Talk:Richard N. Frye

message: I happened to notice this article and cleaned it up. I removed huge sections of quotes, some of which seemed not be quotes from Frye but arguments to the effect of "Persians good Arabs bad". It would probably be more useful to quote from reviews of Frye's work, if I can find any such. Zora 20:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not entitled to change an article to make it suit your needs. --Kash 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but every single quote in the article is from frye himself, from his book. One can't just discredit it all because of his\her own (politically motivated?) wishes --Kash 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone apparently attended a lecture by Frye, took notes, and posted the notes. We have NO way of knowing if the notes are accurate. Therefore that section cannot be called quotes. It's an unknown person making unverifiable claims and should not be in an encyclopedia. Zora 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also saw a link to the UCLA speech once with pictures and all. I think it can be verified.--Zereshk 09:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Attributing the Frye quotes to the "Iran Heritage Organization" website is in fact fully acceptable within the norms of journalism. Let the reader decide whether "Iran Heritage Organization" is trustworthy or not.--Zereshk 10:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those aren't quotes 

message: I'm confused by the section "Dr. Frye on the role of Iran and the Persian language in the formation of Islamic culture". It's calling some people chauvinists and saying someone perverts some spiritualism? Is this the article saying that, or did Rickard Frye say that? Right now it looks very POV even though it's probably just a small matter of clearing up that confusion (putting it in block quotes or something if it's a quote) or changing the wording to be more neutral. –Tifego(t)06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, or someone could delete the whole section, that works too. I don't know enough about the subject to tell if any of the deleted material was relevant, but at least what's leftover looks considerably less POV. –Tifego(t)07:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, alternatively, we could start an edit war about it. Maybe someone should justify their edits here? –Tifego(t)07:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I think it's OK to move the Tehran architecture section to the Tehran  article itself. I think it would be more befitting there. Then I can add stuff to it there (about the Arch of Tehran). Just my opinion though.
Aside from that, I actually think some of those quotes are highly intuitive and illustrative of an unusually deep understanding of Iran. My favorite quote is the one where he says: "The gate of inquiry should always remain open, this is Shia'ism." That is priceless. I think I read an exact same statement made by Tabatabaei somewhere once, from the old days before the good faith became infested with politics. A large portion of the current form of Shia ideology in Iran originates from, according to Soroush's recent lecture, a group of people stacked around Mesbah Yazdi. We should keep these Frye quotes--Zereshk 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except that they aren't quotes. They aren't quotes just because you like them. Zora 06:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My view

message: Sorry to expand this here, but I will respond very thoroughly just this one time.
#Please stay cool, and try your best to refrain from any personal accusations, allegations etc., and concentrate on the article.
#:Unless I am misunderstanding this sentence (which is possible), you are telling me to refrain from personal attacks in response to something that is clearly neither a personal attack nor an expression of anger, which quite frankly is ridiculous.
#there is no justification for erasing an entire section that comes with citations
#WrongWrong. And you are talking about something I only did 1 time quite a while ago. And it wasn't the whole section. And my edit comment included my reason for removing it. Why are you bringing this up again now? I thought we were past that stage.
#and one that relates to the Richard Nelson Frye`s work
#:This was not 'proven' at the time, and is still in debate.
#Editors cannot disrupt an article to project a certain point of view.
#:You are absolutely right, assuming "cannot" is changed to "should not". Did you mention this for any particular reason?
From earlier:
#I have the impression that Zmmz and Mani believe that Frye's ideas are TRUE, and that this article is therefore the right place to argue for their truth
#:This is the worst thing Zora said about you recently. It is saying you might have an opinion (which everyone has) and misguidedly be deciding to voice it in the article (which is a mistake people often make). It does not appear to have been intended to provoke you, and it was both preceded and followed by talk about the article or article policy. Maybe even that entire comment was misguided, but while I and certainly disagree with several points in it, and while it could have been said a lot more tactfully, it doesn't seem to have had any malicious intent.
#and you try to soften the image of Arabs, in an encyclopedia of all places ... No, you can`t erase the ethnicity of Rumi, so we can just call him a “Muslim”.
#:These sound like personal accusations to me, or at least an indication of lack of good faith in Zora, which would be hypocritical considering you said it mere sentences after telling Zora to assume good faith.
#And, no, you can`t inject your opinion into an article
#:Yes, that is what WP:NPOV is all about. –Tifego(t)07:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I wasn't sure whose talk page to move it to. And btw that edit comment you mentioned would be a perfectly valid reason to remove something if it were true, and surely she believed what she said in her own edit comment. –Tifego(t)08:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, let me remind you that a good deal of the stuff she was erasing was written by Dr. Kaveh Farrokh without reference to that fact, and that it was highly opinionated. And please try not to say things like that which are considered patronizing. Imagine if I [had] said it to you. "I'm not sure if you are new here Zmmz, but Wiki is really, at its core, an encyclopedia, so we really can't include opinionated, irrelevant stuff, even if we want to." I can't help but think you are trying to provoke me and prolong this discussion, when you repeatedly refer to general Wikipedia principles in situations that do not call for that. I am asking that you please stop doing that, specifically. –Tifego(t)08:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic conflict that will hopefully be resolved soon 

message: The supposed quotes aren't quotes. They don't belong in an encyclopedia. The Tehran architecture can go in the Tehran article, per Zereshk. The quote from Frye re appreciation of Persian culture goes into a new, combined section. 
We don't use titles here. All scholars are known by the their last name. I removed all the Dr.s and Professors. Look at other articles on scholars, like the one on Historiography of early Islam. It's customary even in academia to just drop titles and use last names. 
The gallery -- are those photos public domain? It's going to go away unless Zereshk managed to get licencing for all those photos. Zora 08:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you have the authority to delete those images. They can clearly be used under Fairuse tag. Ive already cleared this with admins. (User:wikiacc).--Zereshk 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good. I wasn't saying that I would take steps. I'm overextended as it is, and I usually stay away from image problems -- except in the Bollywood articles, where we recently had an anon uploading Photoshopped porn. The gallery is a great addition, as long as it's legit. Zora 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm. ManiF reverted on sight, saying "Use talk" -- even though I did. Zora 08:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with you, the quotes from UCLA lecture belong here. --ManiF 08:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Zora, please turn off your caps lock and read WP:Civil, I don't appreciate your aggressive tone. Those are Richard Nelson Frye's quotes from his UCLA lecture, a source has been provided as well. --ManiF 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source is completely anonymous. There is no way to confirm that those are quotes -- moreover, there is reason to suspect that they aren't, since they don't match Frye's prose style at all. Zora 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Iran heritage organisation is far from "anonymous", I also disagree with you on your other accusations. If source is provided so I am going to remove the tag --Kash 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the paraphrase and Tehran architecture again, revised the appreciation para 

message: Mani, thanks for catching the typo in my copyedit. D'oh! Zora 01:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for catching typo 

message: Don't you have better things to do than wasting your time following zereshk around everywhere he goes and vandalising his edits.
It seems you have vandalised alot of articles related to iran, it also seems that you are jews. 
Why all the hate towards iranians? What did we ever do to you except saving your lifes a couple of times. Darkred 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if you like some Iranians and don't like some others? Suppose you like Jamshid (musician) but think Shahrokh (musician) just doesn't measure up? Suppose you like Hafiz but are rather bored by Firdausi? Suppose you like your friend Monir but not all of her relatives? Does that mean that you're anti-Iranian, or just human? Darkred, do you like all the Iranians you know? Zora 06:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suppose you like some of the Iranians who edit on WP and don't get along with others? (No can name names, that would be incivil.) Zora 07:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably not. Sigh. I was trying to break through the sweeping generalizations, but it may be utopian to think that I could. Should we have just reported incivility and anti-Semitism to an admin? Zora 08:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't think it is really necessary.  I think the guy was just trying to get under our skin.  If he does it again it might be warranted, but for now I think we should just leave it be.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Darkred, generally we are not supposed refer to other articles on these talk pages, but since we are already talking about it, the passages I had removed were clearly not vandalism as it is described by wikipedia, as I had provided ample reasons for my edits.  Without a proper source we are not allowed to add stuff, and the dubya report and the other source did not qualify as reputable, Zereshk eventually replaced the sources with better ones so for now I am ceasing my involvent in that particular dispute.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk-TINC 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Then please, report me for vandalism, I mean it.  Go here and report exactly what I did- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  zora, aucaman, mooshe 

message: Everyday for almost a week Darkred has reverted a previous edit that was agreed on with consensus, his edit summary always consists of a fallacious accusation of vandalism  and is usually marked as minor.  This is becoming increasingly irritating.  I do not understand his motivation for doing this since it was not just me that agreed upon the wording.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of vandalism 

message: I think two adjectives is too much. It smacks of fawning. So it's either one or the other. I prefer distinguished to eminent, because eminent is Einstein or Chomsky -- someone who revolutionizes an entire field -- rather than someone who is just ... distinguished. Frye has common-sense, a vast and amazing command of languages, and a wonderful prose style -- but he hasn't revolutionized history. He isn't a theoretician. 
However -- we could split the difference by switching from eminent to distinguished and back, once a week. Or would a thesaurus help? An entirely new adjective? 
Hmmm, let's contrast the Roget's Thesaurus lists for eminent and distinguished:
Widely known and esteemed: celebrated, distinguished, famed, famous, great, illustrious, notable, noted, preeminent, prestigious, prominent, redoubtable, renowned 
Widely known and esteemed: celebrated, eminent, famed, famous, great, illustrious, notable, noted, preeminent, prestigious, prominent, redoubtable, renowned 
Wow, they have exactly the SAME lists. Is there any word in this list that both of you could agree on? I like "prominent", myself. Zora 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You say eminent, I say distinguished 

message: I just got an email from R.N. Frye, correcting the info we have re his schooling and degrees. I entered that in the article. I also removed the quote from Ibn Khaldun, hoping that since some of those who were most vociferous re keeping it were no longer editing here, that those of us who were left could agree that it shed no light on Frye. The previous quote, re Persian civilization being under-appreciated, is much more to the point, and it's a quote from Frye himself. Zora 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email from Frye 

message: Mani, my version gave the gist of his talks and directed readers to sites where they could get more info. Don't delete my edits just because it's ME making them. Zora 06:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only pay attention to the edits not the editors, please don't remove the quotes. --ManiF 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh, they aren't quotes, and they are not illustrative of Frye's character. They unbalance the article dreadfully. The trimmed-down version represents him better; it shows that he cares for the glories of the past and doesn't wish to see them lost. Zora 07:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mani, dang it ... 

message: Kashk, you reverted and said, "Discuss in talk first." Those dang quotes have been discussed ad nauseam. They're not quotes, they're badly written, they're an embarrassment to the article, and they should be removed. If you're so concerned about Frye's views, read his books and get us some properly sourced quotes to replace them. Zora 10:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashk 

message: I would love to read it but at this particular moment I can't. His quote didn't seem too bad to me but if someone has the book I am sure they can provide some good quotes for sure. --K a s h  Talk | email 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora 

message: What did you mean by  'He speaks fluent Russian, German, Arabic, Persian, French, Pashto, Uzbek, and Turkish(Greater Iran), ' is Turky part of greater Iran as well.....i thought its Only Iraq!!!WooowAziz1005 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a citation, from Frye's autobiography. Some editor introduced that citation style. You can change it if you find it confusing. I should volunteer to do it, perhaps, but I'm swamped with work. Zora 02:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Greater Iran) 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard N. Frye. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413153303/http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/frye-speech.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/frye-speech.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050413153303/http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/frye-speech.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/frye-speech.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard N. Frye. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124233202/http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/frye.htm to http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/frye.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified