Talk:Persian miniature

message: This article should perhaps explain what persian miniature is in the first section.  I just read half the article and my best guess is that it is a style of painting, but I'm not sure of that.  This article is linked to from the Wikipedia main page today (10/12/06), and it is written with the assumption that readers already know what persian miniature is.  If this has something to do with illuminated manuscripts, it should say so in the article, and the links to miniature should perhaps go to that article instead of the disambiguation page.00962799154743
fair point - done, but not by an expert. Johnbod 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: a note of thanks to user 207.69.139.147, who added back some of the content from the history of the persian miniature that was not plagiarized. it was a good constructive series of edits, and kept the spirit of not just stealing other people's work to 'plump up' WP. thanks. Anastrophe 05:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: constructive edits

message: The title of the page is Persian miniature.
But what makes this miniatures Persian?
The article about Ottoman miniature is named Ottoman miniature and not Turkish miniature.
But this miniature style in Persia was developed under the Mongol and Timurid periods 13th-16th century and not in the time of Ancient Persia,so this title is confusing.
 
Why are these miniatures not named Ilkhanid, Timurid or Safavid miniatures? This is closer to the reality than naming these miniatures Persian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the term in English invariably used for the whole tradition that, as you rightly say, spans many dynasties. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian miniature does not exist 

message: here, until I find the ref: "Islamic angels are depicted as wearing the tight robes of northern Chinese style, though earlier ones can resemble Christian ones (as illustrated above), influenced by Armenian miniatures and other sources." Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parked  

message: I have reverted these again. If you think "Central Asia" is vague, what about "Eastern"?  That could well mean Japanese. There is evidence that Chinese, or other East Asian, artists were brought into Persia by the Mongols, as one might expect. That is why it is significant to say that no surviving work is clearly by one.  In fact some modern Muslims claim that images they don't like, depicting Muhammad etc, were done by foreign non-Muslim artists, but again the evidence is against this. Please don't make cavalier edits, removing referenced material, to articles you don't know much about. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since both terms "Central Asia" and "Eastern" are vague, and can be interpreted to mean a variety of things, why bother keep either one of them.   Make the statement to the point.--Balthazarduju (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Central Asia is about as vague as Central Europe and is very often used in academic literature on this subject. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Central Asia in this particular context as a "distinction" from Persia is quite vague, especially culturally. Not talking about the term by itself.--Balthazarduju (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. The precise facial point would be as true, in fact rather more so, of Turkic and Mongoloid Central Asian peoples as of Chinese, and these are the neighbours of the Persians to the East, or many of them. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: This large amount of new material is only referenced to the Iranian Wikipedia, & perhaps represents a translation of material there. It has no links, an unusual layout & is not very easy to read. I've moved it lower down. Also it uses American English, where the rest of the article uses British, and AH dates without always specifying the era. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tough call. A straight across import from a foreign language wiki, referenced only to that wiki with no other references - ouch. I ran the Iranian page through Google Translate, and it doesn't look like the content in question has any external references. I think though, just in terms of formatting - the 'Gallery' should be at the bottom, so you might move that until there's a better understanding of how to deal with this material. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - or spead much of it around the new unillustrated stuff. Did it look like it was a translation? It crossed my mind AI-generated text might be involved. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed the tab several hours ago - it looked as if they had pulled in stuff from multiple articles around the Iranian WP. But as mentioned, no embedded sources, which makes it all "unsourced", regrettably.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Maktab"