This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I am rebooting the discussion for a better clarity and readability.
Nepaheshgar, let's forget about Ibn Khaldun, you can put that: among these who contributed to Arab grammar and the Islamic Science were not Arabized but you cannot deny that a considerable number of them were. Anyway, I am leaving that to you because it is not the big issue here. I am concerned with your edits which again give an undue weight to minorities' views. I am afraid you removed some inline-cited content such as:
I am not going to edit the article for now because you seem to be very busy editing it (I made these comments based on this diff). I will give my final comments after you finish. I am assuming good faith!
ps: Please do not remove reliable sources, It took me days to compile them. Bestofmed ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
Response: A) I did not remove Arabic influence on Persian. That part I left. Please see it exists now under culture section. B) I did remove Arab abolishing of caste and social class, because there was a new caste and social class (Mawali) and also it was Islam rather than Arabs that removed it. So this needs to be balanced. In actuality, Arabs going against Islam imposed a new caste system and Caliph Umar for example did not allow Persians in Madinah and Meccra. C) Samanids, Saffarids, Buyids are independent Iranian dyansties and giant historians like Minorsky assess that they re-asserted Iranian independence and statehood.
So these things need further discussion. But I kept the parts of your edit that there is no dispute about and Arabic influence on Persian language is well known although the Arabic words really have changed and became Persianized and are uttered very differently. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the origin of Abu Moslim is not clear among scholars. Adb Al-Husain ZARRINKUB (an Iranian Professor) said "Regarding Abu Muslim, it seems that from the period of his own lifetime he has been somewhat of a mystery; his name and origins have been the occasion of contention among different sects, and from very early times different accounts have described him as an Arab, Turk, Kurd or Persian. Some have associated him with the 'Abbasids through the dubious line of Salit b. 'Abd-Allah. Some have gone so far as to make him a descendant of 'Ali, while other legends have made him Iranian as the descendant of Buzurgmihr. His official name, which appears on a coin, was Abd al-Rahman b. Muslim, though some have averred that this was the name given him by the Imam Ibrahim, his original name being something else..." (it is on page 53 from the Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 4 if you want to check). So, I suggest putting ZARRINKUB's view and provide the other sources to support the claim that he is of Persian descent? Bestofmed ( talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
I think is actually it given more weight than it is necessary, since languages influence each other, but the vocabulary from Arabic has been Persianized. Either way your sources have been mentioned and not removed. On B, the Arabs brought a new class system [1] and the Ummayads discriminated heavily against Iranians. "In the early period of Arab domination, Persian society was arranged along four lines of division: Arab and Persian (ʿajam), Muslim and non-Muslim, emerging nobility and commoners, and free men and slaves. ". So we need to balance this. On C, there is no debate [2] "Ṣaffārid Dynasty- Iranian dynasty..Iranian dynasty of lower class origins that ruled a large area in eastern Iran. Samanids [3]: "(ad 819–999), first native dynasty to arise in Iran after the Muslim Arab conquest. It was renowned for the impulse that it gave to Iranian national sentiment and learning.". The fact is there was a Samanid dynasty which ruled large parts of Iran and was native Persian/Iranian dynasty. On Abu Moslem, Turk is really a later development and Dr. Zarin Kub is just describing all the sources and legends. Kurd would be Iranic. Also Dr. Zarin Kub says: "It was most likely that he was one of the mawli and in all probability an Iranian"., which is part you did not quote but is crucial. On the country of Iran, we are discussing in this era a wider Persian civilization which Iran alongside Tajikistan, Afghanistan and several other regions are inheritors of. At that time, there was no national borders and thus this is the common Iranian civilization which is shared by many countries, the biggest one being Iran. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I took a quick look into this issue, and as much as I think that one should assume good faith, Bestofmed seems to be pushing a pan-Arabist POV here, I counted and there were 20 mentions of "Arab and "Arabic" in his edit, which are mainly Wikipedia:Synthesis of cherry-picked sources. This article is not about an Arab country, so he is also violating undo coverage and undo weight, and glorifying the Arab occupation period, which should only be mentioned briefly in passing. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 10:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the edits by some users, I think it is not a bad idea to quote 1. Richard Frye as suggested by Nepaheshgar in the [ ]? I think this will satisfy those who think we are biased. 2. We MUST quote Ibn khaldun as he was himself an Arab, and an important and highly respected figure. Do you agree with the inclusion of these quote? This is Ok in wikipedia to quote.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Agreement on gradual conversion to Islam and also Islam changing the culture of Iran. 2) Arabic influence on Persian language although Persian is an indo-European language and the Arabic words in Persian have been Persianized. Disagreement on Independent Iranian dynasties which I showed that Samanids, Tahirids, Saffarids, Buyids were such dynasties. Disageement on class which needs better analysis.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I do however agree with Xashaiyar that we should discuss what we want to put in the section, since it cannot be too long as the article is too long-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
an intrepretation to an extent. So here we have to use professional translators (primary sources). You might disagree, but definitely we cannot use the intrepretation of users here. Relating one part of Ibn Khaldun(Examination of others) with another is in violation of WP:Synthesis. Richard Frye states that what Ibn Khaldun states is in no doubt, so that is basically a statement scholars. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
states that what Ibn Khaldun states is no doubt. Also Azerbaijan was not Turkified in speech at the time of Ibn Khaldun (so really he can't be referring to Azerbaijani people). Pashtuns had not had an expansion yet and neither there was Ottoman Turks. Unfortunately we are dealing with people who are bias here. And Ibn Khaldun only brings out examples of Persian/Iranic scientists and the Prophetic saying and cofirms what he states with Prophetic saying. And he mentions three areas: Transoxiana, 'Iraq (which is really Persian Iraq) and Khorasan. I think Xashiyar should restore Ibn Khaldun and Rosenthals translation, if there is an objection it cannot be done through WP:OR or synthesizing of another part of Ibn Khaldun and relating it to the specific quote. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Raayan, that was a very interesting point. The section on Iran in Middle ages is too soft, I agree! This is because I/we have been so much concerned with being neutral. I would like to mention these things (Raayan's point about the Arab-impact on science and culture)+ Ibn Khaldun (as primary source+clarification by F. Rosenthal and R. Frye). This will be in complete agreement with Let the facts speak for themselves. I will propose my change here and would like to see your opinion about my wording.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to keep responding to each branch of this conversation, because that will be messy. Here are two points:
1. Published translations are not secondary sources, ever, unless the translation is already of a secondary source. Generally we don't use medieval sources as secondary sources, however that has been a debate on Wikipedia before (for example, can we use
Sirat ibn Hisham for articles on Islam?). There has been some consensus to simply stick with modern scholastics. As stated before, it's not hard to find a contemporary secondary source that goes into this in detail.
2. As someone mentioned, we should definitely mention library burning and the generally psychotic attitude of the
Ummayads, who eventually had Persian as the court language at that. That's very prominent, but how aren't all the cultural and intellectual trophies the Arabs and Persians traded permanently not important? Why are we okay with multiple paragraphs talking about the Persian influence on the Islamic world but not vice versa? If you really want to call an editor who wants to combine both routes of influence a
Pan-Arabist, what do you call the editors who only want to speak of one route of influence? I'd say it, but I already misuse the word whenever I get frustrated on articles about
Afghanistan, my apologies to Xashaiar. --
♥
pashtun ismailiyya
22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hazrat fifteen colons, I didn't indent for a reason! And we don't need to list everything that happened, that's beyond the scope of this article, but a good summary of both streams of influence is essential. And yes, I really do mean a summary. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean how Iran was governed, ruled, fragmented to different dynasties? How the conversion to Islam was? How Iranians suffered under the Ummayads? How New Persian evolved? etc. are trivial facts? So, you put only the Persian influence on the Islamic civilization as the non-trivial, in other words into doubt. Personally, I do not think so, may be because you are Iranian, that seems trivial to you but this does not apply to others (although Persians' contribution to the Islamic Civilization should be trivial to Iranians). In Wikipedia we do not assume the obvious. You should read WP:POV's assuming the obvious and Biased Writing sections, you will conclude that what you said is nothing but a POV. I agree with Pashtun Ismailiyya, we should add a neutral summary showing both streams of influence (the reader can surf to related articles to look for further information). By the way, I do not see any respect for Let the facts speak for themselves under the current version. There is no facts, only assertions of opinions without giving any reason (you do not give what these opinions are based on; such as statistics or summaries of deep analysis or reasoning)? Well, let me guess again: that is trivial according to you... Bestofmed ( talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
I'm not deeply familiar with this topic, so I spent quite some time reviewing the material before venturing to comment here. While it's important to be aware of space limitations and careful about not giving undue weight, the various sources, and common sense, seem to validate User:Pashtun Ismailiyya's suggestion: "...a good summary of both streams of influence is essential." It should certainly be possible to produce a single well-written paragraph outlining the two-way influence and pointing the reader towards more detailed articles. This would seem to satisfy both points of view without unduly expanding an already-long article. It doesn't seem either reasonable or desireable to engage in specualtion about who influenced whom the most here...simply provide the basic information. Speaking of well-written paragraphs, most of the ones in this section...aren't. I'm sure they were at some point, but the back-and-forth editing has left many of the sentences choppy and sometimes unclear. I'm sure the prose could be improved without altering the actual content and I might try to tweak it a bit. In the meantime, does the idea of a single, balanced paragraph about mutual influence seem reasonable? Doc Tropics 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement on the extent coverage and neutrality Iran in the Middle Ages To what extent are the political, social and cultural changes during this period relevant to the section?? 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The Middle Ages section, first sentence had been:
This had been mentioned as borderline copyvio and the previous rewording seemed a bit stilted, so I rewrote it as follows:
To me this seemed to read better while preserving the original content and simultaneously correcting the copyvio problem. The "systems" I refered to included the systems of government specifically mentioned in the previous section of the article, as well as the general social systems which set the stage for arts and sciences to flourish. However, my edit was quickly reverted by Xashaiar, with comment to the effect that one cannot continue a system and I should try for a better wording. Under the circumstances, I still think that my edit is a better wording and I'd appreciate more dialogue with Xashaiar and input from other editors. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Cyrus111 has recently (and repeatedly) added this link into the article. While it might be useful someday, the current Irano-Afghan is in such poor shape that it shouldn't be linked to anything. Once it's been brought up to reasonable standards of quality I would be willing to reconsider. Any other thoughts about this link? Doc Tropics 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If one thoroughly studies the article you´ll see that it has nothing to do with "race" but description of geographically adaptation which is a fact of the matter. Majority of Iranians and Afghans do share morphologically with East Africans and Nordics (i.e hot cold climate ones) geographically adaptation phenotypically, some intresting info here [4]. I.G.S Iranian Genetic society [5] is also interesting
In the Irano Afghan page a link following after the sentence Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, believes that the differences are only geographically racial includes the work of the popular Islamic scholar Harun Yahya. [6] in which Hotoon and Leakey dismisses any human racial differences but attributes them to "geographics". Also in the article DNA history of Indo-Iranians is further linked via the R1a1 haplogroup and Indo-Iranians/Indo-Europeans Hence there is vital information about Iran and migration, history etc ( corded ware culture for example in the bronze age, the link should be in the demographics or history sections as well as it brings these studies made on Iran in the knowing. Cyrus111 ( talk) 12:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It is def. qualified, see sources Cyrus111 ( talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should start small? What if each editor involved lists what they consider the single most important aspect of Persian-to-Arab influence, and the single most important aspect of Arab-to-Persian influence. That should give us a clear starting point, and we could work up from there. Doc Tropics 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You said enough for each major point. That point is that that invasion has no effect on Iran but the contrary it changed the invaders. You know that half-truths are the worst of all lies. I think I am not the one who is saying that Xashaiar is totally wrong neither that I am totally correct! About your suggestion (btw, it is not a problem of sentence), I tried that before but I got nothing but: WP is not a forum, OR, provide RS and personal abuses. This section is not balanced as it states one stream of influence, chauvinist tone and other major issues. Imagine a whole section in the History of England talking about how the English influenced Normans but ignoring what happened to the English. I am not going to reboot from zero. My objections were clear and I thought that you got them (no UW should be given to any POV, both streams of influence should be stated). Besides, most of the claims violates WP:V. They are selective and do not reflect the original sources. WP:ASF is violated too with opinions given as facts. Finally, most editors are not happy with a section does not mean that I should refrain and give up. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; it works on a system of good reasons. Have you seen my version and Nepaheshgar's one? I am gonna analyze my edits with you and I invite Xashaiar to state his objections.
After the Arab Conquest, Persian provinces were incorporated into the Islamic Empire [54] [55] [56] ending 400 years[57] of Sasanian dynasty[58][54]. Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century[55], although during the Abbasid caliphate decline, independent and semi-independent dynasties arose in different parts of Persia[55]. The Arab conquest was an important historical line in Iran's history[59]. The Islamic Civilization fundamentally transformed the religious, political, social and linguistic landscapes of Iran[55], although some pre-Islamic local customs continued to be observed in the aftermath.
Are these OR? may be the sentence Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century seems odd but it clearly uses the adverb fully. In other words Persia in whole as an independent entity.
On the religious level, Iranians acceptance to Islam was a very gradual process and varied considerably depending on the region and social classes[60]. The Arabs abolished the previous social classe system of Sassanians [61][62] changing the Iranian society and pushing hesitant Iranians to convert to Islam[62].
Well most Iranians converted to Islam, look at Iran today for god sake! The important information here is not the conversion itself but the process: it was gradual and slow. The second sentence mentions a historical fact, here I used two RS but I have others. Another editor proposed adding the racial system under the Ummayids. Well I welcomed that, that is an important historical fact. I agree in adding all the anti-Persian policies of the Ummayids.
In socio-economical terms, the Arab conquest and migrations[63] favored urban and agricultural development[64]. Persia has seen an increasing number of Arab immigrants in addition to the already existing tribes in southern and western Iran[63][64]. The provided security, trade and this new population supported by Arab policies[64] especially: settlement, city building and irrigation stimulated economic growth in the region[64].
Is not the immigration worth mentioning? The city building and transformations during this period are not worth mentioning? Another editor said that we should mention that Arabs burnt libraries, well why not that is welcome too.
The political situation after the conquest varied according to different factors but the administration remained to a larger extent in the hands of local Persians[55]. Moreover, Iranians attained key positions at the empire level under the Abbasids.
No comment.
Culturally, Iranians preserved their languages and resisted Arabization, while they adopted Arabic for scientific and philosophical discourses[65] which enabled them to rich a world-wide audience for the first time[65]. The Persian language was influenced by the Arabic language[66][67] at different levels: lexical[68], grammatical[69] and even language models[59] and rhetorics[70]. Additionally, the Arabic script replaced the Aramaic script for writing and simpler Arabic forms replaced the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations, and "in the ninth century A.D. the work flowing from Persia seems to indicate that the natural poetic inclinations of the Persians were waiting for this opportunity"[70]. Some statistical studies show that Arabic vocabulary in Persian jumped up from 25-30% in the 10th century to some 50% in the 12th century[71]. Most of these loan words were mots savants (learned words)[72] or terms used to describe abstract concepts. Iranians did not limit themselves to using the Arabic language but played a major role in developing it. Notably, Arabized scholars of Persian descent were the first to codify its grammar[73].
I think this section details the cultural changes mainly in the language. It provides statistics and studies related to that period of time. Pashtun objected to ..the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations.. so I agreed on removing it although two sources mention that clearly.
All of these sections were added but at the same time the other parts were preserved. I am open to a consensus built on good reason not worries. May be my edits are not neutral because not edit is but I think they are far more balanced and sourced than previous edits. Bestofmed ( talk) 04:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
I had a discussion with User:Doc_Tropics about the largest city in the Middle-East after he reverted my edit. Here is what we said (I apologize for spamming his talk page):
- Regarding Istanbul, it's lede clearly states that it is the second metropolitan area in Europe. This fact is repeated, with references, in List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population. Wikipedia clearly considers Istanbul part of Europe, not the Middle East. It's therefor not possible to claim it as both the largest city in the Middle East and the second largest in Europe. If you wish to assert otherwise, you can't just say you have refs, you have to show them, and they need to be RS. Then you need to change WP policy regarding Istanbul's location. After that it's no problem at all to change the article the way you want. Doc Tropics 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- First, Turkey is a country that belongs to Middle East (The middle-east spans along three contents, check the Middle-East article if you want). Moreover, Turkey is part of the core middle-east. Istanbul's article states that Istanbul is the largest city proper in Europe. Even using Wikipedia articles, Istanbul is clearly the largest in the Middle-East. Istanbul has a population of more than 12 millions and a an area of 706.9 sq mi. Tehran, on the other hand, has a population of a less than 12 millions and an area of 265 sq mi. So using both criteria, it is clear which one is the largest. City Mayors list Cairo as the largest city, followed by Istanbul than Tehran ( here). Encarta too, it states that Cairo is the largest city in the Middle-East but to avoid articles' contradiction the first seems more consistent. Whatever the case, it is clear that Tehran is not the largest city in the Middle-East (neither by population nor by area). Bestofmed ( talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
Bestofmed ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.
I noticed that Nepaheshgar restarted this section. What I did generally:
Now about my edits:
Finally, I am open as always to any comments and/or reasonable objections. Bestofmed ( talk) 16:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC).
On the class system, the issue needs discussion [7] to see what needs to be included. The Arabs did introduce a new class system based on race and also Islam does have a class system in the sense that it distinguishes religious communities. On the influence of Arabic on Persian, I think we did mention considerable vocabulary. But this is in the written language and really the Arabic words in Persian are pronounced differently and have different meanings. In the spoken language, Arabic words are much less. I think if we are to mention statistics, we should mention that these words were Persianized also. At the same time, some works contain little Arabic, mainly epic poetry while others contain more like religious writing. I think a considerable number of Arabic vocabulary or as some scholars have made similarity with the Norman invasion of England and influx of large number of french words is good. But in terms of language structure, phonology, morphology and etc., the Arabic influence is very little in Persian. The main influence is vocabulary which I have mentioned. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 16:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes On the class system, the issue needs discussion
[8] to see what needs to be included. I agree, Islam definitely changed the old Sassanid class structure. For example if a person was not born from a priestly family, they could not become a priest where-as in Islam, any one could become a religious scholar and the most influential one is the Persian Abu Hanifah. This is a positive aspect. At the same time, the Arabs did introduce a new class system based on race (in the Ummayyad times) and also Islam does have a class system in the sense that it distinguishes religious communities and sometimes breaks them down Ahl-e-Ketab and non Ahl-e-Ketab. I think the change in the class system overall that Islam brought (except the ummayyad racial one) was positive. But we need to mention the Ummayyad racial prejudice as well.
On the influence of Arabic on Persian, I think we did mention considerable vocabulary. But this is in the written language and really the Arabic words in Persian are pronounced differently and many times have different meanings. In the spoken language, Arabic words are much less frequent. In some dialects of Persian, they are very low, for example in places in Central Iran or Zoroastrian dialects or etc.. I think if we are to mention statistics, we should mention that these words were Persianized also. Sometimes a work is 90%+ Persian like Shahnameh while other times it could even be 30% Persian. But at the same time, many scientists think of the Arabic words that have entered Persian as Persianized.Some works contain little Arabic, mainly epic poetry while others contain more like religious writing. I think a considerable number of Arabic vocabulary or as some scholars have made similarity with the Norman invasion of England and influx of large number of french words is good. But in terms of language structure, phonology, morphology and etc., the Arabic influence is small on Persian. The main influence is the considerable vocabulary which I have mentioned, but these words are pronounced differently in Persian and most of the time have acquired new meanings. Some of the words are also Greek that entered Arabic: Falsafa, Juqrafi, Luqat, etc. Sometimes there is Persian words in the Qur'an, like Sureyeh Fil: Fil (elephant), Sanjil (Sang-gel), Ababil .. So I think the importance of the Arabic loanwords are important enough to mention (There are about 5000 words of Persian in Arabic according to one Arabic scholar, but I do not think even with this, the influence of Persian on Arabic can be compare to Arabic loanwords in persian), but the other aspects of the grammar, phonology, structure are very little or not notable. Persian is after all classified as an indo-european language and is very easy language to learn and is gender neutral and etc.
Also We should mention there was regions that were not conquered by the Arab conquest like Caspian regions and parts of Transoxiana, which is important. It took much longer for the Ummayads to conquer some of these areas like Chorasmia for example. Some regions in the Caspian though were independent. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Iran is in Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.65.108 ( talk) 06:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Ein molaha kharan cashki bemiran —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.247.47.131 (
talk)
05:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been reading about methods of punishment in Iran and came to this article to read more about it. In particular I have read that stoning is a legal form of punishment for men and for women and that it has occurred regularly in recent times. I have also read that there has been a moratorium placed on stoning in Iran in 2002. I am curious to know more about the criminal laws of Iran, the criminal justice system, and the methods of punishment. I have not seen this in the article and am curious where I can find it. 173.89.5.57 ( talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The quotation for the image of the Kilo SS/SSK is incorrect. It should say that Iran has 3 instead of 6 Kilo's in it's inventory. The USAF's Air Command and Staff College has a pdf paper (Iran and the Arabian Gulf: Threat Assessment and Response) available through FAS.org which backs up this fact: [10] Tub49778 ( talk) 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC) tub49778
Which immature iranian fanboy comes up with such childish claims?! There is no credible source in the world at all claiming that Iran has six Kilos and yet it is argued here that certain sources are too old? Yeah right. 58.171.231.33 ( talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This site: [ [12]] talks about the decline of population growth in this islamic country of Asia. Agre22 ( talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
I am removing a new section since it is not up to Wikipedia standards. Here it is with my comments in red.
Astarabadi you are a living example of how the Iranian Government curbs freedom of speech. How much does a position like yours pay? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.29.211.213 (
talk)
06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
_________________________________________________________________
Population statistic is old (2007), update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Is any chance to add pictures/images made before the Islamic Revolution, like them? http://mithridates.blogspot.com/2009/04/iran-in-1970s-before-islamic-revolution.html
Mr.Po —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.240.8 ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've just done some grammatical changes and typo corrections to a large section of the first third of the article. I consider my changes to be free of any political views, but would like to apologize if anyone is offended by slight alterations in the tone of sentences do to grammatical changes. Please also note that the most major change I did was to drop much of the following sentence:
"The movement continued well into the 11th century, when Mahmud-a Ghaznavi founded a vast empire, with its capital at Isfahan and Ghazna. Their successors, the Seljuks, asserted their domination from the Mediterranean Sea to Central Asia. As with their predecessors, the divan of the empire was in the hands of Iranian viziers, who founded the Nizamiyya."
into:
These movements continued well into the 11th century, during which the Nizamiyya university was founded..."
Since the sub-title is Culture I felt this reference to expansion and government was out of place. If you feel otherwise, perhaps the sub-title is unneeded or out of place? -- Electricat ( talk) 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I'm not an editor on Iran wiki, so I'm not able to find, edit, upload Iran's map shown on the globe. Iran's territory despite unfortunate losses in the past is vast, and I think it deserves to be shown on the globe map. I'm kindly asking the editors to consider this. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.95.25 ( talk) 20:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________________________________________ I'm not sure who is in charge of maintaining this wiki page (since my last comment has not been addressed yet ((see - "Iranian Medes unification notion"))
But my inquiry this time is concerning the emigration of Iranian citizens to countries outside of Iran. I am unable to find any data on the country with the least number of citizens living outside its borders IN proportion to that country's population.
For example, Iranians have relatively lived inside their homeland for thousands/hundreds of years (up until the Iran-Iraq War / Revolutionary period). Now if you look at other ancient nations such as China and India you will find that people started to emigrate outside their native country as early as 300 years ago.
I think Iran has the lowest number of citizens living outside its borders in proportion to its population in comparison to other countries (statistically I think there are some 2-4 million Iranians outside of Iran) , I am currently collecting data on this, but if anyone has extensive knowledge in this area, then please reply to this inquiry.
Thanks! Ditc ( talk)DiTC —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC).
There are a lot of irrelevant mention of Tabriz in this article. For example in part of "Bazaar" there is a rather long discussion about Bazar of Tabriz. There are other Bazaars in Iran besides the one in Tabriz. Furthermore there are no sources for claims made in Bazar section.I suggest we remove Bazar subsection, or have someone with proper knowledgeable expand it so it is actually about Bazar itself . Same story about the "Persian rug" section, which is solely about Tabriz rug. There is nothing about other types of Persian rugs (such as Esfahan or Bakhtiari). There are also no sources presented. Again I suggest someone with good knowledge to expand it or we have the whole part remove.
Tabriz is one nation's greatest cities but this article is about the whole country and not individual cities. It is more appropriate that we have a discussion about about a subject, and then mention individual cities as example.-- Ddd0dd ( talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree; besides carpet export is NOT the main non-oil export for Iran. SSZ ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Study this article thouroughly.
Should this be in the Article as demographics, history or its own section? Personally I think its studies are to be considered... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 ( talk) 11:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I wanna add some information about Iranian women selling themselves on the streets in Iran. [13]-- 119.73.3.72 ( talk) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
the current map look messed up, some parts of the countries ie. Syria and that are missing. please fix this. thanks. 90.194.14.138 ( talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to change the form of government from: Islamic Republic to: Dictatorship
reasoning: according to wikipedia: Dictatorships are "often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures."
This is now similar to saddam's dictatorship of rigged elections under the guise of a republic. Have the requiments been met to make the change? Michigan10 ( talk) 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Islamic Republic is fine. That's the official name and people can read the article if they want. And there's been no suspension of elections, just highly suspected fraud. Munci ( talk) 06:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the main aspect that makes this a dictatorship is "repressing political opponents without abiding by rule of law". This is now becoming heavily documented. 24.61.129.40 ( talk) 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Islamic Republic is a unique form of government,, it combines elements of theocracy with elected institutions. The government's official type is "Islamic Republic", which should be discussed in its own article. We should not use POV descriptions for the government title here. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I find this very similar to saddam's Iraqi government. There were elections that were clearly rigged. What was his official form of government? Do we have to recognize what they state is there government? Clearly if votes are disregarded, and the supreme leader is picking who he wants I find it to personally be a dictatorship. And the use of force to back this up makes it look like a
military dictatorship at that.
Michigan10 (
talk)
04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Floantin, I don't believe that this is off the top of my head. I am taking the situation and matching it to the defintion of military dictatorship which it fits. This is a changing current event, and I would not have defined it as such before this election and the beginings of a possible police state that followed it. They have clearly taken away opposition in their government through illegal means. Without opposition I don't see how it is not a dictatorship. It may have been called an Islamic Republic but Germany was called a democracy before the enabling acts. Historical forms of a countries' government does not equate to the current form of government that it holds. And even if they knew they had become a dictatorship, I highly doubt they would declare it as their new form of government. Michigan10 ( talk) 04:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN analysts: Iran "naked dictatorship"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/zakaria.iranoutcome/index.html
Michigan10 (
talk)
18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What branch of government does the Supreme Leader belong to if not the executive branch? -- Karbinski ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We should add a section about the 2009 Election. We can include information about the possibility of a fraud and riots in Iran. Later, we can add the ending result of the investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyPlayr20 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There is way too much written about the recent election. There's more about the election than the '79 revolution.
121.254.54.209 (
talk)
15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There are already articles for recent events, one linked from the front page: 2009 Iranian election protests and 2009 Iranian presidential election Munci ( talk) 08:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Iranian presidential election 2009" section is heighly pro-protesters pov. It presents all their arguments and give not an equivolant space to the government pov - actually, it does not even present their pov at all. The picture also unbalances the whole section. -- 83.250.165.254 ( talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced about this statement in the article: "Globally, Iran has leading manufacture industry in the fields of car-manufacture and transportations, construction materials, home appliances, food and agricultural goods, armaments, pharmaceuticals, information technology, power and petrochemicals." Is it actually said somewhere in the given source-webpage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.138 ( talk) 11:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the article Economy of Iran and the related pages like Iranian automobile industry and you'll find out it's true. Munci ( talk) 09:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "free":
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The coordinates need the following fixes:
The location is in the middle of the pacific. 93.96.235.168 ( talk) 08:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In the Government and Politics section the word fraud is mispelled fruad. Majikwah ( talk) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC) majikwah 6.21.09
The sentence "The authorities so as the private sector have put in the past 15 years an emphasis on the local production of domestic-consumption oriented goods such as home appliances, cars, agricultural products, pharmaceutical, etc." seems to have been edited so that it no longer makes any sense. Anyone brave enough to try and work out what this was meant to mean? AlexandrDmitri ( talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2009: [1] = perhaps useful. -- Sieb ( talk) 11:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Persia is suppossed to be a PROVINCE of Iran. Fars is suppossed to be persia. If persian is an equivililent for Iranian howcome almost half of of Iranian are not Persian?
___________________________________________________________________________________________\
I was reading the introduction of Iran's wiki page and I noticed that some new material has replaced the old. For example the beginning paragraph mentions,
"Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC.[15][16][17] The first Iranian dynasty formed during the Elamite kingdom in 2800 BC. The Iranian Medes unified Iran into an empire in 625 BC.[2]
I remember this article used to refer to iran as one of the worlds oldest continuous civilizations dating back to 600 BC. I like to thank whoever made the changes from 600 BC to 7000BC because this is more accurate (and I am aware that 7000BC there was no distinct "Indo-Iranian civilization). However it is relevant because some of the worlds oldest civilizations like India, China, Egypt, Iraq also date back thousands of years, and to say 600 BC may mislead some about Iran's history and how far it goes back.
Now I ask why it mentions that "the Iranian Medes unified Iran into an empire in 625 BC.[2]
Because the Persians (In the south) and the Medes (in the North) unified together under the LEADERSHIP of Cyrus the Great. I think it is of magnitude importance that it mentions Cyrus because of his important role in establishing this unification. The sentence by itself implies that the Iranian Medes alone made this historical accomplishment, and it is simply not true (even though some Kurds like to argue that Persians stole their "identity", but that is another topic to debate).
Thats just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be 18th not 17th, but i cant edit the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.160.144 ( talk) 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see that the connecting material I added has led to some concerns. Worth noting, however, that this was simply taken from the summary of the LGBT rights in Iran article page rather than an attempt to act as an "advocate" etc. I'm still not convinced that the 2 sentences I had gave WP:UNDUE weight - particularly as the alternative we now have in place also has 2 sentences. But in a spirit of compromise I'm willing to accept the amended version. I have, however, corrected spelling and removed the reference to 'muslim countries'. I think it would be wrong to connect Iran's legal position on homosexuality directly to Islam - it's more a case of national and cultural interpretation/ influences. I do not though think it unreasonable to provide a link to the main article page as an absolute minimum. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section on "Education" (it's better to summarize the current "science and technology" section and make it a sub-section of the "Education"section). Alefbe ( talk) 13:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the history section it reads
Dozens of pre-historic sites across the Iranian plateau point to the existence of ancient cultures and urban settlements in the fourth millennium BC centuries before the earliest civilizations arose in nearby Mesopotamia.
While this might not be totally false, it's misleading, as there are a lot of other civilizations occurring around the same time:
Lebanon: The earliest known settlements in Lebanon date back to earlier than 5000 BC
Iraq: Iraq has been home to continuous successive civilizations since the 6th millennium BC.
I personally don't like an article which glorifies itself Paskari ( talk) 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Its almost funny, how the infobox states Iran have a HDI on 0.820, which is from a totally unreliable source, when the one before, which is much more reliable, states it is at 0.777. How could it jump like that? Sounds like BS to me, and it should be changed back to 0.777. 83.108.193.157 ( talk) 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Iran is a military dictatorship, not a republic. Someone needs to change that. The infobox should give the country's actual form of government, not what they try to get the rest of the world to think. -- 75.50.49.230 ( talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph under "Recent History" about Iran's last election makes the section imbalanced and lacks context. If there is to be any mention at all of the currently unfolding post-election incidents 2009 under Iran's history, not mentioning the evidence that the unrest was a result of a western financed propaganda campaign initiated well before the election compromises the quality of the Iran page. It is unfit to portray the recent events as solely due to vote irregularity allegations and ignore their place in the pattern of recent color revolutions of East Europe/ Central Asia that have taken place in order to move the region sphere of influence of the United Kingdom/United states.
The article reads:
Iran is the eighteenth largest country in the world,[28] with an area of 1,648,000 km2 (636,000 sq mi).[29] Its area roughly equals that of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany combined, or slightly less than the US state of Alaska.[30][31]
The following substitution will be more accurate:
Iran is the eighteenth largest country in the world,[28] with an area of appoximately 1,648,000 km2 (636,000 sq mi).[29] Its area roughly equals that of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Greece combined, or somewhat more than the US state of Alaska.[30][31]
Iran's actual area seems to be somewhat ambiguous as another Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area) indicates 1,628,750 sq km and 628,860 sq mi. However Iran is unequivocally larger than Alaska. Substituting Greece for the UK gets the approximation about 40,000 sq mi's (100,000 sq km's) closer. This is based on the aforementioned Wikipedia URL and simple arithmetic. Hence reference [30] can be dropped as it doesn't add anything to the article and is a tertiary reference at best.
Guellermo55 ( talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This site: [ Index mundi] shows that Iranian oil production is growing. They are now producing about 4,700,000 brents in a day. Only three countries are producing more oil than Iran: Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States. Agre22 ( talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
This Israeli site: [ Oil] talks about oil and gas in Iran. Agre22 ( talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
This site: [ Iran] is from an Israeli newspaper and talks about what Angela Merkel thinks about Iran. Agre22 ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22
Can we add something about Ali Shariati and his works which highly influenced and even mobilized the youth of Iran to take an active role in the country's political affairs. I think his role was very significant , arguably as much or a bit less than Khomeini's in getting people to demonstrate against the Shah and dictatorship in general. Shariati managed, through his western/islamic/marxist philosophical writings to make sense of religious ideology and to communicate his red shiism (as opposed to cleric rule) to the youth of Iran. Just as everyone in Iran knows Khomeini's name, they know Shariati's and perhaps respect the latter more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.139 ( talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we correct the section on Mossadegh? Mossadegh was never elected but APPOINTED as prime minister of Iran by the King, just like all other prime ministers before him. Members of parliament were elected, however, executives were appointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.145.65.143 ( talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Are the guys who insisted on keeping the History and Culture sections as bloated as Nero still alive? If not, can somebody fix them?-- Xullius ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone remove the ridiculous chart labeled Iran religiosity. I think it's sufficient enough to say, 98% Islam, 2% other. We don't need a visual aid for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.98 ( talk) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I shortened and tidied up the introduction (not edited the page yet). You can see the draft here: [18]. If anyone has objections, please state so.-- Xullius ( talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
In this section, it currently states that Alexander the Great invaded, "defeating the last Achaemenid Emperor Darius III at the Battle of Issus in 333 BC." Of far more importance was the final victory of Alexander the Great in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC, not the Battle of Issus. Gaugamela is what effectively ended Darius' reign and sent him into flight (to be murdered by Bessus). -- Bjohnson96 ( talk) 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the language should be Farsi, and not Persian as stated in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinkolloft ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I was just about to say: the official language is Farsi, which is a mix between Arabic Alphabet and Old Persian. It was Persian, however, during the time before the Arabs took over. But now it is just Farsi. Nima160 ( talk) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the meaning of the country's name?
You can visit: http://persiansarenotarabs.com/renaming-persia/ for more info on that!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.193.203.130 (
talk)
03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What in the world is "cultural context" supposed to mean? I'm talking about this line:
Both "Persia" and "Iran" are used interchangeably in cultural context...
Could someone please clarify? Is it supposed to mean "historical context", or does it mean "in the context of a common everyday conversation"? If it means the latter, then the sentence should be changed to:
The demonyms "Persians" and "Iranians" can be used interchangeably in cultural context...
google persian history or persian culture for more information... its that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.203.130 ( talk) 03:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea what cultural context is.
Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (
talk)
05:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Babakexorramdin, I don't understand this revert of SorenShadow's addition of material from the Library of Congress – Federal Research Division 2008 report. Why did you remove it ? In your edit summary you say "do not remove another source". That is what you did rather than what SorenShadow did. You said "cite it correctly". What are you referring to ? The cite formatting is fine although looking at the material added, it's a copy/paste from the source and therefore probably needs a few changes to avoid being a copyvio. You also say "See also demographics of Iran article". For what ? The Demographics of Iran cites both the CIA and the Library of Congress 2006 (rather than 2008) report so that probably needs updating. The LookLex sourced figures there probably need to be removed. Is LookLex even an RS in Wikipedia ? I doubt it as it's rather similar to Wikipedia in the way it's written. Is SorenShadow 'a banned user' as you said in a previous edit summary ? If so why are they still editing ? Have you filed a report at WP:SPI ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I checked it again. It is now OK. However it should be mentioned that Library of Congress forgets Amazandarani and Gilaki peoples and therefore overestimate the number of Persians.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I am rebooting the discussion for a better clarity and readability.
Nepaheshgar, let's forget about Ibn Khaldun, you can put that: among these who contributed to Arab grammar and the Islamic Science were not Arabized but you cannot deny that a considerable number of them were. Anyway, I am leaving that to you because it is not the big issue here. I am concerned with your edits which again give an undue weight to minorities' views. I am afraid you removed some inline-cited content such as:
I am not going to edit the article for now because you seem to be very busy editing it (I made these comments based on this diff). I will give my final comments after you finish. I am assuming good faith!
ps: Please do not remove reliable sources, It took me days to compile them. Bestofmed ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
Response: A) I did not remove Arabic influence on Persian. That part I left. Please see it exists now under culture section. B) I did remove Arab abolishing of caste and social class, because there was a new caste and social class (Mawali) and also it was Islam rather than Arabs that removed it. So this needs to be balanced. In actuality, Arabs going against Islam imposed a new caste system and Caliph Umar for example did not allow Persians in Madinah and Meccra. C) Samanids, Saffarids, Buyids are independent Iranian dyansties and giant historians like Minorsky assess that they re-asserted Iranian independence and statehood.
So these things need further discussion. But I kept the parts of your edit that there is no dispute about and Arabic influence on Persian language is well known although the Arabic words really have changed and became Persianized and are uttered very differently. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the origin of Abu Moslim is not clear among scholars. Adb Al-Husain ZARRINKUB (an Iranian Professor) said "Regarding Abu Muslim, it seems that from the period of his own lifetime he has been somewhat of a mystery; his name and origins have been the occasion of contention among different sects, and from very early times different accounts have described him as an Arab, Turk, Kurd or Persian. Some have associated him with the 'Abbasids through the dubious line of Salit b. 'Abd-Allah. Some have gone so far as to make him a descendant of 'Ali, while other legends have made him Iranian as the descendant of Buzurgmihr. His official name, which appears on a coin, was Abd al-Rahman b. Muslim, though some have averred that this was the name given him by the Imam Ibrahim, his original name being something else..." (it is on page 53 from the Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 4 if you want to check). So, I suggest putting ZARRINKUB's view and provide the other sources to support the claim that he is of Persian descent? Bestofmed ( talk) 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
I think is actually it given more weight than it is necessary, since languages influence each other, but the vocabulary from Arabic has been Persianized. Either way your sources have been mentioned and not removed. On B, the Arabs brought a new class system [1] and the Ummayads discriminated heavily against Iranians. "In the early period of Arab domination, Persian society was arranged along four lines of division: Arab and Persian (ʿajam), Muslim and non-Muslim, emerging nobility and commoners, and free men and slaves. ". So we need to balance this. On C, there is no debate [2] "Ṣaffārid Dynasty- Iranian dynasty..Iranian dynasty of lower class origins that ruled a large area in eastern Iran. Samanids [3]: "(ad 819–999), first native dynasty to arise in Iran after the Muslim Arab conquest. It was renowned for the impulse that it gave to Iranian national sentiment and learning.". The fact is there was a Samanid dynasty which ruled large parts of Iran and was native Persian/Iranian dynasty. On Abu Moslem, Turk is really a later development and Dr. Zarin Kub is just describing all the sources and legends. Kurd would be Iranic. Also Dr. Zarin Kub says: "It was most likely that he was one of the mawli and in all probability an Iranian"., which is part you did not quote but is crucial. On the country of Iran, we are discussing in this era a wider Persian civilization which Iran alongside Tajikistan, Afghanistan and several other regions are inheritors of. At that time, there was no national borders and thus this is the common Iranian civilization which is shared by many countries, the biggest one being Iran. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I took a quick look into this issue, and as much as I think that one should assume good faith, Bestofmed seems to be pushing a pan-Arabist POV here, I counted and there were 20 mentions of "Arab and "Arabic" in his edit, which are mainly Wikipedia:Synthesis of cherry-picked sources. This article is not about an Arab country, so he is also violating undo coverage and undo weight, and glorifying the Arab occupation period, which should only be mentioned briefly in passing. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 10:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the edits by some users, I think it is not a bad idea to quote 1. Richard Frye as suggested by Nepaheshgar in the [ ]? I think this will satisfy those who think we are biased. 2. We MUST quote Ibn khaldun as he was himself an Arab, and an important and highly respected figure. Do you agree with the inclusion of these quote? This is Ok in wikipedia to quote.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1) Agreement on gradual conversion to Islam and also Islam changing the culture of Iran. 2) Arabic influence on Persian language although Persian is an indo-European language and the Arabic words in Persian have been Persianized. Disagreement on Independent Iranian dynasties which I showed that Samanids, Tahirids, Saffarids, Buyids were such dynasties. Disageement on class which needs better analysis.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 21:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I do however agree with Xashaiyar that we should discuss what we want to put in the section, since it cannot be too long as the article is too long-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
an intrepretation to an extent. So here we have to use professional translators (primary sources). You might disagree, but definitely we cannot use the intrepretation of users here. Relating one part of Ibn Khaldun(Examination of others) with another is in violation of WP:Synthesis. Richard Frye states that what Ibn Khaldun states is in no doubt, so that is basically a statement scholars. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
states that what Ibn Khaldun states is no doubt. Also Azerbaijan was not Turkified in speech at the time of Ibn Khaldun (so really he can't be referring to Azerbaijani people). Pashtuns had not had an expansion yet and neither there was Ottoman Turks. Unfortunately we are dealing with people who are bias here. And Ibn Khaldun only brings out examples of Persian/Iranic scientists and the Prophetic saying and cofirms what he states with Prophetic saying. And he mentions three areas: Transoxiana, 'Iraq (which is really Persian Iraq) and Khorasan. I think Xashiyar should restore Ibn Khaldun and Rosenthals translation, if there is an objection it cannot be done through WP:OR or synthesizing of another part of Ibn Khaldun and relating it to the specific quote. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Raayan, that was a very interesting point. The section on Iran in Middle ages is too soft, I agree! This is because I/we have been so much concerned with being neutral. I would like to mention these things (Raayan's point about the Arab-impact on science and culture)+ Ibn Khaldun (as primary source+clarification by F. Rosenthal and R. Frye). This will be in complete agreement with Let the facts speak for themselves. I will propose my change here and would like to see your opinion about my wording.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 18:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to keep responding to each branch of this conversation, because that will be messy. Here are two points:
1. Published translations are not secondary sources, ever, unless the translation is already of a secondary source. Generally we don't use medieval sources as secondary sources, however that has been a debate on Wikipedia before (for example, can we use
Sirat ibn Hisham for articles on Islam?). There has been some consensus to simply stick with modern scholastics. As stated before, it's not hard to find a contemporary secondary source that goes into this in detail.
2. As someone mentioned, we should definitely mention library burning and the generally psychotic attitude of the
Ummayads, who eventually had Persian as the court language at that. That's very prominent, but how aren't all the cultural and intellectual trophies the Arabs and Persians traded permanently not important? Why are we okay with multiple paragraphs talking about the Persian influence on the Islamic world but not vice versa? If you really want to call an editor who wants to combine both routes of influence a
Pan-Arabist, what do you call the editors who only want to speak of one route of influence? I'd say it, but I already misuse the word whenever I get frustrated on articles about
Afghanistan, my apologies to Xashaiar. --
♥
pashtun ismailiyya
22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hazrat fifteen colons, I didn't indent for a reason! And we don't need to list everything that happened, that's beyond the scope of this article, but a good summary of both streams of influence is essential. And yes, I really do mean a summary. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean how Iran was governed, ruled, fragmented to different dynasties? How the conversion to Islam was? How Iranians suffered under the Ummayads? How New Persian evolved? etc. are trivial facts? So, you put only the Persian influence on the Islamic civilization as the non-trivial, in other words into doubt. Personally, I do not think so, may be because you are Iranian, that seems trivial to you but this does not apply to others (although Persians' contribution to the Islamic Civilization should be trivial to Iranians). In Wikipedia we do not assume the obvious. You should read WP:POV's assuming the obvious and Biased Writing sections, you will conclude that what you said is nothing but a POV. I agree with Pashtun Ismailiyya, we should add a neutral summary showing both streams of influence (the reader can surf to related articles to look for further information). By the way, I do not see any respect for Let the facts speak for themselves under the current version. There is no facts, only assertions of opinions without giving any reason (you do not give what these opinions are based on; such as statistics or summaries of deep analysis or reasoning)? Well, let me guess again: that is trivial according to you... Bestofmed ( talk) 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
I'm not deeply familiar with this topic, so I spent quite some time reviewing the material before venturing to comment here. While it's important to be aware of space limitations and careful about not giving undue weight, the various sources, and common sense, seem to validate User:Pashtun Ismailiyya's suggestion: "...a good summary of both streams of influence is essential." It should certainly be possible to produce a single well-written paragraph outlining the two-way influence and pointing the reader towards more detailed articles. This would seem to satisfy both points of view without unduly expanding an already-long article. It doesn't seem either reasonable or desireable to engage in specualtion about who influenced whom the most here...simply provide the basic information. Speaking of well-written paragraphs, most of the ones in this section...aren't. I'm sure they were at some point, but the back-and-forth editing has left many of the sentences choppy and sometimes unclear. I'm sure the prose could be improved without altering the actual content and I might try to tweak it a bit. In the meantime, does the idea of a single, balanced paragraph about mutual influence seem reasonable? Doc Tropics 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Disagreement on the extent coverage and neutrality Iran in the Middle Ages To what extent are the political, social and cultural changes during this period relevant to the section?? 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The Middle Ages section, first sentence had been:
This had been mentioned as borderline copyvio and the previous rewording seemed a bit stilted, so I rewrote it as follows:
To me this seemed to read better while preserving the original content and simultaneously correcting the copyvio problem. The "systems" I refered to included the systems of government specifically mentioned in the previous section of the article, as well as the general social systems which set the stage for arts and sciences to flourish. However, my edit was quickly reverted by Xashaiar, with comment to the effect that one cannot continue a system and I should try for a better wording. Under the circumstances, I still think that my edit is a better wording and I'd appreciate more dialogue with Xashaiar and input from other editors. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Cyrus111 has recently (and repeatedly) added this link into the article. While it might be useful someday, the current Irano-Afghan is in such poor shape that it shouldn't be linked to anything. Once it's been brought up to reasonable standards of quality I would be willing to reconsider. Any other thoughts about this link? Doc Tropics 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If one thoroughly studies the article you´ll see that it has nothing to do with "race" but description of geographically adaptation which is a fact of the matter. Majority of Iranians and Afghans do share morphologically with East Africans and Nordics (i.e hot cold climate ones) geographically adaptation phenotypically, some intresting info here [4]. I.G.S Iranian Genetic society [5] is also interesting
In the Irano Afghan page a link following after the sentence Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey, believes that the differences are only geographically racial includes the work of the popular Islamic scholar Harun Yahya. [6] in which Hotoon and Leakey dismisses any human racial differences but attributes them to "geographics". Also in the article DNA history of Indo-Iranians is further linked via the R1a1 haplogroup and Indo-Iranians/Indo-Europeans Hence there is vital information about Iran and migration, history etc ( corded ware culture for example in the bronze age, the link should be in the demographics or history sections as well as it brings these studies made on Iran in the knowing. Cyrus111 ( talk) 12:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It is def. qualified, see sources Cyrus111 ( talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should start small? What if each editor involved lists what they consider the single most important aspect of Persian-to-Arab influence, and the single most important aspect of Arab-to-Persian influence. That should give us a clear starting point, and we could work up from there. Doc Tropics 02:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You said enough for each major point. That point is that that invasion has no effect on Iran but the contrary it changed the invaders. You know that half-truths are the worst of all lies. I think I am not the one who is saying that Xashaiar is totally wrong neither that I am totally correct! About your suggestion (btw, it is not a problem of sentence), I tried that before but I got nothing but: WP is not a forum, OR, provide RS and personal abuses. This section is not balanced as it states one stream of influence, chauvinist tone and other major issues. Imagine a whole section in the History of England talking about how the English influenced Normans but ignoring what happened to the English. I am not going to reboot from zero. My objections were clear and I thought that you got them (no UW should be given to any POV, both streams of influence should be stated). Besides, most of the claims violates WP:V. They are selective and do not reflect the original sources. WP:ASF is violated too with opinions given as facts. Finally, most editors are not happy with a section does not mean that I should refrain and give up. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; it works on a system of good reasons. Have you seen my version and Nepaheshgar's one? I am gonna analyze my edits with you and I invite Xashaiar to state his objections.
After the Arab Conquest, Persian provinces were incorporated into the Islamic Empire [54] [55] [56] ending 400 years[57] of Sasanian dynasty[58][54]. Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century[55], although during the Abbasid caliphate decline, independent and semi-independent dynasties arose in different parts of Persia[55]. The Arab conquest was an important historical line in Iran's history[59]. The Islamic Civilization fundamentally transformed the religious, political, social and linguistic landscapes of Iran[55], although some pre-Islamic local customs continued to be observed in the aftermath.
Are these OR? may be the sentence Persia did not re-emerge as a fully independent political entity until the 16th century seems odd but it clearly uses the adverb fully. In other words Persia in whole as an independent entity.
On the religious level, Iranians acceptance to Islam was a very gradual process and varied considerably depending on the region and social classes[60]. The Arabs abolished the previous social classe system of Sassanians [61][62] changing the Iranian society and pushing hesitant Iranians to convert to Islam[62].
Well most Iranians converted to Islam, look at Iran today for god sake! The important information here is not the conversion itself but the process: it was gradual and slow. The second sentence mentions a historical fact, here I used two RS but I have others. Another editor proposed adding the racial system under the Ummayids. Well I welcomed that, that is an important historical fact. I agree in adding all the anti-Persian policies of the Ummayids.
In socio-economical terms, the Arab conquest and migrations[63] favored urban and agricultural development[64]. Persia has seen an increasing number of Arab immigrants in addition to the already existing tribes in southern and western Iran[63][64]. The provided security, trade and this new population supported by Arab policies[64] especially: settlement, city building and irrigation stimulated economic growth in the region[64].
Is not the immigration worth mentioning? The city building and transformations during this period are not worth mentioning? Another editor said that we should mention that Arabs burnt libraries, well why not that is welcome too.
The political situation after the conquest varied according to different factors but the administration remained to a larger extent in the hands of local Persians[55]. Moreover, Iranians attained key positions at the empire level under the Abbasids.
No comment.
Culturally, Iranians preserved their languages and resisted Arabization, while they adopted Arabic for scientific and philosophical discourses[65] which enabled them to rich a world-wide audience for the first time[65]. The Persian language was influenced by the Arabic language[66][67] at different levels: lexical[68], grammatical[69] and even language models[59] and rhetorics[70]. Additionally, the Arabic script replaced the Aramaic script for writing and simpler Arabic forms replaced the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations, and "in the ninth century A.D. the work flowing from Persia seems to indicate that the natural poetic inclinations of the Persians were waiting for this opportunity"[70]. Some statistical studies show that Arabic vocabulary in Persian jumped up from 25-30% in the 10th century to some 50% in the 12th century[71]. Most of these loan words were mots savants (learned words)[72] or terms used to describe abstract concepts. Iranians did not limit themselves to using the Arabic language but played a major role in developing it. Notably, Arabized scholars of Persian descent were the first to codify its grammar[73].
I think this section details the cultural changes mainly in the language. It provides statistics and studies related to that period of time. Pashtun objected to ..the cumbersome and limited Pahlavi formations.. so I agreed on removing it although two sources mention that clearly.
All of these sections were added but at the same time the other parts were preserved. I am open to a consensus built on good reason not worries. May be my edits are not neutral because not edit is but I think they are far more balanced and sourced than previous edits. Bestofmed ( talk) 04:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
I had a discussion with User:Doc_Tropics about the largest city in the Middle-East after he reverted my edit. Here is what we said (I apologize for spamming his talk page):
- Regarding Istanbul, it's lede clearly states that it is the second metropolitan area in Europe. This fact is repeated, with references, in List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population. Wikipedia clearly considers Istanbul part of Europe, not the Middle East. It's therefor not possible to claim it as both the largest city in the Middle East and the second largest in Europe. If you wish to assert otherwise, you can't just say you have refs, you have to show them, and they need to be RS. Then you need to change WP policy regarding Istanbul's location. After that it's no problem at all to change the article the way you want. Doc Tropics 03:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- First, Turkey is a country that belongs to Middle East (The middle-east spans along three contents, check the Middle-East article if you want). Moreover, Turkey is part of the core middle-east. Istanbul's article states that Istanbul is the largest city proper in Europe. Even using Wikipedia articles, Istanbul is clearly the largest in the Middle-East. Istanbul has a population of more than 12 millions and a an area of 706.9 sq mi. Tehran, on the other hand, has a population of a less than 12 millions and an area of 265 sq mi. So using both criteria, it is clear which one is the largest. City Mayors list Cairo as the largest city, followed by Istanbul than Tehran ( here). Encarta too, it states that Cairo is the largest city in the Middle-East but to avoid articles' contradiction the first seems more consistent. Whatever the case, it is clear that Tehran is not the largest city in the Middle-East (neither by population nor by area). Bestofmed ( talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
Bestofmed ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.
I noticed that Nepaheshgar restarted this section. What I did generally:
Now about my edits:
Finally, I am open as always to any comments and/or reasonable objections. Bestofmed ( talk) 16:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC).
On the class system, the issue needs discussion [7] to see what needs to be included. The Arabs did introduce a new class system based on race and also Islam does have a class system in the sense that it distinguishes religious communities. On the influence of Arabic on Persian, I think we did mention considerable vocabulary. But this is in the written language and really the Arabic words in Persian are pronounced differently and have different meanings. In the spoken language, Arabic words are much less. I think if we are to mention statistics, we should mention that these words were Persianized also. At the same time, some works contain little Arabic, mainly epic poetry while others contain more like religious writing. I think a considerable number of Arabic vocabulary or as some scholars have made similarity with the Norman invasion of England and influx of large number of french words is good. But in terms of language structure, phonology, morphology and etc., the Arabic influence is very little in Persian. The main influence is vocabulary which I have mentioned. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 16:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes On the class system, the issue needs discussion
[8] to see what needs to be included. I agree, Islam definitely changed the old Sassanid class structure. For example if a person was not born from a priestly family, they could not become a priest where-as in Islam, any one could become a religious scholar and the most influential one is the Persian Abu Hanifah. This is a positive aspect. At the same time, the Arabs did introduce a new class system based on race (in the Ummayyad times) and also Islam does have a class system in the sense that it distinguishes religious communities and sometimes breaks them down Ahl-e-Ketab and non Ahl-e-Ketab. I think the change in the class system overall that Islam brought (except the ummayyad racial one) was positive. But we need to mention the Ummayyad racial prejudice as well.
On the influence of Arabic on Persian, I think we did mention considerable vocabulary. But this is in the written language and really the Arabic words in Persian are pronounced differently and many times have different meanings. In the spoken language, Arabic words are much less frequent. In some dialects of Persian, they are very low, for example in places in Central Iran or Zoroastrian dialects or etc.. I think if we are to mention statistics, we should mention that these words were Persianized also. Sometimes a work is 90%+ Persian like Shahnameh while other times it could even be 30% Persian. But at the same time, many scientists think of the Arabic words that have entered Persian as Persianized.Some works contain little Arabic, mainly epic poetry while others contain more like religious writing. I think a considerable number of Arabic vocabulary or as some scholars have made similarity with the Norman invasion of England and influx of large number of french words is good. But in terms of language structure, phonology, morphology and etc., the Arabic influence is small on Persian. The main influence is the considerable vocabulary which I have mentioned, but these words are pronounced differently in Persian and most of the time have acquired new meanings. Some of the words are also Greek that entered Arabic: Falsafa, Juqrafi, Luqat, etc. Sometimes there is Persian words in the Qur'an, like Sureyeh Fil: Fil (elephant), Sanjil (Sang-gel), Ababil .. So I think the importance of the Arabic loanwords are important enough to mention (There are about 5000 words of Persian in Arabic according to one Arabic scholar, but I do not think even with this, the influence of Persian on Arabic can be compare to Arabic loanwords in persian), but the other aspects of the grammar, phonology, structure are very little or not notable. Persian is after all classified as an indo-european language and is very easy language to learn and is gender neutral and etc.
Also We should mention there was regions that were not conquered by the Arab conquest like Caspian regions and parts of Transoxiana, which is important. It took much longer for the Ummayads to conquer some of these areas like Chorasmia for example. Some regions in the Caspian though were independent. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 16:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Iran is in Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.65.108 ( talk) 06:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Ein molaha kharan cashki bemiran —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.247.47.131 (
talk)
05:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have been reading about methods of punishment in Iran and came to this article to read more about it. In particular I have read that stoning is a legal form of punishment for men and for women and that it has occurred regularly in recent times. I have also read that there has been a moratorium placed on stoning in Iran in 2002. I am curious to know more about the criminal laws of Iran, the criminal justice system, and the methods of punishment. I have not seen this in the article and am curious where I can find it. 173.89.5.57 ( talk) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The quotation for the image of the Kilo SS/SSK is incorrect. It should say that Iran has 3 instead of 6 Kilo's in it's inventory. The USAF's Air Command and Staff College has a pdf paper (Iran and the Arabian Gulf: Threat Assessment and Response) available through FAS.org which backs up this fact: [10] Tub49778 ( talk) 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC) tub49778
Which immature iranian fanboy comes up with such childish claims?! There is no credible source in the world at all claiming that Iran has six Kilos and yet it is argued here that certain sources are too old? Yeah right. 58.171.231.33 ( talk) 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This site: [ [12]] talks about the decline of population growth in this islamic country of Asia. Agre22 ( talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)agre22
I am removing a new section since it is not up to Wikipedia standards. Here it is with my comments in red.
Astarabadi you are a living example of how the Iranian Government curbs freedom of speech. How much does a position like yours pay? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.29.211.213 (
talk)
06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
_________________________________________________________________
Population statistic is old (2007), update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Is any chance to add pictures/images made before the Islamic Revolution, like them? http://mithridates.blogspot.com/2009/04/iran-in-1970s-before-islamic-revolution.html
Mr.Po —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.240.8 ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've just done some grammatical changes and typo corrections to a large section of the first third of the article. I consider my changes to be free of any political views, but would like to apologize if anyone is offended by slight alterations in the tone of sentences do to grammatical changes. Please also note that the most major change I did was to drop much of the following sentence:
"The movement continued well into the 11th century, when Mahmud-a Ghaznavi founded a vast empire, with its capital at Isfahan and Ghazna. Their successors, the Seljuks, asserted their domination from the Mediterranean Sea to Central Asia. As with their predecessors, the divan of the empire was in the hands of Iranian viziers, who founded the Nizamiyya."
into:
These movements continued well into the 11th century, during which the Nizamiyya university was founded..."
Since the sub-title is Culture I felt this reference to expansion and government was out of place. If you feel otherwise, perhaps the sub-title is unneeded or out of place? -- Electricat ( talk) 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I'm not an editor on Iran wiki, so I'm not able to find, edit, upload Iran's map shown on the globe. Iran's territory despite unfortunate losses in the past is vast, and I think it deserves to be shown on the globe map. I'm kindly asking the editors to consider this. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.95.25 ( talk) 20:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________________________________________ I'm not sure who is in charge of maintaining this wiki page (since my last comment has not been addressed yet ((see - "Iranian Medes unification notion"))
But my inquiry this time is concerning the emigration of Iranian citizens to countries outside of Iran. I am unable to find any data on the country with the least number of citizens living outside its borders IN proportion to that country's population.
For example, Iranians have relatively lived inside their homeland for thousands/hundreds of years (up until the Iran-Iraq War / Revolutionary period). Now if you look at other ancient nations such as China and India you will find that people started to emigrate outside their native country as early as 300 years ago.
I think Iran has the lowest number of citizens living outside its borders in proportion to its population in comparison to other countries (statistically I think there are some 2-4 million Iranians outside of Iran) , I am currently collecting data on this, but if anyone has extensive knowledge in this area, then please reply to this inquiry.
Thanks! Ditc ( talk)DiTC —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC).
There are a lot of irrelevant mention of Tabriz in this article. For example in part of "Bazaar" there is a rather long discussion about Bazar of Tabriz. There are other Bazaars in Iran besides the one in Tabriz. Furthermore there are no sources for claims made in Bazar section.I suggest we remove Bazar subsection, or have someone with proper knowledgeable expand it so it is actually about Bazar itself . Same story about the "Persian rug" section, which is solely about Tabriz rug. There is nothing about other types of Persian rugs (such as Esfahan or Bakhtiari). There are also no sources presented. Again I suggest someone with good knowledge to expand it or we have the whole part remove.
Tabriz is one nation's greatest cities but this article is about the whole country and not individual cities. It is more appropriate that we have a discussion about about a subject, and then mention individual cities as example.-- Ddd0dd ( talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree; besides carpet export is NOT the main non-oil export for Iran. SSZ ( talk) 00:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Study this article thouroughly.
Should this be in the Article as demographics, history or its own section? Personally I think its studies are to be considered... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.14.94.1 ( talk) 11:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I wanna add some information about Iranian women selling themselves on the streets in Iran. [13]-- 119.73.3.72 ( talk) 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
the current map look messed up, some parts of the countries ie. Syria and that are missing. please fix this. thanks. 90.194.14.138 ( talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to change the form of government from: Islamic Republic to: Dictatorship
reasoning: according to wikipedia: Dictatorships are "often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures."
This is now similar to saddam's dictatorship of rigged elections under the guise of a republic. Have the requiments been met to make the change? Michigan10 ( talk) 04:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Islamic Republic is fine. That's the official name and people can read the article if they want. And there's been no suspension of elections, just highly suspected fraud. Munci ( talk) 06:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the main aspect that makes this a dictatorship is "repressing political opponents without abiding by rule of law". This is now becoming heavily documented. 24.61.129.40 ( talk) 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Islamic Republic is a unique form of government,, it combines elements of theocracy with elected institutions. The government's official type is "Islamic Republic", which should be discussed in its own article. We should not use POV descriptions for the government title here. -- Kurdo777 ( talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I find this very similar to saddam's Iraqi government. There were elections that were clearly rigged. What was his official form of government? Do we have to recognize what they state is there government? Clearly if votes are disregarded, and the supreme leader is picking who he wants I find it to personally be a dictatorship. And the use of force to back this up makes it look like a
military dictatorship at that.
Michigan10 (
talk)
04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Floantin, I don't believe that this is off the top of my head. I am taking the situation and matching it to the defintion of military dictatorship which it fits. This is a changing current event, and I would not have defined it as such before this election and the beginings of a possible police state that followed it. They have clearly taken away opposition in their government through illegal means. Without opposition I don't see how it is not a dictatorship. It may have been called an Islamic Republic but Germany was called a democracy before the enabling acts. Historical forms of a countries' government does not equate to the current form of government that it holds. And even if they knew they had become a dictatorship, I highly doubt they would declare it as their new form of government. Michigan10 ( talk) 04:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN analysts: Iran "naked dictatorship"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/02/zakaria.iranoutcome/index.html
Michigan10 (
talk)
18:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What branch of government does the Supreme Leader belong to if not the executive branch? -- Karbinski ( talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We should add a section about the 2009 Election. We can include information about the possibility of a fraud and riots in Iran. Later, we can add the ending result of the investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyPlayr20 ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There is way too much written about the recent election. There's more about the election than the '79 revolution.
121.254.54.209 (
talk)
15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There are already articles for recent events, one linked from the front page: 2009 Iranian election protests and 2009 Iranian presidential election Munci ( talk) 08:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Iranian presidential election 2009" section is heighly pro-protesters pov. It presents all their arguments and give not an equivolant space to the government pov - actually, it does not even present their pov at all. The picture also unbalances the whole section. -- 83.250.165.254 ( talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced about this statement in the article: "Globally, Iran has leading manufacture industry in the fields of car-manufacture and transportations, construction materials, home appliances, food and agricultural goods, armaments, pharmaceuticals, information technology, power and petrochemicals." Is it actually said somewhere in the given source-webpage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.138 ( talk) 11:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Read the article Economy of Iran and the related pages like Iranian automobile industry and you'll find out it's true. Munci ( talk) 09:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "free":
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The coordinates need the following fixes:
The location is in the middle of the pacific. 93.96.235.168 ( talk) 08:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In the Government and Politics section the word fraud is mispelled fruad. Majikwah ( talk) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC) majikwah 6.21.09
The sentence "The authorities so as the private sector have put in the past 15 years an emphasis on the local production of domestic-consumption oriented goods such as home appliances, cars, agricultural products, pharmaceutical, etc." seems to have been edited so that it no longer makes any sense. Anyone brave enough to try and work out what this was meant to mean? AlexandrDmitri ( talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2009: [1] = perhaps useful. -- Sieb ( talk) 11:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Persia is suppossed to be a PROVINCE of Iran. Fars is suppossed to be persia. If persian is an equivililent for Iranian howcome almost half of of Iranian are not Persian?
___________________________________________________________________________________________\
I was reading the introduction of Iran's wiki page and I noticed that some new material has replaced the old. For example the beginning paragraph mentions,
"Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC.[15][16][17] The first Iranian dynasty formed during the Elamite kingdom in 2800 BC. The Iranian Medes unified Iran into an empire in 625 BC.[2]
I remember this article used to refer to iran as one of the worlds oldest continuous civilizations dating back to 600 BC. I like to thank whoever made the changes from 600 BC to 7000BC because this is more accurate (and I am aware that 7000BC there was no distinct "Indo-Iranian civilization). However it is relevant because some of the worlds oldest civilizations like India, China, Egypt, Iraq also date back thousands of years, and to say 600 BC may mislead some about Iran's history and how far it goes back.
Now I ask why it mentions that "the Iranian Medes unified Iran into an empire in 625 BC.[2]
Because the Persians (In the south) and the Medes (in the North) unified together under the LEADERSHIP of Cyrus the Great. I think it is of magnitude importance that it mentions Cyrus because of his important role in establishing this unification. The sentence by itself implies that the Iranian Medes alone made this historical accomplishment, and it is simply not true (even though some Kurds like to argue that Persians stole their "identity", but that is another topic to debate).
Thats just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be 18th not 17th, but i cant edit the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.160.144 ( talk) 00:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I can see that the connecting material I added has led to some concerns. Worth noting, however, that this was simply taken from the summary of the LGBT rights in Iran article page rather than an attempt to act as an "advocate" etc. I'm still not convinced that the 2 sentences I had gave WP:UNDUE weight - particularly as the alternative we now have in place also has 2 sentences. But in a spirit of compromise I'm willing to accept the amended version. I have, however, corrected spelling and removed the reference to 'muslim countries'. I think it would be wrong to connect Iran's legal position on homosexuality directly to Islam - it's more a case of national and cultural interpretation/ influences. I do not though think it unreasonable to provide a link to the main article page as an absolute minimum. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
There should be a section on "Education" (it's better to summarize the current "science and technology" section and make it a sub-section of the "Education"section). Alefbe ( talk) 13:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the history section it reads
Dozens of pre-historic sites across the Iranian plateau point to the existence of ancient cultures and urban settlements in the fourth millennium BC centuries before the earliest civilizations arose in nearby Mesopotamia.
While this might not be totally false, it's misleading, as there are a lot of other civilizations occurring around the same time:
Lebanon: The earliest known settlements in Lebanon date back to earlier than 5000 BC
Iraq: Iraq has been home to continuous successive civilizations since the 6th millennium BC.
I personally don't like an article which glorifies itself Paskari ( talk) 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Its almost funny, how the infobox states Iran have a HDI on 0.820, which is from a totally unreliable source, when the one before, which is much more reliable, states it is at 0.777. How could it jump like that? Sounds like BS to me, and it should be changed back to 0.777. 83.108.193.157 ( talk) 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Iran is a military dictatorship, not a republic. Someone needs to change that. The infobox should give the country's actual form of government, not what they try to get the rest of the world to think. -- 75.50.49.230 ( talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph under "Recent History" about Iran's last election makes the section imbalanced and lacks context. If there is to be any mention at all of the currently unfolding post-election incidents 2009 under Iran's history, not mentioning the evidence that the unrest was a result of a western financed propaganda campaign initiated well before the election compromises the quality of the Iran page. It is unfit to portray the recent events as solely due to vote irregularity allegations and ignore their place in the pattern of recent color revolutions of East Europe/ Central Asia that have taken place in order to move the region sphere of influence of the United Kingdom/United states.
The article reads:
Iran is the eighteenth largest country in the world,[28] with an area of 1,648,000 km2 (636,000 sq mi).[29] Its area roughly equals that of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany combined, or slightly less than the US state of Alaska.[30][31]
The following substitution will be more accurate:
Iran is the eighteenth largest country in the world,[28] with an area of appoximately 1,648,000 km2 (636,000 sq mi).[29] Its area roughly equals that of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Greece combined, or somewhat more than the US state of Alaska.[30][31]
Iran's actual area seems to be somewhat ambiguous as another Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area) indicates 1,628,750 sq km and 628,860 sq mi. However Iran is unequivocally larger than Alaska. Substituting Greece for the UK gets the approximation about 40,000 sq mi's (100,000 sq km's) closer. This is based on the aforementioned Wikipedia URL and simple arithmetic. Hence reference [30] can be dropped as it doesn't add anything to the article and is a tertiary reference at best.
Guellermo55 ( talk) 17:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This site: [ Index mundi] shows that Iranian oil production is growing. They are now producing about 4,700,000 brents in a day. Only three countries are producing more oil than Iran: Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States. Agre22 ( talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
This Israeli site: [ Oil] talks about oil and gas in Iran. Agre22 ( talk) 14:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)agre22
This site: [ Iran] is from an Israeli newspaper and talks about what Angela Merkel thinks about Iran. Agre22 ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22
Can we add something about Ali Shariati and his works which highly influenced and even mobilized the youth of Iran to take an active role in the country's political affairs. I think his role was very significant , arguably as much or a bit less than Khomeini's in getting people to demonstrate against the Shah and dictatorship in general. Shariati managed, through his western/islamic/marxist philosophical writings to make sense of religious ideology and to communicate his red shiism (as opposed to cleric rule) to the youth of Iran. Just as everyone in Iran knows Khomeini's name, they know Shariati's and perhaps respect the latter more! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.139 ( talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we correct the section on Mossadegh? Mossadegh was never elected but APPOINTED as prime minister of Iran by the King, just like all other prime ministers before him. Members of parliament were elected, however, executives were appointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.145.65.143 ( talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Are the guys who insisted on keeping the History and Culture sections as bloated as Nero still alive? If not, can somebody fix them?-- Xullius ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone remove the ridiculous chart labeled Iran religiosity. I think it's sufficient enough to say, 98% Islam, 2% other. We don't need a visual aid for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.98 ( talk) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I shortened and tidied up the introduction (not edited the page yet). You can see the draft here: [18]. If anyone has objections, please state so.-- Xullius ( talk) 20:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
In this section, it currently states that Alexander the Great invaded, "defeating the last Achaemenid Emperor Darius III at the Battle of Issus in 333 BC." Of far more importance was the final victory of Alexander the Great in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC, not the Battle of Issus. Gaugamela is what effectively ended Darius' reign and sent him into flight (to be murdered by Bessus). -- Bjohnson96 ( talk) 01:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the language should be Farsi, and not Persian as stated in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinkolloft ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I was just about to say: the official language is Farsi, which is a mix between Arabic Alphabet and Old Persian. It was Persian, however, during the time before the Arabs took over. But now it is just Farsi. Nima160 ( talk) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What happened to the meaning of the country's name?
You can visit: http://persiansarenotarabs.com/renaming-persia/ for more info on that!
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.193.203.130 (
talk)
03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
What in the world is "cultural context" supposed to mean? I'm talking about this line:
Both "Persia" and "Iran" are used interchangeably in cultural context...
Could someone please clarify? Is it supposed to mean "historical context", or does it mean "in the context of a common everyday conversation"? If it means the latter, then the sentence should be changed to:
The demonyms "Persians" and "Iranians" can be used interchangeably in cultural context...
google persian history or persian culture for more information... its that simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.203.130 ( talk) 03:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no idea what cultural context is.
Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (
talk)
05:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Babakexorramdin, I don't understand this revert of SorenShadow's addition of material from the Library of Congress – Federal Research Division 2008 report. Why did you remove it ? In your edit summary you say "do not remove another source". That is what you did rather than what SorenShadow did. You said "cite it correctly". What are you referring to ? The cite formatting is fine although looking at the material added, it's a copy/paste from the source and therefore probably needs a few changes to avoid being a copyvio. You also say "See also demographics of Iran article". For what ? The Demographics of Iran cites both the CIA and the Library of Congress 2006 (rather than 2008) report so that probably needs updating. The LookLex sourced figures there probably need to be removed. Is LookLex even an RS in Wikipedia ? I doubt it as it's rather similar to Wikipedia in the way it's written. Is SorenShadow 'a banned user' as you said in a previous edit summary ? If so why are they still editing ? Have you filed a report at WP:SPI ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I checked it again. It is now OK. However it should be mentioned that Library of Congress forgets Amazandarani and Gilaki peoples and therefore overestimate the number of Persians.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)