This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Early Muslim This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello, many websites show something like this as the flag of the buyids: File:Flag of the buyid empire (possible).png or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_buyid_empire_(possible).png — Preceding unsigned comment added by History of Persia (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Iranica: "Whatever the original language of the Deylamites may have been, in the Islamic period they spoke a northwestern Iranian dialect very similar to the language of the Gilites". Tons of references here: [1][2](purely Iranian dynasty of Daylam)--Nepaheshgar 01:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The Buyids according to the Encyclopedia Iranica: "On the one hand, the Buyids were Shiʿite military leaders of Iranian origin, who would aim at creating a principality independent of the caliphs and at embarking on a policy guided rather by the ancient Iranian tradition, which already Mardāvīj had tried to revive, than by the universal political ideals of Islam."[3] and also Britannica says the same. So the same Iranica article considers them of Iranian origin and Daylamite origin, meaning they are equivalent. Someone(a banned user) claimed original language and origin are two different. Original language of everyone was caveman speech and their origin goes back to two or few humans in Africa. So I am not sure where you are going with this. What is known is that a tribe by the name Daylamite at least from the Islamic era was Iranian-speaking and hence Iranic (just like people grouped under Turkic and specially Anatolian are not all pure Turks like Yakuts but they are classified as Turkic people since they speak Turkic and consider themselves to be Turkic/Turks(Turkish Character)). We have no evidence of the language of Daylamites in pre-Islamic times to assess if it was a North West Iranian dialect, a South East Iranian dialect, or a North East Iranian dialect or another possibly non-Iranian language group. We have evidence only from islamic time and it is Iranian language. Note the Iranica article is mentioning that their language was close to Gilites in Islamic time(a NW Iranian language) but it does not say anything about other possible Iranian languages(SE, NE, SW..). So by the time of Buyids, at least 300 years (since Islamic time) the tribe was Iranian speaking and the dynasty had Iranian character and Iranica/Britannica consider it a dynasty of Iranian origin since Daylamites as a group were an Iranian speaking group for more than at least 300 years and had Iranian character. So they were Iranian or Iranianized(the two terms really mean the same thing once you are Iranianized you are Iranian) at least 300 years before taking power and made a dynasty of Iranian character (per sources like Britannica/Iranica and many others in google book). Simply (Iranian language and Iranian character) characterize the buyids as daylamite(Iranian). And they themselves took pride in considering themselves descendants of Sassanids who were a national Iranian dynasty. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is an altered version of a map from an Iranian elementary school history book (grade 7). This map is published less than 30 years ago and it's copyrighted. Also, because it's not under GFDL or similar licenses, its modification is not allowed. This issue is separate from several errors and inconsistencies in that crappy school map. Alefbe (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This source,[4] added by User:HistoryofIran needs verification.

• 1. Who is Paul White? Some verification as to his academia, besides the website which itself is in question.
• 2. Where exactly does it state, "The Buyids were/are not Kurdish", which "references" the end of the sentence, "not Kurdish". --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a non-specialized encyclopedia source(Britannica), simple link sources(Iranica), some dead-link to the University of Chicago and two non-specialized sources(Merriam-Webster & Global security). I have left TWO secondary sources which support the Daylamite origins of the Buyids. This should be more than sufficient. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources state that the Buyids were of Dailamite origin.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

And if we ignore the sources for a second then let's not forget that they originated from Lahijan in Daylam, which has never been a Kurdish populated area.

I propose that in the Origins section, there should be written that the historian Meho,Kelly L. Maglaughli says that the Buyids were of Kurdish origin, however, most sources agree about the Buyids being of Dailamite origin.

Or something that resembles what i said. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This category doesn't mean, they are Kurds. But it makes attention of Buyid-Kurds relations. For example, Buyids of Fars. You can read here their relations.--Gomada (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So by using your logic, we should also add the category of all other kingdoms they had some relations with? The Samanids, Byzantines, Hamdanids.. etc. Adding the category on the article makes it look like that they were Kurds, which they weren't. You should have come to the talk page in the start, instead of constantly making edits based on your own opinion. The Roman Empire was populated by various types of ethnic groups, should we also add categories of those ethnic groups to that article? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or you should try to talk before you use extreme words as nationalistic POV? You still dont want to understand/accept. WP is not looking for your own idea. We need sources, and there are sources about their connections. There is even claim of their Kurdishness in article. What else do you need?--Gomada (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, only one random source made by two confused scholars calls them of Kurdish origin, while the majority of scholars, such as Bosworth and Hugh Kennedy, calls them of Dailamite origin, thus making it most likely that they were of Dailamite origin (not to forget that they were from Daylam). Besides the word “Kurd” first became an ethnic identity in the 12th and 13th century :).^[1] Before that the word was a tern used on all Iranian nomads.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buyid dynasty. 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/20081002222425/http://buali.ir/PDF/121%20Marcinkowski-FULL%20TEXT%20PAPER.pdf to http://buali.ir/PDF/121%20Marcinkowski-FULL%20TEXT%20PAPER.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Buyids under Adud Ul Dawla controlled parts of Anatolia, Gorgan,Makran and even had Vassal rulers in Yemen , this is clearly seen in Bosworth's book about them [5] , which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article of Adud Ul Dawla...[6]This map right here is a bit more accurate as it shows the Buyids at their peak, however it still does not include some parts of Yemen, Makran and Anatolia Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not inaccurate (it was also created by Ro4444, one of the best users we have, unfortunately not active anymore), it just doesn't show the Buyids at their zenith. And the version of the linked map was created by me, but its quality is much lower than this one. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence;

• "As Daylamite Iranians, the Buyids consciously revived symbols and practices of the Sasanian Empire." cited by Goldschmidt, Arthur (2002). A Concise History of the Middle East (7 ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. p. 87. Doesn't say Iranians but Persians. Let's refrain from the redundant statement of "Iranian Daylamites", since it is already known they are an Iranian peoples per the Daylamite article.

As such, the Lead sentence should remain the same.

• "The Buyid dynasty (Persian: آل بویه, romanized: Âl-i Bōye), also spelled Buwayhid (Arabic: البويهية, romanized: Al-Buwayhiyyah), was a Zaydi and, later, Twelver Shia dynasty of Daylamite origin, which mainly ruled over central and southern Iran and Iraq from 934 to 1062." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to change the current form of the Lead;

• "The Buyid dynasty or Buyid Empire was a Zaydi and later Twelver Shi'a dynasty of Daylamite origin."

Compared to the redundant form of;

• "The Buyid dynasty or Buyid Empire was an Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origins that established the first state officially known as "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanian Empire, ruling over most of Iraq and Iran at their height under Panāh Khosrow."

I don't see anywhere in the article where the article states, "established the first state officially known as "Iran"". Also, "Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origins" is the saying as "Iranian dynasty of Iranian origin", which is redundant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain my reasoning, I'll write more later, but I have to go get food briefly so this will be short for now

Look at the wikipedia page for the Carolingian Dynasty, the Alawi Dynasty, etc.

The first line of the lede for these dynasty pages are the ethnic origin of the dynasty. It doesnt say "Carolingians were an Arrian/Catholic Christian dynasty (cont)" or "The Alawi dynasty is a Sunni Muslim dynasty (cont)"

But for some reason, every single Iranian dynasty of the Iranian Intermezzo says their religious affiliation before their ethnicity, and that becomes the preview when you hover over the link. I think it takes away from the main fact that the Iranian Intermezzo was a resurgence of native Iranian rulers.

Sorry for the short response, I will add more later. But led me know what you think. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "But for some reason, every single Iranian dynasty of the Iranian Intermezzo says their religious affiliation before their ethnicity.."

So? That is no reason to call it an "Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origin", as I explained already. Comparing what other articles say is meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my longer reply. You are wrong, Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origin is not a redundant sentence. Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Longer Reply

> don't see anywhere in the article where the article states, "established the first state officially known as "Iran"

You're right, the article itself does not mention this. So you are justified to take issue with that being in the lede edit. I have sources that prove this to be true, (court sponsored geographers of the Buyid period referred to the land as Iranshahr, for example), but given that the lede has to reflect the body content, it wasn't right to include that without editing the body + adding citations.

> Also, "Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origins" is the saying as "Iranian dynasty of Iranian origin", which is redundant

No, Iranian refers to many different ethnicity including Persians, Lurs, Mazanis, Gilakis, and the list goes on. It is necessary to say Iranian first to immediately make clear that this dynasty is part of the broader Iranian people group, and it is also necessary and not redundant to further specify which people group of the Iranian peoples they belong to (the Daylamites).

So now to the main point

You said

"

I see no reason to change the current form of the Lead;

• "The Buyid dynasty or Buyid Empire was a Zaydi and later Twelver Shi'a dynasty of Daylamite origin."

Compared to the redundant form of;

• "The Buyid dynasty or Buyid Empire was an Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origins that established the first state officially known as "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanian Empire, ruling over most of Iraq and Iran at their height under Panāh Khosrow."

"

The first sentence presents the Buyids as Zaydis/Shi'a first and Daylamites second. It doesn't even mention the term Iranian. For the first sentence, which appears as hoverbox tooltips for users, it should clarify first and foremost that it is an Iranian dynasty. I like the phrasing "Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origin". A similar example would be "Iranian dynasty of Persian origin", "Iranian dynasty of Luri origin" etc.

The religion does not even need to be in the first paragraph. Read the page of the Carolingians, chinese dynasties, and even other non Iranian Muslim dynasties. It doesn't appear to be a common thing to start the lede off with their religion rather than their ethnic identity. But for some reason, the dynasties of the Iranian Intermezzo/Persian Renaissance, where ethnic identity is the defining feature that led historians of Iran to establish that historiographical category, they are being defined first and foremost by their religion.

For these reasons, I don't think the second sentence is redundant. On the contrary I think it is more evocative and explanatory to the reader. Please let me know your thoughts. Idris Shirazi (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Iranian first to immediately make clear that this dynasty is part of the broader Iranian people group.."

Nope, since it states which Iranian peoples founded the Buyid dynasty: Daylamites.

• "You are wrong, Iranian dynasty of Daylamite origin is not a redundant sentence."

Nope, you're wrong. Daylamite origin is the same as "Iranian dynasty".

• "every single Iranian dynasty of the Iranian Intermezzo says their religious affiliation before their ethnicity.."

AND, you're also wrong about that as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> Nope, since it states which Iranian peoples founded the Buyid dynasty: Daylamites.

> Nope, you're wrong. Daylamite origin is the same as "Iranian dynasty".

Refer to

The Zand dynasty

The Qajar dynasty

The Safavid dynasty

The Afsharid dynasty

The Pahlavi dynasty

Notice how in all of these, regardless of their ethnic origin, the term "Iranian" takes precedence over Kurdish, Luri, Turkoman, Mazandarani, etc.

Notice how they either refer to Iranian dynasty of "x" origin, or simply say Iranian dynasty. The point is, the term Iranian takes precedence in every single case.

Initially I wanted to remove mention of Daylamite from the first paragraph altogether, as I thought Iranian was sufficient. But you are wrong. It is not a redundant sentence. And if one of those two words needs to be removed, its Daylamite. Not Iranian. Idris Shirazi (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And before you sloppily say "comparing other articles is meaningless" (which is false in its own right but lets engage with that false idea for the sake of this), the articles are deriving that from academic convention. If you want to make such a big deal to the point of almost getting me banned for a lede edit about the proper terminology in the first paragraph, and you want to die on this hill, then you can, and we can go through countless sources from Iranologists that demonstrate precisely this convention of Iranian taking precedence to subgroups(ie daylamite, persian etc) in convention. You want to make such a fuss, go ahead. You're a grown man and you're embarrassing yourself with your childish "nuh uh YOU ARE WRONG".

Or, you can stop being a cry baby, and accept you are wrong. Idris Shirazi (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not user. Also, you cannot take as example the content of other articles because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, lets see if you reply that to Kansas Bear as well given that he quotes Wikipedia articles in his replies as an example of content, precisely what you advise against here. Lets see if you have consistency. Idris Shirazi (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were the one who listed those dynasties just above (Zand, Qajar, Safavid, Afsharid and Pahlavi) to prove a baseless point, Kansas Bear showed you your mistake with another example (the Saffarids) and you say that it is Kansas Bear who compares articles between them ? Please go check the meaning of the word "consistency" and stop wasting my time. I'm done here with you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you're the one who chose to reply buddy 😘 Idris Shirazi (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Or, you can stop being a cry baby, and accept you are wrong."

Instead of childish personal attacks maybe you should spend your quality time reading about WP:LEAD. The Lead should summarize the article. That is exactly what the first sentence does. It shows the reader exactly who the Buyids were; Shia Muslim(s) of Daylamite origin. Just exactly HOW is this dynasty Iranian? Where does the article state this dynasty's Iranian qualities?

• "But for some reason, every single Iranian dynasty of the Iranian Intermezzo says their religious affiliation before their ethnicity.."

Actually the Saffarids don't have a religion listed in the first sentence, since their religion is a topic of debate. So there you were wrong.

• "Notice how in all of these, regardless of their ethnic origin, the term "Iranian" takes precedence over Kurdish, Luri, Turkoman, Mazandarani, etc."

Notice how at the top of the infobox it says: Guarded Domains of Iran

So besides ignoring the fact that those specific dynasties existed 500 years AFTER the Buyids and that nationalism had started throughout the world..."The idea of the Guarded Domains illustrated a feeling of territorial and political uniformity in a society where the Persian language, culture, monarchy, and Shia Islam became integral elements of the developing national identity."

You're attempting to compare two different entities. States that were developing a national identity, compared to a dynasty that;

"..traditionally rebellious , moved down into western Iran and into Iraq under their Buyid commanders to create a family confederation which took over Baghdad as protectors of the ' Abbasids.", "..from the ideal of the family confederation and attempted to create something more akin to an absolute monarchy over the Buyid realms."

Hardly sounds the same as "developing national identity". Please avoid using Presentism in your argument.

So how to present dynasties that were summarily based on familial ties (Buyids, Tahirids, Samanids, Saffarids, etc.). Follow what WP:LEAD says, summarize the article.

To reiterate, the Lead is a summarization of the article. What can we say about the Buyids? They were Shia Muslims. They were of Daylamite origin. Their culture was varied, though heavily favored Arabic literature. Which by the way is mentioned in the last sentence of the Lead. Ergo, adding "Iranian" to modify dynasty is redundant since the sentence includes "Daylamite origin", Daylamites themselves being Iranian. There is no simpler way to explain this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> "Instead of childish personal attacks"

Yeah, you can spare me this after you attempt to get me banned for hurting your ego, proceed to engage in bad faith with three responses in this talk thread (one of your replies was literally just "you are wrong about this this and this" with no argument). All while I was engaging in good faith. But I'm glad you took the time to put aside your childishness and give a proper attempt at a response. It allows me to go point by point and show you how your reasoning is incorrect.

> "spend your quality time reading about WP:LEAD. The Lead should summarize the article."

There's just one problem. This actually proves my entire point.

"As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

"Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

"Each word, phrase, and sentence in a lead should be covered by equivalent content in the body of the article."

So what does the Buyid article, even it's current form, actually say?

Direct quotations:

On identity

• "As Daylamite Iranians, the Buyids consciously revived symbols and practices of Iran's Sasanian past"
• "They revived the ancient Iranian title "Shahanshah""
• "They carved inscriptions at Persepolis linking themselves to pre-Islamic Iranian glory"'
• "They revived official celebration of ancient Iranian festivals including Nowruz, Sadeh, and Mehregan"
• "They gave their children Iranian names (Marzuban, Bahram, Khusraw) rather than Arabic names"
• "They claimed descent from Sasanian royalty (Bahram V Gur)"

On religion

• "They were Shi'a but "tolerant of the Sunni population, who formed the majority of their realm"
• Panah Khosrow, Shahanshah of the Buyids, is described as having extensive conversations with Zoroastrian priests about the ancient Achaemenid ruins
• "They ruled in the name of Sunni Abbasid caliphs and maintained them in power" by keeping the Abbasids as figureheads, they demonstrated pragmatism, showing that religious orthodoxy was secondary to pragmatic power politics

Lets move on.

> "Just exactly HOW is this dynasty Iranian? Where does the article state this dynasty's Iranian qualities?"

This question is devastating to your own position and the funniest part is you don't even realize it.

• The article extensively documents Iranian identity (reviving ancient festivals, inscriptions at Persepolis and veneration of Sassanians+Achaemenids, reviving the title Shahanshah, minting coins using Middle Persian, claiming descent from the Iranian Shahanshah
• And the article barely discusses religious practices in comparison, apart from noting their sect

By the WP:LEAD principles that you cited in your reply to me: ""As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

Thanks for making my point for me! That means, if you have a problem with me accurately editing the lede to accurately reflect the content of the body, then you have to edit the body and then present your problems to me.

I see that you are already attempting that as we speak. To try to escape from your own dishonesty and bad faith, you desperately found the first source that you think validates your position and hastily added the following to the culture section

"Under the Buyids, Arabic culture experienced a remarkable flourishing, and the Dailami rulers who succeeded the founding brothers—the sons of Buya—readily and enthusiastically embraced this culture.^[1]"

You are actively vandalizing the Buyid page to make them seem like an Arab dynasty in all but name. This is funny for many reasons - but mostly because you almost got me banned for editing without seeking consensus (an optional thing), and here you are editing while in the middle of a debate, adding your own perspective, the definition of a broken consensus.

The sentence you added shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Buyid political pragmatism. They ruled over Baghdad, and maintained the caliphal institutions out of political pragmatism. If you knew anything about Shi'ism, you would know that the Shia despise the Abbasid caliphs (they were responsible for massacring countless descendants of Ali). The Buyids on the contrary preserved the caliph in his own palace, respecting him as a figurehead. They tolerated religious minorities in their realm. And you can refer back to the article to see how Iranian identity came before "Shiasm". Once again read the article. I am not making new claims.

Thank you for linking the WP: Lead. Now maybe you should actually read it.

And I'm not done yet. I'll debunk everything else too :) Idris Shirazi (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Idris Shirazi, but I fail to see why "Iranian" is important to mention here, coming from the person who added most of what you're citing. And please remember WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. There's a lot to add about the religion of the Buyids (which is what they're were especially notable for, being Shia Muslims), it just hasn't been added yet. This article is still very bare bones. And this whole issue went 0-100 really quick, I think it's best to WP:DROPTHESTICK. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As Daylamite Iranians, the Buyids consciously revived symbols and practices of Iran's Sasanian past"

• "They revived the ancient Iranian title "Shahanshah""
• "They carved inscriptions at Persepolis linking themselves to pre-Islamic Iranian glory"'
• "They revived official celebration of ancient Iranian festivals including Nowruz, Sadeh, and Mehregan"
• "They gave their children Iranian names (Marzuban, Bahram, Khusraw) rather than Arabic names"
• "They claimed descent from Sasanian royalty (Bahram V Gur)"

All from the article, man.

Daylamite would be a fitting term for the lede if the Buyids espoused Daylamite culture specifically, but the body content of the article shows how they claimed descent from a Persian, left inscriptions on Achaemenid and Sassanian ruins. The lede should reflect the body.

Keep in mind, this whole debate is me almost getting banned for writing "Iranians of Daylamite origin". I didn't even remove the term Daylamite, I didn't put anything radical on the page, I just gave the term Iranian precedence. Why? Because the Buyids themselves gave their Iranianness precedence over the particularity of which Iranian people group they were. Idris Shirazi (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel its fair that I'm being accused of NPA when I was temporarily banned and also given a warning for being falsely accused of waging edit wars. Idris Shirazi (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the revision history of the Buyid article. I got temporarily banned for uncontroversially specifying that they were Iranians without consensus. Then Kansas Bear makes a revision to the body that deceptively makes them appear as people who embraced Arab culture at the expense of their Iranian identity. Look what Kansas Bear explicitly wrote in this talk discussion: "Just exactly HOW is this dynasty Iranian? Where does the article state this dynasty's Iranian qualities?" He is literally dissenting against the consensus established in the article itself. Literally nobody denies the Iranianness of the Buyids. He actively revised in while debating me with something controversial. I revised it with something uncontroversial, and yet im the one being accused of acting in bad faith.

Frankly I feel pretty demoralized by this because its clear to me that there are some really weird power dynamics on this website. Idris Shirazi (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All from the article, man.

I know, I added it, the Culture, Architecture and Origins sections were written by me. Not bragging, but I am well aware of the info in the article is what I'm saying. However, it's much more nuanced than that, adding "Iranian" won't make the reader anymore clever, and may be misinterpreted as a nationality/nation, something which first gets revived several centuries later. And yes, the Buyids were indeed (heavy) supporters of Arab culture and language, the latter which I added. They even faked an Arab origin, though that's a long story, and not in the article yet.

The topic of the Buyids is not that black and white, and their multi cultural aspects can be covered further down in the lede (which it already somewhat is), but not right at the introduction, which is the most important part - the Buyids were Shias, and Daylamites (which by the way, despite being an Iranian people, were considered barbarians by their Iranian neighbours, also info that is missing). I think it's important to be mindful of WP:SYNTH too. And you were not banned? there is nothing in your block log [7]. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to check a block log. All I know is yesterday after I got the warning there was a brief moment where i couldnt access any of my sandbox drafts and when i tried to search my username, it didnt exist. Im not sure what happened but the timing of it was like that

I respect that i don't take it as bragging. What I am trying to say though is that Iranian as a nationality didn't die and then get revived. It was a conscious idea that persisted after the Sassanian period. Even the Mongol invaders named their country Iranzamin. Istakhri was from the Buyid period and he refers to their land as Iranshahr.

Kansas Bear tries to make the point that is somehow "Present-ism" but he is conflating European nationalism (a product of modernity) with Iranian national consciousness (much more ancient).

Ferdowsi's Shahnameh is a great example of pre-modern Iranian national consciousness

"I toiled greatly for thirty years,

I restored the spirit of the Iranians" Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like some clarification about what actually entails an edit war so I don't get banned and lose drafts that I am taking a lot of time to research and write.

For example, yesterday I added the fact that the Abbasid Revolution was led by a Persian revolutionary, Abu Muslim, to the Abbasid revolution article lede. I got reverted (by what seems like an iraqi nationalist, he has drafts about "3 things that shouldnt exist; jews persians and flies") who claimed his ethnicity is contested. But it is definitely not contested.

If i undo his revision is that considered an edit war? I started a talk page on his account to try to talk it out but im not optimistic seeing his drafts, i dont think he likes persians very much Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian national consciousness did indeed exist under the Buyids, but not as a political one. See the WP:GA Hamdallah_Mustawfi#Nuzhat_al-qulub for a bit of info on that. The Idea of Iran books go into great depth about this [8]. You can easily find full access to them in the internet. And you're right, Abu Muslim's ethnicity is not contested, but this is the wrong place to talk about that (and again, please be mindful of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA, always try to assume WP:GF). I'm going to bed, everything you need to know about edit warring is here WP:EDITWARRING. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't help dude, ive read it and it doesnt fit with what i did to get the warning. nobody has even explained to me why i was given an editwar warning. so im a little paranoid about losing some of my projects. Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Idris Shirazi: If you truly don't want to get banned then I would advise listening to the advice you're being given. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing absolutely nothing to get banned. Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Idris Shirazi is refusing to follow WP:CONSENSUS after a 2 hour WP:GF attempt at making them follow it, we'll have to do it this way. Here [9] they duplicated the "unashamed" about being Iranian part, which was part of a larger quote which gave better context just down below. This looks not only like an (unnecessary) attempt at overemphasizing the "Iranian" bit, but also looks like an attempt at downplaying the "Arab(ic)" part of the Buyids, as it has been added there. Apparently they think there is some sort of conspiracy that this article is being "currently downgraded by editors trying to suppress the radical Iranianizing nature of the Buyids". Since you just had the honor, what do you think of these changes @Kansas Bear: @Wikaviani:? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I won't even engage with you. Speak to me with respect or don't speak to me at all.

I've engaged with you in good faith for far too long. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now further edit warring despite no WP:CONSENSUS for this either [10]. Apparently, it is up to other users to make Idris Shirazi themselves agree, not them to reach WP:CONSENSUS with their desired changes ("I'm bringing the quote back. The talk page is for you to convince me to remove it.") HistoryofIran (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A moderator literally told you that you are also guilty of edit wars. A warning was left on your page and you removed it. Just let your self righteousness go and leave me alone. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a moderator, and does not justify ignoring WP:CONSENSUS. And cease the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You have been told countless times by now to refrain from WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good night. Please get a life. Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another attack. I've taken it to WP:ANI [11]. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest ignoring this editor. They have not learnt anything depite their recent block.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this thread is from before my block, not after. i've been totally fine since the block. My only issue is that I made some edits without great citations because I was busy with schoolwork. Idris Shirazi (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]