Talk:Hajji Firuz

message: Haj Firooz is the killer of Omar Khataab (Abu lolo )? Who says that ?! Please give references ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research ? 

message: In the History section, the article says that Pirouz Nahavandi planned to kill the leader of the Arab-Muslim Army in revenge for conquering the Persians. In describing the assassination, the article states, that Pirouz Nahavandi
:... gutted the Caliph Umar ibn al Khataab to the neck, then stabbed him in the back, the symbolism of which would have been understandable to those at the time.
Unfortunately, the symbolism of this act is not understandable to this reader, and probably to many other modern readers, so please tell us what it symbolizes.Ileanadu (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism - What does it mean? 

message: I reverted changes recently made that appear to lack neutrality and reliable sources. To say that Hajji Firuz is "beloved" or his face color represents the fire-keeper of old, we must provide sources that support it. To say that a source does not present any evidence we must have another source to back up that statement. It's not our role as editors to insert our own views, analysis, or observations. We always need reliable sources for everything that we add to an article. Jojalozzo 14:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: "To say that Hajji Firuz is "beloved" ... we must provide sources that support it."
-- I can agree with you here. But it's like saying that Santa Claus is a 'popular holiday figure.'  If you don't want that there, that's fine. 
"To say that a source does not present any evidence we must have another source to back up that statement." 
--  The original citation (which is from a personal blog -- is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia in the first place).  Secondly, for acceptable citations, "Some evidency of authenticity is required for a source to be acceptable" (WIKI source guideline); that means all of the stuff written in the section on criticism must appear in the actual citation.  If you see that they provided facts, you're welcome to quote those facts, but the truth is they're not in the source. 
That leaves only three logical choices:
1. open up wiki citations to include personal blogs (but this is not allowed); 
2. delete the paragraph; or 
3. cite and quote the evidence from the source -- here the onus ( burden ) is on whoever inserted that section.  (And logically you can cite the same source to point out that it's an opinion that gives no citations or references.)
Either the personal blog cannot be used as a citation or the claim should be supported (""Some evidency of authenticity is required" Wiki Standards).  It seems that paragraph should be deleted.
Best, 
67.169.112.181 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The authors are professors of history and Iranian studies. Self-published works by such experts are considered reliable sources. I have added back some of what I deleted with a little more neutrality. Jojalozzo 15:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ja 

message: Source 3 leads to a scam site  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Education-over-easy (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Source Link