Overleg:Hadji Firoez
Onderwerp toevoegen
|
De voorbeelden en het perspectief in de paragraaf "Hadji Firoez en Zwarte Piet" behandelen voornamelijk Nederland en geven misschien geen wereldwijd standpunt over het onderwerp weer. Probeer dit artikel alstublieft te verbeteren aan de hand van deze tips of bediscussieer het probleem op deze overlegpagina. |
Dat het feest van de Hajji Firuz vermeld staat op de Lijst van Meesterwerken van het Orale en Immateriële Erfgoed van de Mensheid en in 2010 werd erkend en daarmee beschermd door de VN, zoals het AD meldt, heb ik nog niet kunnen verifiëren. Met vriendelijke groet, Bic (overleg) 23 okt 2013 11:20 (CEST)
Polemic article[brontekst bewerken]
This is a very polemic article. The main reason being that it seemingly is only meant to justify its comparison with the Dutch tradition of Zwarte Piet.
"Hadji Firoez is in meerdere opzichten vergelijkbaar met de Nederlandse Zwarte Piet. Volgens de Nederlandse taalwetenschapper Guus Kroonen zijn de bestaande verklaringen voor Hadji Firoez' zwarte gezicht vrijwel identiek aan die voor dat van Zwarte Piet.[2]" The source refers to a non-peer reviewed paper by the author, Guus Kroonen, to support this claim. I deleted the section. Without sufficient substantiation, this hypothesis does simply not stand. The remainder of the article is similarly entirely specultive and does not provide any support to back its claims. Neither does it have any relevance to the meaning of Hadji Firoez. It would be wiser instead to refer and translate the English article, and add a seperate, smaller section with the controversial idea of linking the two traditions. Met vriendelijke groet, Kairos1981
- You do know we're on the Dutch Wikipedia, don't you? I have added a {{bron?}} template to one of your additions (claims), since (in my opinion) you used an inappropiate 'omdat'. I replaced a second addition with a second {{bron?}} template since that seems what was what you intended there. Richard 20 okt 2014 13:18 (CEST)
- Please refer me to language rules on 'overleg' pages. I am unaware that I am doing anything wrong here. Dutch is not my first language, although I can read it just as well as you can, I prefer to write in English when and if possible. Thank you. Please see the English version for a source on your first question. I added the source accordingly. Please also see the added sources on your second question. Thank you. Kairos1981 24 okt 2014 20:47 (CEST)
- You didn't do anything wrong. Otherwise, I might not have replied in English (then again, I probably would have).
- The sources you added don't exactly fit the bill. The text states that 'haji' was used for slaves, and for that I want a source. Not for the existence or history of slavery in Iran.
- Furthermore, I have removed the mention of Mesopotamia, which had nothing to do with the comparison made by Kroonen. It might be useful in s future, extended version of the article, but not in this chapter. Richard 27 okt 2014 11:20 (CET)
- Please refer me to language rules on 'overleg' pages. I am unaware that I am doing anything wrong here. Dutch is not my first language, although I can read it just as well as you can, I prefer to write in English when and if possible. Thank you. Please see the English version for a source on your first question. I added the source accordingly. Please also see the added sources on your second question. Thank you. Kairos1981 24 okt 2014 20:47 (CEST)
- It seems you misunderstood the edits. The relationship between slave and haji comes forth from the original, non-peer reviewed article by Kroonen. It is not a product of my making. The reference is rather intended to show that slaves were not merely from that part of the world. The reference to Mesopotamia is of relevance as it relates to the tradition of Hadji Firoez. What I see occcuring, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that in your critique there is a bias, not necessarily an intension to elevate the quality of the article. The article as it stands, is really of very low standard and seems to wish to serve a political rather than an encyclopaedic purpose. I just had another look at the article and noticed that all my edits have been removed. I start to suspect a strong political bias here and feel forced to draw my conclusions. "Hadji Firoez heeft net als Zwarte Piet een zwart uiterlijk" Is a very odd beginning and holds no relevance whatsoever. It seems absolutely random. I have deleted and changed large sections of the text. It would be rather problematic if further revisions are made to again imply that unsubstantiated and non-peer reviewed writings can be considered as factual. I propose to delete the entire page. The claim is absolute nonsense. One could equally write a mythical story about the origins of Black Pete being in ancient China. This whole enterprise is politically driven, it seems. Kairos1981 28 okt 2014 19:04 (CEST)
- First, I owe you an apology. The relation between 'slave' and 'haji' is mentioned by Kroonen, with a reference to a source you provided. In fact, it is mentioned there and I overlooked it. Sorry about that. Btw, I know you didn't add that remark and I probably should have asked for a source a lot sooner.
- Second, someone other than me has replaced the "non peer reviewed" by "persoonlijk", which in this context should be enough. Kroonen's article is his and his alone.
- Last: that this article focuses on Kroonen's article is true and therefore the article is somewhat narrowsighted and definitely unbalanced. Most of what you object against, started with this edit. The article was two days old when that edit was made and admittedly very brief. Now, the chapter that was added then seems to be the main focus of the article. I agree that that doesn't feel right.
- I have added a {{twijfel-gedeelte}} – not exactly the right way of putting it, but it's the best template I can think of right now. As reason I have written Volgens sommigen legt het artikel te veel nadruk op een onvoldoende onderbouwde vergelijking door één persoon tussen Hadji Firoez en Zwarte Piet. I hope we can come to a more balanced article. Richard 29 okt 2014 11:05 (CET)
- It seems you misunderstood the edits. The relationship between slave and haji comes forth from the original, non-peer reviewed article by Kroonen. It is not a product of my making. The reference is rather intended to show that slaves were not merely from that part of the world. The reference to Mesopotamia is of relevance as it relates to the tradition of Hadji Firoez. What I see occcuring, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that in your critique there is a bias, not necessarily an intension to elevate the quality of the article. The article as it stands, is really of very low standard and seems to wish to serve a political rather than an encyclopaedic purpose. I just had another look at the article and noticed that all my edits have been removed. I start to suspect a strong political bias here and feel forced to draw my conclusions. "Hadji Firoez heeft net als Zwarte Piet een zwart uiterlijk" Is a very odd beginning and holds no relevance whatsoever. It seems absolutely random. I have deleted and changed large sections of the text. It would be rather problematic if further revisions are made to again imply that unsubstantiated and non-peer reviewed writings can be considered as factual. I propose to delete the entire page. The claim is absolute nonsense. One could equally write a mythical story about the origins of Black Pete being in ancient China. This whole enterprise is politically driven, it seems. Kairos1981 28 okt 2014 19:04 (CEST)
- Thank you for your comments and kind method of correspondence. I agree with your observation that the article needs to be updated. The subject deserves more research. I admittedly and unfortunately do not have sufficient time to engage. Perhaps however there are others that are better equipped and with more time to perform this task. I am however very interested in the subject and the greater discussion around it. Let's see how this polemic unfolds. Many thanks once again for your polite manner of conduct. Kairos1981 31 okt 2014 10:59 (CEST)
- You're most welcome. Maybe I will try and integrate some portions of the English article (which, according to the template in its header, has some issues as well) into this article. However, not today. Richard 31 okt 2014 14:09 (CET)
- Thank you for your comments and kind method of correspondence. I agree with your observation that the article needs to be updated. The subject deserves more research. I admittedly and unfortunately do not have sufficient time to engage. Perhaps however there are others that are better equipped and with more time to perform this task. I am however very interested in the subject and the greater discussion around it. Let's see how this polemic unfolds. Many thanks once again for your polite manner of conduct. Kairos1981 31 okt 2014 10:59 (CEST)
Zwarte Piet[brontekst bewerken]
Ik kwam op deze pagina om iets meer te leren over Hadzji Fieroez en inderdaad in het kader van de discussie over Zwarte Piet. Het artikel van Kroonen is dan wel interessant en geeft ook handvatten, maar ik snap niet goed wat het doet in een artikel dat in de eerste plaats over Hadzji Fieroez gaat.In hoeverre zijn Iraniërs geïnteresseerd in Zwarte Piet en de discussie daarover? Een veel bredere vergelijking met diverse andere tradities in andere landen (met Indo-Europese achtergrond??) zou meer toepasselijk zijn. Is er trouwens een Wikipedia-pagina over Krampus? Met vriendelijke groet, Kees Merkx, 31 oktober 2015
- Dat gedeelte is inderdaad mijn inziens onevenredig lang. Een goed punt. Er moet naar het hele artikel eigenlijk nog eens gekeken worden. (Hier is het artikel over Krampus.) Mvg, ErikvanB (overleg) 31 okt 2015 02:04 (CET)