Talk:Iran
|
|
An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).
where does the name 'iran' come from?
- Etymology of Iran is [ir(ayr) + an]. ir/ayr is the root of the word arya/ayria, meaning "noble, high, free-spirited" and the an at the end is suffix of location in Persian, as in Gilan, Isfahan, Tehran, Ardakan, Khorasan, Azarbaijan, Gorgan, ..... and literary hundreds of city and village names in Iran. It means "Land of Aryans". --K1 20:49, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I want to add somewhere that Iran was a bitter foe of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. but I don't know where to place the vital tidbit. any suggestions? Kingturtle 01:50 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
- Such information is best placed in the article on the Taleban themselves IMO. It's not really all that vital to Iran itself, certainly not now that the Taleban are no longer in power. At any rate, I don't think it's worth a mention on this page, that serves mainly as a summary and link-hub for purely Iranian topics. -Scipius 20:57 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
- I think it is important to understand where a nation's government stood and stands in regards to other nations. Kingturtle 05:31 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
You can put that in the foreign relations of Iran page. [[User:Kraften|Kraften
| Contents |
Iranian Calenders
I think it would be useful to put more dates into the Solar calender, dates which are traditionally celebrated in osme form , even if they are not part of a government calender, e.g. shab-e yalda or Sizdah-be-dah, but I do not know the Iranian calender well enough to put them in. Refdoc 13:04, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Sizde-be-dar is already in the list. It's the "Nature Day". About Shab-e-Yalda or other occasions like Mehregaan, I really don't know. Other countries don't have them. For example, see USA. It doesn't have Halloween. Roozbeh 16:41, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Neyshabur
I've expanded an article on Neyshabur (Nishapur); could someone please add the Persian name to the article? -- ChrisO 09:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Done. Roozbeh 14:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
National Motto
There is a dispute if there exists a national motto of Iran. I could not find any source confirming the existance of a national motto for Iran. Although the motto "Allah-u Akbar" is a part of the official flag according to the Iranian constitution, it is not called the official motto anywhere. I would appreciate if someone could find the original source. Roozbeh 15:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Terrorism
One of the marking traits of Iranian foreign policy in the beginnings of the Islamic Republic was support to various terrorist groups targetting Europe and Israel. Yet, somebody reverted this explanation I added WITHOUT GIVING ANY EXPLANATION ON THE TALK PAGE.
If we are to discuss in the preceding paragraph why the Shah was bad, we may as well explain why the outside world largely considered Iran to be a terrorist state. David.Monniaux 16:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
- More details on terrorism and assassinations on History of Iran. David.Monniaux 08:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I removed your obviously hostile and prejudiced injections into the article with a brief explanation. You don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not set up to promote US Department of State's point of view on world politics. I also took a brief look at some of your other contirbutions and noticed an unmistakable mentality of "Western world vs. Non-Western world". Frankly, that amounts to hatemongering and prejudice. --K1 00:51, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Not at all. It's plain impossible to understand international relations without understanding the opinion that some countries hold on some other countries (without endorsing them or not). That a large section of the world considered Iran a hostile and terrorist state is extremely important to understand the attitude of that part of the world with respect to Iran. Ignoring this is as silly as removing any talk about the Cold War from the US and USSR pages.
- As for my other contributions, and the "US Department of State", I don't know what you're talking about and allege that this is mere ad hominem attack.
- I strongly disagree with this revisionist point of view that important facts should be erased from history if they simply reflected the mentalities or opinions of the time, even if they shock us. David.Monniaux 08:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Iran is NOT a terrorist state nor a sponsor of terrorism. The only countries who make this claim against Iran are USA and Israel (and whoever they can influence to support their arrogant stance). You keep claiming the "most Western countries" consider Iran to be a terrorist country. Why don't you name these countries that constitute "most Western countires" for us? Even if Iran was what you claim it to be with regards to terrorism, compared to acts of terrorism by Israel+USA it would pale. You are obviously an anti-islam bigot and hatemonger and this is why you support the bullshit about Iran's "terroristic acitivities" which only the USA+Israel alliance pushes, just because Iran now has an Islamic regime. --K1 08:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The above is factually inaccurate. Tehran has sponsored terrorist and revolutionary activities, including some which were also backed by the US, for example the PDK had both US and Iranian backing in the 1990's against Saddam. Iran also supplied money and tradecraft to bombings in both Israel and Iraq.
David, first learn that this is not USENET. DO NOT disect people's comments and inject your own answers in the middle. Secondly, by yelling and screaming and emphacising with asterisks, you are not gonna reinforce your weak argument. You keep saying "most Western world" and "most Europepan countries", when I ask you to name these countries, you say it is a *FACT* !!! take a chill-pill, stay with facts, and learn that your mommy is not here, you cannot do anything that you damn well please here. Stay with facts. I am gonna take out your bullshit from the article again. --K1 08:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Since when am I supposed to receive orders from you, in all capitals (yelling), even? For the record, there is no official Wikipedia policy on this, and how people respond is largely a matter of style.
- Second, I think we would gladly do away with ad hominem attacks. My mother has nothing to do with the case at hand, and I'd expect you to leave her out of this.
- If you want names: France, the United Kingdom, and Germany at least considered Iran to be sponsoring terrorist groups.
- If I were you, I would get acquainted with Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks. One crucial difference with Usenet is that repeated abuse on Wikipedia may expose you to a ban. David.Monniaux 09:26, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- K1, I understand you have a difference of opinion regarding this particular issue. As a neutral 3rd party, I suggest you follow the following guidelines: Avoid ad hominem attacks, as they tend to just raise peoples hackles. Discuss the issue at hand, don't attack the contributor. Calling their edits "bullshit" really isn't helpful also. Please respect the community. Burgundavia 09:30, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I have been an active part of this community also and a contributor to Wikipedia. This guy, as you can see from his childish attitude, is now even resorting to threats with bans calling my behaviour "abuse", and of course his behaviour is "Western" and civilized!! Examine my past contributions and this guy's so-called contributions. He is clearly of the mindset of "Western world vs. Islamic world" and he is contaminating Wikipedia articles with his venom. Also, the fact that he is changing the main article before even allowing any discussions to reach some sort of conclusion shows stubbornness on his part and a mentality of revert wars. --K1 09:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Threats? Where did I make any threat? You started by ordering me around with some alleged rules, I merely responded by pointing out to you the official rules of Wikipedia.
- I do not see what's wrong with my contributions, nor where they exhibit a "Western World vs Islamic World point of view". Just looking at my last contribution page, I only see one topic vaguely related to Islam, and it's Iran. Most of the stuff I deal with does not have any link with Islam whatsoever.
- I'm sorry, but saying that somebody is "childish" after making some silly jokes on his mother is the pot calling the kettle black. David.Monniaux 10:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
David you are a ____head and an obnoxious nerd. I did not call your mother anything, I just said "your mommy is not here" meaning, stop behaving like a child. Are you really so stupid that you need every simple thing interpreted and explained for you or are you really such a pathetic nerd who enjoys to argue with people just for the sake of argument? Anyway, you don't need to reply, I am done with you. --K1 10:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) K-1 Is clearly an anti semite, using the same ad hoc response placing America and Israel together. this smacks of anti-zionist propaganda speech that is just below the surface. The childish responses to David are clear indications of his/her imbalance and he/she should be ignored.
- "____head" and "obnoxious nerd" sound to me like first-class abuse and ad hominem attacks. David.Monniaux 10:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have to agree. There needs to be a truce here. K1 you are out of line. Stirling Newberry
- Right Stirling. K1, we have esxchanged kind words before, and I very much respect the work you've done. But you want people to see things from your perspective, so you you need to be willing to do the same for others. we need a compromise. David, the phrase "Western world" does sound kind of blanket-statementy. How about something more neutral like "several Western governments" etc? --Fishal 00:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hello Fishal. I do not have any problems with the term "Western world" per se, in fact, I myself use it when appropriate. The problem with this guy (whom I had closed the case on already) was that examining some of his other article modifications, it was evident that he is trying to create an atmosphere of "Western world versus Islamic world" and it was his mentality that I had problem with, not the term itself. When I see people take advantage of Wikipedia to impose their personal, political or ideological agenda, it bugs me. --K1 05:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you seem incapable to back your accusations about "other article modifications", so I say that this point about my alleged attitude is entire invention on your part. And I contend that I do not aim at creating a "West vs Islamic world" attitude, but rather I merely state that this attitude was that of the Iranian government led by Khomeiny, and that this is evident from his declarations. I also state that you are a revisionist who wants to erase unpleasant historical facts because they don't fit with what you wish. David.Monniaux 19:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with David.Monniaux, see his talk page--naryathegreat 23:38, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
I would recommend re-reading the project pages Avoid "Terrorist" and NPOV tutorial. Roozbeh 23:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think you missed my point. My point is not to call Iran or the Iranian government a "terrorist" (which, indeed, would call for NPOV). My point is that the international relations of the Iranian government during the early-1980s were largely defined, on the one hand, by Khomeini's displayed and overt hatred of the "West" and the "Great Satan", on the other side by many countries alleging that many "terrorist" (in their words) groups had close ties with Iran.
- I repeat, it's not Wikipedia saying "Iran was terrorist", it's Wikipedia saying "Many Western countries considered Iran a backer of terrorism, and the relations of Iran with those countries were thus understandably tense at moments". David.Monniaux 10:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- OK then, we need an exact list of those countries and some reference somewhere for each of them. If you can't find references for some of them, fine, just list them, so other could search and see if they can find references. The number should be enough to be called "many", or otherwise we should just mention "some". Anyway, giving an exact list in the article would be the best, even if the list contains countries like "Palau" (which were counted among the "coalition of the willing". Another important is that, possibly, not only western but probably some eastern countries (Israel?) also considered Iran a terrorist state. Roozbeh 09:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. Well, I can affirm that in the French media, in the 1980s, it was an obvious, acknowledged fact that Iran supported terrorists, including terrorists operating on European soil. [1] (http://www.infosud.org/showArticle.php?article=606) [2] (http://www.sos-attentats.org/chronique_jud_actes.htm) [3] (http://www.libres.org/francais/politique/archi/politique_012002/pasqua_p022.htm) It was, for instance, generally acknowledge that Iran was behind the kidnapping of French journalists in Lebanon, who were freed in 1988. The same is true, as far as I know, of the media of the United Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland...
- This has nothing to do with the "coalition of the willing". David.Monniaux 13:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the term "terrorist state" is unfortunate and was probably only ever used by Americans and American sockpuppets. It somehow implies you lot, Roozbeh and friends, all running around with balaklavas and AK47, the ring of a handgrenade between the teeth and sporting an evil grin... ;-) If we look at "accusing the Iranian government supporting terrorist organisations", or "relationsships disturbed dt accusation of government supporting terrorist activities on own soil" the list becomes a lot longer and suddenly includes long time faithful friends. The two most important countries in this last category are then - I think - France and Germany. Both were very upset about various political murders happening on their soil - Myconos, Bakhtiari etc, this despite being in general very tolerant and cooperative even with some of the more lunatic rethoric coming from time to time out of Tehran University friday sermons... (Sorry, these are the talk pages, I am allowed to be POV) Refdoc 10:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
David you're very ignorant to believe that whatever America says is worth mentioning here! "Lunatic rhetoric", very true!
- So you suggest that the attitudes of a number of influent countries with respect to Iran are irrelevant, even if they largely dictated limitations on the foreign policy of Iran?
- Please, give me a break. (Besides, the word you wanted to use is probably not "ignorant", since ignorance is a different concept from lack of good judgment, which is apparently what you're alleging here.)
Protected
Why is this page protected, who did it, and why didn't you mention it here? Are you afraid to let us know who you are? (although you might just be some benign sysop, i've no idea)--naryathegreat 22:19, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry for not mentioning it here. I protected the page to stop the massive and biased editing by the anonymous editors (see the history of the article). I guess they would either stop that or take their case here on the discussion page. This has nothing to do with the debate on Iran's government being terrorist, etc. Roozbeh 01:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"va" vs "and"
An anonymous user keeps changing the "and" form double named provinces to "va". I believe the former is preferable for following reason: At least one of the provinces is fairly well known among English readers ('Sistan and Baluchistan' is unfortunately infamous for heroin smuggling) so a change of that particular province's name would make the list less useful. The other "double names" should then fall into line to have a consistent picture. Refdoc 12:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"va" vs "and"
Hi. Translating pieces of the name of a foreign province into English does not seem logical. Other languages do not translate pieces of the name Newfoundland into their own language in their books. Or when talking about Karakorum you don't say Black-Korum! Translating some pieces in the names of the Iranian provinces such as "va" does not seem correct to me.
- 'Other languages...' - actually many do - look at the German Wiki and you will have many surprises. Wrt to Newfoundland specifically - it is Neufundland. You are right with regard to Karakorum and it is of importance to be pragmatic. Wrt to the "va" - I think my argument stands - Sistan and Baluchistan is well known in this form and teh other provinces should follow suit to make it look consistent - apart from this - The whole Iran complex of pages is now a very much interwoven web of entries and any name changes on pages/links need to be well planned and thought through - it is easy to break links and leave things unconnected. You would also have to change the template for Iranian provinces. Also look now at your Luri page a fair number of your red links are now in existence - simply because I changed the links to names of pages we already have. BTW - why do you not get a username - you have made many contribution already - it would be easier for you to edit and easier for others to interact with you. Refdoc 13:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, Newfoundland is Terre-Neuve (New Land) in French. Granted, this is a bit special since France used to colonize Canada, but... Whether or not to translate depends on the context and tradition. David.Monniaux 14:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
_____
- Thanks for the responce.
Actually there are more problems with the name of those provinces than "va". Like In Chahar Mahaal "and" Bakhtiari, the long Persian aa is used in one instance and forgoten in other places. If we want to show the long aa in transcription we should write "Chahaar Mahaal "va/and" Bakhtyaari". Also the form Bakhtyari is much more common than Bakhtiari. And Kohgiluye (the Mount of the histircal ruler of the region name Giluyeh) is more correct than Kohkiluyeh. But I understand your arguments about the Wikipedia being interwoven and will be more carefull in changing stuff. I think I become a member soon. Thanks for the suggestion. Take care.
I think there are actually "official" transcription rules which sort of cover mcuh of our difficulties. trouble is they are not always well applied adn sometimes there are naming conventions which can not be altered anymore - e.g. German for Tehran is Teheran. Wrt the "aa" - it looks clumsy and should be rather generally out than in - and I do think the relevant rules are here on my side - but i am not too sure. The other common inconsistency is the use of "q" vs "gh" - we do here both and without much rhyme or reason. Refdoc 18:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The "q" vs "gh" thing is rather hard to address properly. The problem is mainly the common English spelling. For example, both "Mossadegh" and "Qom" use the same Persian letter Qaf, which is pronounced the same in both the cases, while one is commonly spelled with a "gh" and the other with a "q". roozbeh 14:00, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, maybe we should devise some Farsi guidelines somewhere, or at least decide for the purpose of consistency to adhere to one system within one article and let disambiguation/redirect pages patch up the gaps? It's my personal opinion on the qaf/ghayn issue that in scholarly writing one should use q for qaf and gh for ghayn (that is, to transliterate the alphabet rather than transcribe the pronunciation), because it allows interested parties, who may be beginning scholars unfamiliar with the Farsi spelling, to find them in Farsi-language materials more readily. In any case, I think that this is a situation where there's a benefit to be had from sticking to a consistent system (either consistently transliterating or consistently transcribing) and I don't imagine that anybody is so attached to one option that they'd object to the other if the majority preferred it. On a cosmic scale, they're both the same to me. Not confusing the unfamiliar with "Mossadegh" and "Mossadeq" or "Gurgan" and "Gorgan" should be the goal. How about the people who feel strongly about the renderings propose their systems to be voted on, and the winner puts everything into the standard?--KASchmidt 20:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unclear Wording
" Non-Muslim religious minorities include Bahá'ís and Zoroastrians, both being religions that originated in Iran, as well as Jews and Christians. Only the latter three are officially recognised minority religions." Three religions? Four are described. I guess it means christians are recognised? Seems odd to me. CJWilly
- The three offically recognized relgions are Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians. Baha'is have been persecuted and discriminated against in iran ever since the creation of the faith in Iran. Although nowadays it is much better than it was 100 years ago, or after the revolution, it still exists.
- It's not recognized because it's officially considered a heretical branch of Islam rather than a religion in its own right.--KASchmidt 05:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Incomprehensible lead-in
"Since the revolution of 1979 the Supreme Leader is the rahbar, or in absence of a single leader a council of religious leaders." - What does this sentence mean? It sounds like they are saying that the Supreme Leader is a person with the title "rahbar", and that title literally means "in the absense of a single leader a council of religious leaders". However, that last phrase "in the absense of a single leader a council of religious leaders" doesn't make sense? Jogback 15:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Religious demographics
It would be nifty to estimate the religious demographics ("Twelvers", Ishmaelis, etc). Jogback 15:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Demographics glitch
The article on Iran gives one number on the percentage of persians in the population, the article on Iranian demographics gives another. So, what is right? // Rudolf 1922 18:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Someone keeps vandalizing the Demographics of Iran page. They might be vandalizing this one too; I don't know. The 51% stat comes from the CIA World Factbook, and somebody keeps saying that this is incorrect. It's all written up in Talk:Demographics of Iran. Fishal 15:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- CIA "statistics" is based on the guesses made 40 years ago. Much has changed ever since and millions have been Persinised in most of the Iranian cities. Scholarly research shows that the figure for Persians in Iran is today more than 70%.
--Mani1 11:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please give an exact and reliable source. Academic or scientific, preferably in English or Persian. There are also people who claim that there are more than 50% of Azerbaijanis in Iran. Should we listen to them or to you? CIA is at least more neutral. roozbeh 21:26, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Is it that important to know exact percentages of this or that ethnic groups ?
Why don't we simply consider the inhabitants of Iran as Iranians ? This type of discussions can generate frustrations and misunderstandings. I don't think we really need them. Iran is going through a very difficult period and we (Iranians) must forget about this "second world war type" of discussions. We are all Iranians and proud about it. Cheers, Babak.
- Also in demographics, the article identifies most Iranians as Aryan. According to the Wikis for Aryan and Aryan_race, the term itself is not appropriate for this type of use. Acknowledged, it has a place in the name Iran itself, but for demographics it should be removed/fixed or the Aryan and Aryan_race articles revised. crash77mike 19:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
yay or nay...?
i suppose everybody knows that iran is developing nuclear weapons (or at least those are the allegations) and have been busy with the project (iran maintains that the nuclear facility is for civillian purposes only) for some time now. and while america does not accept the project europe is more leniant. china has economic interest to be on irans side too. but im curious to know what other people think...?
- These allegations come from exactly the same individuals that sold the Iraq invasion to the U.N. with claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, which he obviously did not have, and that he had direct ties to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, which we now know he did not have. The IAEA has publicly announced that it has reviewed all of its information and intelligence and that it does not see any evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons technology. I suggest that we take whatever we hear with a grain of salt, and question the motivations of those making claims. Furthermore, even if Iran were secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, I believe that it is any nation's sovereign right to equip itself with whatever is necessary for its own defense, and the United States does not have the right to keep any nation from doing that, including Iran. Israel has repeatedly expressed the desire to see Iran annihilated, and Iran has no reason to believe they are bluffing. Just my thoughts...
- "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" should definately not be stated as a given fact, as it is a matter of more than a little contention. Personally I'd like to see the whole issue just steered clear of in the article until something historically significant actually happens.
- The various back and forth with the IAE(?) should probably been noted in the current affairs column. Given how Iran has been making a big issue over this, I think there's something going on; whether it's nuclear weapons being built, Iran wanting people to think nucelar weapons are being built, or [i]possibly[/i] just general grumpiness over being forced to follow rules much of the rest of the world doesn't remains to be seen. It certainly might be worth a note that the USA and other countries strongly suspect that Iran's goals is weaponary, not power. --Prosfilaes 09:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Minor points
I removed some stuff from the Demographics section. Demographics isn't about what is taught in schools, or roots of a language. Also, "disputed majority" is nonsensical; a big chunk of the paragraph already explains various other claims. Don't go overboard with the whole NPOV doodad. Kaveh 11:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ETYMOLOGY OF THE NAME OF "IRAN"
Pls as I am not familiar with computers and internet I did not know how to enter a relevant page or create a new page for this question or put forward my request properly,that is why that I am using this page.My quest is: I am searching for a meaningful etymology of the name IRAN and also some palce names like OURA (or as written in Persian: alef, vav, re, he) and also Natanz and there are some other names.I invite people who are well versed on this subject to forward their comments or if they wish they can communicate with me through my e-mail "makalmu@yahoo.com" with many thanks,Ellie.
- It is apparently derived from the Indo-Iranian Arya word via something like Middle Iranian *Erani. Do you need more precision? Evertype 12:05, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
END
Picture of Majles
Folks,
I put in the picture of The Majles as I thought the Iran page desperately needs some images, similar to the front pages of The United States and Germany and Japan and Canada and other good quality pages.
As Gallileo said, "an image is worth a thousand words".
In order to present an optimal image of Iran, I think it is vital that we use as many images in all our pages as possible.
--Zereshk 04:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I just expanded the politics section. In the previous version, there was little if any mention of The Expediency Council, and The Judiciary, and the government organization and structure was not sufficiently clear.
- I followed the format of the Germany page. It breaks down the politics section into various sub categories. I think this format adds to clarity.
- Please feel free to further edit as you see necessary.--Zereshk 22:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Persia: inventor of ice cream and cookies!
Folks,
I put in some stuff I knew or found, on the ice cream and cookie page history section. As expected, some people didnt like what I had to say. (as usual, everything that's good must have been invented by the Americans or Europeans. Everybody else was too stupid I suppose.) If any of you know of any extra sources, especially Farsi ones (and hence unknown to the west), please help out and corroborate.--Zereshk 01:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Military control
"Iran is the only state in which the executive branch does not control the armed forces." Hmm...how different is the Iranian structure than the that of China where the military commitee is theoretically seperate, and was still headed by a former president until very recently?
- I'll clarify that.--Zereshk 00:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Head of State?
"The head of state is the president..." This directly conflicts with the explanation on the Supreme Leader page, which says that he is the head of state and the president is head of government. Which is it?
- The leader is higher in position. The reason we run into such ambiguities in the text is that different people contribute to the article from different sources. My fault. Thanks for the heads up. I'll clarify that by quoting from the constitution.--Zereshk 00:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Demographics
Somebody (198.81.26.15) changed the demographics part. I think the new version is a bit problematic. Azeris are now down to 10% of the population, and the Bahais have been totally deleted as a minority.
Im not into demographics. Somebody please address this inaccuracy.--Zereshk 23:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Council of Guardians
I removed an anonymous edit which called the jurists on the Council of Guardians "unelected". While this is true, and I appreciate the point that the author was making, the method of appointment is discussed immediately after, so "unelected" is superflous and unneccesarily perjorative. Ddye 19:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
good deal.--Zereshk 00:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Turkic vandalism
Attention, someone just took out the entire section on the Safavis on the Persia page after my last revision.
I dont know how to revert back.
Someone please fix it.--Zereshk 02:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He ( 62.139.122.71 ) also has destroyed the page on The Persian Encyclopedia, and pages about Iran on the Azerbaijan pages. See his record to track his vandalism down.--Zereshk 02:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The youth
Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote:
- Seventy-five percent of Iran's population is younger than 25. It is the world's only country whose youth is pro-American. [4] (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050215-091405-8635r.htm)
Interesting addition by Ed Poor, but not for the first paragraph and not really part of the article in the first place. The first part is maybe true and a factum but it would belong under demographics.The second sentence is not based on any reliable investigation and probably wishful thinking... Refdoc 22:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, how about I put the first of the two deleted sentences back, in the demographics section? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I would think ok, if you can find a more reliable source for it - i.e. census data, rather than an editorial comment Refdoc 16:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Latest Rollback info
- If youre gonna give the CIA as a reference, you must use their numbers correctly. 51% is hence correct, not 58%. Otherwise give your source.
- Any claims made on the demographics page must be accompanied by a reference source. Otherwise, the page will become an opinionated page, rather than encyclopedic. Hence the paragraph I took out.
- Reverted to Mani 1's first revision, to fix vandalism by 200.212.36.62 .
- I put Farsi in parentheses next to Persian in the box to settle the ongoing dispute. Arguments for both uses have points. Youre both right.
Keep cool ppl.--Zereshk 20:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Seriously, Farsi is an English name for the language, in somewhat common use. It is not "incorrect" or the "local name" for the language. Terminology flamewars are pointless; let's acknowledge that both are used and go on. --Prosfilaes 02:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Color
ei baba,...Why did User:Bletch take off the color? The color was put in for easier navigation in the page, and to give it ...color! Why does everything have to be a boring B&W? Are we trying to simulate the eye-stressing pages of a real encyclopedia?--Zereshk 21:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"حفت سين" ???
Pardon my ignorance everyone (which may be the case here), but why is Haft Seen spelled with the wrong "H" (specifically ح ) on this page?
Perhaps Im missing something?--Zereshk 00:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On The Nuclear issue
- I dont think the Nuclear issue should be mentioned on the Iran main page at all. It isnt relevant. Do we see anything about The Kyoto Protocol or even The war in Iraq, on the front page of the United States?
- The Nuclear issue of Iran has its own page, which can be accessed by a link on the main page of Iran.
- Having the nuclear issue mentioned on the main page of Iran is a bad idea, because it will lead to POV wars (as we have been seeing in the last few posts). But if people insist on mentioning it, then I suggest we use the last edition by User:Refdoc.--Zereshk 21:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Persia" and Farsi
I really think that references to Iran as "Persia" need to be removed or re-written, it's no longer the proper name of the country. Secondly, the people of Iran speak Farsi, not "Persian". I think these things need to be corrected.
- Your assertion is incorrect. Persia was the official name of Iran until right before WW2. And it continues to be the unofficial name. Iran IS modern Persia. Type in the word Persia in [Meriam Webster's website (http://www.m-w.com)] to verify this.
- There has been discussion about the "Persian" vs "Farsi" usage here a zillion times. Final consensus has been to use BOTH. Case closed.--Zereshk 14:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't really mean for it to be any assertion, I'm not of Persian decent so I'm willing to admit being mistaken. However, I rarely ever hear the country referred to as Persia anymore, because regardless of when the name change occured, the name change DID occur. Secondly, most people I know that are of Iranian or "Persian" decent seem to refer to the national language as Farsi and dislike the use of the word Persian to descirbe either the language or their nationality. Although, as you can see, I did not make any changes to the article because I am unwilling to edit when I'm not positive about people's feelings or "correctness". If the general consensus is that"persian" is proper than I'll leave it as such.
Source of terrorism in the world
Plz consider the fallowing passage:
- "The women chosen by the BBC on its web page [5] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4397615.stm) are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.
- The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!
- Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…
- These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"
Why should this be considered? This a) largely about Saudi Arabia, b) grossly POV
Refdoc 23:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On The Nuclear issue
- I dont think the Nuclear issue should be mentioned on the Iran main page at all. It isnt relevant to the Main page. Do we see anything about The war in Iraq on the Main page of the United States?
- The Nuclear issue of Iran has its own page, which can be accessed by a link on the main page of Iran.
- Having the nuclear issue mentioned on the main page of Iran is a bad idea, because it will lead to POV wars (as we have seen many times before).--Zereshk 18:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Persian vs Farsi
Someone brought this to my attention:
Announcement of the Academy of the Persian Language regarding the name of the Persian language
Which is the correct word in English, for the language of Iran's people: Persian or Farsi?
In their 34th meeting on 7th of December 1992, the Persian Academy unanimously passed the resolution that this language must be called PERSIAN and not FARSI.
Assuming the veracity of the above, if this is the decision of The farhangestan, I think it should be implemented and respected here as well. Thanx to all.--Zereshk 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I hardly see why; the Farhangestan has no say in what the English name of the language is. --Prosfilaes 05:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think it does, because Iran officially adopts and implements the decisions of The Farhangestan Academy. In fact, The Farhangestan is a government organization of The Islamic Republic of Iran.--Zereshk 17:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The Islamic Republic of Iran, not being an English speaking nation, has no say in what words are used in English.--Prosfilaes 00:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Even so, it is the name of our language and we must have at least a little right on what it is called in English. --Aytakin 20:18, 18 Apr 2005 (EST)
The UN is obliged by its charter, to recognize the name of a country as it wishes to be recognized by. There is no place for debate in that. This has already happened once, when Persia changed its name to Iran. If Farhangestan says something, so shall it be. Case closed.--Zereshk 00:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The name of the country is one thing; the name of the language is yet another. Persian or Farsi is an official language of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, and is spoken in Bahrain, and Uzbekistan, as well as the US and anywhere else that people from that extended area have moved. There is no clear correspondence between languages and countries. --Prosfilaes 00:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The funny thing is that "Persian" is actually the latin name brought into English, not farsi. "farsi" is actually an Arabic word. Your argument has no merit, whatever way you look at it.--Zereshk 02:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Farsi is a name used by English speakers, and by speakers of Farsi when speaking English. For one example, note that the Farsi (Persian) Translation Team for KDE chose to register [6] (http://www.farsikde.org/) instead of [7] (http://www.persiankde.org). I don't think it unreasonable to use both names, at least at one point in the article, in recognition of that simple fact. (And I really fail to how where the name came from matters a bit.) --Prosfilaes 05:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Both Farsi and Persian are important names for the language. I agree with Prosfilaes: List both. Then no POV issues (pushing one name over the other) and less confusion on the readers part. (The reader probably does not know that Persian and Farsi refer to the same language.) Listing both shows they are synonyms... and synonyms common in English. There may be disagreement among Iranians over which is the "true" name..... but that's for Iranians to argue about. At the English Wikipedia we refer to the langaguage as it is called in English--just like we call German "German" and not "Deutch"--and in English both Farsi and Persian are common names for the language. So we should list both. - Pioneer-12 15:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- If youre going to list both, then "Farsi" is the one that should go in parentheses, not "Persian".
- There is no disagreement or POV. The High Academy of Persian Language of The Islamic Republic of Iran has officially clarified that "Persian" is correct, not Farsi.--Zereshk 19:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
"Al-Ahwaz"
Folks, thought I might bring to your attention the article I just wrote last night:
http://www.iranian.com/Kasraie/2005/April/Ahwaz/index.html
Im editing the Khuzestan and Ahvaz pages right now. They should be finished in a few hours.
Thanx.--Zereshk 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There are people there already claiming "Al-Ahwaz" was not Iranian.--Zereshk 20:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Trouble with Afshari page
The page Afsharid dynasty is in trouble. Can someone please tend to it? eivallah.--Zereshk 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm on it and I'll have something on with in the next two days! --Aytakin 01:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jaber ibn Hayan was not Iranian??
Folks,
There are some people on the Geber page who have erased "Persia", "Persian", and "Iran" from the entire page, claiming Jaber was only an Arab. They have also been going around deleting Geber from the List of Iranian Scientists page as well.
I can only keep reverting for a while.
Please voice your concern. Thanx.--Zereshk 01:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do we need to link to each department of Government?
The External links to Government sites seem to be overkill. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 08:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, youll have a very hard time finding all of them in one place. These links are hard to get. Even Iran's Presidential website doesnt have all these links correctly, up to date, and in one place.
- It gives a good idea of the Iranian Government's structure. Just by looking at the list, one finds out about "the Secretariat of..." which is mentioned nowhere on any Wikipage.
- Eventually, we will replace these external links with their internal wiki links. So the list will have to be there anyway.--Zereshk 08:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Al-Ahwaz" --2
Folks,
Looks like we are having trouble again on the Ahvaz page with some people who are desperately trying to claim Ahvaz is of Arabic origin. A revert war is going on there. I have added as many sources as I could to the article, only to have it POVd by these Pan-Arabs.
The debate is also going on here as well: Khuzestan and Ethnic conflict in Khuzestan.
Agar zahmatee neest, please give your input on the talk pages.--Zereshk 05:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Qazvin is now updated
Folks,
I just finished expanding and updating Qazvin Province. Please feel free to peruse and make any necessary edits.--Zereshk 20:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Iran (The Great)
I've been working on some Iranian sites in wiki in order to expand them and teach more people about this great country. I would appreciate everyones help in making as many sites on wiki about persians and their culture.--Pedram
Gas laser
I've just done some work on this site Gas laser can someone please add more information and pictures to it. Thanx--Pedram
Afsharid Dynasty
I have finished editing the Afsharid dynasty site but it still needs more improvement... if someone could please add a few pictures and information of your own.--Pedram 11:10 pm ET, 15 May 2005
Ahvaz
Looks like we're having trouble with User:Zora again. She has vandalised the article and is engaging in an edit war. I can only hold down the fort for so long, so to speak. It would be appreciated if others share their input and help put an end to this nonsense that this user has constantly been imposing. SouthernComfort 12:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Provincial update
Folks,
I just finished expanding the pages Guilan and Bushehr. Please feel free to peruse and make necessary edits or additions. We have 18 more provinces left that need to be expanded and written (if interested, go to my page and scroll down to see to-do-list of provinces needing work). Im retiring for the day. Thanx yall.--Zereshk 19:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Finished Hamadan Province and Lorestan. Please edit if necessary.--Zereshk 23:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Just finished Razavi Khorasan, North Khorasan, and South Khorasan. Check for my mistakes.--Zereshk 15:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
BCE/CE Standard for Iran-related articles
I would like to respectfully advise all editors with an interest in ancient Iranian history that User:Jguk has taken it upon himself to continue the imposition of Christian POV 'BC/AD' terminology in all ancient Iranian history articles. Iranian history is not Christian and to impose BC/AD upon these articles is POV and offensive. I had begun converting all relevant articles (dealing only with ancient Iranian history) to BCE/CE, beginning with List of kings of Persia - this was not difficult since most editors dealing in this subject adhere to the BCE/CE standard (which is very much standard for ancient history as it predates Christianity and Christian POV terminology). However, User:Jguk is against BCE/CE and has reverted all my edits and will apparently continue doing so indefinitely.
BCE/CE is standard throughout the English-speaking academic world, and most especially in the fields of ancient Near Eastern history. For those uninformed, please see Common Era for details and definitions. I would appreciate the support of all editors willing to be bold and help make Wikipedia more balanced and academically accurate for everyone and allow Iran-related articles to fully adhere to the BCE/CE NPOV standard. SouthernComfort 16:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea.--Zereshk 19:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Language
It has come to my attention that many of the Persian or Persian related sites do not have a Persian translation. Unfortunately I alone cannot translate all of the sites by myself, if possible can anyone help me on this issue. --Pedram 9:27 AM ET May 26, 2005
Ahvaz
User:Zora has again been vandalizing the Ahvaz article by deleting almost the entire article and ruining the layout of pictures. This has been going on for about two months now. I can only keep an eye on these articles for so long. SouthernComfort 13:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Can someone please go to this link and help us stop Zora from violating this site... Talk:Ahvaz Pedram 4:09 PM ET June 06, 2005
List of Iranians
PLEASE HELP ME PUT SOME INFORMATION UP ABOUT THESE PERSIAN AND IRANIAN PEOPLE. WHILE WE ARE HERE ADDING MORE INFORMATION TO THESE SITE WE CAN BE ADDING INFORMATION TO ONE THAT DON'T HAVE ANY TO BEGIN WITH. GO TO THIS SITE ---------->>>> List of Iranians THANK YOU! Pedram 22:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
!!SUPPORT----THIS IS A PLEA OF HELP TO ALL OF YOU!!
______IMPORTANT AND A MUST READ______
______Help bring knowledge of Iran and everything to do with Iran to all the people around the world. Instead of ruining these sites by starting debaits, add more links to it. put your information under a seperate link for other people to view that way you can show your point of view as well. There are so many thing that we can talk about and teach to others but we can't because of these argument. For example look at Ahvaz's link, it is ruined everyday by these argument but they just wont give up. If we would have put these behind us we would have written more and pasted on much more knowledge. There are people that think Iran is nothing more than deserts or that Persians are Arabs. We can make that difference. If we write something and other people read it, they will pass it on, they will expand on it.
______PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND LET THEM KNOW THAT IF WE ALL PUT IN A SMALL AMOUNT OF WRITTING IT WILL SOON BECOME MUCH MORE!!
______MUCH THANX AND WITH HOPES OF YOUR SUPPORT______ Pedram-e 23:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I just thoroughly expanded the List of Iranian scientists by adding 20 or so more biographies which I have been writing over the past week. The list is almost complete.--Zereshk 08:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I just added the biographies of Ruhollah Khaleghi, Abolhasan Saba, and Rahi Mo'ayeri. I must however mention that the same people who tried messing up the Ahvaz and Khuzestan page, are now busy on the Elamite Empire page claiming that The Elamites were not Iranian. My point: you have to make a stand, otherwise those people will revise Iran's history.--Zereshk 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)