Talk:'Adud al-Dawla

Is the correct spelling "'Adud al-Daula", or "Adud al-Dowleh"? -- Mikeblas 23:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, it's an arabic name, so it should be 'Adud ad-Dawla or Daula (I would choose the first). Dowle(h) is a Persian version, but I wouldn't support the Persian version, since this name is not simply Arabic because of the words in it, but because this is an Arabic grammatical structure as well. --80.98.102.48 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

According Islamic Eniclopaedya was born in Isfahan but deceased in Bagdad. Dates are corrects.--83.33.216.44 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

i reverted to the version that includes both persian name and the arabic. i personally think the arabic version does not exist. the reason being the part "khusraw".--Xashaiar (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Xashaiar.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I see that there is an edit-war going on about a translation of the subject's name, but there does not appear to be any discussion about this issue going on at the talkpage. As a reminder to all editors, as soon as reverting starts, it is essential, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, to engage in discussion. Don't just battle it out in edit summaries, but try to explain what you're doing, which will be a better way of trying to work through the conflict. Thanks, --El on ka 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

It's just bayrak. REfuses to seek consensus, makes changes absent existing consensus, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Please keep comments focused on the content, and not on the contributor, and keep in mind that it takes two to edit-war. What it looks like to me, a third-party observer, is that Bayrak was attempting to add sourced information, but other people were inexplicably reverting him, without themselves explaining why they were reverting. The burden is therefore on those who were reverting Bayrak, to explain why they were removing sourced information. --El on ka 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Xashiar brought it up here, i concured with him, I asked bayrak REPEATEDLY to come to talk, he declined... as he declines to do in every other article he's been involved with. There was an explanation right here on this talk page for days. I'm not clear why this seems "inexplicable" to you. His behavoir is becoming a problem, not people who ask him again and again to seek consensus, who clean up his awful grammar and english comprehension (i'll provide diffs if asked), revert phrases like "enlisted man" removed from military articles (with edit summaries like "the conscription are over"), revert links to "Persian Gulf War" sent to weird "Second Gulf War" disambiguation pages, spent hundreds of words explaining "Coptic Orthodox" and "Copt" are the same thing (to someone from kuwait, no less, who would have to live under a rock not to know this) just to prevent him from removing a bare reference to the fact that copts live in Kuwait, etc... This is not a two sides of the same coin situation. It just isn't.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Could you please point me to where there is a discussion about the source that Bayrak was using,[1] or why other editors did not wish to add the translation "(arm [strength] of the state)" to the article? --El on ka 21:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

He never came to talk, so it was impossible to address him directly. However, here's the relevant bit, from further up this talk page: "i reverted to the version that includes both persian name and the arabic. i personally think the arabic version does not exist. the reason being the part "khusraw".--Xashaiar (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xashaiar.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC) " But the real issue here is that bayrak continued to revert and refuesed to come to talk after being repeatedly asked to. He was specifically asked at least twice here (in between an admin explaining the convention for these issues) [[2]]; and at least four times on this related page [[3]]. There are many other examples. I extended an invite to talk this out on talk (as did others). He declined that invitation. And went on reverting. That's a behavioural issue that can't be addressed by explaning the issue with the source he was using, or the other real problems with his attempted unilateral changes. And, in past, when complicated things have been explained to him, it hasn't been clear that his english has been strong enough to grasp them. My last word on this.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Bay is out here below you guys --Notedgrant (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I do not like rolling and spinning as some do therefore Can someone explain to me Why delete this information [4] 'Adud al-Dawla is not his name it is only his title which mean in arabic (arm of the state) --Bayrak (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Quite true I think your edits should be restored please restore them --Notedgrant (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Why is this page edit protected??--Notedgrant (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

This review is transcluded from Talk:'Adud al-Dawla/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Will review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

This has improved considerably since the last review and the subsequent PR, but sourcing is still a problem. No copyvio/dablinks/external links. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

General

• Actually you should call him 'Adud al-Dawla at first mention in the article and then al-Dawla consistently throughout the article. If you stick to Khusraw, I think you should refer to him as Khusraw after the first mention in the lead and the main article.

Reign

• The following parts look unsourced:

• Another Daylamite military officer...suppress the rebellion.
• During his campaign in southern Iran...including its capital, Sohar.
• In 975 Adud al-Dawla launched...who sought to reconquer to Kerman.
• Unlike the rest of the Buyids...during the rest of his reign.
• He then subdued the Shayban tribe...former vizier Ibn Baqiyya executed.

Administration and contributions

• Looks unsourced:

• Many prominent figures worked at the hospital, such as 'Ali ibn al-'Abbas al-Majusi and Ibn Marzuban.
• There were two annual festivals...Nowruz, the Iranian New Year.

Family

• Largely unsourced

Ancestry

• Source(s)?

It shouldn't be 'al-Dawla', since every Buyid ruler had that word in their name (take a look at this also [5]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

I see. But then you need to stick to 'Adud al-Dawla throughout the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

For your information you don't pronounce the L in Al-, it is actually spelled Ad-Dawla. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Sainsf: Done with everything except two things; I didn't add any source on the Family section, because there already is one (established marriage ties with several rulers;[9]). I didn't add anything in the Ancestry section either because I have already mentioned the origins of Adud al-Dawla both from his father and mother's side. What do you think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

@HistoryofIran: Thank you for all the changes you have made. In my opinion it is better to be on the safe side. There is no harm in repeating the citations. And is ref. 9 the source for all information in "Family"? I need to be sure of that. Personally I don't like the "unsourced" look that attracts stupid "citation needed" tags. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Sainsf: Yep, the pages written on the source are 86–93. Btw, I am very busy atm, so I will most likely add the last sources on the Ancestry section in some days. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Sainsf: Actually never mind, I have just added the two sources for the Ancestry section, I just want this to end lol. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Reference number 23 doesn't make sense (Dunlop 2003), do you mean (Dunlop 1997) Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes - corrected it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]

Alright, good to go now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC) [reply ]