like I said though, I don't care what nationality he is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Ok!
    Then I will change it as the agreement.
    Thank you all for help in improvement of the article.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Why was the other cruft added? Like Shabaan Jafari? The addition is against WP:PROVEIT.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
By the way, it was added by Arcayne [7]. Marking a new era of his violation of policies.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Unsourced Material

There is some material that does not have a source. Alborz Fallah, do not add information without having a source. We appreciate your efforts, but you cannot undermine WP:V. I have tagged some material that is definitely unsourced, and probably original research. I have tagged them to give you a chance to provide some sources. If no sources can be found they will be removed.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Again thank you for your concern, but folkloric items usually don't have written sources; especially when talking about Iran that is not English language.Anyway, it's possible to gather Persian sources about some of the items that you have mentioned , but I don't know how much it is useful for English language wikipedians-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 10:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If you are able to find an English translation of the material (thus fulfilling the verifiable requirement), I'm sure the article would benefit from it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Indeed, "the article would benefit from" sources." We are particularly interested in sources that prove that the material is folklore, not simply that it exist. For instance, "Aghdass chehar cheshm 'Four eyed Aghdass'(A prostitute in contemporary Tehran)" needs a source saying that it is folklore, not just saying that such a prostitute exists. -- Agha Nader ( talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Actually, a citation noting the existence is helpful in addition as one noting its folkloric outgrowths or origins. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Do you agree that without evidence that it is folklore, it would be synthesis OR to include it? I think it is insufficient without evidence proving it is specifically folklore. Yet, as you say evidence of existence would be "helpful."-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I will do my best to give the best translation possible for the Persian sources, hope it will help the article. "Aghdass chehar cheshm 'Four eyed Aghdass'(A prostitute in contemporary Tehran)" ,plus "Shaaban bey mokh(brainless shaaban)" were mobs and prostitutes that participate in the coup d'état against the nationalist Prime Minister of Iran , Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq in August 19, 1953 ( 1953 Iranian coup d'état).They have a place in Slang culture of Iran and historical importance , but the English sources are rare about them , because in the Pahlavi era writing about them was prohibited and the Islamic republic they were not official history , but still there exist sources that can be mentioned... Image:TPAjax-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
nader, I would agree that folkloric outgrowths of religious observations are not offensive, so long as it is citably indicated that the folklore grewout of a religious observation.
Alborz Fallah, I am not sure that your translation of the text would be allowable, as some could consider it synthesis. That said, there is an essay (and therefore not policy or guideline, but one editor's personal point of view) WP:NOTOR discusses the eventuality of original translations as Wikipedia expands:
"Text from another language that has no translation into English available may be newly translated. Any original translations should be faithful, to the point of literalness; if interpretation is called for, it should be explicitly in parenthetical notes. The credit should be (tr:WP). The translation must, of course, be editable. Fair use caveats apply as they do for other quoted texts; note that while the original text may be public domain, translations of it may be copyrighted."
Not knowing your academic background, you might find it of more use to request a translation from WP:TIE. I have used them twice before, back before I actually had an account, to translate propaganda documents from bahasa Indonesian and then again for something in Basque. the Indonesian translation took some time, and the Basque document was never translated (no Basque translators). You might want to contribute there to help translate documents in Farsi; I know they would appreciate the help.
I also wanted you to know that i turned the image you uploaded to this page into a link instead, so as to save space. there was no intent to refactor your post so as to alter meaning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I must again stress that the source must specifically term it as folklore. I think you will have trouble finding sources for Shabaan Jafari and the like, because I am pretty sure they are not folklore. Shabaan Jafari is a real person who is alive and his actions are well known. There is nothing legendary about him. However, if you find a source saying that he is folklore then we will include it.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not that you'd have any reason to know this, but various real people became folkloric, such as John Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Nelson or Muhammad (or Moses or Jesus, for that matter). Folklore doesn't apply to utterly fictional myth, but rather to the method that oral tales about likely real life events or persons are exaggerated in the round-robin of oft-repeated, generational retelling of those events and people. Perhaps you are operating from a different definition of folklore than the rest of us. If a story (like the Ashara one from earlier) notes a folkloric component to a religious observance, it is in fact folklore related to that religious observance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Definitions

I think we might be "operating from a different definition of folklore." One definition is [8] (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000):

  1. The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally.
  2. The comparative study of folk knowledge and culture. Also called folkloristics.
  3. A body of widely accepted but usually specious notions about a place, a group, or an institution: Rumors of their antics became part of the folklore of Hollywood.
  4. A popular but unfounded belief.

I would appreciate it if you could source your assertion that " John Henry, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Lord Nelson or Muhammad (or Moses or Jesus, for that matter)" are "folkloric." I would disagree with the inclusion of some of those people and a source would help convince me. However, there seems to be a necessity of some component of mystery or doubt to qualify as folklore (i.e. "A body of widely accepted but usually specious notions" or "A popular but unfounded belief"). So fame does not equal folklore. This applies to Shabaan Jafari, who was infamous for violence and thuggery. There does not seem to be a component of rumor about him (you can read his biography). We can generally avoid problems from competing definitions (if there even is a difference) by including material that does not violate WP:V or WP:OR.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, of course; that it shouldn't violate policies is a given. While it would be helpful to have you provide a reference for your definition, it isn't yet germane to question it, except to note that alternative definitions do exist that differ considerably from that which you provided. I think for both of us, it's (as usual) going to come down to arguing about sources - you won't agree with mine on fact, and I will be pointing out how yours are no necessarily on target. What should we do about these differing approaches because, quite frankly, I have little interest in repeatedly taking you to noticeboards when you lose your temper (as it keeps me from edits and users more deserving of my time). There has to be a middle ground, and it might be helpful for you to point out where you feel yours is. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Please refrain from making ill-considered insinuations (I am referring to "you lose your temper"). I suggested that "We can generally avoid problems from competing definitions (if there even is a difference) by including material that does not violate WP:V or WP:OR." So we might have differences of opinion on what is folklore or what is not folklore, but by only including material that is sourced as folklore (per WP:V and WP:NOR we can avoid disputes over definitions. I think there won't be a problem (as long as you do not violate [9] WP:OR or WP:V)-- Agha Nader ( talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it's a good talk. I think some contemporary celebrities can be of positive or negative folkloric importance.Shabaan Jafari's notorious reputation is comparable to persons in Folklore of the United States.In Persian slang , when they want to mention an uncivilized mob , they say "Shabaan bi Mokh" ;same as Al Capone in American folklore.As Agha Nader mentioned :"The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally" are folkloric;then I think it's possible to count Shabaan Jafari as an folkloric icon of uncivility .-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 21:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you - that's part of what I had been saying. While I am not attempting to offend anyone's religious sensibilities, those sensibilities are not encyclopedic. If folklore extends from religious observances (not a part of the story behind the actual observance but something growing out of that), then it is not "offensive". Perhaps a thicker skin might be called for. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Original research is "not encyclopedic" either.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Again, part of the problem is that I think your reading of OR is significantly different than the millions of other users here in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
What am I supposed to take out of such an incoherent statement? -- Agha Nader ( talk) 21:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Among other things, you can perhaps notice that your characterization of another editor's post as incoherent isn't really all that civil. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
When writing about the folklore, that's not surprising to encounter "Original research"! By definition, the folklore can be neither academic nor official!-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 12:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
To add , when folklore is defined as "The traditional beliefs, myths, tales, and practices of a people, transmitted orally" , How am I supposed to find written sources to prove it ?!-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 12:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, folklore is studied and documented by scholars. I am sure some sources can be found if the material is notable. Otherwise it should not be included: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" [10]. I do not think that is the case though. In essence, the unsourced material should not have been added in the first place (per WP:V). -- Agha Nader ( talk) 16:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
And What if that rare sources are in non- English sources? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 23:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

(←dent), as I noted here, there are options for having material translated. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Does the references show ...

Does the references show some of the ceremonies in mourning of Muharram are of Iranian folklore?
I think so.In Iranica , under the title "FOLKLORE STUDIES" , it has been written

"On the other hand, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic every cultural activity in the country is assessed by the powerful ministry of Islamic guidance for its accordance with the established set of Islamic values. As a result, some topics, especially those of religious relevance (such as the ta¿z^a; see Homa@yu@n^, 1989; Idem, 1976; Idem, 1998; cf. Wak^l^a@n, 1991) are prioritized. Other topics of folklorist interest, such as the festivities at Nowru@z (Adòka@÷^; Honar^), risk being qualified as undesirable, either because of their origin in pre-Islamic times or because they simply lack any obvious educational value (see Marzolph, 1994)."


As it can be seen , it clearly says the taziyeh can be considered as folkloric.Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional show of Muharram.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC) reply

That, my friend, is WP:SYN. In this encyclopedia, we must base every statement on a source (see WP:V. You state:

Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional show of Muharram

Does the author of the source you cited (Iranica) say that? Clearly, it does not. Even if you find a source--which you have not--that proves that "Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional show of Muharram," it would be synthesis OR. Please read WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.

Finally, I would like to advise you to not prematurely remove tags. Without them a reader could be mislead.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Is Ta'zieh a part of Muharram's ceremonies or not? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 08:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
My answer to that question is irrelevant. So is yours. The only relevant answer can be found in a reliable source. Please review WP:OR.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply
"Relevancy" was not the question ! I asked: "Is Ta'zieh a part of Muharram's ceremonies?".
This is not "Synthesis OR", because the term "Muharram's ceremonies" is very general and broad-spectrum and there is no doubt about the fact that Ta'zieh is a part of "Muharram's ceremonies", I don't think you deny this...If you ask to only include the exact sentence from references (to prevent "Synthesis OR") , that's against the policy of copy-right and thus "common and clear sense of understanding" is applicable here. If you think your personal understanding of the subject is different, then we can ask for a consensus in this object. -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
You seem to have an imperfect understanding of WP:SYN. May I suggest you review WP:OR? Your response troubles me in some other aspects. I am referring to your statement about "policy of copy-right." Mayhap, you would be behooved by reviewing WP:C. In regards to your statement "'Relevancy' was not the question!" I am puzzled: What am I supposed to take out of such an incoherent statement? I look forward to working with you to clear up these points. Cheers!-- Agha Nader ( talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) reply
By saying "relevancy was not the question" , I meant there is only two possible answer for this question "Is Ta'zieh a part of Muharram's ceremonies?" .Your answer can only be "Yes" or " No" - and not "irrelevant"- .How can you object to my sentence "Taziyeh is one of the the ceremonies and conventional shows of Muharram" but in same time you yourself believe in that it is? Can we Call it "incoherency" or is it "ambivalence"? -- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not here to verify or "object" to statements like ' Ta'zieh is a part of Muharram's ceremonies.' We use sources, not editors, for that. Ultimately, we will not include original research, synthetic or otherwise, in the article.-- Agha Nader ( talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not sure where this is going. But ceremonies and customs by definiton are what makes up part of folklore. As long as this custom/tradition is observed in Iran by good number of Iranians, it is part of folklore. Tazziya (passion plays) are described as part of the Ashura festivals in many sources [11]. Here are several definitions of folklore: [12] and Wikipedia gives a good definition. I would file an RFC if the issue can not be resolved. -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Indeed, a RFC seems necessary to uphold the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. For you and some other editors have utterly failed to submit a single reliable source that calls Ashura folklore. Instead, sad efforts have been made to synthesis sources to include Ashura into the article. -- Agha Nader ( talk) 22:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Religion, specially regional ceremonies overlaps with the definition of Folklore. Note the event of Ashura by itself is not folklore, but the cultural and traditions that mourn these events can be considered folklore and part of the customs/traditions. it is listed in a article on Persian mythology (and of course folklore and mythology also overlap). Note this book says: "The sug-i Siyavush was replaced by the mourning of Imam Hussain .." [13] [14]. Note the whole section about passion plays. The whole Sineh-Zani concept is also probably rooted in the Daylamite mourning tradition. The striking of the face and offering of food has been mentioned in relation to Sogdian ceremonies of Sug-e-Siyavash. So all these aspects are cultural intrepretation of the Ashura play. So Ashura is not folklore just like Jesus being put on the cross is not folklore, but the ceremonies, customs, passion plays, mournings, offering of food and etc. in Ashura are part of Iranian folklore. That is why books use the term "Festival of Ashura" and the festival has many components which are part of the folklore culture. So the question is not about Ashura being a folklore (it is not), but about the various aspects of the Ashura ceremony/festival being part of the local folklore. For example here is a book that calls aspects of the Ashura festival as folklore [15]. Also I have a long article available with me "Shi'i Ritual and power II. The consolidation of Safavid Shi'ism: folklore and popular religion" written by Jean Calmard. I quote just a sentence: "Many features of Nauruz and other Persian folkloric rituals have been observed in Muharram ceremonies" (pg 150). -- alidoostzadeh ( talk) 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this. You are a great editor who has made great contributions. It's good that you were able to see the quote that Arcayne had posted above (the one about a particular family's tree!). I wonder why you weren't able to see the reason why that quote does not prove that Ashura is folklore. I think you are grasping at straws when you quote people as saying that "Persian folkloric rituals have been observed in Muharram ceremonies," instead of people saying Ashura is folklore. Perhaps it is a telling fact that you have not been able to find a source that says Ashura is folklore and instead resort to synthesis original research. Please remind me again, why should we ignore WP:OR?-- Agha Nader ( talk) 06:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No one wants to say "Ashura is a folklore" as you think ,but we say that in time and place(nations),the reaction to Ashura differs.
Any direct/strict reference may not be found to discuss about single ceremonies being or not being "folklore" , simply just because it's undisputed. Can you show me any article that directly discusses about " Music" being an " art"?I think in this cases the indirect hints in references are sufficient.-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 07:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
It is good that you finally see that Ashura is not folklore. Accordingly, it does not belong in this article. In response to your question, I am certain that I can find articles 'that directly discuss " Music" being an " art."' -- Agha Nader ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
"finally"?! How many times did I said that the Ashura itself is not folklore , but the way that people perform it is folkloric...But in determining which topic can be included in "folklore" article, a whole topic(ashura) does not needs to be folkloric. Again as an example, there is no doubt about historical persons in history to be "historic" and not "folkloric", but "folkloric songs" about this real persons are "folkloric".Finally,I will be glad to see your findings in "articles that directly discuss "Music' being an "art";I think its possible to "object" that articles by "labling" them as "Irrivalent" or "not mentioned in article".-- Alborz Fallah ( talk) 10:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
You are taking a definition of folklore from elsewhere and applying it to facts and situations in order to present those situations as examples of folklore? That pretty much fits the definition of synthesis exactly. Such synthesis should be left to sources to make, not editors. Official Wikipedia policy, WP:OR:

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

By the way, lets stay on topic and not discuss music as art. Just go to the first sentence of the music article if you are not sure: "Music is an art..."-- Agha Nader ( talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iranian folklore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Iranian_folklore&oldid=1207736387"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE