Talk:Taarof

message: I added some provisional subheadings, as requested on a banner (which I've since removed).  The content still needs some editing, and I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter.  In any case, the last citation not only needs to be properly cited, but also condensed and paraphrased into encyclopedic format.  Have fun! Rod ESQ 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheadings

message: Article states:
:T'aarof perpetuates sedimented attitudes and undermines proletarian autonomy by imposing obligatory modes of behaviour and conversation calculated to pacify the struggle. Its abolition will further demystify capitalist social relations.
As much as I would agree that the abolition of T'aarof indeed will demystify capitalist social relations (i e, T'aarof serves as a tool for the ruling class to oppress the working class in a capitalist or pre-capitalist society), I'm not so extremely radical I take it as definitive encyclopedic truth, and it might not be a suitable comment for an encyclopedic entry. Jobjörn 01:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible POV 

message: The article should be rewritten to explain T'aarof simply in neutral language.  I have no objection to seeing Eco's analysis, but the political theory should be summarized in a separate, properly-labelled section, rather than strewn through the article.  David 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it hurts to include the Marxist analysis (and any other political analysis), as long as it's isolated in a clearly-labelled section rather than scattered throughout the article.  I've done an extensive rewrite, making the language more neutral, moving the analysis into a "Political theory" section, and removing the unattributed anecdote.  I've also removed the cleanup and accuracy tags (I was the one who originally applied the cleanup tag).  David 13:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 1) I go into a store and ask the vendor the price of an item. He tells me ghabeli nadareh (essentially meaning "it doesn't cost anything, take it"). I ask him again a couple of more times, perhaps even a few more times, and he repeats the same claim. Finally, after pressing further, he tells me the price. When prepared to purchase the item and give the vendor money, he again repeats the claim. After insisting that he take the money, he does. In reality, if I were to walk away with the item without paying, he would come after me and scold me for taking him literally. However that never happens since everyone in Iran is aware of this protocol and are accustomed to it, and thus it is a non-issue in day-to-day life.
2) I'm a guest at someone's house and the host asks if I would like anything to eat. I'm hungry and actually would like something, but since I don't want to impose upon the host, I tell him that I'm not hungry. He asks me, taarof mekoni (essentially meaning, "Are you being honest, or do you actually want something?"). This is taarof on my part.
Those are the two most common meanings of taarof. SouthernComfort 14:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Persians will always do a better job at this, and those two examples are indeed the ones I come across most often. But just for westerners, a reference from The New York Times, Iranian 101: A Lesson for Americans: The Fine Art of Hiding What You Mean to Say Khirad 15:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demonstration of Taarof for clarification (two most common forms)

message: It has been proposed that Iranian etiquette be merged into this article. Please see . Agha Nader 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the material that complied with WP:ATT was added. Which part of the Iranian etiquette article--that was sourced--was not merged? Agha Nader 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to revert a page to "make comments on its talk page". The article is kept in the history, and the talk remains ar  . Please read WP:CON. It states "Silence equals consent" , and you remained silent on this issue. Since consensus has already been reached, I merged the pages. Please see , you say "I have nothing more to add at this point". You chose not to respond to arguments, and did not sustain your view with arguments. I left close to two months for debate, while I only needed to leave 5 days. Yet you remained silent. You must prove that the Persian Gulf naming dispute has to do with Iranian etiquette. It is clear to me that it is irrelevant and covered in other articles. Otherwise, there was no sourced material that was not merged into this page. Again, only the material that complied with WP:ATT was added. Agha Nader 14:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: User Rayis put it best when he said "Taarof would have to be merged in here, if this article was in fact about Iranian etiquette! but it is not!" Agha Nader 14:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said I have no other comments at that point because I gave you my argument then. Please do not put words in my mouth that I did NOT say. I did NOt consent to ALL your argument (except to add citations where needed, and I did add those references long ago), as you know and as I explained in the talk page of the Iranian etiquette. I already gave you my response and that is why I did not feel the need to keep arguing with you (it was not an approval to merge, even less to delete the article as you almost did, in any way). It seems to me you like to argue for te sake of arguing and my time is precious. I was trying to keep within the bound of civil discussion because many things you say is/was just ABSURD and I am not the first one to say that.69.116.234.208 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  sorry, but I would like to restore the Iranian etiquette (at least temorarily, because I have asked for comments from other editors on the subject). Also, I would like to point out that you did not merge the two articles. I saw your recent edits of Taarof after the so called "merger" and you only added ONE sentence from the Iranian etiquette article. This is not serious. Again, all the points mentionned in the article should be familiar to ANY person who is himself/herself familiar with the Iranian customs (or even not so familiar, but with a minimum knowledge of Iran), in my opinion. There is NO original research, contrary to what you keep saying, in my opinion. Now, let's hear other people's comments on this matter, if any.69.116.234.208 22:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may look at the history of the article at , there is no need to restore the article to look st it. User Rayis has even suggested deleting the article since it does not comply with WP:ATT. I agree with many points in the article, but no sources are given. The article is an example of OR. Please read WP:OR, before making any changes. Agha Nader 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken a look over the two articles and indeed, Taarof appears to be more appropriate.  Iranian etiquette seems to be an unsourced "tourists's guide" type of article that includes very POV statements.  On the other hand Taarof is definitely able to be sourced, and really is the equivalent of "Iranian etiquette", so I see no reason to have that other article.  However, feel free to reintroduce sourced and relevant facts into this article if you need to.  So yes, the merger was a good idea as it best reflects reality and adheres to WP policies and guidelines.  Thank you.  The Behnam 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Iranian etiquette (which has been hidden because of the re-direct) for all my previous comments and the definition of what the word "etiquette" really means ("a guide for foreign visitors on how to act in the Islamic Republic") before commenting. I definitely believe that Taarof is one part (only) of the etiquette, and not vice-versa. Thanks.69.116.234.208 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Etiquette doesn't mean tourists' guide, although it is certainly helpful for tourists to know what is polite.  Please read WP:NOT.  WP is not a how-to guide or a tourist pamphlet.  The tone of the article was also very POV, and it was unnecessary considering that there is a taarof article.  The Behnam 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: : The article is titled "Taarof", in its header it's written it can be spelled T'aarof, Ta'arof or Tarof, but throughout the article various different spellings are used. Should we not stick to one of the possible spellings? Tal.reichert (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should match the article name in my opinion. Jooojay (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Quite sure the origin of the word is Arabic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.196.3 (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Origin 

message: Hi all. When I joined wiki as a new editor today it suggested I work on this article. I spent many hours researching about taarof, and then added a bunch of content, while keeping existing content. If I inadvertently offended anyone, I mean no harm or disrespect to anyone here, as I am truly a third party to this very interesting topic. I do think that I added some points that were missing from the article. From what I saw, the content was more about the most common social manifestations of taarof, but didn't include much on the hierarchical aspect to it. It also didn't have much on the positive and negative manifestations of taarof, so I tried to add those in. I kept imagining if someone from outside Iran read this entry, would they get a complete picture of it? I was very unsure about how to handles subheadings and subsections, so please fix them, and point out areas for my improvement. Remember I am one day old wiki editor. Good day and good night. Mityoak (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold Edits