Edge Rewrite
// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2535f0b1a56e88e

Jump to content

Talk:Nowruz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 months ago by JMF in topic Changes by IranianBritish
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2006Articles for deletionKept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 21, 2005, August 20, 2005, March 20, 2006, March 21, 2007, March 20, 2008, March 20, 2009, March 20, 2010, March 20, 2011, March 20, 2012, March 20, 2013, March 20, 2015, March 20, 2016, March 20, 2017, March 20, 2020, March 20, 2021, March 20, 2022, March 20, 2023, March 19, 2024, March 20, 2025, and March 20, 2026.

Changes by IranianBritish

[edit]

IranianBritish made a series of unexplained edits. Rather than get into an edit war, this is request that they justify those changes here:

  1. deleted the word "Persian" despite its continued widespread usage.
  2. changed "New Year's day" to "New Year's Day". The rubric on New Year's Day reads This article is about the first day of the Gregorian calendar year. For the first day in other calendars, see New Year. For other uses, see New Year's Day (disambiguation).
  3. changed [[March equinox|Northern Hemisphere spring equinox]] to Northern Hemisphere [[March equinox|spring equinox]], which is more of a WP:EGG. (IMO, but not a show-stopper).
  4. changed The roots of Nowruz lie in Zoroastrianism, to arious foundation myths exist for Nowruz in Persian mythology, which is probably defensible but would need a supporting citation (the original assertion was not cited either).
  5. Deleted the reference to "little Nowruz" from the See Also. The fact that it is a festival of a non-Islamic religion is irrelevant: it is the name that is significant. Of course it may be that the name is a fiction as it is not cited but that is a different story.

These changes need to be explained. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I’m happy to discuss each of these points and explain the reasoning behind the edits. IranianBritish (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
and...? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello. These were routine good-faith edits. My edit summaries already referenced the relevant policy considerations (e.g., MOS and WP:EGG).
If you believe any specific change is problematic, please indicate which policy it violates and why, so we can address it constructively rather than reverting to prior wording without discussion.
Also, for clarity, it’s generally better to title sections based on the content issue rather than the editor’s name.
Headings such as:
/* Terminology and linking changes */
help keep the discussion focused on article content rather than contributors. IranianBritish (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I also want to record a process concern here for future reference. My edits were made in good faith to improve wording, linking, neutrality, and sourcing. Reverting them without first addressing the content reasons given in the edit summaries left the article, in my view, in a weaker state.
I did not pursue this further at the time in order to avoid an edit war, but that should not be taken as agreement with the revert. If similar issues arise again, I would prefer the discussion to focus on the specific article content, relevant policies/guidelines, and reliable sources, rather than on the contributor. IranianBritish (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@IranianBritish: First, I am not questioning your good faith in any way. This challenge/response process is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. For the long explanation, see WP:be bold and WP:bold, revert, discuss. It is not edit warring to engage in debate at the talk page but only spilling the dispute over into the live article. I haven't seen any evidence of that
You asked for specific policies, so using same numbering:
  1. WP:common name. Wikipedia, like all good encyclopedias and dictionaries, documents what is and not what someone considers what should be.
  2. WP: disambiguation, I suppose. New Year's Day and New year's day are two very different articles.
  3. WP: disambiguation again because there are two spring equinoxes. Embedding the hemisphere qualifier in the wikilink makes it obvious and unambiguous.
  4. WP: reliable sources: you have made a bold assertion which is very probably true, but you failed to provide any evidence to support it. Strong claims need strong evidence.
  5. WP:I don't like it. If you believe that the article Little Nowruz is a spoof or WP:fringe, then you need to propose that it be deleted. Trying to hide it by deleting links to it is ultimately pointless.
Does that clarify matters? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Nowroozٔ" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Nowroozٔ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 5 § Nowroozٔ until a consensus is reached. LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply